a«JWW¥WWWWV¥W¥¥WWo¥V¥Wo^ 
 
 >Jik^iMMMMAiiMMMMkS{MMMMM 
 

 /-^^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ iGor^ 
 
 <^^^^ 
 
 S-^^ 
 
 ^^S^5;^S^5C. ^ 
 
 ir^r^'^?^' erf. ^~"^' 
 
 
 LC:-^^>C 
 
 QCc3 
 
 __<^_C< ;^'- 
 
 
 c:^^"'^^ 
 
 ^■^^ 
 
 
 
 ^:^ ;<s^- <- <r^-r 
 
 ._ i-s^^^^,^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 r_ ,, |ij pii gji i, , ,|ii, j3ft i i^M |i ..jiirL 
 
 <«P«F'1iMP!S!'*wMM>!9^ 
 
<s<.^ 
 
 'cx c:<: 
 
 C'CC ' 
 
 
 C^^!^ 
 
 «^ C€> 
 
 Cj^3^i^<<-SSL CJ^:!, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'T*^^jS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^€X^<^-cc ^o;^f^^ ^&'<^^^^ 
 
 
 '^<k: •^^^ " '' " 
 
 
 
 
 '7:C'^:^< 
 
 V^i^ssS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 #< 
 
 <^v <:^. <i_ . . Vcs^'^C^-S^ 
 
 c^L3.^: 
 
 
 
RBPOETS TO HON. GEORGE STOMMAN, 
 
 GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, 
 
 CERTAIN CLAIMS 
 
 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 NOVEMBER 1, 1878, TO NOVEMBER 1, 1886. 
 
 By 
 
 Agent and Counsel for the State of California. 
 
 SACRAMENTO: 
 
 STATE OFFICE, JAMES J. AYERS, SUPT. STATE PRINTING. 
 
 1886. 
 

t.^^ 
 
 Washington, D. C, November 1, 1886. 
 
 To his Excellency, Hon. George Stoneman, Governor of California : 
 
 Sir: In conformity with Section No. 332, Political Code of the State of 
 California, I beg leave respectfully to now submit to you the following 
 report on the several matters intrusted to my care, under my " contracts 
 with the State of California for the collection of California State claims 
 against the United States," comprising a period from November 1, 1878, to 
 November 1, 1886. 
 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 
 State Agent and Counsel for California. 
 
 ivil!26753 
 
REPORT 
 
 Washington, D. C, November 1, 1886. 
 
 Hon. George Stoneman, Governor of California: 
 
 Dear Sir: I have the honor to submit you a report upon the several 
 claims of the State of California against the United States, for which I have 
 been heretofore appointed agent and counsel, and for all of which I have 
 been so acting for a period covering the eight years last past, to wit: from 
 November 1, 1878, to November 1, 1886. 
 
 I have from time to time during said period made to you and to your 
 predecessor, and to the present State Surveyor-General and Adjutant-Gen- 
 eral of the State of California, and to their predecessors in office, sundry 
 detailed reports of my acts in all these premises, and have addressed you 
 and them from time to time such proper communications thereon as 
 enabled you and them to keep au courant with all proceedings had therein 
 as the same transpired. Yet, in order, at the termination of your adminis- 
 tration as Governor of the State of California, that you may have full infor- 
 mation on all these matters, and for the purpose of your laying the same 
 before the Legislature at its next session, and in view of the importance to 
 the people of California of sundry of these several claims and of many cir- 
 cumstances connected therewith, and especially for the purpose of having 
 an authentic record of the history of all thereof for future reference, in so 
 far as my agency in any of these premises has been or may be hereafter 
 concerned, I deem it proper to now submit you a general summary, cover- 
 ing each of said claims as represented by me during the eight years last 
 past. 
 
 These several claims by me represented, as agent and counsel for the 
 State of California, are as follows, to wit: 
 
 First — The five per centum of the net proceeds of the cash sales of the 
 public lands in California made by the United States subsequent to the 
 date of her admission into the Union — September 9, 1850 — and not here- 
 tofore paid to the State of California by the United States. 
 
 Second — The refunding by the United States to California her quota of 
 the direct tax levied by the United States under the Act of Congress 
 approved August 5, 1861, and not heretofore reimbursed the State of Cali- 
 fornia by the United States. 
 
 Third — The refunding by the United States to California the moneys 
 heretofore by her expended on account of the Modoc Indian war, in north 
 California, in 1872 and 1873, and not heretofore reimbursed the State of 
 California by the United States. 
 
 Fourth — The refunding by the United States to California the moneys 
 heretofore by her expended on account of Indian (other than Modoc) hos- 
 tilities therein, and upon the borders thereof, between September 9, 1850, 
 and June 27, 1882, and not heretofore reimbursed the State of California 
 by the United States. 
 
" ' " ' ' """ ' ' 6 
 
 Fifth — The refunding by the United States to the State of California the 
 moneys heretofore by her expended on account of the war of rebelHon, and 
 not heretofore reimbursed the State of California by the United States. 
 
 Sixth — The refunding by the United States to the State of California the 
 moneys by her heretofore paid as interest on the principal borrowed by her 
 on account of the two foregoing items, and not heretofore reimbursed the 
 State of California by the United States. 
 
 Seventh — The refunding by the United States to the State of California 
 the moneys by her heretofore paid the United States as fees upon those 
 particular selections and locations of lands under the several land grants 
 made by Congress to California, which have been declared invalid by the 
 United States, not allowed, and which were finally canceled by the United 
 States, wherever said fees have not been heretofore reimbursed the State 
 of California by the United States; and, also, 
 
 The securing for the State of California an indemnity in either lands or 
 money of so much of its Swamp Land Grant, made to her in the Act of 
 Congress approved September 28, 1850, and confirmed to her in the Act of 
 July 23, 1866, as have heretofore not inured to the benefit of said State, but 
 which lands have in sundry instances been heretofore sold, or been other- 
 wise disposed of by the United States, and without any benefit accruing 
 therefrom to the State of California. 
 
 No. 1. THE FIVE PER CENT CLAIM. 
 
 During a law practice in California, extending over a period of several 
 years, devoted chiefly to land matters arising therein, it came to my knowl- 
 edge that the State of California had never received from the United States, 
 nor had ever been granted by Congress, any percentum of the net proceeds 
 of the cash sales of the public lands therein made by the United States; 
 and that while California had no legal claim against the United States 
 therefor, yet in view of the fact that a similar grant had been made by 
 Congress, to all the other public land States of the Union, that an equity 
 therein at least would seem to exist in behalf of California, which, if prop- 
 erly represented and urged at the proper times and places, by a competent 
 party conversant with the subject-matter, might eventuate in finally secur- 
 ing a similar grant to California. 
 
 Therefore, in the year 1878, 1 brought this matter to the special attention 
 of the State authorities of the State of California, to wit: to her Governor, 
 Honorable William Irwin, and to her State Surveyor-General, Honorable 
 William Minis, and made fully known to them all the circumstances and 
 facts connected therewith within my knowledge, believing then and know- 
 ing now that no systematic effort had ever been made, 'prior to that time, 
 to secure California the benefits of this grant. 
 
 It is true the Legislature of California, upon the recommendation of 
 Hon. John B. Weller, Governor of California, on March 4, 1858, and in 
 approval of the urgent and intelligent presentation to him of the valid 
 reasons therefor by Hon. Andrew J. Moulder, the Superintendent of Public 
 Instruction, under date of March 4, 1858 (see Assembly Journal, ninth 
 session, pages 302 et sequiter and 314), did, on March 11, 1858, memorialize 
 Congress to make her such a grant; but the matter, so far as I know, began 
 and ended in this one step. Certainly, in 1878, a period of twenty years 
 had been allowed to come and go, and during which time no beneficial 
 results had flowed to her therefrom. 
 
Even in that single effort the Legislature of California admitted that 
 Congress had changed, by departing from its policy, in the case of California 
 in these premises — an admission which, to a very great extent, gave away 
 the very case which the memorial sought to secure; but, be that as it may, 
 one thing is most sure, that this admission, such as it was, could certainly 
 not strengthen her position as a petitioner after a long lapse of years sub- 
 sequent to the date of her admission into the Union. 
 
 A copy of this memorial is hereto attached, and marked Exhibit No. 1, 
 and made a part hereof. 
 
 After having maturely considered the subject-matter in all its bearings, 
 and all that it might involve, I was willing to visit Washington and there 
 undertake, at my own expense, the presentation of this equitable claim of 
 California before the proper United States tribunals, provided I were so 
 authorized. The subject-matter having been duly considered by the State 
 Surveyor-General and ex officio Register of State Lands, Hon. William 
 Minis, the head of that branch of the State Government more directly than 
 any other charged by law with the superintendence -of the public interests 
 in all matters relating to lands and land sales in California — that officer, 
 on November 1, 1878, commissioned me as Agent and Attorney for the 
 State of California in these premises, a copy of which commission is hereto 
 attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 2. 
 
 My said appointment and commission were made subject to the action 
 of the Legislature, for the purpose of ratifying and validating the appoint- 
 ment so by him made, and of fixing the compensation which I should 
 receive, and which latter was to be entirely contingent upon success, to wit: 
 
 That I was to get nothing if the State got nothing; and per contra, if the 
 State's claim should be recognized, then I was to receive such compensation 
 as the Legislature might thereafter fix and declare whenever it should take 
 np, consider, and act thereon. 
 
 Armed with this authority, I proceeded from California to Washington 
 City in the month of November, 1878, at my own expense. 
 
 Immediately upon my arrival in Washington, for the purpose of testing 
 the sense of the General Land Office as to whether there was sufficient 
 authority of law by which that office could then recognize this claim of the 
 State of California, I, on the twentieth of November, 1878, submitted to 
 the honorable Commissioner of the General Land Office, my letter of appoint- 
 ment, together with a communication, copy of which is hereto appended 
 and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 3. 
 
 To this letter the honorable Commissioner of the General Land Office 
 replied in a communication dated November 28, 1878, a copy of which is 
 hereto appended and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 4. 
 
 Having thus exhausted all executive remedy in the premises, I thereupon 
 determined to address myself next to Congress, in order to secure that 
 legislation without which the honorable Commissioner of the General Land 
 Office had informed me he could not state an account to the Treasury 
 Department in favor of the State of California; and deeming it my duty in 
 these premises (with but few exceptions) then and now to always proceed 
 through the members of the California delegation in Congress, in either the 
 Senate or House, and for this reason, I thereupon addressed a letter on 
 this subject to the Hon. J. K. Luttrell, then in Congress from Cahfornia, 
 copy of which letter is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked 
 Exhibit No. 5. 
 
 To this letter Mr. Luttrell replied in a communication, a copy .of which 
 is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 6. 
 
 Not being satisfied with this view of the case as expressed by Mr. Luttrell, 
 
8 
 
 I then, for reasons appearing to me good and sufficient, next brought the 
 matter to the attention of Hon. P. D. Wigginton, then also in Congress 
 from Cahfornia,. who, at my request, on January 20, 1879, introduced in the 
 House a bill, H. R. No. 6081, third session. Forty-fifth Congress, to make 
 this grant to California, and copy of which bill is hereto attached and made 
 a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 7. 
 
 While I was not sanguine in securing any final result on this bill then, 
 so near the end of the third and last session of the Forty-fifth Congress, 
 yet I desired to get the matter on record and before Congress at the very 
 earliest date possible, and due diligence on my part seemed to me to make 
 this a matter of duty which I owed the trust that I had undertaken to 
 execute. 
 
 This bill, it will be perceived, proposed to dedicate said proceeds to the 
 " making or improving public roads, constructing drainage and irrigating 
 ditches and canals, to effect a general system for irrigating the agricultural 
 lands in said State, and in the mode and manner as the Legistature of said 
 State may establish ai;d direct." 
 
 During this third session of the Forty-fifth Congress, the Hon. George 
 W. Julian was Chairman of the House Committee on Public Lands, and 
 in whom I did not think I had found any friend of this measure; on the 
 contrary, it seemed to me that he, with other members of that committee, 
 seemed to labor under the impression that the State of California had no 
 claim for this grant that was valid in either law or equity, and because she 
 had accepted an admission into the Union without such grant or condition,, 
 and she had allowed twenty-eight years to pass without even urging this 
 claim, which at best was questionable, and not well founded; and that the 
 most that California could expect was, that should Congress make her any 
 such grant, the same should take effect only from the date of its passage; 
 which thereby, as I saw, would destroy more than one half of the value of 
 this claim. I therefore feared to urge final action on this bill during the 
 Forty-fifth Congress, fearing either an adverse report or one such as would 
 limit the grant,- by making it take effect from and at the date of the passage 
 of the Act, and if action by Congress on such report should be delayed, as- 
 it would likely be, then the effect would inevitably be to render this grant 
 barren of those substantial benefits for which I pleaded, to wit: 
 
 That this grant, when made, should relate back to the date of the admission 
 of the State of California into the Union, or at least to the earliest date ivhen 
 the first sales of public lands for cash in California had taken place, and 
 which date is July 1, 1857. 
 
 Finding the Committee on Public Lands during the Forty-fifth Congress 
 little disposed to take any favorable action on this measure, I deemed it 
 more prudent and diplomatic to let this measure rest until another Congress 
 should meet, so that the Forty-fifth Congress adjourned with this matter 
 unacted on but still suh judice before the House Committee on Public 
 Lands, and as hereinbefore stated. 
 
 In view of the situation as I found same to exist in Washington during 
 the Forty-fifth Congress, and in order that the Legislature of California 
 might express itself de novo on this subject, and believing that a resolution 
 to Congress, expressive of its latest views and wishes therein, might have 
 the effect to stimulate to more active efforts the California delegation at 
 least in behalf of this measure, I prepared a resolution having for its object 
 to express the wishes of the Legislature of California on this subject, and 
 transmitted the same to Sacramento on the twenty-ninth November, 1880, 
 to the Hon. Grove L. Johnson, then a State Senator in the California 
 Legislature, with the request that he would interest himself in the subject- 
 
matter, and to introduce in the State Senate my said resolution, and 
 informing him, among other things, that the interest of the State of CaH- 
 fornia in this measure, would aggregate at least one half million dollars; 
 and which resolution was of a tenor like unto the bill which I had pre- 
 pared and had Hon. P. D. Wigginton introduce, and as hereinbefore 
 described. 
 
 This resolution passed the Senate of California during its session of 
 1880-81, but it failed to pass the Assembly during that session, when the 
 Legislature adjourned sine die. 
 
 The Legislature of California having been convened in session in 1881, 
 I again renewed my efforts to have that body pass a similar resolution at 
 this session on this same subject, and with this object in view I again 
 prepared another paper, and again transmitted it to Hon. Grove L. John- 
 son, still a State Senator at Sacramento. 
 
 Before action was taken by the Legislature on this paper, I wrote to Mr. 
 Johnson to change the form of said paper, which was then only a resolu- 
 tion, into a memorial, which, upon reflection, I thought it ought to be; and 
 also to change the dedication of the proceeds of this claim from internal 
 improvement purposes, which had been my original intention, to educa- 
 tional purposes, which, upon reflection, I thought might subserve larger 
 interests. 
 
 This memorial Hon. Grove L. Johnson, at my request, introduced in 
 the State Senate of California, where it passed and went to the Assembly, 
 where it also passed that same session, and became the Act of the Legis- 
 lature during its session of 1881, and on the ninth day of February, 1881, 
 it became the expressed will of the State in the form of Senate Concurrent 
 Kesolution No. 1, copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof, 
 and marked Exhibit No. 8, 
 
 Certified copies of this Senate Concurrent Resolution, which; in fact, 
 and in the body thereof, was a memorial under the seal of the State, hav- 
 ing been sent to me from Sacramento, I presented the same to each of our 
 Senators and Representatives in Congress from California, and also to the 
 Public Lands Committee in both Senate and House of Representatives, 
 and thereupon I prepared two bills in harmony with said memorial, one 
 of which, to wit. Senate Bill No. 311, was, at my request, introduced in 
 Congress on December 8, 1881, by Hon. James T. Farley, and the other, 
 to wit, H. R. No. 61, was, also at my request, introduced in the House by 
 Hon. C. P. Berry, on December 13, 1881, and copies of which bills are 
 hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibits Nos. 9 
 and 9^. 
 
 Prior to this date, to wit, on nineteenth February, 1880, during the sec- 
 ond session of the Forty-sixth Congress, the Senate having under consid- 
 eration Senate Bill No. 19, relating to the general subject of the five per 
 cent claims (of those public land States which were then the beneficiaries 
 of a grant thereof) , at my request Senator Farley submitted an amend- 
 ment thereto, in words as follows: "And provided further, that the State 
 of California is hereby placed upon the same footing as regards the five 
 per cent of the net proceeds of the sales of all public lands in the said 
 State with the States named herein, and shall be entitled to all benefits 
 and payments to which they, or either of them, are entitled under this 
 and all previous Acts of Congress." (See page 1010 Congressional Record, 
 vol. 10, second session Forty-sixth Congress, February 19, 1880.) 
 
 This bill having failed to pass Congress, like as in the Forty-fifth Con- 
 gress, we were unable to secure any action for our California five per cent 
 claim during the Forty-sixth Congress — no effort having been made in the 
 
.10 
 
 House by me during the Forty-sixth Congress, as I feared the attitude of 
 that committee, and especially its Chairman, on this proposition. 
 
 But, as before stated, I renewed my efforts before the next, or Forty- 
 seventh Congress, and before which we had submitted, through Senator 
 Farley, Senate Bill No. 311, and, through Hon. C. P. Berry, House Bill 
 No. 61. 
 
 A house had assembled in the Forty-seventh Congress that changed 
 the political character and personnel of the House Committee on Public 
 Lands, and the change was more particularly marked by the substitution 
 of Governor Pound, of Wisconsin, for its Chairman, vice Hon. George W. 
 Julian, retired from Congress. 
 
 To support these two bills with appropriate facts and arguments, I com- 
 piled from various records and archives in the General Land Office a 
 series of eight (8) tables of statistics, which contained a full history of all 
 the legislation, from the earliest sessions of Congress to dat^, on this five 
 per cent grant to the several States, and the reasons thereof, and the 
 amounts of money received by the several States up to June 30, 1881, 
 including a statement of the cash sales of public lands in California, made 
 by the United States up to June 30, 1881. 
 
 I thereafter, to wit, April 14, 1882, submitted these tables to Hon. N. C. 
 McFarland, Commissioner of the General Land Office, for his examina- 
 tion and approval, and that officer finding them to be correct, he, at my 
 request, so certified. The original of these tables I filed with the Senate 
 Committee on Public Lands in the Forty-seventh Congress, and copies 
 thereof I filed with the House Committee on Public Lands, and appended 
 other copies as exhibits to an argument which I then prepared in support 
 of said Senate Bill No. 311 and H. R. No. 61, and copies of all of which I 
 filed with the Public Land Committee in Senate and House, and with the 
 members of the California delegation then in Congress, and copies of which 
 are hereto annexed and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 10. 
 
 It was during this Forty-seventh Congress, to wit, on December 5, 1881, 
 that Senator Voorhees, of Indiana, introduced Senate Bill No. 67, having 
 for its object to authorize the accounting officers of the Treasury, when 
 stating the accounts for this five per cent event in behalf of any public 
 land State, that was then the beneficiary thereof, to so state the same that 
 it should include the sales made by or for Military Bounty Land Warrants 
 as well as those made for cash, and which Bounty Land Warrants sales 
 had always theretofore been excluded from such statements when any 
 settlements had been had between the United States and said public land 
 States. 
 
 A House Bill, to wit, No. 4239, for this purpose, had also been favorably 
 reported (in House Report No. 70) upon in the Forty-fifth Congress, a copy 
 of which report is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked 
 Exhibit No. 11, and a copy of said Senate Bill No. 67 is hereto attached 
 and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 11-|. 
 
 Senator Voorhees' Senate Bill No. 67 in the Forty-seventh Congress 
 being in all respects similar to said House Bill No. 4239 in the Forty-fifth 
 Congress, and being limited as it was exclusively to the public land States 
 of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, 
 Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, 
 Oregon, Nevada, and Colorado — California being the only public land State 
 not named therein, and, therefore, specially excepted from its provisions — at 
 my urgent request, while the same was under consideration in the Senate, 
 Honorable James T. Farley, then in the Senate, who theretofore had not 
 been in favor of the general Military Bounty Land Warrant legislation as 
 
11 
 
 contained in said Senate Bill No. 67 of the Forty-seventh Congress, yet 
 finally agreed, at my request, to submit an amendment to said general 
 Bill No. 67, so as to include California, copy of which amendment is hereto 
 attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 12. This bill, 
 amended by Senator Farley so as to include California, passed the Senate 
 on the nineteenth day of May, 1882, by only five majority, and went to 
 the House. Copy of the record of the vote had thereon is hereto appended 
 and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 12-|. 
 
 On the next day, upon a motion by Senator Pugh of Alabama, to recon- 
 sider the vote by which this bill passed the Senate, it was recalled from 
 the House, and the vote by which* it had passed the Senate was reconsid- 
 ered and it was thereafter laid upon the table of the Senate, where it ever 
 remained unacted on during that session. 
 
 It is due to truth to report that Senator Pugh had. antagonized this bill 
 during all the debates had thereon, and only voted with the ayes in order to 
 have the parliamentary privilege of moving its reconsideration. 
 
 When Congress reconvened at its short and last session, the friends of 
 the measure despairing of securing in so short a time any favorable con- 
 gressional action thereon, failed to renew their further efforts in regard 
 thereto, and consequently this bill, which contained our California five per 
 cent measure in full effect, died with the Forty-seventh Congress. I now 
 here insert a chapter of the history of this legislation within my personal 
 knowledge, in order to record a fact which otherwise might never be 
 recorded. 
 
 As I before stated, Senator Farley was not favorable to the general Mili- 
 tary Bounty Land Warrant construction of the five per cent grant (a fact 
 which, no doubt, Hon. Newton Booth, then also a Senator from California 
 and a member of the Senate Committee on Public Lands, may possibly 
 recall, as Senator Farley is now dead). 
 
 But Senator Farley's vote for this bill was then thought by its friends to 
 be a necessity for its passage, and due to the fact that the Senate was 
 thought to be quite evenly divided then on this general proposition, and 
 because the sense of the Senate thereon having been informally taken it 
 was found, certainly was then thought, that Senator Farley's vote against 
 this general bill would defeat the same. 
 
 • I have reason to believe that had Senator Farley voted against this gene- 
 ral bill, that its friends would have thereafter given a cold shoulder by 
 giving a large negative vote against Senator Farley's separate and inde- 
 pendent Senate Bill No. 811, to grant California this five per cent claim. 
 
 Knowing these facts, I laid them all before Senator Farley, not once, but 
 many times ; and he appreciating the importance and the difficulty and 
 the delicacy of his position on this general measure, finally waived all 
 his objections to this general bill, in order that his action thereon should not 
 thereafter be used as an argument or as a club with which to defeat our 
 California five per cent claim, then pending, as it was, before the Senate 
 in an independent and separate bill, to wit. Senator Farley's Senate Bill 
 No. 311. 
 
 The friends of this general five per cent Senate Bill No. 67, which had 
 solely for its object to include all sales of military bounty land warrants, 
 indulged a confident belief that all the public^land States, then the benefi- 
 ciaries of this grant, had a claim against the United States so valid at law 
 that it could be maintained by a mandamus proceeding, if initiated in the 
 United States Supreme Court and directed specifically against the Com- 
 missioner of the General Land Office. 
 
 In view of such belief, two of the States, to wit : Iowa, whose interest in 
 
12 
 
 the military bounty land warrant sales made in that State aggregated 
 $595,853 31, by its State agent, Hon. R.P. Lowe (ex-Governor and ex-Chief 
 Justice thereof ), and Illinois, whose interest therein aggregated $881,006 60, 
 by its State agent, Hon. W. W. Wilshire (ex-Representative in Congress from 
 Arkansas), petitioned the United States Supreme Court for writs of man- 
 damus to issue from it against said honorable Commissioner of the General 
 Land Office, compelling him to state an account that would include all 
 military bounty land warrant sales made in said two States by the United 
 States. These two gentlemen, therefore, as State agents for said two States 
 respectively, under the authority of their respective States, representing the 
 same interests before Congress in this Senate Bill No. 67, and whose compen- 
 sation, like mine, was to be contingent on success, that of Governor Lowe 
 being one third (-J) of such sums as he might recover — and whose relation 
 to this subject-matter is set forth in a paper, copy of which is hereto 
 attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 13 — prosecuted 
 said mandamus proceedings. 
 
 I consulted with these gentlemen as to their view of the propriety of my 
 intervening in behalf of the State of California in this proceeding ; but it 
 was their judgment that as California did not occupy that same legal rela- 
 tion to the subject-matter, such as Iowa and Illinois did, or such as would 
 strengthen the general case before the Court, therefore I concluded that it 
 would be unwise to intervene, and hence limited my efforts in aiding these 
 two State agents in all that promised a successful result. The State of 
 Alabama, having a legal status in the matter, intervened through her own 
 State agent. 
 
 This judicial proceeding resulted in a denial of the writ of mandamus^ 
 as petitioned for, and as wdll more fully appear from copy of the order of 
 dismissal of said petition, hereto attached and made a part hereof, and 
 marked Exhibit No. 14. 
 
 During the Forty-seventh Congress Senator Farley's said Senate Bill No. 
 311 was favorably reported on twentieth February, 1882, from the Senate 
 Committee on Public Lands ; and Representative Berry's House Bill No. 
 61 was ordered to be favorably reported to the House, when its Public Land 
 Committee should be called for reports, but which call was never made, 
 so that the Forty-seventh Congress adjourned leaving the said Senate bill 
 on the Senate calendar unacted on, though favorably reported ; and no 
 further action was had on this measure in the House other than that 
 hereinbefore stated. 
 
 In view thereof, and of the fact that the proceedings before the United 
 States Supreme Court had proven equally barren of beneficial results, I 
 renewed my efforts in behalf of this measure before the Forty-eighth Con- 
 gress, when I again prepared two (2) bills, one of which, to wit, Senate 
 Bill No. 796, was, at my request, introduced on December 18, 1883, in the 
 Senate by the late Senator, Hon. John F. Miller ; and the other, to wit, H. 
 R. No. Ill, was, at my request, introduced on December 10, 1883, in the 
 House by the Hon. Barclay Henley, and copies of which bills are hereto 
 attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibits Nos. 15 and 16. 
 Senator Miller was requested by me to take charge of this measure in the 
 Senate at this time, in consequence of the fact that Senator Farley, who 
 had had charge thereof during the Forty-seventh Congress, was absent 
 from Washington sick. 
 
 Prior to this date it occurred to me that, as I had been diligently at work 
 for a period of about five years in endeavoring to secure favorable action, 
 in season and out of season, for this and other California measures, and as 
 yet no action had been taken by the Legislature of California either to 
 
18 
 
 ratify and validate my appointments, or to determine and fix the compen- 
 sation that I should receive in any of these premises, and believing that 
 it was at least due me and the people of California that this matter 
 should be now considered, and fully acted upon, and definitely disposed 
 of, and not be left in doubt till my labors should be finally completed, and, 
 if successful, that I should be then compelled to run the gauntlet of a 
 hungry lobby sometimes said to be found outside the doors of a legislative 
 body, and also said to be often composed of blackmailers, or unscrupulous 
 and impecunious dead beats, who unfortunately, it is said, are at times 
 successful in defeating meritorious measures, and who, some persons 
 believe, allow action on private claims before a Legislature only on their 
 own terms, I deemed it more prudent, rather than risk being placed in any 
 such condition, to have this matter brought fully to the attention of the 
 Legislature for its consideration and final action. 
 
 This subject-matter, with others relating to me, was, therefore, brought to 
 the attention of the Legislature of California at its session in January, 1883, 
 by Hon. George C. Perkins, Governor of California, in his concluding mes- 
 sage to the Legislature, and also by the State Surveyor-General, Hon. James 
 W. Shanklin, in his final annual report to Governor Perkins, and which 
 references of said officials are hereto attached and made a part hereof, and 
 marked Exhibits Nos. 19 and 20. The ■ Legislature of California having 
 maturely considered the entire subject-matter in its appropriate committees 
 of each of its respective Houses, and also by each of its respective bodies 
 as a whole, finally passed a resolution on the third day of March, 1883, 
 ratifying and confirming, among other appointments, the one so conferred 
 upon me by State Surveyor-General, Hon. William Minis, and did at the 
 same time determine upon and fix in a contract, the exact compensation I 
 should receive in these premises, copy of which action of the Legislature is 
 hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 21. 
 
 My appointment so theretofore made, having been thus ratified and con- 
 firmed on March 3, 1883, by the highest power known to the State, and 
 my compensation in the premises having been thereby fixed in a legislative 
 contract, I proceeded with renewed diligence to secure for the State the 
 best results possible in these premises, and which results, during the Forty- 
 eighth Congress, consisted in a favorable report being made in behalf of 
 the measure both by the Senate and House Committees on Public Lands, 
 copy of which report (No. 1969) is hereto attached and made a part hereof, 
 and marked Exhibit No. 22. 
 
 Notwithstanding having thus received said favorable reports in both 
 Senate and House in behalf of this measure, fearing that we would not 
 secure any final separate action on this claim in the form of an indepen- 
 dent bill, as it was now getting late in the session, it occurred to me, in 
 view of such favorable action by the Senate Committee on Public Lands, 
 that the Senate would possibly favorably entertain a proposition to incor- 
 porate a provision in the General Deficiency Bill, by way of an amendment 
 thereto, to cover the amount of said claim as same existed on June 30, 1883. 
 
 With this object in view I prepared an appropriate amendment to the 
 House Deficiency Bill No. 7235 of the first session of the Forty-eighth Con- 
 gress, after said bill had reached the Senate, that would cover this proposi- 
 tion, and at my request the late Senator John F. Miller, on June 16, 1884, 
 introduced the same in the Senate, and had it referred to the Senate Appro- 
 priation Committee; copy of which amendment is hereto attached and 
 made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 22-^. 
 
 But the Senate Appropriation Committee failed to give the same any 
 favorable action, so that, notwithstanding sundry efforts made on my part 
 
J4 
 
 in these premises, I found that it was impossible either to reach or take up 
 in either the Senate or House, this proposition, either as independent bills 
 or as an amendment to an appropriation bill; therefore, the Forty-eighth 
 Congress adjourned without any action on either thereof, other than as 
 herein reported; and both of said bills were on the calendars of Senate and 
 House on the day of final adjournment, and both with a favorable report. 
 
 When the Forty-ninth Congress convened I again renewed my efforts in 
 behalf of this same measure, by preparing two more bills to cover this same 
 claim. 
 
 In view of the non-arrival of Senator Miller in Washington when the 
 Forty-ninth Congress met, I awaited his arrival, believing that he could 
 take up in the Senate this measure, he having had charge thereof during 
 the Forty-eighth Congress, but when he did arrive, and finding that he was 
 unable to take his seat in the Senate, I thereupon brought this same matter 
 to the attention of the Hon. Leland Stanford, who, on January 11, 1886, at 
 my request, introduced one of said bills, to wit. Senate Bill No. 994, and 
 Hon. Barclay Henley, on December 21, 1885, at my request, introduced the 
 other of said two bills, to wit, H. R. No. 150, copies of which bills are 
 hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibits Nos. 23 
 and 24. 
 
 I thereupon prepared an argument to support each of said two bills, aild 
 filed same with both the Senate and House Committees on Public Lands, 
 said argument covering about the same grounds as hereinbefore particu- 
 larly described, and in due time both of said two bills were favorably 
 reported upon, to wit, in the Senate, on the fifteenth of February, 1886, 
 and in the House, on the tenth of March, 1886, copies of which reports, 
 No. 994, are hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit 
 No. 25. 
 
 An examination of this report will show, like Report No. 1969, in the 
 Forty-eighth Congress, that said committees adopted quite verbatim in the 
 arguments which I had submitted in behalf of this measure, including as 
 their exhibits thereto to both of said reports, the eight (8) tables of statis- 
 tics in full, as compiled by me and as hereinbefore described. 
 
 In due course of proceedings this Sen«.te Bill No. 994 was reached in 
 the Senate calendar, to wit, on May 18, 1886, on which day certain proceed- 
 ings were had thereon in the Senate, copy of which proceedings is hereto 
 attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 26. 
 
 Anticipating that action on this measure would be had in the Senate on 
 May 18, 1886, I was present in the Senate gallery, and noticing what had 
 taken place in regard to this measure, I immediately thereafter sought an 
 interview with Senator Allison, to know his reasons or grounds of objection, 
 and learned from him that he thought this Senate Bill No. 994 proposed to 
 revive, /or California alone, the provisions of the old Military Bounty Land 
 Warrant Five Per Cent Senate Bill No. 67, and as hereinbefore referred to, 
 and if such was its intention and purpose, he said he desired to submit 
 an amendment to this bill, and such as would include or cover the case of 
 his State of Iowa; but I informed him that this Senate bill was confined 
 exclusively to proceeds of the cash sales of public lands in California, and 
 that its object was solely to place the State of California on the same plane 
 as was at that very time enjoyed by his State of Iowa. 
 
 Senator Allison thereupon promised me to look into this Senate Bill No. 
 994 at his first leisure, and if he found it to be as I stated to him it was, 
 that he would not further object thereto. Later other certain proceedings 
 were had in the Senate on this same bill, to wit, on June 8, 1886, copy of 
 
15 
 
 which is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit 
 No. 27. 
 
 I never was officially informed of the cause of this later objection by 
 Senator Plumb. 
 
 Thereafter, certain other proceedings were had, to wit, on June 19, 1886, 
 copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked 
 Exhibit No. 28. 
 
 As Senator Allison had not objected the second time to the considera- 
 tion of this measure in the Senate, when Senate Bill No. 994 was called 
 up from the Senate calendar, I requested the Hon. Barclay Henley to 
 accompany me on another interview to see Senator Allison, and to ascertain 
 his reasons for his said objection to the consideration of this measure; and 
 he informed Mr. Henley and myself, "that while he had no objection him- 
 self to this measure, on the contrary, he having duly considered the same, 
 as he had promised to do, and that he favored this bill, yet as Senator 
 Stanford was not present in the Senate on June 19, 1886, or in Washington 
 City when this bill was called up, and as Senator Stanford had prior to 
 Ijis departure froni Washington, expressed to him a desire to be present 
 when this bill should be considered in the Senate, that out of respect to 
 Senator Stanford's wishes so expressed, he therefore desired the measure 
 to go over; only this and nothing more. 
 
 Thereafter other certain proceedings were had on this bill, on July 9, 
 1886, and a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and 
 marked Exhibit No. 29. 
 
 I subsequently learned that Senator Miller of New York, the last ob- 
 jector to this Senate Bill No. 994, had no special reasons for antagonizing 
 the measure contained therein; but as the calendar on July 9, 1886, was 
 being considered under the Senate's five-minute rule, he, thinking that the 
 measure would lead to debate, preferred to have the measure "go over" 
 rather than risk consuming time in its consideration. 
 
 And as on this occasion neither of the California Senators were present 
 in the Senate, and as the session was drawing to a close, and as this last 
 objection had the effect to carry this bill over in the list of " bills objected 
 to " on the Senate calendar, which thereby and thereafter would require 
 unanimous consent to call it up, unless that portion of the Senate calendar 
 was [under consideration, which it never was again during the session, I 
 therefore determined, in view of all these premises, and to make one more 
 last effort in the Forty-ninth Congress, and similar to that which I had 
 made in the Forty-eighth Congress, to wit, through the Appropriation 
 Committee, by having an amendment proposed to the Sundry Civil Appro- 
 priation Bill, and to secure this measure by a general amendment, and 
 which, due to the absence of both the California Senators, I had submitted 
 through Senator Mitchell of Oregon. Copy of this amendment is hereto 
 attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 30. 
 
 The Appropriation Committee, however, considering this amendment as 
 proposing new legislation so far as it would include California, deemed it 
 not permissible under the rules of the Senate, and, in consequence, it 
 failed to be incorporated in that or in any other appropriation bill. 
 
 I thereupon abandoned all hope of securing action on this measure dur- 
 ing the last stages of the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress, but only 
 when it was drawing to a final close. As any favorable action that might 
 have been secured in the Senate for this measure at the first session of the 
 Forty-ninth Congress on this separate Senate Bill No. 994, would have 
 failed to receive any recognition in the House, and because by legislative 
 tactics now fully known to the country, the House persistently refused to 
 
16 
 
 consider any matters on any of its several calendars for more than a 
 month prior to its final adjournment, and for such reasons it failed to take 
 up or consider Mr. Henley's Five Per Cent Bill, No. 164, which had been 
 favorably reported upon by the House Public Lands Committee by the 
 Hon. Barclay Henley, and which bill so stood on its calendar on the day 
 of its final adjournment, I have prepared, and now append hereto and 
 make a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 31, a statement of the total 
 cash sales of all the public lands in California made by the United States 
 up to June 30, 1885, showing also the annual simple interest thereof for 
 each year to June 30, 1885, which interest the State has thus far lost, and 
 now continues to lose, at the rate of $37,131 87 per annum. 
 
 This table shows that by the failure of prosecuting this claim prior 
 hereto to a success, the State of California has lost, in simple interest 
 alone, the sum of $424,030 74. 
 
 I have thus, step by step, reported to you fully the successive proceed- 
 ings had by the United States upon this measure during the last eight (8) 
 years since I have had charge thereof as agent and counsel in behalf of 
 the State of California; and I state without any fear of successful contra- 
 diction that it has not been due to any fault or laches of mine that the 
 proceeds of this claim have not been as yet placed in cash among the 
 funds of the people of the State of California in their State Treasury. 
 
 In conclusion, I beg to report that I shall hereafter renew my efforts in 
 behalf of this measure, knowing as I do, and that which you will readily 
 perceive, that the main work in these premises has already been done by 
 me ; and which work in due time must, in my opinion, eventuate in giving 
 California all proper benefits of this meritorious proposition, the proceeds 
 arising therefrom to be expended for such purposes as the Legislature of 
 California may hereafter wisely determine. 
 
 And all of which is now very respectfully submitted. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 Agent and Counsel for the State of California. 
 
 No. 2. CALIFORNIA DIRECT TAX CLAIM. 
 
 In my capacity as State Agent and Counsel for the State of Oregon, I 
 was called upon, in 1881, by Hon. W. W. Thayer, the Governor thereof, 
 to represent and defend the interests of that State in the matter of its pro- 
 test against that certain action of the accounting officers of the United 
 States Treasury Department, at Washington, District of Columbia, which 
 consisted in their crediting upon the books of the Treasury Department the 
 earnings of the State of Oregon arising from the five per cent of the net 
 proceeds of the cash sales of the public lands therein, instead of paying 
 the same from time to time over in cash to said State, as the same were 
 earned, the said earnings having been used as a set-off to Oregon^s quota of 
 the direct tax levied under the Act of August 5, 1861, upon said State by the 
 United States, in the sum of $35,140 66, and which quota the State of 
 Oregon having assumed but failed to pay, had been treated by the United 
 States as a debt still due the United States by said State. 
 
 In order to meet this Oregon case as it actually existed, it became nec- 
 essary for me to carefully study the entire United States direct tax system, 
 and all matters connected therewith; and also to ascertain the principle of 
 
,17 
 
 set-offs as then and still in vogue as a practice by the accounting officers 
 of the Treasury, to whom I presented such arguments against such prac- 
 tice in the Oregon case as to me seemed valid, but without any successful 
 result. 
 
 Having exhausted all executive remedy in this matter, I found it abso- 
 lutely necessary, therefore, to go to Congress for adequate relief in regard 
 thereto. 
 
 It was thus while familiarizing myself with these matters that I discov- 
 ered a peculiar condition of things relating to the direct tax quota that 
 had been levied upon the State of California, which, somewhat like that of 
 Oregon's direct tax case, might be and I thought could be bettered, and 
 which I was willing to undertake to do if duly authorized. Thereupon I 
 brought the entire matter to the attention of Hon. George C. Perkins as 
 Governor of California, who, after maturely considering the same, conferred 
 upon me, on December 12, 1882, his authority to represent the interests of 
 the State of California therein, and in a commission, copy of which is hereto 
 attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 1. 
 
 This matter was therjeafter brought by Governor Perkins to the attention 
 of the Legislature of California, in his last annual message to that body, 
 copy of which reference has been heretofore appended, as my Exhibit No. 
 19 to my five per cent report, and to which reference is now made. 
 
 The Legislature, having had the subject-matter under its consideration, 
 duly ratified and confirmed my said appointment, and determined upon 
 .and fixed in a contract the compensation that I should receive in the 
 premises if successful; and copy of which action has been heretofore 
 appended as my Exhibit No. 21 to my five per cent report, and to which 
 reference is now made. 
 
 Having authority, therefore, from the State of California to represent her 
 interests in all matters that related to the adjustment of her quota of the 
 direct tax of $20,000,000 levied on the several States under the Act of 
 August 5, 1861, I proceeded at the first session of Congress that convened 
 next after the date of my said appointment to bring this matter to the 
 attention of Congress; and having at the same time full authority to repre- 
 sent similar interests of the States of Oregon and Nevada, I brought fully 
 to the attention of their respective delegations in Congress all that was 
 necessary to be known to them in these premises. 
 
 This subject seemed to me to divide itself naturally into two subdivisions: 
 
 First — To secure for each of said States a recognition of the principle 
 
 that notwithstanding the expiration of the limitations of time named in 
 
 the Act of August 5, 1861, which fixed June 30, 1862, and September 30, 
 
 1862, as the two dates prior to which, if payment of said tax was made, 
 
 should entitle the States so paying the same to a rebate of a certain per 
 
 cent, to wit, if paid prior to June 30, 1862, a rebate of fifteen per cent, or if 
 
 not paid prior to June 30, 1862, but if paid prior to September 30, 1862, a 
 
 rebate of ten per cent of the amounts so by them paid; and if paid after 
 
 September 30, 1862, then no rebate was provided for in the statutes. Yet 
 
 it seemed to me that if California, Oregon, and Nevada had paid or should 
 
 pay their respective quotas of said direct tax even subsequent to September 
 
 30, 1862, and that without any expense whatsoever to the United States, 
 
 that then and in that event each of said States should in equity be entitled 
 
 10 receive a rebate of full fifteen per cent on their respective payments, 
 
 fifteen per cent having been estimated by the United States to be about 
 
 the cost to the United States to be incurred to put its own Federal machinery 
 
 in motion in the several States for the purpose of assessing, levying, and 
 2m 
 
18 
 
 collecting said direct tax; so that an equity, in my judgment, could be 
 invoked, if it could be shown that this tax had been eventually collected 
 from said States without the United States incurring any expense whatso- 
 ever in the premises. 
 
 Second — That as an examination by me of the records in the Treasury 
 Department had disclosed the fact that some of the States had paid their 
 full quota of this direct tax, while others had paid only a portion thereof, 
 and while still others had not paid any thereof, that an equitable adjustment 
 of the whole matter of this direct tax could be found by Congress enacting 
 a law by which there should be refunded to each State the amount of said 
 direct tax that it had already paid, and to release each State from there- 
 after paying any portion thereof which had not been paid, but which was 
 still due and payable, and for which unpaid balance such State was being 
 treated as a delinquent debtor upon the books of the Treasury Department. 
 
 For the purpose of securing the first of these two propositions, in behalf 
 of California, Oregon, and Nevada, I prepared appropriate bills accord- 
 ingly; and at my request each of the same was duly introduced in the 
 Senate and House, and as follows, to wit: 
 
 Senate Bill No. 511, by Honorable James H. Slater, December 10, 1883 
 for Oregon. 
 
 Senate Bill No. 665, by Honorable John P. Jones, December 13, 1883 
 for Nevada. 
 
 Senate Bill No. 810, by Honorable John F. Miller, December 19, 1883 
 for California. 
 
 And in the House, as follows, to wit: 
 
 House Bill No. 108, by Honorable Barclay Henley, December 10, 1883 
 for California. 
 
 House Bill No. 953, by Honorable George W. Cassidy, December 11, 1883 
 for Nevada. 
 
 House Bill No. 1310, by Honorable M. C. George, December 11, 1883 
 for Oregon. 
 
 Copies of which bills are hereto attached and made a part hereof, and 
 marked Exhibits 2, 3, 4. In support of said Senate bills, I prepared argu- 
 ments and submitted same to the appropriate Senate committees to which 
 the same had been referred for reports, and also to each of the Senators 
 who had introduced same respectively, and a copy of which argument is 
 hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 5. 
 
 I also prepared an argument in support of said three House bills, and 
 submitted same to the appropriate House committees to which the same 
 had been referred for reports, and also to each of the members of the House 
 who had introduced the same respectively; copy of which argument is 
 hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 6. 
 
 Finding that Senate Bills No. 511, for Oregon, and No. 655, for Nevada, 
 had been referred to the Senate Committee on Claims, while Senate Bill 
 No. 810, for California, had been referred to the Senate Committee on 
 Finance, and having made, with the aid of the late Senator Miller of Cali- 
 fornia, several ineffectual and unsuccessful efforts to secure a change of 
 reference of said Senate Bill No. 810, for California, to the Senate Com- 
 mittee on Claims, from the Finance Committee, where I soon discovered 
 that no favorable action would be had, but where it seemed to me unfavor- 
 able action was likely to arise, and desiring that Senator Miller should not 
 be taxed with the responsibility of introducing two separate Senate bills, 
 each having in view only one and having the same object, and to be referred 
 to two different Senate committees, I therefore prepared a second bill, and 
 which Senator Farley, at my request, introduced in the Senate on the 
 
19 
 
 ninth day of May, 1884, to wit. Senate Bill No. 2191, for this same object, 
 copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked 
 Exhibit No. 7. 
 
 This bill of Senator Farley was referred to the Senate Committee on 
 Claims, my desire being to have one and the same committee report on all 
 three of said bills. 
 
 These three bills, to wit. Senate Bills Nos. 511, 655, and 2191, were then 
 referred to Senator Dolph for reports, and he, on May 14, 1884, submitted 
 to the Senate his favorable report. No. 550, on each thereof, copy of which 
 report is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit 
 No. 7i 
 
 By this time, and in view of my observations in seeing said Senate Bill 
 No. 810 going to one committee and said Senate Bills Nos. 511 and 655 
 going to another and different committee, I concluded it would have been 
 wiser in the first instance to have had only one bill in the Senate that 
 would have included all the provisions contained in said three Senate bills; 
 and only one bill in the House that would have included all the provisions 
 contained in said three House bills; and so that all three should be con- 
 sidered at one and the same time by one and the same committee. With 
 this object in view I therefore prepared a separate House bill that would 
 include all the provisions contained in said three House bills, to wit, H. R. 
 No. 108 and No. 953, and No. 1310, and at my request the same was intro- 
 duced in the House on twenty-eighth April, 1884, by Hon. John R. Glass- 
 cock, H. R. 6772, copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof, 
 and marked Exhibit No. 7^. I also suggested to Senator Dolph that when 
 reporting back said three Senate bills that he would report one substitute 
 for the whole, and in view of the character and merit of the subject of said 
 bills and the lateness of the session rendering action on these bills as sep- 
 arate measures difficult if not impossible, to secure an order of reference of 
 his said report from the Senate Committee on Claims to the Senate Com- 
 mittee on Appropriations ; and Senator Dolph, therefore, acquiescing in my 
 suggestion, when submitting his said report, submitted one bill as a substi- 
 tute for said three Senate bills, to wit, Nos. 511, 655, and 2191, and in this 
 form, on the fourteenth day of May, 1884, he submitted the same to the 
 Senate as an amendment to be proposed to the General Deficiency Appro- 
 priation Bill, and asked its reference to the Senate Committee on Appro- 
 priations, and copy of which substitute and said amendment is hereto 
 attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 8. 
 
 In this shape this measure to grant California, Oregon, and Nevada, 
 respectively, fifteen per cent of their full quota of the direct tax, as levied 
 upon them under the Act of August 5, 1861, passed the Senate, and there- 
 after went to the House for its action thereon. The House refused to con- 
 cur therein, whereupon this bill was thereafter referred to a conference 
 committee composed of three (3) members of the Senate and three (3) 
 members of the House, and before which conference committee I appeared 
 and renewed all the arguments in support thereof similar to those which I 
 had hitherto submitted to the Senate and House committees, and finally, 
 said conference committee agreed to recommend to their respective houses 
 the passage of said measure, and which recommendation having been con- 
 curred in, said bill passed both Senate and House, and became a law on 
 the seventh day of July, 1884. 
 
 In the House, on the other hand, we could not secure not only any favor- 
 able action, but, on the contrary, the general subject of direct tax legisla- 
 tion developed various antagonisms, but none of which seemed to me to 
 rest on any valid foundation ; but these antagonisms, such as they were, 
 
20 
 
 were sufficient to prevent any final action thereon during the Forty-eighth 
 Congress, other than herein stated. These antagonisms will be hereafter 
 referred to by me when reporting upon the second branch of this direct tax 
 subject. 
 
 This bill, granting California, Oregon, and Nevada a rebate of fifteen per 
 cent on their full quota of this direct tax, having become a law on the sev- 
 enth of July, 1884, I immediately thereafter requested the proper account- 
 ing officers of the Treasury to state an account in behalf of the State of 
 California for the settlement of this claim. This statement was made on 
 July 23, 1884, in Treasury Report No. 43,395, in the office of the Fifth 
 Auditor, and confirmed by the First Comptroller of the Treasviry on August 
 22, 1884 ; copy of all of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof, 
 and marked Exhibit No. 9. 
 
 California's quota of this direct tax of $20,000,000, levied under the Act 
 of August 5, 1861, was $254,538 67, and upon which she had paid in sec- 
 ond quarter, 1862, as follows, to wit : 
 
 After September 30, 1862, to wit, on October 7, 1862, the sum of $63,839 31 
 
 And during first quarter 1863 183,606 10 
 
 Making a total payment only of -.- $247,445 41 
 
 Leaving unpaid and due on October 8, 1875, the sum of 7,093 26 
 
 In evidence whereof see letter of Hon. C. C. Fairchild, Acting Secretary 
 of Treasury, dated July 14, 1886, inclosing the manuscript certificate of 
 Settlement No. 10,813, made seventeenth March, 1874, by Fifth Auditor, 
 and confirmed eighth October, 1875, by the First Comptroller of the Treas- 
 ury, and hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit 
 No. 10. 
 
 This sum of $7,093 26 due the United States by the State of California, 
 and unpaid at the date of the said settlement made in said Report No. 
 10,813 (see manuscript certificate), by Fifth Auditor of the Treasury, March 
 17, 1874, and confirmed by First Comptroller October 8, 1875, had been on 
 February 8, 1884, reduced to $6,597 54, by crediting California with the 
 sum of $495 72 on account of the '^ Modoc Indian war claim " (and to which 
 full reference will be by me hereafter made in my Report No. 3 on Cali- 
 fornia's Modoc Indian war claim), and which reduction will fully appear 
 from Settlement No. 39,283, made February 7, 1884, by the Fifth Auditor, 
 and on February 8, 1884, confirmed by the First Comptroller of the Treas- 
 ury, copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked 
 Exhibit No. 11. 
 
 Therefore, on July 7, 1884, the date of the passage of this fifteen per cent 
 rebate bill, the State of California was still indebted to the United States 
 on account of the balance due on her quota of this direct tax, in the sum 
 of $6,597 54, and as fully appears in said Settlement No. 43,395, and made 
 by the Fifth Auditor on twenty-third July, 1884, and confirmed by the 
 First Comptroller on twenty-second August, 1884, same being my Exhibit 
 No. 9 herein. 
 
 In making this final settlement between' the United States and the State 
 of California, the first thing, therefore, done by the Fifth Auditor of the 
 Treasury, was to credit the State of California with fifteen per cent of her 
 whole quota of said direct tax, to wit, $254,538 67. 
 
 And which fifteen per cent thereof was and is --•-. - - $38,180 80 
 
 And to thereafter deduct therefrom the amount of said balance of- 6,597 54 
 
 Leaving due California by the United States a cash diflerence of $31,583 26 
 
21 
 
 And for which a draft upon the Sub-Treasurer in San Francisco, to the 
 order of the Governor of California, was dehvered to me by the Secretary 
 of the Treasury, and which was by me delivered to the Governor of the 
 State of California in August, 1884, and the proceeds whereof (less the com- 
 mission due me, and as fixed by my contract with the Legislature on March 
 3, 1883) were duly paid by you into the State Treasury; and as fully 
 appears in your message to the Legislature, dated January 5, 1885, extract 
 from which covering this special reference is hereto attached and made a 
 part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 12. 
 
 In order that you may fully understand how, as late as October 8, 1875, 
 the State of California became indebted to the United States in the sum of 
 $7,093 26 on account of her quota of said direct tax, I desire to report that 
 the State of California having, under the Act of her Legislature approved 
 April 12, 1862, assumed the responsibility of collecting and paying the 
 whole of her quota of $254,538 67 of the direct tax of $20,000,000 levied 
 by the United States under the Act of Congress approved August 5, 1861 
 (U. S. Statutes, vol. 12, page 296), and having provided, as she did, all 
 the necessary and proper State machinery for levying and collecting the 
 same, that prior to September 30, 1862, there had been collected of this 
 direct tax, and paid into the State Treasury of California in gold coin, the 
 sum of $70,932 56|. 
 
 Hon. D. R. Ashley, then State Treasurer, and in possession of said 
 $70,932 56f in gold coin, converted the same into greenback currency, and 
 prior to September 30, 1862, made a tender of such currency to the United 
 States Sub-Treasurer at San Francisco, California, in part payment of Cali- 
 fornia's quota of said direct tax. Said Sub-Treasurer, D. W. Cheeseman, 
 Esq., knowing that this sum had been collected in gold coin, and not in 
 currency, claimed that it should have been paid by Mr. Ashley into the 
 United States Treasury in the gold coin in which it had been so collected. 
 This Mr. Ashley declined to do, whereupon the question was referred to 
 the honorable Secretary of the Treasury at Washington for decision, and 
 that officer directed the Sub-Treasurer to receive the tax in currency, as it 
 was so tendered. 
 
 But by the time this decision and order was received at San Francisco 
 back from Washington, the thirtieth of September, 1862, had come and 
 gone, and as this law authorized a rebate only in the event that an actual 
 payment should be made on or prior to September SO, 1862, at the very 
 latest, and as the money was not, as a matter of fact, actually paid over 
 by Mr. Ashley to the United States until after September 30, 1862, to wit, 
 on October 7, 1862, the United States refused to recognize the claim of the 
 State of California to any rebate in the premises. 
 
 But Mr. Ashley, taking a different view, and asserting that the State of 
 California was entitled, in his opinion, to a rebate at least of ten per cent 
 on said $70,932 56f , did himself deduct ten per cent thereof, to wit, 
 $7,093 25|, which he turned into the State Treasury, and the balance, to 
 wit, $63,839 31, he paid over to the United States as a first installment 
 and in part payment of California's said direct tax quota. But the United 
 States never recognized either this claim of rebate or this system of dis- 
 count and of bookkeeping on the part of the State of California; but, on 
 the contrary, the United States simply credited the State of California with 
 the amounts of money which she had actually paid, to wit, said $63,839 31, 
 and subsequently, to wit, in 1863 (when the legal time within which any 
 rebate could be claimed had fully expired, and that too without question), 
 with a second payment of $183,606 10, aggregating a total only of $247,- 
 445 41, and the United States charged California with the amount she had 
 
22 
 
 not paid, to wit, $7,093 26, and which charge ever remained upon the 
 books of the Treasury as a debt against the State of CaHfornia due the 
 United States until it was liquidated by having been paid and canceled 
 by deducting this debt of $7,093 26 from the two credits which I had been 
 enabled to secure and collect for the State of California, and in the man- 
 ner hereinbefore fully stated, to wit: 
 
 First — By the California Modoc Indian war claim in the sum of $495 72 
 
 Second — And so much of the fifteen per cent on $254,538 67 as was necessary to 
 make up the balance of said debt of $7,093 26, towit... 6,597 54 
 
 Aggregating the sum of _ $7,093 26 
 
 And as has been fully set forth in the settlements hereinbefore referred 
 to, and filed as exhibits. The explanation made by Mr. Ashley in regard 
 thereto is hereto attached and made part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 
 13. From Mr. Ashley's own report you will therefore perceive that he made 
 the effort to secure for California a rebate of ten per cent on a payment of 
 $70,932 56f , stating that that sum was all that could possibly he recovered or 
 saved to the State of California in this direct tax matter, but which claim the 
 United States never allowed and never recognized, while it also fully appears 
 herein that I made the effort to secure for California a rebate of fifteen per 
 cent on the whole of her quota of $254,538 67 of this direct tax, which I 
 succeeded in recovering and collecting; and the sam& has already been 
 paid into the State Treasury of California in the manner aforesaid, and all 
 of which was had and done by me under the authority conferred by Hon. 
 George C. Perkins when Governor of California, and duly ratified by the 
 Legislature of California on the third of March, 1883, and as hereinbefore 
 fully set forth. 
 
 SECOND. 
 
 The second subdivision in the adjustment of this direct tax matter, as I 
 viewed the same, consisted in securing such legislation by Congress as 
 should enable the Secretary of the Treasury to refund to each State such 
 portion of this direct tax as it had paid, and to relieve any State from 
 paying such portion thereof as it had not paid. 
 
 In order to accomplish these results, I prepared two bills, one of which^ 
 to wit. Senate Bill No. 795, was, at my request, introduced in the Senate 
 on the eighteenth of December, 1883, by the late Senator Hon. John F. 
 Miller; and the other, to wit, H. R. No. 110, at my request, was introduced 
 in the House on the tenth day of December, 1883, by Hon. Barclay Hen- 
 ley of California. 
 
 A somewhat similar bill, to wit, H. R. No. 6047, was introduced by Mr. 
 Price of Wisconsin, copies of which bills are hereto attached and made a 
 part hereof, and marked Exhibits No. 14 and No. 15 respectively. 
 
 In support of these two bills I prepared arguments, and submitted the 
 same to the proper committees having charge thereof^ to wit, the Finance 
 Committee in the Senate and Claims Committee in the House, and gave 
 the members of the California delegation duplicates thereof, copies of 
 which are hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibits 
 No. 16 and No. 17 respectively. 
 
 Said Senate Bill No. 795, at the request of Hon. W. E. Earle, State Agent 
 for South Carolina, was referred to the honorable Secretary of the Treasury 
 by Senator Hampton of South Carolina; and said House Bill No. 110, at 
 my request, was referred to the honorable First Comptroller of the Treasury, 
 by Hon. Barclay Henley of California, to secure the views of these two 
 
23 
 
 officers, who in due time submitted to Congress terse reports thereon, copies 
 of which are hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibits 
 No. 18 and No. 19 respectively. 
 
 The general subject-matter having thereafter been maturely considered 
 in the House by its Committee on Claims, that committee, on the fourth 
 day of February, 1885, made a majority favorable report, through Mr. Price 
 of Wisconsin, to wit. Report No. 2486, Part 1, second session Forty-eighth 
 Congress, and a minority report. Part 2, through Mr. Warner, copies of 
 which are hereto attached, made parts hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 20. 
 
 It is due to the history of this case that I should here state that this 
 direct tax matter having been referred to the House Committee on Claims, 
 was by it referred to Hon. A. J. Warner, as a sub-committee to examine 
 into and report thereon to the full committee. Thereafter I got Hon. Bar- 
 clay Henley to accompany me several times to interview Hon. A. J. Warner 
 on this bill, and I was soon convinced that he was not only not favorably 
 disposed in the matter, but he finally had prepared an adverse report 
 thereon, and which he finally submitted to his said committee and asked 
 its adoption as the views of the majority of said committee. Discovering 
 this fact, the friends of this measure were immediatel}^ interviewed, and 
 the result was that Mr. Price of Wisconsin, a member of said committee 
 and a warm friend of this measure, was selected by its friends to make a 
 minority report, and to thereafter move its adoption as a substitute for Mr. 
 Warner's majority report, all of which was done; whereupon Mr. Price's 
 minority report was adopted and became the majority report of that com- 
 mittee, and Mr. Warner's report, which he had expected would be the 
 majority report of said committee, instead thereof became the minority 
 report, so that both reports and history of each are herewith submitted for 
 your information. 
 
 But this majority report was made so late in the session — as Congress 
 adjourned March 4, 1885 — ^that favorable action thereon was a matter of 
 legislative impossibility during the Forty-eighth Congress. 
 
 But sufficient, however, had already been done, by virtue of the fore- 
 going showing, to disclose to Congress that to discriminate between those 
 States that had assumed and paid their full quota of this direct tax, and 
 those States that had neither assumed nor paid the same, or any portion 
 thereof, was a distinction without a difference. 
 
 If Congress was vested with constitutional jurisdiction to levy and appor- 
 tion said tax as made, then those States upon which it was levied were 
 legally obligated to raise and pay the same, or failing so to do, then to 
 submit to such legal penalties as were provided for in the Act of August 
 5, 1861, that directed the levy to be made, and not to do as Mr. Bennett of 
 North Carolina desired to have done, to wit, to release the delinquent States 
 from further paying up their quota of this tax, and, as provided for by 
 him in a bill, to wit, H. R. No. 6713, by him introduced twenty-first April, 
 1884 (and without making any provision for those States that had already 
 paid this tax) copy of which bill is hereto attached and made a part 
 hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 21. 
 
 If, on the other hand, this direct tax was not constitutionally levied 
 upon the several States, as States — as in some high quarters had been 
 assumed and argued — then it seemed to me that fair dealing suggested 
 that those States — like California, for instance — which had responded by 
 paying promptly, and without questioning the constitutionality of the tax, 
 or the regularity of the levy and collection, should now be refunded and 
 reimbursed the several amounts they had so heretofore paid to the United 
 States; and when this was done, then^ in my judgment, it would be in 
 
24 
 
 order to release the delinquent States from further paying their delinquent 
 debts, but not before. 
 
 While the foregoing proceedings were being had in the House, we were 
 not successful in securing any direct action upon Senator Miller's Bill No. 
 795, in the Senate; but yet, by virtue of an effort to have Congress pay the 
 State of Georgia the sum of $35,555 42, on account of an old revolutionary 
 war claim, the attention of the Senate and of the country was called to 
 this meritorious measure, and, as will appear in the manner following, to 
 wit, on March 28, 1884, Senator Brown of Georgia introduced Senate Bill 
 No. 1948. A similar bill, to wit, H. R. No. 4703, was introduced in the 
 House by Mr. Hammond of Georgia, on February 5, 1884, both having 
 this object in view. 
 
 A somewhat similar bill, to wit, Senate Bill No. 595, had been introduced 
 on December 11, 1883, by Senator Colquitt of Georgia, and a report. Senate 
 No. 124, had been made thereon by Senator Hoar, on February 6, 1884, 
 and which bill proposed to reimburse the State of Georgia the sum of 
 $22,567 42, on account of expenses in that sum by her incurred on account 
 of an old Indian war claim arising therein between 1795 and 1818, and 
 which bill became a law, but the accounting officers of the Treasury, 
 instead of paying over to Georgia in cash the sum thereby appropriated, 
 simply credited that State with the amount thereof on the books of the 
 Treasury, as a set-off against Georgia's quota of the direct tax then unpaid 
 and delinquent, and as a payment pro tanto thereon, and hence the reason 
 for the language used in Senator Brown's Georgia Bill, No. 1948, and Mr. 
 Hammond's House Bill, No. 4703, which proposed to repeal, and annul, and 
 vacate any law, or ruling, or decision of the accounting officers of the Treasury 
 that had undertaken, or should undertake, to use the money so appropriated 
 as a set-off to said direct tax then delinquent and due by Georgia to the United 
 States, and copies of which Bills Nos. 1948, 4703, and 595, and Reports 
 Nos. 124 and 752, are hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked 
 Exhibits Nos. 22 and 23. 
 
 Apparently so fixed had the House Judiciary Committee of the Forty- 
 eighth Congress become in its conviction that some remedy was needed 
 to adjust by laiv a practice of set-offs that had grown up without law among 
 the United States Treasury officials at Washington, that a general bill, to 
 wit, H. R. No. 7082, therefor, was reported from the House Judiciary Com- 
 mittee on the twentieth of May, 1884, by Mr. Hammond, as a substitute 
 for H. R. No. 6867, together with a report thereon, to wit. House Report 
 No. 1658, copies of which bill (H. R. No. 7082) and Report No. 1658 are 
 hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 24. 
 
 A favorable report, to wit, Senate Report No. 592, was also made by 
 Senator Hoar on Senator Brown's Georgia Bill, No. 1948, on the twenty- 
 eighth day of May, 1884, copy of which report is hereto attached and made 
 a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 25. 
 
 It was during the discussion of Senator Brown's Georgia Bill No. 1948, 
 and of the Report No. 592 that was made thereon by Senator Hoar on the 
 twenty-eighth of May, 1884, that the acrimonious but celebrated debate 
 between Senator Brown of Georgia and Senator Ingalls of Kansas occurred 
 in the Senate on the twelfth of June, 1884. 
 
 Prior to said discussion in the Senate, Senator Dolph of Oregon, believing 
 with me that said Senate Bill No. 1948, and said Senate Report No. 592 
 made thereon, secured a discrimination in favor of Georgia, which had not 
 yet paid her quota of this direct tax, as against California and Oregon 
 (among other States), that had paid the same, at my request submitted, 
 on the twenty-eighth of May, 1884, an amendment to said Senate Bill No'. 
 
25 
 
 1948, having for its object to place California and Oregon on the same plane 
 as was then sought to he occupied by Georgia in said Senate Bill No. 1948; 
 copy of which amendment is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and 
 marked Exhibit No. 26. 
 
 The discussion of this Senate Bill No. 1948 and the report made thereon 
 led to a motion to recommit the same back to the Claims Committee, that 
 had reported thereon, and an aye and nay vote having been taken thereon, 
 it was carried, by ayes twenty-one and nays seventeen; but immediately 
 after the vote had been taken it was discovered, and the point was raised, 
 that a quorum of the Senate had not voted; and upon motion of Senator 
 Ingalls therefor, the Senate adjourned; and as the Senate prior to this had 
 agreed that when the Senate adjourned it should adjourn till Monday, the 
 Senate thereupon adjourned till the following Monday, leaving this bill and 
 the subject-matter to which it related as unfinished business. 
 
 This was on Thursday, June 12, 1884, and the Senate adjourned to the 
 following Monday, June 16, 1884. 
 
 I had observed that this rdotion to recommit this Senate Georgia Bill No. 
 1948 was not accompanied with any instructions from the Senate, and it 
 further occurred to me that this occasion was the opportune period at which 
 the adjustment of this entire subject might be made general, by substitut- 
 ing the provisions contained in Senator Miller's general bill, to wit. Senate 
 Bill No. 795, for those contained in Senator Brown's special Georgia Bill 
 No. 1948. I immediately laid my views before Hon. W. E. Earle, State 
 Agent for South Carolina, who had ever cooperated with me in the prem- 
 ises, and whose State had overpaid this tax, and hence as her State Agent 
 was as anxious as myself for a satisfactory adjustment of this whole sub- 
 ject. Therefore, during the interval, Mr. Earle and myself held several 
 interviews with Senator Brown of Georgia and the late Senator Hon. John 
 F. Miller of California, having this object in view, and which, at our joint 
 request, finally resulted as follows, to wit: in open Senate, before any fur- 
 ther vote should be had on Senator Brown's Georgia Bill No. 1948, that 
 Senator Miller should offer his Senate Bill No. 795 as a substitute for Sen- 
 ator Brown's Georgia Bill No. 1948, and that Senator Brown would agree 
 to accept the same. This agreement was fully carried out, and on the fol- 
 lowing Monday, to wit, June 16, 1884, Senator Miller, in open Senate, sub- 
 mitted, by way of an amendment, his said Senate Bill No. 795 as a substitute 
 for Senator Brown's Georgia Bill No. 1948, and which was duly accepted by 
 Senator Brown and ordered to he printed and lay on the table; copy of which 
 amendment and substitute is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and 
 marked Exhibit No. 27. 
 
 The first session of the Forty-eighth Congress was now drawing to a close, 
 and it adjourned without any further action on this measure, which stood 
 on the calendar of the Senate in the form of unfinished business. 
 
 In view of what had then already taken place on said Senate Bill No. 
 795 and said House Bill No. 110, I deemed it proper and my duty to bring 
 the same to the attention of the Legislature of California at its next session, 
 to wit, in January, 1885; and for this purpose, I submitted a report thereon 
 to your office.- Thereafter, the Legislature, having had the matter under 
 its consideration, did, on the third of March, 1885, pass Senate Concurrent 
 Resolution No. 26, copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof, 
 and marked Exhibit No. 28. 
 
 Copies of this resolution having been forwarded to me by the honorable 
 Secretary of State, under the seal of his office from Sacramento, were by me 
 filed with the appropriate committee in both Senate and House, and given 
 to the members of our California delegation in Congress. 
 
26 
 
 A Presidential election having taken place when the short and last ses- 
 sion of the Forty-eighth Congress convened, other matters seeming to engross 
 the attention of that body, there was an evident disposition not to consider 
 this measure. Surely the fact is that though every proper effort was made 
 by me and other friends of this bill to secure consideration thereof, the 
 Forty-eighth Congress finally adjourned without any definite action being 
 had thereon in either the Senate or House other than hereinbefore stated. 
 
 In consequence thereof, when the Forty-ninth Congress convened, I 
 renewed my efforts in this same direction, and with this object in view I 
 prepared two bills, to wit: House Bill No. 164, and which, at my request, 
 was introduced by Hon. Barclay Henley on twenty-first December, 1885; 
 and also one substantially the same was introduced by Mr. Price of Wis- 
 consin, on January 1, 1886, in H. R. No. 2776, in harmony with the Report 
 No. 2486, which he had made on February 4, 1885, on this same subject 
 from the Committee on Claims; and in consequence of the absence and 
 illness, which ended in death, of Senator Miller of California, who had 
 charge of this measure during the Forty-eighth Congress, as hereinbefore 
 fully reported, at my request, Hon. Leland Stanford introduced the other 
 of said bills in the Senate on the eleventh day of January, 1886, to wit, 
 Senate Bill No. 995; copies of which bills are hereto attached and made 
 parts hereof, and marked Exhibits No. 29, No. 30, and No. 31, respectively. 
 
 Senate Georgia Bill No. 1948, and House Bill No. 4703, having failed 
 to receive in the Forty-eighth Congress any action in either the Senate or 
 House, other than that hereinbefore described, were revived in the Forty- 
 ninth Congress by the introduction by Senator Brown of Georgia, of Senate 
 Bill No. 2457, which latter was favorably reported in Report No. 1138, by 
 Senator George from the Judiciary Committee, on May 18, 1886; copy of 
 which bill and report is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and 
 marked Exhibits No. 32 and No. 33. 
 
 And by Mr. Hammond, by the introduction in the House of special bill, 
 to wit, H. R. No. 1, and also by a general bill, to wit, H. R. No. 3, on Decem- 
 ber 19, 1885, and upon which bill, H. R. No. 3, a Report No. 35 was made 
 from the Judiciary Committee, on the nineteenth day of January, 1886; 
 copies of which bills and report are hereto attached and made parts hereof, 
 and marked Exhibits No. 34 and No. 35 and No. 36, respectively. 
 
 The views contained in this House Report were antagonized by Mr. Earle 
 and myself, and we were finally successful in securing a favorable minority 
 report in the House on twenty-ninth January, 1886, on this direct tax 
 matter, copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and 
 marked Exhibit No. 37. 
 
 When this Georgia Bill H. R. No. 3, was, on February 8, 1886, reached 
 in the House for consideration, Mr. M^illiam E. Earle and myself again 
 submitted a statement in writing in regard thereto, copy of which is hereto 
 attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 38. 
 
 Whereupon several friends of our view of this measure, to wit, Messrs. 
 Price of Wisconsin, Taylor of Ohio, Culbertson of Texas, Ranney of Massa- 
 chusetts, Hepburn of Iowa, and Little of Ohio, duly supported the same in 
 arguments which will fully appear in Exhibit No. 39, hereto attached and 
 made parts hereof. 
 
 In addition thereto, Mr. Price submitted his bill, No. 2776, as a substi- 
 tute for said House Georgia bill, and Hon. John T. Little of Ohio, offered 
 an amendment to Mr. Hammond's said Georgia bill, copy of which is 
 hereto attached, and marked Exhibit No. 39^. 
 
 In addition thereto, by special appointment made therefor, the views of 
 Mr. Earle and myself were, on April 20, 1886, laid before Hon. J. R. Eden 
 
of Illinois, Chairman of the sub-committee of the House Judiciary Com- 
 mittee having charge of this direct tax measure, in an oral argument; and 
 with whom we submitted sundry written and printed statements on the 
 night of April 20, 1886; and next day supplemented same with a written 
 statement, copy whereof is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and 
 marked Exhibit No. 40. 
 
 In the Senate, Mr. Earle and myself succeeded in having Senator Hamp- 
 ton (who had taken a great interest in Senator Miller's Senate Bill No. 
 795 of the Forty-eighth Congress, and who it was that wrOte as aforesaid 
 to Secretary Folger at Mr. Earle's request in regard thereto, which called 
 out the Secretary's report thereon, and as hereinbefore filed as an Exhibit 
 No. 18) introduce on May 24, 1886, a substitute for Senator Brown's said 
 Georgia Bill No. 2457, copy of which substitute is hereto attached and 
 made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 41. 
 
 This substitute contained substantially all the matters contained in Sen- 
 ator Stanford's Senate Bill No. 995 and Hon. Barclay Henley's House Bill 
 No. 164, heretofore filed as exhibits Nos. 29 and 31. 
 
 In this connection we called Senator Hampton's attention to the fact that 
 the report of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Senator Brown's Georgia 
 Bill No. 2457 rested on a wrong theory, and because from an examination 
 by me made of the laws of the States of Georgia and Texas I found that 
 both Georgia and Texas had, as a matter of fact, assumed the payment of 
 their quotas of this direct tax, and Georgia had, under an Act of her 
 Legislature, authorized the issuance of interest-bearing bonds with which 
 to pay her quota of this direct tax, and as will fully appear from 'copies of 
 the laws of Georgia and Texas thereon, hereto attached and made parts 
 hereof, and marked Exhibits No. 42 and No. 43, respectively. 
 
 On July 14, 1886, Senator Hampton, in support of his substitute for Sen- 
 ator Brown's Georgia Bill, No. 2457, and which was substantially identical 
 with the substitute which at my request had been offered in the Forty- 
 eighth Congress by Senator Miller of California, as a substitute for Senator 
 Brown's Georgia Bill No. 1948 in the Forty-eighth Congress, submitted an 
 argument in support of this substitute, copy of which is hereto attached 
 and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 44. 
 
 As the accounts between the several States and the United States arising 
 under the settlements had on this direct tax, were constantly changing, 
 and thereby the status of each, in relation to this direct tax matter, at the 
 end of every settlement was different from what it had been theretofore 
 reported to be, and as this was particularly true in the case of the State of 
 California, which then owed nothing to the United States, and as a consider- 
 able time had elapsed since Congress had been ofiicially supplied with 
 authentic data in regard to the exact amount of debt then due the United 
 States by any of the States which had been reported as delinquent in the 
 payment of their respective quotas thereof, I deemed it wise, whenever 
 this measure should be next under consideration, that its friends in Con- 
 gress should be in possession of the very latest facts in regard thereto; 
 whereupon I prepared a resolution of inquiry, which, at my request, was 
 introduced in the House by the Hon. Barclay Henley, in order to secure 
 this information, copy of which resolution is hereto attached and made a 
 part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 45. 
 
 This resolution having been considered and modified by the appropriate 
 committee, was transmitted to the honorable Secretary of the Treasury, 
 who, on March 31, 1886, made a reply thereto, as set forth in House Exec- 
 utive Document No. 158, first session. Forty-ninth Congress (copy of which 
 is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 46), 
 
28 
 
 and which gives the latest pubHshed official information on this important 
 matter. 
 
 While Senator Dolph of Oregon was willing, in the Forty-eighth Con- 
 gress, to submit, and did submit, an amendment in the Senate to Senator 
 Brown's Georgia Bill No. 1948, by which if, at that time, Georgia was to 
 secure her $35,555 42 in cask, that Oregon, under his said amendment, 
 would also receive in cash her $35,140 67, and as set forth in said amend- 
 ment (copy of which has been heretofore attached and made a part hereof, 
 and marked Exhibit No. 26), yet he was not so confident that the proposi- 
 tion contained in Senator Hampton's said substitute exactly suited the 
 views or interests of the people of the State of Oregon, thinking, as he 
 stated to me, "that while Oregon, under Senator Hampton's amendment, 
 would secure in cash her $35,140 67, that she already had paid as her 
 quota of this direct tax, yet he also thought that in the end the people of 
 Oregon would be taxed to raise a sum larger than said $S5J40 67. In other 
 words, that he thought that Oregon, in the event of Senator Hampton's 
 substitute becoming a law, would have to pay out more money than the people 
 of Oregon would get bacJc.'^ 
 
 Learning, therefore, that Senator Dolph was liable to antagonize Senator 
 Hampton's said substitute whenever it should be considered by the Senate, 
 and deeming it my duty, as agent and counsel herein for the State of Cal- 
 ifornia, to answer in a proper manner, and at all proper times and places, 
 all antagonisms to this general measure, as contained in said Senate Bill 
 No. 995 of Senator Stanford, and in said H. R. No. 164, as introduced by 
 Hon. Barclay Henley, whenever and wherever the same could be properly 
 done, I, as late as July 20, 1886, having had several interviews with Sena- 
 tor Dolph thereon, submitted to him for his consideration an argument in 
 support of the views by me herein before expressed, and directed especially 
 against his impression thereon, then taking shape and form, and copy of 
 which argument is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked 
 Exhibit No. 47. 
 
 Though every proper effort was made by me to have this measure con- 
 sidered in both the Senate and House during the first session of the Forty- 
 ninth Congress, yet there never seemed to me, or to any other friends 
 thereof, to be that opportunity; when either body had the time sufficient, 
 or the inclination towards the favorable consideration of this measure, to 
 take up and maturely weigh the same, and, therefore, the first session of 
 the Forty-ninth Congress adjourned with this measure on the calendars of 
 both Houses in an unfinished condition, and in the manner hereinbefore 
 more fully set forth. 
 
 I have thus, step by step, given you the history of this measure, begin- 
 ning with the Forty-eighth Congress (before which ddte it had never before 
 been considered in either House of Congress, and when considered in the 
 Forty-eighth Congress, the same was had and done solely through my 
 agency) , and ending at the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress. 
 
 I make this report, thus detailed and specific, in order that you and the 
 people of California may fully know all that has been done in regard to 
 this particular claim; and in order that a full account of my stewardship 
 and agency in these premises may become a matter of official record in 
 connection therewith, and for future reference. 
 
 In conclusion, I beg to report to you that I shall hereafter renew my 
 efforts in behalf of this measure, knowing, as I do, that the main work in 
 the premises has already been done by me, and which work, in due time, 
 must, in my opinion, eventuate in giving California all the proper benefits 
 of this meritorious proposition, the proceeds arising therefrom to be ex- 
 
29 
 
 pended for such purpose as the Legislature of California may hereafter 
 wisely determine. 
 
 All of which is now very respectfully submitted. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 
 Agent and Counsel for the State of California. 
 
 No. 3. MODOC INDIAN WAR CLAIM. 
 
 In my capacity as State Agent and Counsel for the State of Oregon, I 
 was called upon, in 1881, by Hon. R. P. Earhart, Secretary of State thereof, 
 to represent and prosecute the interests of that State in the matter of its 
 claim against the United States, on account of certain expenses by it 
 incurred for the suppression of Indian hostilities on its southern border, 
 during the Modoc Indian war, in 1872, 187 S, and 187 J^. I discovered that 
 the State of California, and certain of its citizens residing in Siskiyou and 
 Modoc Counties therein, had also incurred sundry expenses in this same 
 Modoc Indian war, no claim jor the payment of which had ever been urged 
 hy the State of California or by her citizens against the-. United States ; and 
 which claims, though sm-all in amounts, were in my judgment valid, and 
 such as I thought I could secure if properly so authorized. Knowing, as I 
 did then and do now, that no claim can be prosecuted or urged before the 
 Treasury Department except by a party in propria persona, or by another 
 acting therein under a written letter of authority or power of attorney, I 
 therefore brought the entire matter to the attention of Hon. George C. Per- 
 kins, as Governor of California, who, after maturely considering the same, 
 on March 7, 1882, conferred upon me his authority to represent the inter- 
 ests of the State of California and her people therein, and in a commis- 
 sion, copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked 
 Exhibit No. 1. 
 
 This matter was thereafter brought by Governor Perkins to the attention 
 of the Legislature of California in his last annual message to that body; 
 copy of which reference has been heretofore appended as my Exhibit No. 
 19 to my '^five per cent report " herein, and to which reference is now made. 
 
 The Legislature of California having had the subject-matter under its 
 consideration, duly ratified and confirmed my said appointment, and deter- 
 mined upon and fixed in a contract the compensation that I should receive 
 in these premises if successful, copy of which action has been heretofore 
 appended as my Exhibit No. 21 to my " five per cent report" herein, and 
 to which reference is now made. 
 
 Having authority, therefore, from the State of California to thus represent 
 all matters that related to the adjustment of its interests in these premises, 
 I prepared a suitable bill to cover this claim, which, at my request, the 
 late Senator, Honorable John F. Miller, on seventeenth March, 1882, intro- 
 duced in the Senate, to wit. Senate Bill No. 1502. I therefore prepared 
 an argument in support of said bill, and presented same to the Committee 
 on Military Affairs, to which said bill had been referred for examination 
 and report, and on twenty-second March, 1882, a favorable report, to wit. 
 Senate Report No. 306, was made thereon by Senator Harrison. Copies 
 of which bill and report are hereto attached and made a part hereof, and 
 marked Exhibit No. 2. 
 
 I also prepared a similar bill for this same purpose, which, at my request, 
 was, on the thirteenth day of February, 1882, introduced in the House by 
 
30 
 
 Hon. C. P. Berry, to wit, H. R. No. 4244, copy of which is hereto attached 
 and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 3. 
 
 Senate Bill No. 145, limited as it was exclusively to Oregon, in order to 
 provide for its Modoc Indian war claim, had theretofore been prepared, and 
 at my request had been introduced in the Senate on the sixth day of De- 
 cember, 1881, by Senator Grover of Oregon, and which had been favorably 
 reported upon on February 2, 1882, in Senate Report No. 114, copies of 
 which bill and report are hereto attached and made a part hereof, and 
 marked Exhibit No. 4. 
 
 At the date when this Oregon Senate Bill No. 145 had been introduced 
 and reported upon in the Senate, it did not occur to me to suggest to Sena- 
 tor Miller that when said Oregon's Senate Bill No. 145 should be considered 
 in the Senate to amend same by incorporatiug therein a provision for Cali- 
 fornia's Modoc Indian war claim. 
 
 The said two bills, to wit. Senate Nos. 145 and 1502, were therefore called 
 up and considered, and acted upon as two separate measures, and both of 
 said two bills passed the Senate on March 27, 1882, but as two separate 
 and independent measures. 
 
 When said two bills reached the House they were both referred to the 
 House Committee on Military Affairs, before which committee I appeared 
 as counsel and agent for both of said separate bills Nos. 145 and 1502, and 
 suggested to said committee that these two bills might be appropriately 
 considered together by being consolidated, and which could be done by 
 adding to said Senate Bill No. 145, which then consisted of only one sec- 
 tion, a second section, that should cover the provisons contained in said Cali- 
 fornia Senate Bill No. 1502, and all of which was done; and thus amended 
 by the House, said Senate Bill No. 145 was favorably recommended to the 
 House, where it passed, and was returned to the Senate for its concurrence, 
 which it secured, and also passed and became a law on the sixth day of 
 January, 1883 (U. S. Statutes, vol. 22, page 399), copy of which is hereto 
 attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 5. 
 
 This bill, authorizing the proper accounting officers of the Treasury to 
 adjust the accounts of the State of California against the United States 
 arising in California during the Modoc Indian war of 1872 and 1873, having 
 thus become a law, I thereupon requested the statement of an account by 
 the proper accounting officers of the Treasury, in behalf of the State of 
 California, for the settlement of this claim. 
 
 The statement was thereupon duly made by the Third Auditor of the 
 Treasury, copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and 
 marked Exhibit No. 6, and shows that the United States ivas indebted to 
 the State of California on account of sundry claims arising in said Modoc 
 Indian war in the sum of $495 72. 
 
 But this sum of $495 72, instead of being paid over in cash to the State 
 of California, was credited to her upon the books of the United States 
 Treasury Department by the proper accounting officers thereof, and used as 
 a set-off and a payment, pro tanto, by the State of California to the United 
 States on account of the sum of $7,093 26, said sum being a debt then due 
 the United States by the State of California on account of a balance aris- 
 ing in the settlement of the direct tax accounts between the United States 
 and the State of California, and all of which fully appears in Settlement 
 No. 39,283, made by the Fifth Auditor on February 7, 1884, beheving, as 
 they substantially stated, that all indebtedness arising under said Act of 
 April 25, 1857, had been amply provided for and fully adjusted and con- 
 firmed by the First Comptroller of the Treasury on February 8, 1884, and 
 
31 
 
 as appended as my Exhibit No. 11, to my report in the direct tax claim 
 hereinbefore made, and to which reference is now made. 
 
 While the State of CaHfornia did not receive the payment of this claim 
 in cash, yet she did receive full credit therefor on account of a debt unpaid, 
 and then due by her to the United States, and as herein fully set forth, so 
 that the matter was as broad as it was long, in so far as California's finan- 
 cial relation with the United States was concerned; but I beg to report 
 that the total sum claimed by the State of California, as due her as a State 
 by the United States, was allowed, appropriated, and paid, by giving her a 
 credit for the fidl amount thereof; and which adjustment, so made, thus 
 finally terminated this particular claim, collected by me under the author- 
 ity conferred by Honorable George C. Perkins, as Governor of California, 
 and duly ratified by the Legislature of California, on the third day of 
 March, 1883, as aforesaid. 
 
 It may be information to you to know that Congress, also, at that same 
 time, by virtue of my efforts therein exercised in their behalf, under this 
 same authority conferred upon me by Governor Perkins and the LegislaT 
 ture of California, made ample provision for the reimbursement of the pay- 
 ment of certain specific claims of sundry citizens, then living in Modoc 
 and Siskiyou Counties, in California, and aggregating a total sum of $3,- 
 945 61, which sum, together with said $495 72, made a total aggregate of 
 $4,441 33, as named in said law. 
 
 Some of these allowances so provided for have been already paid to the 
 citizens of California entitled thereto, while others remain still unpaid, but 
 all of which will be paid by the United States whenever the beneficiaries 
 of that legislation, if living, or their heirs if dead, shall duly present their 
 claims and make their identity legally known to the proper accounting 
 officers of the Treasury, at Washington City. 
 
 And all of which is now very respectfully submitted. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 Agent and Counsel for the State of California. 
 
 No. 4. CALIFORNIA INDIAN WAR CLAIMS. 
 
 The examinations which I had made, and especially those made in 1881 
 and 1882, in connection with the Modoc Indian war claims arising in 
 California and Oregon, in 1872 and 1873, brought me in contact with the 
 general subject-matter of other California Indian and other war claims, 
 some of which, by the United States, had been settled in full, some settled 
 only in part, and some not settled at all. I had already had a limited 
 experience before the California Legislature in 1872, 1874, and 1876, as 
 attorney in behalf of the holders of certain California Indian war bonds 
 and coupons, theretofore issued by her in payment of certain expenses 
 that had been incurred therein, on account of Indian hostilities, and suffi- 
 cient to convince me that the State of California — improperly, as I thought 
 then, and think now — was in no mood to either pay or to recognize said 
 claims. 
 
 Believing, therefore, in 1882, that the true, if not the only remedy of the 
 State of California, and that left to those of her citizens who still held any 
 valid evidences of these unpaid debts growing out of Indian and other 
 hostilities in the State of California, and upon the borders thereof, lay in 
 presenting the same fully and intelligently before the proper United States 
 authorities at Washington City, I, in June, 1882, duly brought this entire 
 
32 
 
 subject-matter to the official attention of her then Governor, Hon. George 
 C. Perkins, who, after having maturely considered the same, authorized me 
 to represent the interests of the State of California in all these premises; 
 and in a commission, copy of which is hereto annexed and made a part 
 hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 1, and which appointment so made, the 
 Legislature of California, by its action had thereon third March, 1883, 
 duly validated, ratified, and confirmed, and did therein fix the compensa- 
 tion that I should receive in these premises if successful; and, as will fully 
 appear in copy of said action, and which has been heretofore filed by me 
 as my Exhibit No. 21, in my report on the five per cent claim, and to all 
 of which reference is now made. 
 
 No one, in my opinion, knew better than Governor George C. Perkins of 
 the many efforts that had been made prior to 1882 to secure recognition, 
 adjustment, and full payment of all these old California Indian war 
 claims; and he also knew that most of the eff'orts that has theretofore 
 been made in regard thereto, and for the adjustment thereof, either before 
 the Legislature of California or before the United States authorities, had 
 resulted in signal failures; and he also knew, as every intelligent man 
 must know, that the longer any settlement looking towards the payment 
 of these old claims was delayed, that the chances for success therein 
 would diminish, and grow more and more doubtful year by year, and prob- 
 ably in the end fail in toto. 
 
 Governor Perkins, when a State Senator from Butte County in the Leg- 
 islature of the State of California in 1872 (and before which Legislature 
 and its proper committees I had appeared as attorney to represent certain 
 claimants holding certain valid evidences of this old California Indian war 
 debt, then and now unpaid and due said holders by the State of Cali- 
 fornia), was made the Chairman of a joint committee of the Senate and 
 House that had been created by the Legislature of that year to examine 
 into and report upon the general subject of the California Indian war 
 indebtedness as the same existed in 1872. 
 
 This joint committee made their full report to the Legislature on the 
 twenty-first of February, 1872, copy of which report is hereto attached and 
 made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 2. 
 
 A bill in harmony with, and to carry out the recommendations contained 
 in this report, was thereupon framed, and which bill passed the California 
 Senate in 1872, but failed to pass the California Assembly. Thereafter 
 other strenuous efforts made at the meetings of subsequent Legislatures to 
 secure favorable action on this subject-matter had also all proved equally 
 abortive and equally barren in favorable results. 
 
 I do not know in fact of any one subject-matter that has ever been 
 brought so constantly, or pressed so frequently or so vigorously before the 
 attention of the Legislature of California, or for so long a period of time — 
 for this has been done certainly from 1852 to 1878 — as this one subject 
 of the indebtedness created by the State of California growing out of its 
 Indian hostilities in early years, and as a reference to the messages of the 
 several Governors of California will attest, and as the various resolutions 
 passed by her Legislature, and reports of her State officers, will fully con- 
 firm. Extracts from some of these messages, and resolutions, and reports^ 
 are hereto attached and made parts hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 3. 
 
 A perusal of these last exhibits will serve to show, in part at least, the 
 very unsatisfactory condition of the several branches of this claim of the 
 State of California against the United States at the date when I took 
 charge of these California Indian war claims. It appears that California, 
 when not paying sundry of these claims in cash, as she did, made ample 
 
33 
 
 provision for their -altimate payment by the issuance of interest-bearing 
 bonds, and which were paid to individual claimants in full satisfaction of 
 their claims against the State of California, and as provided for in the Acts 
 of her Legislature, approved February 15, 1851, May 3, 1852, and also by 
 the issuance of certain of non-interest bearing bonds, as provided for in the 
 Act of the Legislature, approved April 25, 1857, and in Acts amendatory 
 thereof and supplemental thereto. 
 
 Up to this date there are still afloat in the hands of bona fide holders and 
 of the officers of the State of California (which last, though paid by the 
 State of California, have not yet been paid by the United States), claims 
 aggregating several thousands of dollars arising under each of the aforesaid 
 Acts of February 15, 1851, May 3, 1852, and April 25, 1857. 
 
 Strange as it may appear, yet the fact is, that while the aforesaid joint 
 committee of the Legislature of 1872 had been appointed to report upon 
 the full history and total amount of all the then unpaid and outstanding 
 indebtedness arising on account of Indian hostilities in California and 
 upon the borders thereof, yet that joint committee, so well composed as it 
 was, with the Hon. George C. Perkins as its Chairman, made no reference 
 whatsoever to any of the indebtedness which was then outstanding and 
 unpaid, and which arose under the Act of the Legislature approved April 
 25, 1857, and Acts amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, but, on 
 the contrary, confined their said report exclusively to so much of said out- 
 standing and unpaid indebtedness as arose under the Acts of January 15, 
 1851, and May 3, 1852, only, and not otherwise. 
 
 In view of the fact that, as my labors in the past have been, and those 
 in the future will be, directed to matters arising under all of said Acts, so 
 too my report therefore will include a proper reference to all proceedings 
 had under each and all thereof, as well as to those arising under such other 
 and different special Acts and resolutions of the Legislature of California 
 as have taken place therein between September 9, 1850, and the first of 
 November, 1886, the date of this report. 
 
 In my efforts in 1881, as State Agent and Counsel for the States of Ore- 
 gon and Nevada, it became necessary for me to secure for them appropriate 
 legislation, by means of- which they could be reimbursed for the expenses 
 by them incurred, respectively, on account of the war of the rebellion; and 
 which legislation had been made necessary by wtue of the provision con- 
 tained in Section No. 3489 of the United States Revised Statutes, and which 
 is as follows, to wit: 
 
 Section 3489. No claims against the United States for collecting, drilling, or organizing vol- 
 unteers for the war of the rebellion, shall be audited or paid unless presented before the thirtieth 
 day of June, eighteen hundred and seventy-four. No claims for horses lost prior to the first day 
 of January, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, shall be audited or paid unless presented before 
 the thirtieth day of June, eighteen hundred and seventy-four. 
 
 The States of Oregon and Nevada had permitted the thirtieth of June, 
 1874, to come and go without having presented to or filed with the proper 
 United States authorities as Washington, D. C, under the Act of Congress 
 approved July 27, 1861, any claim against the United States for the expend- 
 iture of money by them incurred during the war of the rebellion (United 
 States Statutes, volume 12, page 276). At my request, therefore, and in 
 view of the provisions of said Section No. 3489 of the United States Revised 
 Statutes, on December 12, 1881, Senator Grover of Oregon introduced in 
 the Senate, Senate Joint Resolution No. 10 for Oregon, and on December 
 13, 1881, Senator Fair of Nevada also introduced Senate Joint Resolution 
 No. 13 for Nevada, and both of which joint resolutions were referred to 
 
34 
 
 the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, of which Senator Grover was 
 then a member, and he, on May 12, 1882, reported back to the Senate a 
 bill, to wit. Senate Bill No. 1673, as a substitute for both of said two reso- 
 lutions, and which bill had for its object, among other things, to provide 
 for the examination, audit, and report to Congress of the expenses of said 
 two States arising therein between fifteenth April, 1861, and date of the 
 passage thereof, copy of which Bill No. 1673 and of his Report No. 575, 
 made thereon May 12, 1882, is hereto attached and made a part hereof, 
 and marked Exhibits No. 4 and No. 5. 
 
 Having discovered that the State of California was in no better or dif- 
 ferent position in regard to her rebellion war claims than the States of Oregon 
 and Nevada, I, therefore, brought the same to the attention of the late 
 Senator, Hon. John F. Miller of California, and who, on June 8, 1882, 
 submitted an amendment to Senator Grover's said Senate Bill No. 1673, so 
 as to include California. Other amendments having been made in the 
 Senate to this Senate Bill No. 1673, and such as should include the States 
 of Colorado and Nebraska, said bill passed the Senate on the eighth day 
 of June, 1882, and went to the House, where it was still further amended so 
 as to include the State of Kansas, and so amended, it passed the House on 
 June 20, 1882, and went back to the Senate, where upon the motion of 
 Senator Maxey of Texas, said House amendments were concurred in on 
 the same date, June 20, 1882, and said Senate Bill No. 1673 became a law 
 by the approval of the President, on June 27, 1882, copy of which law is 
 hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 6. 
 
 This law was broad enough to cover not only certain Indian war claims 
 of California, Oregon, and Nevada, but also those arising in each thereof 
 during the late war of the rebellion, and under this law I have heretofore 
 filed the rebellion war claims, and Indian war claims, for the States of 
 Oregon and Nevada, and certain Indian war claims and also the rebellion 
 war claims of the State of California (but as to the latter, California's 
 rebellion war claims, a full reference and report thereon will hereinafter 
 appear in a separate paper). 
 
 In order to present to the United States authorities in proper form, all 
 the evidences of all the expenses that had been incurred b}^ the State of 
 California on account of the Indian hostilities that had occurred therein, 
 and for which provision had been made by the passage of this Act of June 
 27, 1882, it has been necessary for me to make annually a trip from Wash- 
 ington City to Sacramento, California, from 1882 to 1886, inclusive, and 
 to there remain several weeks each time, in studying into the history of 
 the legislation that has been heretofore had in regard to this subject by the 
 State of California; and in examining into many thousands of papers and 
 various records and books in the offices of the Governor, Controller, 
 Treasurer, Secretary of State, and Adjutant-General; also to have made 
 certified copies of such books, records, and other archives, which originals 
 could not be spared from said offices, or being not of the classes I had been 
 authorized by the Legislature to receipt for and use, when pressing said 
 claims before the United States authorities, and such as were, in my judg- 
 ment, necessary to have daily at hand in my office at Washington, for an 
 intelligent presentation of these claims to said United States authorities. 
 
 These certified copies of said books, records, archives, and sundry papers 
 have all been paid for at my own expense, aggregating quite a large sum, and 
 made without any cost whatsover to the State of California, and because the 
 terms of the contract made with me by the Legislature of California pro- 
 vided, that, whereas my fee was to be entirely contingent, and to be paid 
 only in the event of my success; that the State of California under no cir- 
 
35 
 
 cumstances should incur any expenses of any kind on account of this or of 
 any of these other several claims; so that if the ^tate'of California in the 
 end failed to secure any recognition and payment for any of these several 
 claims, she would not be at any expense in the premises, and all of which 
 expense devolved upon me to meet and pay, and all of which I have done. 
 
 The examinations by me made into these several claims, soon disclosed 
 the fact that said Act of Congress, approved June 27, 1882, while ample to 
 meet California's rebellion claims, was not adequate to meet fully all her 
 Indian war claims, and because outside of the claims for the war of the 
 rebellion, most of the war claims in California had arisen prior to fifteenth 
 April, 1861, and for those Indian war claims arising prior to fifteenth April, 
 1861, said Act failed to made any provision, as said Act, by its own terms, 
 was declared by the United States authorities to be limited exclusively to 
 those claims that had arisen in California subsequent, and not prior to 
 fifteenth April, 1861. 
 
 This condition of things I thereupon made known to your office by 
 appropriate reports, whereupon you conferred upon me your authority to 
 represent among other things, such of these California claims as might not 
 have been covered by or included in any prior appointment (copy of said 
 authority is hereto appended, and marked Exhibit No. 7), and which 
 appointment so made, the Legislature of California, on the third of March, 
 1885, duly validated, ratified, and confirmed in Senate Concurrent Reso- 
 lution No. 3, copy of which is hereto appended and made a part hereof, 
 and marked Exhibit No. 8. 
 
 In order, therefore, to meet this new condition of things, I prepared an 
 appropriate resolution, and presented the same to Hon. W. S. Rosecrans, 
 then in Congress from California, who at my request, introduced the same 
 in the House of Representatives on the twenty-fifth day of February, 1884, 
 and which was referred to the House Committee on Military Aff'airs, and 
 of which he was then Chairman. I thereafter prepared an argument in 
 support of said resolution, and submitted the same to the House Committee 
 on Military Affairs, whereupon the matter was favorably reported upon 
 from said committee on March 18, 1884, copy of which resolution and 
 Report No. 807, made thereon, are hereto attached and made parts hereof, 
 and marked respectively Exhibits Nos. 9 and 10. 
 
 The phraseology of said resolution was slightly changed by said com- 
 mittee, and for reasons set forth in a letter to me from General W. S. 
 Rosecrans, of January 21, 1885, original of which is hereto attached and 
 made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 11. 
 
 An examination of said Report No. 807 will show that said committee 
 fully used my said argument as their appendix " B " in support of said 
 resolution. 
 
 While urging this view of the case, I also prepared sundry other separate 
 and independent bills to meet these same California Indian war claims, 
 and at my request the same were duly introduced in the House and Senate, 
 and as follows, to wit: 
 
 H. R. No. 50, by Hon. W. S. Rosecrans, December 10, 1883. 
 
 H. R. No. 69, by Hon. W. S. Rosecrans, December 10, 1883. 
 
 H. R. No. 6099, by Hon. Barclay Henley, March 24, 1884. 
 
 H. R. No. 6669, by Hon. Barclay Henley, April 21, 1884. 
 
 H. R. No. 7975, by Hon. Barclay Henley, January 19, 1885. 
 
 H. R. No. 8149, by Hon. Barclay Henley, February 2, 1885. 
 
 Senate Bill No. 809, by Hon. John F. Miller, December 19, 1883. 
 
 Senate Bill No. 811, by Hon. John F. Miller, December 19, 1883. 
 
 Senate Bill No. 1917, by Hon. John F. Miller, March 24, 1884. 
 
36 
 
 Senate Bill No. 1970, by Hon. John F. Miller,' April 1, 1884. 
 
 Copies of which are hereto appended and made parts hereof, and marked 
 Exhibit No. Hi 
 
 In support of these sundry bills, I prepared and filed with the appropri- 
 ate committees in both Senate and House, and the California delegation 
 in Congress, sundry arguments, copies of which are hereto attached and 
 made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 12. 
 
 Notwithstanding frequent and often importunate efforts on my part to 
 secure action on some of the bills in the House, and particularly by the 
 House Committee on War Claims, to which most of the same had been 
 referred, and though Mr. Tully of California was a member of the House 
 War Claims Committee, I was unable during the whole of the Forty-eighth 
 Congress to even get said bills considered. It is true, certain days were fixed 
 by said committee at which it was agreed to hear me in an oral argument 
 thereon, but when such days arrived said committee could not and did not 
 muster a quorum of its members; and the consequence was that our Cali- 
 fornia Indian war claims, no adequate provision of law then existing, went 
 by the board, unacted on and unconsidered during the whole of the Forty- 
 eighth Congress. 
 
 In this dilemma, I made the effort to secure a recognition of at least a 
 portion thereof, by an appropriate amendment therefor to one of the appro- 
 priation bills; and with this object in view, I prepared an amendment, 
 supported by proper correspondence, and which, at my request, was intro- 
 duced by Hon. Barclay Henley, and duly submitted to the House Com- 
 mittee on Appropriations, copy of which is hereto attached and made a 
 part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 13. But this effort bore no good 
 fruit. 
 
 In the Senate the aforesaid Senate bills fared no better fate. Senator 
 Miller's Senate Bill No. 809 was referred to Senate Committee on Military 
 Affairs, and after sundry correspondence between that committee and the 
 War Department that bill was unfavorably reported upon, and as will fully 
 appear in Senate Miscellaneous Document No. 40, and Senate Report No. 
 158, first session Forty-eighth Congress, copies of which are hereto attached 
 and made a part hereof, marked Exhibit No. 14. 
 
 The impossibility of holding such bills in the Senate after adverse action 
 had been had thereon, is fully set forth in a letter to me by the late Senator 
 Hon. John F. Millar, dated April 2, 1884, original of which is hereto 
 attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 15. 
 
 Not set back by this unfavorable action, I prepared appropriate amend- 
 ments to be proposed to the appropriation bills then pending in the Senate, 
 and at my request the same were presented by Hon. Senators Farley and 
 Miller, copies of which are hereto appended and made parts hereof, and 
 marked Exhibits No. 16 and No. 17, respectively. 
 
 Prior to this date and in order to fortify myself with all official statistics 
 needed in order to show to Congress just exactly the true history thereof, 
 Hon. James T. Farley and Hon. C. P. Berry of California, and Hon. James 
 H. Slater of Oregon, at my special request, made sundry calls upon the 
 Treasury Department in regard thereto, and copies of the correspondence 
 had thereon are hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked 
 Exhibit No. 18, same being: 
 
 1. Letter of Hon. C. P. Berry to Third Auditor, of December 23, 1882. 
 
 2. Reply of Third Auditor thereto, of January 3, 1883. 
 
 3. Letter of Hon. Secretary of Treasury, January 8, 1883, with a state- 
 ment of Third Auditor, of January 8, 1883. 
 
37 
 
 4. Letter of Hon. Secretary of the Treasury to Hon. James T. Farley, of 
 January 15, 1881, with letter of Third Auditor, of January 11, 1881. 
 
 5. Letter of Third Auditor to Hon. James H. Slater, of January 24, 1883. 
 
 While the foregoing was being done in Congress, I also made, two sepa- 
 rate and distinct efforts before the Treasury Department to secure recog- 
 nition of at least a portion of these claims, and duly submitted the same 
 to the Third Auditor of the Treasury, even under existing laws; and with 
 this object in view I filed with that officer classified abstracts of said 
 claims, and supported same by vouchers in tabulated form and in large 
 bound volumes, copies of which abstracts are too large to now appear herein 
 -as exhibits in this report, but which I now file in your office, and call them 
 my Exhibit No. 19 to this report. 
 
 The results of the action had thereon by the Third Auditor is set forth 
 in his letters to me of eighteenth August, 1885, and November 23, 1885, 
 copies of which are hereto attached and made parts hereof, and marked 
 Exhibits No. 20 and No. 21, respectively. 
 
 In order to throw official light upon a portion of these claims, and in 
 order that the Senators and Representatives in Congress from California 
 should cooperate with the State authorities in securing such legislation by 
 Congress as should secure their favorable recognition, and ultimately their 
 final payment, the Legislature of California, on March 30, 1878, adopted 
 Assembly Joint Resolution No. 73, and under which the late Hon. W. B. C. 
 Brown, on May 27, 1878, as Controller of the State of California, submitted 
 to Hon. William Irwin, then Governor of California, an official report upon 
 these California Indian war claims, copy of which is hereto attached and 
 made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 22. 
 
 It. will be observed that the late Controller Brown limited his reports to 
 such claims and outstanding and unpaid indebtedness as had arisen under 
 the Acts of February 15, 1851, and May 3, 1852; his report being as a 
 matter of fact more silent than that of said joint committee upon such 
 claims as had arisen under the Act of April 25, 1857, and Acts amenda- 
 tory thereof and supplemental thereto. An impression in 1872 and in 1878, 
 and even up to the time I took hold of these claims, seems to have existed, 
 that all indebtedness arising under said Act of April 25, 1857, and Acts 
 supplemental thereto and amendatory thereof, had been all fully adjusted, 
 which is not the fact. 
 
 Having thus exhausted every proper effort for both an executive and 
 legislative remedy in these premises during the Forty-eighth Congress, I 
 thereupon, to wit, on January 20, 1885, submitted to you a report in writing, 
 -accompanied with a printed statement, that related exclusively to the cases 
 that then existed under the aforesaid Acts of February 15, 1851, and May 
 3, 1852, reserving to myself the intention and duty to report to you at a 
 subsequent date and in another report such claims as had arisen under 
 other Acts of the Legislature of California. 
 
 As many of the matters by me presented to you in my said report are 
 important to be known in connection herewith, I now append hereto a copy 
 of said report and make the same a part hereof, and mark it Exhibit No. 22. 
 
 When the Forty-ninth Congress convened, I renewed my efforts in behalf 
 of these same measures and in the manner following, to wit: 
 
 I prepared, and at my request there were introduced in the House of 
 Representatives as follows, to wit: 
 
 H. R. No. 153, December 21, 1885, by Hon. Barclay Henley of Cahfornia. 
 
 H. R. No. 155, December 21, 1885, by Hon. Barclay Henley of California. 
 
 H. R. No. 5566, February 15, 1886, by Hon. Barclay Henley of California. 
 
 H. R. No. 8732, May 10, 1886, by Hon. Barclay Henley of California. 
 
38 
 
 H. R. No. 8149, February 2, 1885, by Hon. Barclay Henley of California. 
 
 Copies of which are hereto appended and made a part hereof, and 
 marked Exhibit No. 23. 
 
 In support of these bills I appeared before the House Committee on War 
 Claims, by appointment granted me therefor, and submitted to said com- 
 mittee an oral argument, and on February 22, 1886, I further submitted a 
 special argument in writing in support of said H. R. No. 5566, copy of which 
 is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 24. 
 
 Whereupon said War Claim Committee, on twenty-third March, 1886, 
 submitted to the House a favorable report, to wit: House Report No. 1298 
 on said bill, H. R. No. 5596, copy of which bill as amended by said com- 
 mittee, and of its Report No. 1298 made thereon, are hereto appended and 
 made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 25. 
 
 It will be observed by the reading of said report, that said War Claims 
 Committee recommended that California be granted nearly all that I had 
 claimed in her behalf; the principal exception being that of interest on the 
 principal she had borrowed or expended in these premises, and as I was 
 then engaged in endeavoring to secure for California such interest as she 
 had actually paid out on all of her war claim expenditures, and in a sep- 
 arate and independent bill (a report upon all of which will hereinafter 
 more fully appear), I deemed it wise not to antagonize that particular 
 recommendation of the War Claims Committee, but to await the proper 
 time, and then meet the same whenever said separate bill for interest 
 should be under consideration in either the Senate or in the House, and in 
 the meanwhile to accept this action of the War Claims Committee, which 
 at that time seemed to me to be the very best that I could secure at its 
 hands. 
 
 While thus engaged in securing from Congress by appropriate and 
 separate bills the most favorable report possible in behalf of these meas- 
 ures, I framed sundry letters of inquiry, which, at my solicitation, the Hon. 
 Barclay Henley addressed to the proper officers of the Treasury Department, 
 replies to which, under date of March 20, 1886, from Third Auditor, and 
 June 22, and July 2, 1886, from the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, 
 are hereto attached and made parts hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 26. 
 
 Having thus secured a favorable report on the aforesaid H. R. No. 5566, 
 and having also, and that, too, in an official form, been put in possession of 
 such authentic information regarding some of these claims as might be 
 appropriately used by the House Committee on Appropriations if it were 
 disposed to use the same, I thereupon framed sundry communications of 
 request, which, at my solicitation, the Hon. Barclay Henley addressed to 
 the Hon. Samuel I. Randall, Chairman of said committee, the intention 
 thereof being to secure, by a proper amendment to the appropriation bills, 
 provision to cover some of these claims, copies of which communications are 
 hereto appended and made parts hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 26^. 
 
 Failing to secure by this proceeding at the hands of said committee in 
 the House that favorable recognition of these measures which I thought 
 they were then justly entitled to receive, I thereafter renewed the same by 
 similar efforts in the Senate, where, at my request. Senator Stanford, on 
 sixth of April, 1886, submitted to the Senate Indian Appropriation Bill H. 
 R. No. 5543, an amendment having this same object in view, copy of 
 which is hereto appended and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit 
 No. 27. 
 
 At my request also, Senator Hearst submitted to the Deficiency Appro- 
 priation Bill H. R. No. 9726, an amendment also having this same object 
 in view, copy of which amendment, together with a printed statement pre- 
 
39 
 
 pared by me in support of said amendment so proposed by Senator Hearst, 
 is hereto appended and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 28. 
 
 These efforts of mine in the Senate proved to be as barren of favorable 
 results as had attended my similar efforts in the House, so that the first 
 session of the forty-ninth Congress adjourned, leaving the legislation pre- 
 pared and proposed to adjust these claims, and in the manner herein out- 
 lined, in an unfinished state. Progress, however, more than had ever 
 before been made in regard thereto had been secured, and because the pro- 
 visions contained in H. R. No. 5566 vests in the proper United States 
 authorities power to examine, and audit, and pay all Indian war claims 
 arising in the State of California and upon the borders thereof (including 
 the redemption of certain California Indian war bonds), between Septem- 
 ber 9, 1850 — date, of the admission of California in the Union — to April 15, 
 1861, on which last named date the Act of June 27, 1882, would take up 
 the remainder of such claims, to wit, those arising between April 15, 1861, 
 and June 27, 1882, so that by these two Acts taken jointly, California 
 would have ample authority of law under and by which to have, in time, 
 duly examined and audited and paid all claims arising therein and upon 
 the borders thereof between September 9, 1850, and June 27, 1882, and 
 whether the same included Indian war claims or claims arising during the 
 war of the rebellion, and which she has heretofore paid. 
 
 In addition to the foregoing, and in order that the State of California 
 should be fully reimbursed for expenses by her incurred for the payment 
 of certain Indian depredation claims, and in order that her citizens also 
 might be fully reimbursed for expenses and losses of property by them 
 incurred on account of various Indian depredations in California, and for 
 which, as the several exhibits submitted herewith fully show, the Legisla- 
 ture has so often besought Congress to enact adequate legislation, in order 
 that same be paid, and all of which efforts had up to this time proved fruitless, 
 I prepared three bills, which at my request were introduced in the House 
 of Representatives by Hon. Barclay Henley of California, to wit, H. R. 
 No. 5209, on February 8, 1886, and H. R. No. 8080, and H. R. No. 8082, on 
 April 19, 1886. Similar bills were also at my request introduced in the 
 Senate by Senator Dolph of Oregon, and supported by an argument, the 
 statistics of which were prepared by my associates, Messrs. Charles and 
 William B. King, and myself. 
 
 After various efforts to secure action on these House bills by the House 
 Committee on Indian Affairs, to which the same were referred, that com- 
 mittee granted Messrs. King and myself several audiences, where and 
 when we submitted sundry oral arguments. That committee favorably 
 reported a substitute for all of said bills and sundry others, all relating to 
 the same subject, to wit, H. R. 9729, on the thirtieth June, 1886, with a 
 favorable report, to wit. House Report No. 3117. Copies of all of which 
 are hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 29. 
 ^ No action was taken on this measure in the Senate. It is therefore my 
 high privilege to be enabled to report to you, that for the first time in the 
 history of Congressional legislation has any committee of either the House of 
 Representatives or of the Senate ever recommended the passage by Congress of 
 a general bill to meet and pay for losses sustained on account of Indian dep- 
 redations throughout the United States. 
 
 My own judgment ever has been, and now is, that the only proper way 
 to secure relief for the State of California, and for those of her citizens who 
 have sustained losses in this class of cases, was, not by a special, but by a 
 general bill, and for this reason, in this case, and in sundry other claims 
 
40 
 
 in which Cahfornia had an interest in common with the other States, I 
 thought the proper proceeding to be had was by general legislation. 
 
 In conclusion, I beg to report to you that I feel quite confident that in 
 due time all California Indian war claims will receive full attention at the 
 hands of the proper United States authorities, and wherefore I shall here- 
 after renew my efforts in behalf of these several measures, knowing, as I do, 
 that the main work in these premises has already been done by me, and 
 which work, in due time, must, in my opinion, eventuate in giving the 
 State of California all proper benefits of these equitable claims, when the 
 proceeds arising therefrom can be expended for such purposes as the 
 Legislature of California may hereafter wisely determine. 
 
 All of which is now very respectfully submitted. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 
 Agent and Counsel for the State of California. 
 
 No. 5. REBELLION WAR CLAIMS. 
 
 My examination into the general subject-matter of the rebellion war 
 claims of the States of Oregon and Nevada, whose agent and counsel I for 
 several years last past have been and still am, brought me naturally in 
 contact with similar matters arising in the State of California. 
 
 Prior to November 27, 1879, not knowing that any appointment had been 
 made by any officer, or by the Legislature of the State of California, to rep- 
 resent these California rebellion claims, I wrote to Hon. William Irwin in 
 relation thereto, and in reply he told me he would consult with the Attor- 
 ney-General (then Hon. Jo Hamilton) in regard thereto. 
 
 A long time elapsing, and not hearing further from either Governor 
 Irwin or from Attorney-General Hamilton in regard thereto, on November 
 27, 1879, I wrote to Hon. James A. Johnson, then lieutenant-Governor of 
 California, and requested him to see Attorney-General Hamilton in my 
 behalf in regard thereto. To this letter Hon. James A. Johnson replied 
 on December 2, 1879, in a letter, original of which is hereto attached and 
 made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 1. 
 
 Following up the information contained in said letter, I had knowledge 
 for the first time that the Legislature of California had, on March 1, 1872, 
 by Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 36 (California Statutes 1871-1872, 
 page 958), made provision for the presentation. to the proper United States 
 authorities at Washington of its rebellion war claims; and by it I also 
 learned, that though seven years had come and gone, there had not been 
 any presentation of said claims, or anything done in regard to same up to 
 twenty-sixth February, 1881, when the Legislature of California passed a 
 second, to wit. Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 12, in regard thereto 
 (California Statutes 1881, page 100), copies of which resolutions and of 
 the action had thereunder by Hon. Newton Booth and Hon. George C. 
 Perkins, when Governors of California, are hereto attached and made a part 
 hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 2. 
 
 Thereafter the provisions of Section No. 3489, U. S. Revised Statutes, 
 came to my knowledge, and wherein it was provided as follows, to wit: 
 
 Section No. 3489. No claims against the United States for collecting, drilling, or organ- 
 izing volunteers for the war of the rebellion, shall be audited or paid unless presented 
 before the thirtieth day of June, eighteen hundred and seventy-four. No claims for horses 
 lost prior to the first day of January, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, shall be audited 
 or paid unless presented before the thirtieth day of June, eighteen hundred and seventy- 
 four. 
 
41 
 
 In view of the matters therein contained, I brought this subject-matter 
 to the attention of the late Senator, Hon. John F. Miller, and who, to remedy 
 this matter, in so far as California was concerned, moved, at my request, 
 to amend Senator Grover's Oregon and Nevada Rebellion Claim Bill No. 
 1673, as hereinbefore reported, by inserting "California," so that by the 
 passage of the Act of Congress of June 27, 1882, there was enacted ample 
 provision of law by which all of California's rebellion war claims could 
 thereafter be examined, audited, and reported by the proper accounting 
 officers of the United States Treasury to Congress for final payment. 
 
 After the passage of said Act of Congress of June 27, 1882, under arrange- 
 ments made between Hon. James E. Hale and Thomas M. Nosier and 
 myself, I was placed in possession of all the papers, vouchers, and docu- 
 ments, and evidences in support of portions of these claims, which for ten 
 (10) years had laid in Washington City boxed up, unacted on, unclassified, 
 and unexamined for any purpose whatsoever. 
 
 Finding these claims in much confusion, and that many thereof were 
 missing and many links of valid evidence needed to properly support the 
 same for presentation to the United States authorities, and there being no 
 evidence of payment filed with any thereof, and because the Controller's 
 original warrants drawn in payment thereof, and upon which in nearly all 
 cases are indorsed a proper receipt, were not filed with any of these claims^ 
 I thereupon called upon State Treasurer January to surrender to me such 
 of these original warrants issued in payment of these claims as, having 
 been paid and canceled, were then on file in his office. 
 
 The chief value of these paid and canceled warrants at that time was 
 that they constituted original evidence to the United States of payment by 
 the State, and should have been surrendered by the State of California as 
 so many sub-vouchers to support her claim for reimbursement by the 
 United States. 
 
 Mr. January, however, declined to accede to my request, and refused to 
 surrender to me or to my duly authorized agent any of said paid and can- 
 celed warrants for such public use. 
 
 In the preparation, classification, and abstracting of and placing with 
 each the exact evidence that pertained thereto, I had to proceed, therefore, 
 without such original warrants, and until such time as the Legislature 
 should next meet, and when its authority for the delivery to me of all such 
 original warrants, and of any other original papers that I might need in the 
 proper presentation of these claims would be invoked. 
 . This matter was therefore brought to the attention of the Legislature that 
 convened in January, 1885, and that body, after fully considering the same, 
 did among other things, duly authorize the surrender to me of all said 
 original warrants; and as will fully appear from copy of its action had in 
 regard thereto on March 3, 1885, and which has been heretofore filed as my 
 Exhibit No. 8, in my report on " California Indian War Claims,^'' and to all 
 of which reference is now made. 
 
 These warrants were subsequently got together, boxed, and sent by 
 express to me, at Washington City, at my expense. Each warrant was 
 thereafter duly placed with the particular claim to which it belonged, and 
 in payment of which it had been issued by the Controller of the State of 
 California. The work of the proper classification, and abstracting, etc., of 
 all the evidences in support of this rebellion claim — involving, as it did, 
 the handling and rehandling and careful examination of over 100,000 
 papers — has had my attention, with the aid of never less than three and 
 sometimes that of five clerks, continually for the four years last past. I 
 therefore now have the honor to report to you that, on the eighteenth day 
 
42 
 
 of September, 1886, I duly filed all the papers, vouchers, warrants, and 
 other evidences in support of the rebellion war claims of the State of Cal- 
 ifornia with the honorable Secretary of the Treasury, whose duty it is also 
 made under said Act of June 27, 1882, to examine and report upon the 
 whole thereof. (See copy of letter to the Secretary of the Treasury for 
 September 18, 1886, and of affidavit therein referred^ to, and made a part 
 hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 9.) 
 
 These papers occupy eight large packing boxes; the abstracts thereof 
 alone comprise bound volumes, and which abstracts have been by me pre- 
 pared on heavy sheets of paper, eighteen inches by twenty-three inches, 
 and strongly and neatly bound in separate volumes; and all this too has 
 been done at my own expense. 
 
 Duplicates of these several abstracts in twenty-one bound volumes, one 
 each for Abstracts A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, N, 0, and three of P, and 
 five of Q, have also been made by me, and all of which I now submit you 
 herewith, and which volumes will constitute a permanent record in the 
 proper State office in evidence of at least a part of the work that has been 
 done by me in regard to these claims, and which possibly may prove of 
 some value as books of reference whenever any matter in regard to any of 
 these claims shall hereafter arise. 
 
 No injury whatsoever has occurred to the State of California by virtue of 
 any delay while these papers were in my custody for examination and 
 proper preparation prior to filing the same with the proper United States 
 authorities, and because even had they been filed prior to the date when 
 they were actually filed by me, no action whatsoever would have been had 
 thereon, and because similar rebellion war claims, that over two years ago 
 had been filed by me for the States of Oregon and Nevada, lay unacted 
 upon in the War Department; and because of the allegation by Hon. 
 Robert T. Lincoln, Secretary of War, that the aforesaid Act of June 27, 
 1882, under which said Oregon and Nevada claims were to be examined, 
 imposed upon the War Office new and additional duties, without at the 
 same time placing at his disposal new or additional force for this examina- 
 tion, and that he wanted Congress to appropriate the sum of $25,000 to aid 
 him to do this work, and in its annual estimates in 1884 and 1886 the 
 War Department made a call for this $25,000 for said purposes. 
 
 Learning, therefore, the cause of the non-action in the War Department 
 on these claims, I called the matter to the attention of Senator Dolph of 
 Oregon, who, on February 19, 1885, submitted an amendment to the Sundry 
 Civil Appropriation Bill, to appropriate said $25,000 for this purpose, but 
 this amendment failed to secure any favorable action in the Senate. 
 
 I also on February 16, 1885, brought this matter to the attention of 
 Hon. 0. Welborn of Texas, in a communication, copies of which are hereto 
 attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 2^. 
 
 Nothing having been done in these premises during the Forty-eighth 
 Congress, the matter was by me called to the attention of Senator Maxey 
 of Texas, who, as a member of the Committee on Military Affairs, when 
 the said Act of June 27, 1882, became a law, had taken much interest 
 therein, and because of the fact that Texas was one of the States named in 
 the said Act of June 27, 1882, and he had an interview with the Secretary 
 of War, Mr. Endicott; whereupon the Secretary of War, on January 27, 
 1886, wrote Senator Maxey a letter, a copy of which is hereto appended 
 and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 3; whereupon Senator 
 Maxey, on the twenty-ninth of January, 1886, introduced in the Senate a 
 bill to meet this special want, to wit. Senate Bill No. 1284, copy of which 
 is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 4. 
 
43 
 
 No action having been taken* on this separate Bill No. 1284 of Senator 
 Maxey, and, appreciating as I did (probably even more than any other 
 one person, for 1 now represented three of the States named in said Act of 
 June 27, 1882, to wit, California, Oregon, and Nevada, that were then and are 
 now interested in this proposed legislation) the importance of getting some 
 early action by the War Department in these premises, I again brought 
 this matter to the attention of Senator Maxey, who, at my request, on the 
 first day of July, 1886, introduced an amendment to the Sundry Civil 
 Appropriation Bill (H. R. No. 9478) to appropriate said $25,000, copy of 
 which is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit 
 No. 5. 
 
 The Senate Committee on Appropriations would not recommend an 
 appropriation for this particular sum, but did recommend an appropria- 
 tion for this purpose of $7,500, but which sum was, on July 24, 1886, upon 
 the motion of Senator Allison of Iowa, increased to $10,000. 
 
 When this particular amendment was reached in the Senate, on July 
 24, 1886, a long and acrimonious debate was had thereon, so much so that 
 even said appropriation of $10,000 came very near being lost, and as will 
 fully appear from copy of said proceedings had thereon in the Senate, on 
 the twenty-fourth of July, 1886, hereto appended and made a part 
 hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 6. 
 
 Having discovered in the examination of these claims, that certain 
 original evidence in a part thereof was wanting, and all of which, in my 
 judgment, was necessary for the War Department to have and in order to 
 validly support the same, and after diligent search made by me in Sacra- 
 mento, aided by Controller John P. Dunn, and his assistant, J. M. O'Reilly, 
 of the Controller's office, and by General Geo. Cosby, and his son, and by 
 his assistant, Colonel Tobin, and by two State Treasurers and their assist- 
 ants, and by the Secretary of State, and having failed to find the missing 
 links of that evidence which was so necessary to have in my judgment, 
 I deemed it proper to secure the passage of a law by Congress, whereby 
 we could use such secondary evidence as might be available in these prem- 
 ises, and a bill for this purpose was therefore prepared by me, and at 
 my request was introduced in the Senate, on December 13, 1883, by Sena- 
 tor Jones of Nevada, and favorably reported upon on January 13, 1885, 
 by Senator Dolph, but which bill failed to pass, copies of which bill. No. 
 656, and report thereon. No. 984, are hereto attached and made a part 
 hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 6|. 
 
 Wherefore I renewed my efforts in the same direction in the Forty-ninth 
 Congress, and at my request. Senator Dolph of Oregon, on December 8, 
 1885, introduced in the Senate, Senate Bill No. 71, and which was favora- 
 bly reported upon in the Senate on February 3, 1886, and favorably reported 
 upon February 17, 1886, in the House, in House Report No. 572, and 
 became a law on the fourth of August, 1886. Copies of which bill and of 
 said law are hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit 
 No. 7. 
 
 You therefore have in the foregoing synopsis, a history of a portion of 
 my efforts, covering a long period of time and accompanied with much 
 labor of myself and of my assistants, all of whose services, together with 
 the expenses necessarily incident to the preparation in proper form of these 
 claims, have been all met, and all paid for exclusively at my own expense. 
 
 Immediately after the adjournment of Congress, to wit, on the eighteenth 
 of September, 1886, I requested the honorable Secretary of War, in writ- 
 ing, to create the Board of three army officers, which the aforesaid law 
 vested in him authority to do, and which Board was ordered on October 
 
44 
 
 6, 1886, to be convened, and as will appeat from copy of the War Depart- 
 ment Order No. 282 issued therein, and now hereto attached and made a 
 part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 8. 
 
 When said Board shall have examined and considered the claims of the 
 State of California, the results of their examination from time to time I 
 have no doubt will be submitted to me, and my further action thereon 
 will depend upon the character of their examination by said Board, and a 
 report on all of which will thereafter be submitted by me to your office for 
 its information, and that of the Legislature of California, and of such 
 other parties as may be interested therein. 
 
 All of which is now very respectfully submitted. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 
 Agent and Attorney for the State of California. 
 
 No. 6. CLAIM OF INTEREST EARNED BY THE STATE OP 
 CALIFORNIA ON WAR CLAIMS. 
 
 My. examination into the subject-matter of the several war claims of 
 the States of California, Oregon, and Nevada disclosed the fact that said 
 States had in some instances been compelled to borrow money with which 
 to pay cash for some of these claims, and to pay interest on the sums so 
 borrowed and so paid out on account of said claims, while in other instances 
 they had issued interest-bearing bonds. 
 
 It therefore appeared to me that if these States had a valid claim against 
 the United States for the reimbursement to them of the principal which 
 they had respectively expended in the payment of those expenses which 
 constituted a proper charge against the United States, that these same 
 States also had an equally valid claim against the United States for the 
 reimbursement to them by the United States of such interest as they had 
 paid out when compelled to go into the money markets of the country to 
 borrow money with which to pay said claims. 
 
 This proposition appeared to me to be both logical and equitable, and 
 while it was true that Congress,- when legislating on July 27, 1861, to reim- 
 burse the several States of the Union for such expenses as by them had 
 been incurred during the war of the rebellion, had not made any provision 
 for the payment of interest on the principal therein provided for in the event 
 any State had to borrow said principal, and had not made any provision 
 for the payment of interest in any of its other special acts that related to 
 any one of these three States where said States had paid interest, yet it 
 appeared to me that it was in all respects proper for me to endeavor to 
 secure the enactment of a law by Congress by which this claim, which 
 existed only in equity, should be recognized by law. 
 
 For this purpose I framed two special bills limited in their provisions to 
 California, Oregon, and Nevada, one of which, to wit. Senate Bill No. 320, 
 at my request the late Senator Hon. John F. Miller introduced in the 
 Senate on fifth of December, 1883, copy of which is hereto attached and 
 made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 1, and the other, to wit, H. 
 R. No. 109, was also at my request introduced in the House on tenth 
 December, 1883, by Hon. Barclay Henley, copy of which is hereto attached 
 and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 2. 
 
 These two bills, it will be perceived, covered interest for two classes of 
 claims: 
 
 First — "Interest upon loans or money borrowed and actually expended 
 
45 
 
 by them for the use and benefit of the United States during the late war 
 for suppressing insurrection and rehellionT 
 
 Second — Interest upon loans or money borrowed and actually expended 
 by them for the use and benefit of the United States on account of Indian 
 hostilities in said States and Territories. 
 
 After these two bills had been introduced inthe Forty-eighth Congress, I 
 soon discovered that while there were a number of eastern members in 
 that Congress who seemed willing to reimburse California, Oregon, and 
 Nevada for interest they had paid out on account of the war of the " rehel- 
 lion^^^ yet these same men were not equally willing to reimburse these 
 same States for interest where the same had been by them paid out on 
 account of ^^ Indian hostilities.''^ In view thereof, and having maturely 
 considered this subject from many points of view, and desiring as I did, 
 to secure favorable action upon both of these propositions, and to avoid 
 having these bills, as presented, being amended by leaving intact one, 
 and striking out the other of said two provisions, and thereby jeopardize 
 in the future the success of the one so stricken out, I deemed it best to 
 proceed in two separate bills, the one to be limited to interest paid out on 
 account of the rebellion war claims, and the other on account of Indian 
 war hostilities, and in order that this measure for the payment of interest 
 should have a general support, I deemed it wise to make both of said bills 
 general by applying to all States and Territories alike. 
 
 I therefore prepared for this purpose two separate and independent bills, 
 one of which, at my request, to wit, H. R. No. 2930, was on January 8, 1884, 
 introduced in the House, limited to Indian hostilities., and a similar bill, to 
 wit, H. R. No. 2463, on the same day, limited to the war of the rebellion^ was, 
 at my suggestion, introduced, and both referred to the House Committee 
 on War Claims; copies of which are hereto attached and made a part 
 hereof, and marked Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4. 
 
 In support of these several bills I prepared and had printed at my own 
 expense appropriate arguments, and submitted the same to said Committee 
 on War Claims, copies of which are hereto attached and made a part hereof, 
 and marked Exhibits No. 5 and No. 5^. 
 
 At the same time I prepared, and had printed and submitted to each of 
 the members of the delegations from California, Oregon, and Nevada, and 
 of said committee, a circular letter, a copy of which is hereto attached, and 
 made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 6. 
 
 This War Claims Committee, having maturely considered the subject- 
 matter, did on April 1, 1884, make a favorable report thereon, to wit. 
 Report No. 1102, copy of which is hereto attached, and made a part hereof, 
 and marked Exhibit No. 7. 
 
 For reasons before stated I thought it equally wise to proceed in the Sen- 
 ate by separate bills, but deemed it prudent not to have any action taken 
 in the Senate until after the House had acted thereon. As soon as the House 
 War Claims Committee made its said report on April 1, 1884, partly at my 
 suggestion, a bill, to wit. Senate Bill No. 2000 (similar in all respects to H. 
 R. No. 2364) was introduced in the Senate on April 5, 1884, and referred 
 to the Senate Committee on Claims, and which committee, on May 28, 1884, 
 favorably reported said Senate Bill No. 2000 in its Senate Report No. 590, 
 copies of which bill and report are hereto appended and made a part hereof, 
 and marked Exhibit No. 8. 
 
 In view of what had then already taken place on said Senate Bill No. 
 2000, and said House Bill No. 2364, I deemed it proper and my duty to 
 bring the same to the attention of the Legislature of California at its next 
 
46 
 
 session, to wit, in January, 1885, and for this purpose I submitted a report 
 thereon to your office. 
 
 Thereafter the Legislature, having had the matter under its consideration, 
 did, on fifth of March, 1885, pass Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 25, 
 copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked 
 Exhibit No. 8i . . 
 
 Copies of this resolution having been forwarded to me by the honorable 
 Secretary of State, under the seal of his office, from Sacramento, were by 
 me filed with the appropriate committees in both Senate and House, and 
 given to the members of our California delegation in Congress. 
 
 The subject-matter of this interest claim of the State of California, I 
 had prior thereto made known to your office, by appropriate reports, where- 
 upon you thereafter conferred upon me your authority to represent it 
 among other claims; copy of your said authority has been heretofore ap- 
 pended, as my Exhibit No. 7, in my report on " California Indian War 
 Claim^s,'^ and to which reference is now made, and all of which appoint- 
 ments so made, the Legislature of California, on third March, 1885, duly 
 validated, ratified, and confirmed, in Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 3, 
 copy of which has been heretofore appended as my Exhibit No. 8, in my 
 report on ^'California Indian War Claims, ^^ and to which reference is now 
 made. 
 
 Though every proper effort was made by me and by other friends of this 
 measure to secure consideration of these bills and reports during the Forty- 
 eighth Congress, that Congress adjourned without even considering the 
 same; but both bills stood on the calendars of both the Senate and House 
 on the day of the sine die adjournment of the Forty-eighth Congress with 
 favorable reports. 
 
 When the Forty-ninth Congress convened I renewed my efforts in behalf 
 of this same measure and in the manner following, to wit: I prepared three 
 bills, and, at my request, the same were introduced, as follows, to wit, H. R. 
 No. 163, by Hon. Barclay Henley, December 21, 1885, a general bill for 
 interest on account of Indian hostilities,^^ and H. R. No. 152, by Hon. Barclay 
 Henley, December 21, 1885, and Senate Bill No. 59, by General Cullom, 
 December 8, 1885, general bills for interest on account of the " War of the 
 Rebellion J^ Copies of which are hereto attached and made a part hereof, 
 and marked Exhibit No. 9. 
 
 Said Senate Bill No. 59 was favorably reported upon on sixteenth Decem- 
 ber, 1885, by Senator Hoar, in Senate Report No. 2, copy of which is hereto 
 attached and made a part thereof, and marked Exhibit No. 10. And the 
 Senate favorably recognized the principles contained in said bills by reiter- 
 ating the same thereafter during the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress 
 in its Senate Report No. 183, made by Senator Hampton on March 3, 1886, 
 in the " Florida case." Copy of which is hereto attached and made a part 
 hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 11. 
 
 The position of the House of Representatives during the first session of 
 the Forty-ninth Congress, on this subject-matter of interest, was rather 
 anomalous, and because while the House Committee on War Claims 
 reported said House Bill No. 152 unfavorably, and as will appear from 
 copy of their said report thereon, to wit. House Report No. 560, made 
 April 6, 1886, by Mr. Perry of South Carolina, copy of which is hereto 
 attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 12. The House 
 Committee on Claims, in this same Congress, on four different occasions 
 recognized the obligation of Congress to 'pay interest on similar claims, and 
 they so recommended in four different reports from said committee, as follows, 
 to wit: 
 
47 
 
 First — In its House Report No. 303, made February 3, 1886, by Mr. 
 Dougherty, in the Florida case. 
 
 Second — In its House Report No. 518, made February 13, 1886, by Mr. 
 Shaw, in the case of the States of Maryland and Virginia. 
 
 Third — In its House Report No. 519, made February 13, 1886, by Mr. 
 Trigg, in the case of the City of Baltimore, and the States of Massachu- 
 setts, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South 
 Carolina. 
 
 Fourth— In its House Report No. 3126, made June 30, 1886, by Mr. Gal- 
 linger, in the case of the First National Bank of Newton, Massachusetts. 
 
 Copies of which are hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked 
 Exhibit No. 13. 
 
 It will be observed that this House Report No. 1560 nowhere meets the 
 question of equity presented in said Interest Bill H. R. No. 152, as intro- 
 duced by Hon. Barclay Henley. All there is of the report is: "That the 
 rule of adjustment of the Treasury Department officials in regard to interest 
 was correct." No one disputed that proposition then, and no one disputes 
 it now. The accounting officers of the Treasury have to adjust all accounts 
 according to the laws as they actually exist, and Congress not having 
 enacted any law allowing interest to States for expenses of wars, such as 
 California has heretofore incurred, the Treasury officials of course could 
 not state an account for interest. 
 
 But the object of said H. R. No. 152 was not to declare that the account- 
 ing officers of the Treasury were right or wrong, and that was not the ques- 
 tion before the War Claims Committee; but the question that was actually 
 before them was, as to whether it was not equitable to refund or make to 
 all the States payment for interest where the States had to pay interest, 
 and this Report No. 1560 dodges that question, and which was the only 
 one before the War Claims Committee. A perusal of this report shows that 
 the matters therein contained did not express the unanimous sentiment of 
 even that committee; and because a minority report was also made at the 
 same time on the same bill by Mr. Lyman, a member of that same War 
 Claims Committee, which is full of facts, authorities, and precedents, and 
 wherein the prior action of that same War Claims Committee of the Forty- 
 eighth Congress was not only referred to, but Mr. Rowell's report. No. 1102, 
 made on H. R. No. 2463, in the Forty-eighth Congress, was bodily incor- 
 porated in said minority report. 
 
 Not only this, but even the action of the House Claims Committee of the 
 first session of the Forty-ninth Congress, as by me hereinbefore referred to, 
 was also favorably cited in said minority report. 
 
 When the Senate reached the aforesaid Senate Bill No. 59, it was con- 
 sidering its calendar under its five-minute rule, and as a bill of this mag- 
 nitude could not be considered under any rule that limited debate to five 
 minutes, this Senate Bill No. 59, under objection under said rule, "went 
 over," and was never thereafter considered by the Senate; but when the 
 Senate adjourned sine die this bill stood at the head of the Senate calendar. 
 
 For reasons hereinbefore stated on other of these claims, the House 
 adjourned its first session without considering either this measure as an 
 independent proposition, or even any of the other bills in which said House 
 Reports Nos. 303, 518, 519, and 3126 had been made, and in which this 
 measure of interest had been favorably recommended. 
 
 In conclusion, I beg to report to you that I feel quite confident that in 
 due time interest on all California's war claims will receive full attention 
 at the hands of the proper United States authorities, and wherefore I shall 
 hereafter renew my efforts in behalf of this measure, knowing, as I do. 
 
48 
 
 that the main work in these premises has already been done by me; and 
 which work in due time must, in my opinion, eventuate in giving the State 
 of California all proper benefits of this equitable claim, the proceeds aris- 
 ing from which can be expended for such purposes as the Legislature of 
 California may hereafter wisely determine. 
 
 All of which is now very respectfully submitted. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 Agent and Counsel for the State of California. 
 
 No. 7. REFUNDING CALIFORNIA SUCH MONEYS AS SHE HAS 
 HERETOFORE PAID AS FEES ON SELECTIONS OF AGRI- 
 CULTURAL LANDS THAT HAVE BEEN CANCELED BY THE 
 UNITED STATES; 
 
 AND 
 
 PAYING CALIFORNIA MONEYS THE UNITED STATES HAD 
 RECEIVED FROM SALES, OR BY VIRTUE OF AN ESTI- 
 MATED VALUE OF LANDS WHICH HAVE BEEN OTHER- 
 WISE DISPOSED OF; BUT WHICH LANDS WERE GRANTED 
 OR CONFIRMED TO HER AS SWAMP AND OVERFLOWED 
 LANDS BY CONGRESS. 
 
 My practice in land cases arising before the Interior Department at 
 Washington, D. C, brought to my knowledge some time ago that the State 
 of California having, or should have, paid fees at the rate of $2 for selec- 
 tions of one hundred and sixty acres each, of lands in part satisfaction of 
 sundry grants of agricultural lands heretofore made to her by Congress; 
 and which selections having been not only not confirmed, but which for 
 cause pronounced by the United States to be valid, in sundry cases had 
 been canceled by the General Land Office; and it occurred to me that if a 
 proper examination of the whole thereof should be made, it would clearly 
 appear to what extent the United States had received money paid as fees 
 by the State of California for such selections as had been so canceled. It 
 also came to my knowledge that the United States had in some cases sold, 
 and in other cases had otherwise disposed of sundry tracts of land, which 
 in my opinion clearly were not the property of the United States to either 
 sell or otherwise dispose of, and because I thought the same inured to the 
 State of California, under her swamp land grant of September 28, 1850 
 (U. S. Statutes, vol. IX, page 519), or under her confirmatory grant of 
 July 23, 1866 (U. S. Statutes, vol. XIV, page 218). 
 
 Thereupon I brought these matters to the attention of the State Sur- 
 veyor-General, Hon. H. I. Willey, who conferred upon me his authority to 
 represent the same in behalf of the State of California. Copies of my 
 authority in these premises are hereto attached and made a part hereof, 
 and marked as Exhibit No. 1. 
 
 This matter of fees having been brought to the attention of the Legis- 
 lature of California, that body, after maturely considering the same, on 
 March 3, 1885, duly acted thereon, as appears from copy thereof, filed as 
 my Exhibit No. 8, in my report on ^^ Indian War Claims,''^ and to which 
 reference is now made. 
 
 Armed, therefore, with this authority to represent the interests of the 
 State of California in these premises, I thereupon proceeded to make a 
 detailed examination of all the entries of these selections of lands hereto- 
 
49 
 
 fore made by the State of California, and which had been canceled as 
 aforesaid, in order to segregate such of these selections which had been can- 
 celed from those which had not been canceled (numbering in all as they 
 do, a total aggregate of several thousand throughout the whole State — now 
 subdivided into ten (10) United States Land Districts). It has been, and 
 will in the future continue to be, necessary for me to carefully examine the 
 one hundred and twenty-five volumes of tract books in which these entries 
 have been posted and now recorded ; and has been and will become also 
 necessary for me to carefully examine into over two thousand monthly 
 and quarterly reports of the several Registers, and particularly of the 
 money returns of the Receivers of Public Money in California, in order to 
 ascertain just what fees these officers have reported as having been by 
 them received from the State of California on account of said selections 
 of lands. 
 
 Under a rule laid down by the General Land Office in these cases, it 
 has been made requisite that I should make up the claims of the State of 
 California against the United States, in each particular instance of cancel- 
 lation, by giving : 
 
 First — The number of the State selection that has been canceled. 
 
 Second — The character of the land grant under which said selection was 
 made. 
 
 Third — The description of the land so selected. 
 
 Fourth — The land district in which was situate the lands so selected. 
 . Fifth — The date when such selections were made. 
 
 Sixth — The date when the fees on such selections were paid. 
 
 Seventh — The amount oi the fees so paid on such selection. 
 
 Eighth — The name of the officer receiving said fees for said selection. 
 
 Ninth — The date when such selections were canceled. 
 
 And all of which, where not heretofore done, will have to be done by me 
 before the United States will undertake any examination in order to verify 
 the accuracy of the claim so made, or before it will state an account for 
 any sums that such an examination may disclose to be due the State of 
 California by the United States on account thereof. 
 
 The foregoing requirements involve much time, care, and careful analy- 
 tical examination of numerous records and papers, and is a class of work 
 which cannot be made continuous, because many of these records are in 
 daily use, and as it involves many months of labor, it is impossible for any 
 one to confine himself exclusively to same. 
 
 In -sdew thereof, my labors in this class of cases are not yet completed, 
 so that I am unable as yet to report to you what sums are liable to be 
 derived from this particular source. It is proper, however, that I should 
 report to you that, whereas the United States now believe that the State of 
 California is now indebted to them, in a sum now unascertained on account 
 of sundry valid selections of lands upon which the fees as required py law 
 have not heretofore been paid by the State of California, that I am liable to 
 be confronted with a proposition on the part of the United States, that 
 instead of paying over to the State of California in cash any particular sum 
 which the results of my examinations may disclose to be due the State of 
 California by the United States, herein, that the United States may deem 
 it its duty to set-off such sum as a credit to such other sums as the United 
 States may find to be due by the State of California on account of fees not 
 heretofore by her paid, but which are still due the United States on 
 account of other valid selections of lands, which have been heretofore 
 
50 
 
 made by the State of California and allowed, or to be allowed, and con- 
 firmed, or to be confirmed, to her by the United States. 
 
 In regard to the second branch of this case, to wit, paying California 
 those moneys which the United States have either received from cash sales, 
 or due from an estimated value of those otherwise disposed of, and which 
 lands were not the property of the United States to dispose of at the date of 
 such disposal, but which lands were then the property of the State of Cali- 
 fornia, and because the same were either originally granted by Congress to 
 California in her Swamp Land Act of September 28, 1850, or which were 
 confirmed to her on July 23, 1866, in the "Act to quiet land titles in Cali- 
 fornia," and a claim to which the State of California has not heretofore 
 asserted, or which claim thereto, if asserted, has been heretofore unsuc- 
 cessfully maintained, or been declared against her. 
 
 I beg to report to you that I prepared a general bill to reach the remedy 
 sought for this purpose, which at my request was, on January 11, 1886, 
 introduced by the Hon. Barclay Henley, and referred to the House Com- 
 mittee on Public Lands, to wit, H. R. No. 3222, copy of which is hereto 
 attached and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit No. 2, and which I 
 supported with an appropriate argument before said House Public Lands 
 Committee. This, and other bills having a somewhat similar object in 
 view for other States, having been duly considered by that committee on 
 March 17, 1886, it made a favorable report on the general subject-matter in 
 House Report No. 1089, copy of which is hereto attached, and which, with 
 said amended bill as reported, are- now made a part hereof, and marked 
 Exhibits No. 3 and No. 4. 
 
 This bill proposes to pay a cash indemnity to (among other States) the 
 State of California, in all cases, for all swamp lands which, though granted 
 and confirmed to her, have not heretofore inured to her benefit, and of 
 which she has heretofore been deprived, and because either of the sales, or 
 of the location, or of the entry, or of the selection, or of the disposal of the same 
 to or by some person or persons other than to or by the State of California, the 
 legal equitable grantee thereof. 
 
 The adjustment provided by said bill seems to me to be in all respects 
 equitable, and, in my opinion, will in due time receive the favorable atten- 
 tion of Congress. 
 
 But the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress, seeming to have had 
 its time so thoroughly engaged in other matters, this measure, though 
 early and favorably reported upon to the House of Representatives, failed 
 to receive either attention or recognition of that body, and because the 
 calendar of which it constituted a part was never called during the first 
 session of the Forty-ninth Congress, that adjourned August 6, 1886. 
 
 I shall hereafter renew my efforts in behalf of both of these two proposi- 
 tions, and in which much work has already been done by me, but in 
 which in the future much more work will yet have to be done than has 
 been done in the past, but which, when completed, will eventuate in giving 
 the State of California all proper benefits arising therein, when the pro- 
 ceeds arising from these equitable claims can be expended for such pur- 
 poses as the Legislature of California may hereafter wisely determine. 
 
 All of which is now very respectfully subinitted. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 
 Agent and Counsel for the State of California. 
 
51 
 
 No. 8. CONCLUSION. 
 
 In conclusion, Governor, I have thus endeavored, in the foregoing synop- 
 sis, to give you an accurate and as complete a history of the action that 
 has heretofore been had in regard to the several claims of the State of 
 California against the United States that have been intrusted to my 
 agency, and such as I thought was necessary to enable you, and the people 
 of California, to have a full understanding of the character and extent of 
 each, and what proceedings have already been had in the past, or that 
 may be necessary to be had in the future, in order to secure the proper 
 adjudication and full payment of each thereof. 
 
 It has been no less to my personal interest than it has been to that of 
 the public interest of the people of the State of California to secure the very 
 earliest adjustment possible for all of these several claims at the hands of 
 the Federal authorities; and because, under my contract with the State, 
 my compensation consisted of a contingent fee only, and payable only in 
 the event of success, the State of California not incurring any expenses of 
 any kind in regard to any of the matters in anywise connected with the 
 presentation, or the adjustment of any thereof 
 
 Any delay, therefore, had in any of these premises, has not been of my 
 creation, or due to any laches on my part; but such as they are, they seem 
 to be inseparable from and generally attend all adjustments had by either 
 individuals or States with the Federal Government where the payment of 
 money is involved, or where the securing of adequate legislative machinery 
 to pay the same has been found necessary. 
 
 I know that the belief is generally entertained and has been sometimes 
 expressed, that all that is necessary to be done by the members of a State 
 delegation in Congress is for them to ask the executive departments to state 
 accounts, or to present proper bills of relief in Congress for their respective 
 States, and that such departments or Congress at once respond by granting the 
 relief or the remedy sought. My experience, however, and that of those who 
 have had most to do with this class of cases, does not confirm any such belief 
 On the contrary, all the executive departments, and all the committees in 
 Congress, demand that all claimants, be they individuals or be they States 
 (and they are all treated equally alike in all matters of claims against the 
 United States), should properly and fully prepare their respective claims 
 against the United States, and support the same with all proper evidence, 
 for neither the one nor the other will go out of their way to adduce evidence 
 to favorably support the same, though both often supplement such presentation 
 with evidence intended to defeat such claims. 
 
 It is therefore not to be expected that the members in Congress, either 
 from California or from any other State, will convert themselves, either 
 singly or generally, into special agents of their respective States to properly 
 prepare, or to present, or to plead, or to argue the claims of their respective 
 States against the United States, except it be in public debate upon the 
 floor of the respective Houses, while such subject-matters are legitimately 
 before the same for passage, or being considered in the Committee of the 
 Whole House, or before such special committees to which the same may 
 have been reported for full examination and proper report to the whole 
 House. 
 
 As members of Congress they are the servants of the United States, and 
 are not and cannot be made special agents for any State in any matter that 
 must come before them to pass upon as legislators, and besides none have 
 the time and few even the disposition to so act. 
 
52 
 
 Besides, the delegation in Congress from California has been constantly 
 changing, so much so that to-day there is not a single member in our Cali- 
 fornia delegation, in either the Senate or in the House, who was in Congress 
 at the time I took hold of these several claims. Some have retired from 
 public life, while two of the Senators who took a most active interest in 
 behalf of these several claims, to wit: Senators Miller and Farley, have 
 died during this time. 
 
 It has been therefore absolutely necessary for some one, having both the 
 knowledge of all the facts, and whose interest it has been made by the State 
 to keep constantly before our delegation in Congress from California all the 
 matters relating to the past history or status at any time of these several 
 claims, and to present from time to time to them such suggestions as might 
 seem to be needed to secure a proper understanding of all that might be 
 necessary to favorably reach the end sought to be secured in all thereof. 
 
 This duty I have ever sought at all times to perform to the best of my 
 ability, and whatsoever lack of evidence of this allegation on my part the 
 foregoing reports and exhibits may disclose, will, I am confident, be fully 
 supplied, if necessary, by every member of the California delegation now 
 in Congress, or by any of its living ex-members, who have been by me kept 
 fully advised of all that has been done in these several claims. 
 
 The exhibits appended to the foregoing reports will, I believe, fully sup- 
 ply any information not to be found in the body of any one thereof. 
 
 When the several claims that have been intrusted to my care shall 
 have been finally adjusted, I shall then submit to your ofiice full and final 
 reports on each thereof, and, in the meantime, I would state that all the 
 more valuable papers relating to these claims, when not in use by me in 
 my ofiice, and which have not as yet been filed by me with the proper 
 departments, are safely and, securely F^ored, at my own expense, in one of 
 the best fire-proof safe deposits in this city, in order that no loss of any 
 kind should occur thereto to the detriment of the trust that has been here- 
 tofore confided to my care by the people of the State of California in and 
 under the several contracts as hereinbefore recited. 
 
 I am, Governor, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 Agent and Counsel for the State of California. 
 
EXHIBITS 
 
 FIVE PER CENT CLAIM, 
 
EXHIBIT No. 1. 
 
 CALIFORNIA STATUTES. • 
 
 (Page 353, for 1858.) 
 
 Number XII — Concurrent Resolution ashing of Congress a donation of five 
 per cent upon the sale of public lands for school purposes. 
 
 (Passed March 11, 1858.) 
 
 Whereas, It has been the poHcy of the Federal Government to donate 
 to the States, on their admission into the Union, a percentage upon the 
 sales of public lands within their territories for State purposes, in consider- 
 ation of their exempting such lands from taxation, which policy was 
 departed from [on] the admission of California, although such exemption 
 was secured; therefore, 
 
 . Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That we do respectfully 
 ask of Congress the passage of an Act donating to the State of California 
 five per cent upon the sales of all public lands in the State, to be exclu- 
 sively appropriated to school purposes. 
 
 Resolved, That our Senators be instructed and our Representatives 
 requested to use their influence to secure the passage of such Act. 
 
 Resolved, That the Governor be requested to transmit a copy of these 
 resolutions, together with a copy of the accompanying communication from 
 the Superintendent of Public Instruction, to our Senators and Representa- 
 tives in Congress. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 2. 
 
 November 1, 1878. 
 
 State of California,* Office of Surveyor-General, ) 
 
 Capt. John Mullan, San Francisco, California: 
 
 Dear Sir: I hereby appoint you Agent for the State of California, to 
 secure from the United States, for the benefit of the State of California, the 
 payment by the United States to this State, of the five per centum of the 
 net proceeds of the sales of all public lands lying within the State of Cali- 
 fornia, which have been sold by Congress after the admission of said State 
 into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, and 
 to be deposited in the State Treasury for such purposes as the Legislature 
 may hereafter direct, which amounts have been provided for and granted 
 to the other States in the Union. 
 
 I shall recommend to the next Legislature that you be paid such com- 
 pensation for your services in the premises as shall appear just and proper, 
 and based upon the amount of moneys you may succeed in recovering for 
 this State. 
 
 You will see that the total amount recovered, without any deduction of 
 any kind whatsoever, shall be transmitted by draft, and not otherwise, by 
 
56 
 
 the Hon. Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, to the Treasurer 
 of the State of California. You will report to this office from time to time 
 the results of your action in these premises. 
 
 WM. MINIS, Surveyor-General. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 3. 
 
 [Copy.] • November 20, 1878. 
 
 FIVE PER CENTUM OF THE NET PROCEEDS OF THE SALES 
 OF THE PUBLIC LANDS, ETC., IN CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Hon. J. A. Williamson, Commissioner of the General Land Office^ Washing- 
 ton, D. C: 
 
 Dear Sir: I have the honor respectfully to inform you of my appoint- 
 ment as Agent for the State of California, to secure from the United States, 
 for the benefit of the State of California, the five per centum of the net 
 proceeds of the sales of all public lands in said State, which have been sold 
 or disposed of by Congress since the date of the admission of said State 
 into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, etc. 
 I have the honor to transmit you herewith a copy of my said appointment, 
 which I request may be filed in your office. 
 
 I respectfully request to be informed by your office, at an early date, 
 what amount of money may be now due the State of California from the 
 United States, the same being the said five per centum, etc., under existing 
 laws. 
 
 If in your opinion there is not anything due the State of California under 
 existing laws and under said head of five per centum of the sales of public 
 lands in California, then, and in that event, I further respectfully request 
 that I may have access to such data and information now on file in your 
 office as relates to said five per centum, as heretofore received by other 
 States of the Union, such as will enable me to properly lay this subject- 
 matter before Congress at an early date, and for the purpose of securing 
 such beneficial legislation in behalf of the State of California as Congress 
 may deem just and proper in the premises. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN MULLAN. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 4. 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, 
 [Copy.] Washington, D. C, November 29, 1878. 
 
 John Mullan, Esq., Washington, D. C: . 
 
 Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of 
 twentieth instant, inclosing a copy of your appointment as Agent for the 
 State of California, in the matter of the claim for five per centum on the 
 net proceeds of sales of public lands within her limits. 
 
 In reply, you are informed that no provision of law exists under which 
 the State of California is entitled to any percentage on sales of public lands. 
 
 In the cases of other States, specific provisions of law exist, and in the 
 
57 
 
 absence of such relating to the State of Cahfornia, no account of the net 
 proceeds arising from sales of public lands within the limits of said State 
 has been kept. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 J. M. ARMSTRONG, 
 
 Acting Commissioner. 
 
 . EXHIBIT No. 5. 
 
 Washington, D. C, December 10, 1878. 
 
 Hon. J. K. LuTTRELL, IJ. S. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. : 
 
 Dear Sir: I desire very respectfully to call your attention to the fact, 
 that many of the States west of the Mississippi River, and some east thereof, 
 have, under various Acts of Congress, heretofore received, and are still 
 receiving from the United States, five per centum of the proceeds of the 
 sales of the public lands of the United States situated within their borders. 
 
 Of the Pacific States, Oregon and Nevada are constantly receiving their 
 five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands of the United 
 States within their limits, as the sales thereof progress. 
 
 California has not, up to date, received any benefit from any such legis- 
 lation in her behalf, and, in my judgment, there is no good or sufficient 
 reason why she should not be so entitled, equally with the other States of 
 the Union. Even-handed justice demands that she be accorded this. As 
 a citizen of California, and acting in her behalf therein, I desire, there- 
 fore, to very respectfully bring this matter officially to the attention of 
 yourself, and through you to that of our delegation in Congress, and in the 
 name of said State, to request that you may, at an early date, introduce 
 into the House of Representatives a bill, having for its object the securing 
 to California this benefit. In connection with this subject I suggest, with 
 respect, the propriety of the introduction by you of a resolution of inquiry, 
 to be addressed to the Hon. Commissioner of the General Land Office, as 
 to the names of the States that have received, and are still receiving, such 
 benefit, and the Acts of Congress under which the States have received, 
 and do still receive, the same, and the amounts of money already paid to 
 each up to date under such Acts. 
 
 This information will be useful in guiding you and the friends of this 
 measure aright in the premises. 
 
 I inclose you herewith a form of resolution and bill, such as will, I think, 
 cover the subject-matter referred to, requesting your very early and careful 
 attention to the matter. 
 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 
 Agent and Counsel for the State of California. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 6. 
 
 I think a general bill that will include all those States that have not yet 
 received this benefit, is better than one applying exclusively to California. 
 
 J. K. LUTTRELL. 
 
68 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 7. 
 
 Forty-fifth Congress, third session. R. H. 6081. Printer's No. 6782. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. January 20, 1879 — Kead twice, re- 
 ferred to the Commitee on the Public Lands, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Wigginton, on leave, introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To grant to the State of California five per centum of the net proceeds of the 
 sale of the public lands situate within said State. 
 
 Whereas, The several States of Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, 
 Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, 
 Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, and Colorado, constituting 
 the entire list of public land States, except California, have each and all 
 received five per centum of the net proceeds of the sales of the public lands 
 situate within their limits respectively ; and whereas, California is the only 
 State of the public land States that has not received said five per centum. 
 Therefore, 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That five per centum of the net 
 proceeds of the sales of all public lands of the United States situate within 
 the State of California, sold subsequent to the date of admission of said 
 State into the Union, and which may hereafter be sold, after deducting all 
 the expenses incident thereto, shall be paid to the State of California, and 
 for the purpose of making or improving public roads, constructing drain- 
 age and irrigating ditches and canals to effect a general system for irri- 
 gating the agricultural lands in said State, and in the mode and mianner 
 as the Legislature of said State may establish and direct. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of the Treasury 
 are hereby authorized and directed to make such rules and regulations as 
 shall execute the foregoing provisions, and upon the principles that have 
 heretofore existed or do still exist in similar matters in any of the States 
 aforesaid. 
 
 Sec. 3. This Act shall take efifect and be in force from and after its 
 passage. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 8. 
 
 Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1, relative to the sale of public lands. 
 [Adopted February 9, 1881.] 
 
 Whereas, The States of Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, 
 Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minne- 
 sota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, and Colorado, constituting the 
 entire list of public land States, except California, have each received a 
 certain percentum of the net proceeds of the sales of the public lands 
 situate within their limits respectively; and whereas, California is the only 
 State of the public land States that has not received any percentum; 
 therefore, be it 
 
 Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring: First — That the Legis- 
 lature of California does hereby memorialize Congress to place the State of 
 California upon the same footing, as regards the proceeds of the sales of all 
 
59 
 
 public lands in the said State, as the other States named in the preamble; 
 and to give California all the benefits and payments to which said States, 
 or either of them, are entitled under all Acts of Congress heretofore passed, 
 or that may hereafter be passed, and the same, when granted, to be dedi- 
 cated to educational purposes. 
 
 Second — That our Representatives in Congress are hereby requested, 
 and our Senators instructed, to vote for, and in all honorable ways endeavor 
 to secure the passage of an Act of Congress granting 'this State five per 
 centum for said purposes. 
 
 Third — That the Governor is hereby requested to forward a copy of this 
 memorial to each Senator and Representative from California in Con- 
 gress, for his information and favorable action in the premises. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 9. 
 
 Forty-seventh Congress, first session. S. 311. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. December 8, 1881. 
 
 Mr. Farley asked, and by unanimous consent, obtained leave to bring 
 in the following bill, which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
 on Public Lands: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 Granting to California five per centum of the net proceeds of the sale of 
 public lands in that State. 
 
 Whereas, The States of Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, 
 Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minne- 
 sota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, and Colorado, constituting the 
 list of all the public land States except California, have each received a 
 certain percentum of the net proceeds of the sales of the public lands 
 situate in their limits respectively; and whereas, California is the only 
 public land State that has not received any percentum of the net proceeds 
 of the sales of the public lands in said State; therefore. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That' there be and is hereby 
 granted to the State of California five per centum of the net proceeds of 
 the sales of the public lands which have been or may hereafter be made 
 in said State, and the same shall be dedicated by said State to aid in the 
 support of the public or common schools of said State. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 9}4. 
 
 Forty-seventh Congress, first session. H. R. 61. Printer's No. 61. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 13, 1881 — Read twice, 
 referred to the Committee on the Public Lands, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Berry introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 Granting to California five per centum of the net proceeds of the sale of 
 public lands in that State. 
 
 Whereas, The States of Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, 
 Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minne- 
 
60 
 
 sota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, and Colorado, constituting the 
 list of all the public land States except California, have each received a 
 certain percentum of the net proceeds of the sales of the public lands 
 situate within their limits respectively; and whereas, California is the only- 
 public land State that has not received any percentum of the net proceeds 
 of the sales of the public lands in said State; therefore, 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That there be and is hereby 
 granted to the State of California five per centum of the net proceeds of 
 the sales of the public lands which have been or may hereafter be made 
 in said State, and the same shall be dedicated by said State to aid in the 
 support of the public or common schools of said State. 
 
 EXHIBIT NO. 10. 
 
 Forty-seventh Congress, first session. 
 
 In the Matter of Senate Bill No. 311 and H. R. No. 61. 
 CALIFORNIA FIVE PER CENT BILL. 
 
 The object of Senate Bill No. 311, introduced in the United States Senate 
 on December 8, 1881, by Senator Farley of California, and reported favor- 
 ably to the Senate, and without amendment from the Senate Committee 
 on Public Lands, February 20, 1882, by Senator Plumb of Kansas, is to 
 place the State of California upon an equal footing with all other public 
 land States, by extending to her the provisions of a law similar to existing 
 laws relating to the five per cent of the net proceeds of the sales of the 
 public lands of the United States in the several States. A similar bill 
 (H. R. No. 61) was introduced in the House of Representatives, by Hon. 
 C. P. Berry of California, on December 13, 1881, and is now pending before 
 the House Committee on Public Lands. 
 
 Since the date of the organization of the Government of the United 
 States to the present time, it has ever been its policy, without a single 
 exception, when creating and admitting new States into the Union, to grant 
 to said States some certain percentum of the net proceeds of the sales of 
 the public lands therein. 
 
 The State of California was admitted into the Union September 9, 1850, 
 and in the Act of Congress (U. S. Stat., vol. 9, p. 452) so admitting her, 
 it was declared that she should be admitted on an equal footing with all 
 the other States, in all respects whatsoever. 
 
 But Congress, in Section 3 of said Act of her admission, imposed upon 
 said State the identical obligation and express conditions as then and 
 hitherto imposed upon all new States, to wit: "That California should 
 never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within its 
 limits, and pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United 
 States and right to dispose of the same should be impaired or questioned; 
 and that she should never levy any tax or assessment, of any description 
 whatsoever, upon the public domain therein; and that the non-resident 
 proprietors of said lands — citizens of the United States — should not be 
 taxed higher than residents; and that all the navigable waters in said 
 State should be common highways, forever free to all citizens of the United 
 States, without tax, impost, or duty therefor." 
 
61 
 
 Now, these conditions were quite identical with the conditions imposed 
 by Congress upon other new States ; and in consideration thereof, and for 
 other good and sufficient reasons, Congress has ever granted to said new 
 public land States a certain percentum of the net proceeds of the sales of 
 the public land therein ; the same to be expended either as Congress 
 indicated in the granting Acts, or as the Legislatures of said States, with 
 the consent of Congress, should best determine. 
 
 These grants by Congress have been made either in the Enabling Acts 
 of said States or in their Act of admission, or by some subsequent legis- 
 lation. 
 
 A table is hereto appended wherein are fully given the dates, volumes, 
 and pages of the United States Statutes wherein Congress has extended to 
 the several States this class of legislation, as applicable to all the so called 
 public land States, and also to the thirteen original States. California was 
 admitted into the Union without any Enabling Act. The public land laws 
 of the United States were not extended to said State until March 3, 1858 
 (U. S. Stat., vol. 10, p. 244), and no sales of the public lands in said State 
 were reported prior to July 1, 1857, and in the three years preceding the 
 year of the rebellion the reported net proceeds of the sale of the public 
 lands in said State aggregated only $86,371 92, the five per cent of which 
 is $4,318 59. There was nothing in this small sum, and nothing in the 
 surroundings of the Treasury Department of the Government of the United 
 States at the beginning of or during the years of the late war, or even 
 immediately subsequent thereto, that would seem to justify the State of 
 California to request that a statement of an account with the United 
 States Treasury Department be made by the United States Land Depart- 
 ment in her behalf regarding this five per cent. 
 
 In view thereof, nothing was done in these premises until 1878, when all 
 the circumstances having changed, the undersigned, as attorney in behalf 
 of said State, requested the honorable Commissioner of the General Land 
 Office to state an account to the United States Treasury Department, 
 under existing laws, in behalf of said State, for her five per cent of the net 
 proceeds of the sale of the public lands therein. This request was not 
 complied with by said Commissioner, and because, as stated by him in 
 writing, in reply to said request, that he was not vested with sufficient 
 authority of law to state such an account, and would not be so enabled 
 without additional legislation by Congress. 
 
 This last fact was thereupon duly communicated by the undersigned to 
 the proper authorities of California, whereupon the Legislature thereof, by 
 appropriate resolution, memorialized Congress on this subject, and that it 
 take action thereon by appropriate and early legislation. 
 
 Copies of this memorial were duly sent to the California delegation in 
 Congress, and are now matters of record, with the papers relating to this 
 case now before both the Senate and House. 
 
 The California delegation in Congress have sought to execute the will 
 of said State as expressed in said memorial, by securing the passage of 
 either Senate Bill No. 311, or House Bill No. 61. 
 
 At the request of the undersigned, a copy of this memorial has been filed 
 by the Hon. George C. Perkins, the present Governor of California., with 
 the Chairman of the Public Land Committee in both the Senate and 
 House, under the seal of the Secretary of State of said State, and the 
 same now is a matter of record in both Houses of Congrses. In order to 
 show what has heretofore been done by Congress, by the General Land 
 Office, and by the Treasury Department, in regard to the net proceeds of 
 the sales of public lands in the several public land States, the under- 
 
62 
 
 signed has prepared and now submits herewith, and as a part hereof, a 
 series of tables, from No. 1 to No. 8, inclusive, which show at a glance the 
 specific sums of money that any particular State has already received up 
 to June 30, 1880, and the authority of law for the same. Tables Nos. 1, 
 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 have been submitted by me to the honorable Commis- 
 sioner of the General Land Office for examination and verification, and he 
 has, over his own signature, certified that the same are correct. The 
 original certified tables above named, have been by me delivered to Hon. 
 Senator Farley of California, to be used by him, if needed, on the floor of 
 the Senate when urging the passage of his said Senate Bill No. 311. 
 
 These tables show that the State of California would be entitled to receive 
 up to July first, the sum of $408,180 40. 
 
 This claim of the State of California, so long overlooked by Congress, is 
 well founded in equity. Similar claims have never as yet been denied in 
 any single instance to any of the public land States ; but, on the con- 
 trary, have been invariably granted, and that, too, by prompt and adequate 
 legislation of Congress whenever properly asked for. 
 
 California, through her Legislature has memorialized Congress that it 
 enact appropriate legislation, by means of which she will be placed on an 
 equal footing with the other public land States, and, as we submit, was 
 intended and provided for in her Act of admission. It is respectfully 
 submitted that her delegation in Congress, in both Senate and House, will 
 be only executing the views and wishes of said State, and of the people 
 thereof, as expressed in their State Legislature, by securing the passage of 
 Senate Bill No. 311, now on the Senate calendar (Order of Business No. 
 256). 
 
 The matters herein contained have all been by me heretofore laid before 
 the Public Land Committee of both Senate and House in support of this 
 measure, and are now matters of record with the papers relating thereto. 
 
 In conclusion, I now very respectfully request that Congress may enact 
 either of said bills into a law at the earliest date practicable. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 Agent and Attorney for the State of California. 
 1310 Connecticut Avenue, 
 
 Washington, D. C, April 12, 1882. 
 
63 
 
 TABLE No. 1. 
 
 Statement of the Public Lands sold for Cash in the State of California, amount received therefor, 
 and expenses incident to the sale thereof by fiscal years, from July 1, 1857, to June 30, 1881, 
 both inclusive. ' 
 
 Fiscal Tears. 
 
 Acres Sold. 
 
 Amount 
 Keceived. 
 
 Expenses of Sale. 
 
 1858 -- -- 
 
 675.07 
 
 105,585.70 
 
 37,274.44 
 
 80,425.94 
 
 15,442.33 
 
 19,726.55 
 
 39,605.39 
 
 89,232.67 
 
 82,387.59 
 
 258,658.57 
 
 464,405.23 
 
 1,726,794.39 
 
 445,961.61 
 
 221,186.36 
 
 255,060.46 
 
 202,060.73 
 
 266,127.55 
 
 358,298.73 
 
 306,486.57 
 
 401,022.17 
 
 277,938.62 
 
 141,287.91 
 
 111,852.88 
 
 143,380.20 
 
 $843 81 , 
 
 133,432 32 
 
 46,593 11 
 
 101,357 57 
 
 19,651 72 
 
 24,895 48 
 
 49,506 99 
 
 111,589 74 
 
 105.511 49 
 354,315 39 
 597,272 83 
 
 2,198,661 96 
 608,009 64 
 
 367.512 79 
 464,188 81 
 489,497 05 
 507,153 55 
 658,266 62 
 536,280 81 
 483,932 19 
 396,819 52 
 219,436 22 
 191,239 00 
 308,689 55 
 
 $8,503 21 
 
 1859 - -- 
 
 43,654 41 
 
 I860 - 
 
 42,309 70 
 38,927 06 
 
 1861 . - - -- 
 
 1862 . . 
 
 39,274 84 
 12,106 32 
 11,359 10 
 10,350 72 
 
 1863 
 
 1864 - 
 
 1865 
 
 1866 
 
 15,360 33 
 14,369 97 
 
 1867. - 
 
 1868 - - - 
 
 18,860 23 
 32,381 11 
 24,430 86 
 20,452 58 
 
 1869 
 
 1870 . . - 
 
 1871- • - - - 
 
 1872 
 
 39,822 10 
 
 1873 - - 
 
 41,774 12 
 
 1874 
 
 46,577 22 
 
 1875 - - 
 
 51,368 96 
 
 1876 
 
 51,286 27 
 48,294 92 
 47,135 05 
 
 1877 - - - 
 
 1878 ._- -- 
 
 1879 
 
 48,342 14 
 51,172 16 
 
 1880 
 
 1881- - 
 
 52,934 94 
 
 
 
 
 6,050,877.66 
 
 $8,974,658 16 
 
 $811,048 32 
 
 The gross receipts for the time above stated were .-- $8,974,658 16 
 
 The expenses thereof amounted to - 811,048 32 
 
 Net receipts $8,163,609 84 
 
 Five per centum of the net proceeds amounts to - 408,180 49 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, 
 Washington, D. C, April 14, 1882. 
 
 I hereby certify that I have caused the foregoing table to be examined 
 and compared with the records of this office, and find it to be correct. 
 
 • * N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 
64 
 
 TABLE No. 2. 
 
 Statement of the Total Amounts of Money received by the several States of the United States from 
 the net proceeds of the sales of the Public Lands up to June 30,, 1880. 
 
 States. 
 
 Al. 
 
 Bl. 
 
 A 2. 
 
 B2. 
 
 C. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 $17,119 35 
 3,134 60 
 
 $2,107 71 
 385 93 
 
 $5,248 74 
 1,348 19 
 
 $649 43 
 143 44 
 
 $1,004,365 57 
 
 227,359 05 
 
 9,589 73 
 
 $1,029,490 20 
 
 232,371 21 
 
 9,589 73 
 
 12,180 70 
 
 3,027 14 
 
 30,711 73 
 
 22,750 37 
 
 763,307 92 
 
 648,555 63 
 
 627 768 86 
 
 Arkansas -. 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 10,845 43 
 
 2,695 30 
 
 1,545 96 
 
 20,256 43 
 
 16,654 33 
 
 23,994 54 
 
 1,508 03 
 
 1,335 27 
 
 331 84 
 
 190 33 
 
 2,493 94 
 
 2,050 46 
 
 2,954 17 
 
 185 67 
 
 
 
 Delaware - - 
 
 
 
 
 Florida 
 
 
 
 28,975 44 
 
 Georgia 
 
 
 
 Illinois 
 
 29,635 02 
 2,883 12 
 
 2,223 29 
 446 30 
 
 712,744 82 
 618,277 50 
 626,075 16 
 258,842 11 
 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Kansas 
 
 
 
 258,842 11 
 27,776 19 
 
 329.781 88 
 19,716 23 
 17,057 42 
 28,985 35 
 
 481,074 12 
 
 99,409 47 
 
 1,001,920 42 
 
 574,670 38 
 
 116,578 67 
 
 8,319 84 
 
 11,181 36 
 
 Kentucky . 
 
 24,731 31 
 9,971 59 
 17,554 90 
 15,187 54 
 25,807 92 
 7,426 03 
 
 3,044 88 
 1,227 69 
 2,161 33 
 1,869 88 
 3,177 43 
 914 28 
 
 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 2,827 99 
 
 141 72 
 
 315,612 89 
 
 Maine 
 
 Maryland 
 
 
 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 
 
 
 Michigan _ . 
 
 1,141 79 
 
 247 47 
 
 471,344 55 
 99,409 47 
 987,832 28 
 551,423 83 
 116,578 67 
 8,319 84 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Missouri 
 
 10,410 19 
 12,608 67 
 
 1,281 69 
 1,552 35 
 
 2,396 26 
 8,388 24 
 
 
 697 39 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada ._ 
 
 
 
 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 9,955 64 
 13,050 42 
 84,974 15 
 22,917 97 
 53,157 53 
 
 1,225 72 
 1,606 75 
 10,461 89 
 2,821 63 
 6,544 67 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 14,657 17 
 95,436 04 
 25 739 60 
 
 New York 
 
 
 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 
 
 
 Ohio 
 
 923 64 
 
 420 49 
 
 596,634 10 
 34,911 09 
 
 657,680 43 
 34,911 09 
 
 Oregon ' 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 60,313 27 
 
 3,807 28 
 
 16,218 15 
 
 26,447 68 
 
 10,213 61 
 
 37,090 48 
 
 1,082 45 
 
 1,463 53 
 
 7,425 68 
 
 468 75 
 
 1,996 75 
 
 3.256 20 
 
 1.257 48 
 4,566 52 
 
 133 27 
 180 19 
 
 
 
 67,738 95 
 
 4,276 03 
 
 18,214 90 
 
 29,703 88 
 
 11,471 09 
 
 41,657 00 
 
 456,469 45 
 
 1,643 72 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 
 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 
 
 
 Tennessee - 
 
 
 
 
 Vermont 
 
 
 
 
 Virginia 
 
 
 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 
 
 455,253 73 
 
 District of Columbia. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
65 
 
 TABLE No. 3— A 1. 
 
 Statement showiny the respective Shares of the several States and Territories of the United States 
 and the District of 'Columbia under the Distribution Act of fourth September, IS^i, of the 
 residue of the Net Proceeds of the Public Lands sold in the half year ending thirtieth June, 
 
 States, Territokies, and District of Columbia. 
 
 Free 
 Population. 
 
 Slaves. 
 
 Federal 
 Numbers. 
 
 Distributive 
 Shares. 
 
 Maine 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Vermont 
 
 New York 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Delaware 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Virginia 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Tennessee .. 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Missouri _. 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Iowa-. 
 
 Florida 
 
 District of Columbia 
 
 Totals 
 
 501,793 
 
 284,573 
 
 737,698 
 
 108,825 
 
 309,998 
 
 291,948 
 
 2,428,917 
 
 372,632 
 
 1,723,969 
 
 75,480 
 
 380,282 
 
 790.810 
 
 507,602 
 
 267,360 
 
 410,448 
 
 337.224 
 
 180,440 
 
 183,959 
 
 646,151 
 
 597,570 
 
 1,519,464 
 
 685,863 
 
 475,852 
 
 325,462 
 
 77,639 
 
 212,267 
 
 30,934 
 
 43,096 
 
 28,760 
 
 39,018 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 5 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 674 
 
 64 
 
 2,605 
 
 89,737 
 
 448,987 
 
 245,817 
 
 327,038 
 
 280,944 
 
 253,532 
 
 195,211 
 
 168,452 
 
 183,059 
 
 182,258 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 331 
 
 58,240 
 
 19,935 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 16 
 
 25,717 
 
 4,694 
 
 501,793 
 284,574 
 737,699 
 108,828 
 310,008 
 291,948 
 
 2,428,919 
 373,036 
 
 1,724,007 
 
 77,043 
 
 434,124 
 
 1,060,202 
 655,092 
 463,583 
 579,014 
 489,343 
 297,567 
 285,030 
 755,986 
 706,925 
 
 1,519,466 
 
 685,865 
 
 476,051 
 
 360,406 
 
 89,600 
 
 212,267 
 
 30,941 
 
 43,106 
 
 44,190 
 
 41,834 
 
 14,576,034 
 
 2,487,356 
 
 16,068,447 
 
 $17,554 90 
 
 9,955 64 
 
 25,807 92 
 
 3,807 28 
 
 10,845 43 
 
 10,213 61 
 
 84,974 15 
 
 13,050 42 
 
 60,313 27 
 
 2,695 30 
 
 15,187 54 
 
 37,090 48 
 
 22,917 97 
 
 16,218 15 
 
 20,256 43 
 
 17,119 35 
 
 10,410 19 
 
 9,971 59 
 
 26,447 68 
 
 24,731 31 
 
 53,157 53 
 
 23,994 54 
 
 16,654 33 
 
 12,608 57 
 
 3,134 60 
 
 7,426 03 
 
 1,082 45 
 
 1,508 03 
 
 1,545 96 
 
 1,463 53 
 
 $562,144 18 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, 
 Washington, D. C, April 14, 1882. 
 
 I hereby certify that I have caused the foregoing table to be examined 
 and compared with the records of this office, and find it to be correct. 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 
66 
 
 TABLE No. 4— B 1. 
 
 Statement shoiving the respective Shares of the several States and Territories of the United States 
 and the District of Columbia under the Distributiori Act of fourth Sejjtemher, I84I, of the resi- 
 due of the net proceeds of the Public Lands sold from the first day of July to the twenty-ninth 
 of August, 184-2, inclusive. 
 
 States, Territokies, and District of Columbia. 
 
 Free 
 Population. 
 
 Slavt 
 
 Federal 
 Numbers. 
 
 Distributive 
 Shares. 
 
 Maine 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Rhode Island- 
 
 Connecticut .- 
 
 Vermont 
 
 New York 
 
 New Jersey --. 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Delaware 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Virginia _. 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Alabama - 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Louisiana .- 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Kentucky _ 
 
 Ohio.- 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Arkansas .- 
 
 Michigan — 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Florida 
 
 District of Columbia 
 
 Totals 
 
 501,793 
 
 284,573 
 
 737,698 
 
 108,825 
 
 309,998 
 
 291,948 
 
 2,428,917 
 
 372,632 
 
 1,723,969 
 
 75,480 
 
 380,282 
 
 790,810 
 
 507,602 
 
 267,360 
 
 410,448 
 
 337,224 
 
 180,440 
 
 183,959 
 
 &46,151 
 
 597,570 
 
 1,519,464 
 
 685,863 
 
 475,852 
 
 325,462 
 
 77,639 
 
 212,267 
 
 30,934 
 
 43,096 
 
 28,760 
 
 39,018 
 
 4 
 
 674 
 
 64 
 
 2,605 
 
 89,737 
 
 448,987 
 
 245,817 
 
 327,038 
 
 280,944 
 
 253,532 
 
 195,211 
 
 168,452 
 
 180,059 
 
 182,258 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 331 
 
 58,240 
 
 19,935 
 
 11 
 
 16 
 
 25,717 
 
 4,694 
 
 501,793 
 284,574 
 737,699 
 108,828 
 310,008 
 291,948 
 
 2,428,919 
 373,036 
 
 1,724,007 
 
 77,043 
 
 434.124 
 
 1,060,202 
 655,092 
 463,583 
 579,014 
 489,343 
 297,567 
 285,030 
 755,986 
 706,925 
 
 1,519,466 
 
 685,865 
 
 476,051 
 
 360,406 
 
 89,600 
 
 212,267 
 
 30,941 
 
 43,106 
 
 44,190 
 
 41,834 
 
 $2,161 33 
 
 1,225 72 
 
 3,177 43 
 
 468 75 
 
 1,335 27 
 
 1,257 48 
 
 10,461 89 
 
 1,606 75 
 
 7,425 68 
 
 331 84 
 
 1,869 88 
 
 4,566 52 
 
 2,821 63 
 
 1,996 75 
 
 2,493 94 
 
 2,107 71 
 
 1,281 69 
 
 1,227 69 
 
 3,256 20 
 
 3,044 88 
 
 6,544 67 
 
 2,954 17 
 
 2,050 46 
 
 1,552 35 
 
 385 93 
 
 914 28 
 
 133 27 
 
 185 67 
 
 190 33 
 
 180 19 
 
 14,576,034 
 
 2,487,356 
 
 16,068,447 
 
 $69,210 35 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, | 
 Washington, D. C, April 14, 1882. ) 
 
 I hereby certify that I have caused the foregoing table to be examined 
 and compared with the records of this office, and find it to be correct. 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 
67 
 
 TABLE No. 5— A 2. 
 
 Statement of the Additio7ial Allowance to the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, 
 Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Michigan, of ten per cent of the net proceeds of the Pub- 
 lic Lands sold in the half year ending thirtieth June, 1842, under the Distribution Act of fourth 
 September, ISJ^l, according to the mode prescribed by the First Comptroller of the Treasury : 
 
 States and Territories. 
 
 Gross proceeds of 
 
 Xaiids sold instates 
 
 and Territories. 
 
 Proportion of 
 
 Expenses to be 
 
 deducted. 
 
 Net proceeds of 
 Sales after deduct- 
 ing proportion 
 of Expenses from 
 gross proceeds. 
 
 Additional allow- 
 ance of ten per 
 cent to each of the 
 new States on net 
 proceeds of Sales 
 therein. 
 
 Ohio--. 
 
 Indiana -. 
 
 $12,534 27 
 39,125 53 
 
 402,163 06 
 
 113,832 94 
 18,295 69 
 38,377 32 
 32,518 52 
 71,228 19 
 15,494 68 
 
 743,570 20 
 93,646 50 
 
 $3,297 88 
 
 10,294 29 
 
 105,812 86 
 
 29,950 51 
 
 4,813 78 
 
 10,097 43 
 
 8,555 92 
 
 18,740 80 
 
 4,076 79 
 
 195,640 26 
 
 24,639 27 
 
 $9,236 39 
 28,831 24 
 
 296,350 20 
 83,882 43 
 13,481 91 
 28,279 89 
 23,962 60 
 52,487 39 
 11,417 89 
 
 547,929 94 
 69,207 23 
 
 $923 64 
 
 2,883 12 
 
 29,635 02 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 8,388 24 
 1,348 19 
 2,827 99 
 2,396 26 
 5,248 74 
 1,141 79 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Alabama .. 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Iowa 
 
 
 
 
 Totals 
 
 $837,216 70 
 
 $220,279 53 
 
 $616,937 17^ 
 
 $54,792 99 
 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, ] 
 Washington, D. C, April 14, .1882. j 
 
 I hereby certify that I have caused the foregoing table to be examined 
 and compared with the records of this office, and find it to be correct. 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 
 table No. 6— B 2, 
 
 Statement of the Additional Allowance to the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Mlssoiiri, Arkan- 
 sas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Michigan, of the ten per cent of the net proceeds 
 of the Public Lands sold therein respectively, from the first day of July to the twenty-ninth 
 of August, I842, inclusive, under the Distribution Act of fourth September, 1841, according 
 to the mode prescribed by the First Comptroller of the Treasury. 
 
 States and Territories. 
 
 Gross proceeds of 
 
 Sales in the 
 States and Territo- 
 ries, deducting 
 proportion of $0 43 
 excess of repay 
 in Miss. 
 
 Proportion of 
 Expenses deducted 
 from gross pro- 
 ceeds. 
 
 Net proceeds of 
 Sales after deduct- 
 ing from the 
 gross proceeds the 
 
 proportion of 
 Expenses as stated. 
 
 Additional 
 allowance to the 
 
 above men- 
 tioned States of ten 
 
 per cent of net 
 
 proceeds of Lands 
 
 sold therein. 
 
 Ohio.-- -.- 
 
 $7,286 63 
 7,733 95 
 
 38,527 51 
 
 r2,085 07 
 
 2,485 73 
 
 2,455 96 
 
 11,253 99 
 
 4,288 38 
 
 $3,081 76 
 3,270 95 
 
 16,294 59 
 5,111 19 
 1,051 30 
 1,038 71 
 4,759 69 
 1,813 70 
 
 $4,204 87 
 4,463 00 
 
 22,232 92 
 6,973 88 
 1,434 43 
 1,417 25 
 6,494 30 
 2,474 68 
 
 $420 49 
 446 30 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Illinois 
 
 2'^'?3 29 
 
 Missouri - 
 
 697 39 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 143 44 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 141 72 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Michigan 
 
 649 43 
 
 247 47 
 
 
 
 Totals - 
 
 $86,117 22 
 
 $36,421 89 
 
 $49,695 33 
 
 $4,969 53 
 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, } 
 Washington, D. C, April 14, 1882. j 
 
 I hereby certify that I have caused the foregoing table to be examined 
 and compared with the records of this office, and find it to be correct. 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. • 
 
68 
 
 TABLE No. 7— C. 
 
 Statement of the Amounts which have accrued to the following named States up to the thirtieth 
 June, 1880, on account of the two, three, and five per cent upon the net proceeds of the Sales 
 of the Public Lands within their respective limits. 
 
 States. 
 
 Two Per Cent. 
 
 Three Per Cent. 
 
 Five Per Cent. 
 
 Aggregate. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 $401,782 23 
 
 $602,583 34 
 
 
 $1,004,365 57 
 
 
 $227,359 05 
 
 9,589 73 
 
 28,975 44 
 
 626,075 16 
 
 227,359 05 
 
 
 
 
 9,589 73 
 
 Florida . 
 
 
 
 28,975 44 
 
 Iowa 
 
 
 
 626,075 16 
 
 Illinois 
 
 
 712,744 82 
 
 618,277 50 
 
 712,744 82 
 
 
 
 
 618,277 50 
 
 
 
 258,842 ii 
 315,612 89 
 
 258,842 11 
 
 
 
 
 315,612 89 
 
 
 395,142 08 
 
 15,587 78 
 
 592,690 20 
 535,836 05 
 
 987,832 28 
 551,423 83 
 471,344 55 
 
 
 
 Michigan 
 
 471,344 55 
 
 99,409 47 
 
 8,319 84 
 
 116,578 67 
 34,911 09 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 
 
 99,409 47 
 
 
 
 
 8,319 84 
 116,578 67 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 34,911 09 
 
 Ohio 
 
 
 596,634 10 
 
 596,634 10 
 
 '\Yisconsin 
 
 
 455,253 73 
 
 455,253 73 
 
 
 
 
 
 Totals 
 
 $812,512 09 
 
 $3,658,766 01 
 
 $2,652,271 73 
 
 $7,123,549 83 
 
 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, 
 Washington, D. C, April 14, 1882. 
 
 I hereby certify that I have caused the foregoing table to be examined 
 and compared with the records of this office, and find it. to be correct. 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 
69 
 
 TABLE No. 8. 
 
 Acts of Congress granting to the several States of the United States certain percentum upon the 
 net proceeds of the Sales of the Public Lands. 
 
 States. 
 
 Date Granting. 
 
 United States 
 Statutes. 
 
 Volume. Page, 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Alabama ._ 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Alabama ._ -. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Arkan sas 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Florida 
 
 Florida 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Iowa .-_ 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Michigan , 
 
 Michigan.. 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Khode Island... 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 New York- 
 
 New Jersey.. 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Delaware 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Virginia _. 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Oeorgia 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Maine 
 
 District of Columbia 
 
 2 per cent, September 4, 1841 _. 
 
 3 per cent, March 2, 1819 
 
 3 per cent. May 3, 1822 
 
 3 per cent, July 4, 1836 
 
 5 per cent, March 2, 1855 
 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 . 
 
 5 per cent, June 23, 1836 
 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 . 
 
 5 per cent, March 3, 1875 
 
 5 per cent, March 3, 1845 
 
 5 per cent, March 3, 1845 
 
 5 per cent, March 3, 1845 
 
 5 per cent, March 3, 1845 
 
 5 per cent, December 28, 1846.. 
 
 5 per cent, March 2, 1849 
 
 5 per cent, April 18, 1818 
 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 . 
 
 3 per cent, April 11, 1818 
 
 5 per cent, April 19, 1816 
 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 . 
 
 5 per cent. May 4, 1858 
 
 5 per cent, February 20, 1811 .. 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 . 
 
 2 per cent, February 28, 1859 .. 
 
 3 per cent. May 3, 1822 
 
 5 per cent, March 6, 1820 
 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 . 
 
 2 pel* cent, September 4, 1841 .. 
 
 3 per cent, March 1, 1817 
 
 3 per cent. May 3, 1822 
 
 5 per cent, July 4, 1836 
 
 5 per cent, March 3, 1857 
 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 . 
 
 5 per cent, June 23, 1836. 
 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 . 
 5 per cent, February 26, 1857 . . 
 
 5 per cent, May 11, 1858 
 
 5 per cent, April 19, 1864 
 
 5 per cent, March 16, 1864 
 
 3 per cent, March 3, 1803 
 
 5 per cent, April 30, 1802 
 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 . 
 5 per cent, February 14, 1859 .. 
 
 5 per cent, August 6, 1846 
 
 5 per cent. May 29, 1848 
 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 . 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 . 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 . 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 . 
 10 per cent. September 4, 1841 . 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 . 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 
 10 per cent, September 4. 1841 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 
 10 per cent, September 4, 18sl 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1881 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 
 10 per cent, September 4, 1841 
 
70 
 EXHIBIT No. 11. 
 
 House of Eepresentatives, Forty-fifth Congress, second session. Report No. 707. 
 
 LANDS LOCATED ON MILITARY WARRANTS IN CERTAIN 
 
 STATES. 
 
 April 30, 1878. Recommitted to the Committee on the Public Lands 
 and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Sapp, from the Committee on the Public Lands, submitted the fol- 
 lowing 
 
 REPORT. 
 [To accompany bill H. R. 4239,] 
 
 The Committee on the Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill H. 
 R. No. 4239, having had the same under consideration, do make the fol- 
 lowing report thereon: 
 
 The bill provides for the payment by the General Government to the 
 States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, 
 Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Flor- 
 ida, Oregon, Nevada, and Colorado, five per centum on the military loca- 
 tions of lands therein, estimating the same at $1 25 per acre. Heretofore, 
 the five per centum upon this class of lands has been withheld as not fall- 
 ing within the purview and intent of the stipulations contained in the 
 several Acts admitting these States into the Union, to the effect that the 
 General Government would pay the percentage in question on the proceeds 
 of the sales of the public lands for and on account of certain designated 
 conditions therein specified, which were to be binding upon and observed 
 by the States as members of the Union. The nature of these considera- 
 tions may be stated, summarily, to be a concession not to tax the public 
 lands; not to tax private lands for the space of five years after date of 
 entry in some seven of these States ; in others not to tax lands granted for 
 military services in the War of 1812 for three years from date of patent; 
 not to interfere with the primary disposal of the soil, nor to tax the non- 
 resident proprietor more than the resident, etc. 
 
 This compact, made at the time these States were admitted into the 
 Union, has been observed and kept on their part in good faith, and they 
 claim the observance of like good faith on the part of the General Govern- 
 ment in fulfilling its part of the contract, namely, the payment of the five 
 per cent, being the stipulated consideration that induced the States to enter 
 into and perform their part of the contract. That the Government has 
 done so on all sales of public lands for cash is not disputed. But the non- 
 payment of the five per cent on all lands upon which military land 
 warrants have been located is not denied, and it is claimed that the Gov- 
 ernment is under no obligations to pay the same, it being insisted upon 
 that the lands so taken up do not fall within the compact, while the States 
 interested maintain that the Government is obliged to pay this five per 
 cent on all lands on which these military warrants have been located, and 
 the bill under consideration is for the purpose of requiring such payment 
 to be made. It has been contended that the five per cent to be paid to 
 these States has reference to cash sales of the public lands, and none other. 
 The States interested maintain that this is not a sound interpretation of 
 the obligations assumed by the Government, and some of the reasons for 
 this claim will be stated. 
 
71 
 
 The several grants of land for military services rendered in the three 
 great wars of this country, namely, the Revolutionary War, the War of 
 1812, and the Mexican War, were not bounties merely; they were not mere 
 gratuities given by the Government out of a spirit of generosity to the sol- 
 diers who served in these wars; they were not granted or received in this 
 spirit, but were by the very terms of most of the Acts authorizing the same, 
 given in part payment for military, services. They entered into and formed 
 a part of the contract of enlistment. The object of these grants was to 
 facilitate and encourage enlistments. In order to fill up the rank and file 
 of the army rapidly, Congress offered in advance, besides specified monthly 
 wages in money, an additional inducement or consideration in lands — not 
 for past services, but for services thereafter to be rendered. The land war- 
 rant to be received was as much a part of the stipulated compensation pro- 
 vided for by the law under which the enlistment was made, and entered 
 into the contract just as fully between the soldier and the Government, as 
 his monthly pay did. If these grants had all been made after the rendi- 
 tion of the military services, it might be otherwise; but they were not. 
 They were offered as a part of the compensation that would be paid for 
 such services. Whatever differences of opinion exists as to whether these 
 grants were sales or not, may to a great extent be attributed to a misunder- 
 standing of the term " bounty " as applied to this kind of reward for mili- 
 tary services. It is not used in its popular sense as importing a gratuity, 
 but in the technical sense of a gross sum or quantity, given in addition to 
 the monthly stipend, but given like the latter in consideration of and as 
 payment for services to be rendered. Thus in the late war, in order to 
 stimulate enlistments, a pecuniary "bounty" — that is, a gross sum in addi- 
 tion to the monthly wages — was offered by the Government to all who 
 would enlist in the military service; and in numerous instances further 
 bounties of the same kind were offered and paid by counties and cities in 
 order to induce enlistments to fill up their respective quotas of men. Such 
 offers, when accepted and acted upon, so completely constituted contracts 
 with the parties enlisting under them, that in repeated instances fulfill- 
 ment thereof has been enforced by the Courts. These pecuniary "boun- 
 ties," by which enlistments were so largely procured during the late 
 rebellion, occupy precisely the same attitude as respects the question now 
 under consideration, as the so called bounty land warrants do. Both really 
 were simply extra allowances offered for the same purpose, and when 
 accepted and enlistments made thereunder, they became ipso facto con- 
 tracts which any Court would recognize and enforce. In this way the 
 public lands were made available as a resource for defraying the national 
 burdens just as effectually as if they had been converted into money, and 
 the money used in paying the enlisted men. It was an exchange of one 
 valuable thing for another, which in law makes it a case of sale, to con- 
 stitute which it is enough that the title to property is parted with for a 
 valuable consideration. It is not necessary that there be a moneyed con- 
 sideration in order to constitute a sale. Any other valuable consideration 
 will be as effectual in supporting.a contract and in making a sale, which 
 will pass the title, whether it be merchandise, other property, or ser^dces. 
 Suppose one man employs another to work for a given period of time, under 
 an agreement to pay him monthly wages at a given price per month and 
 forty acres of land, to be conveyed when the period of service expires, it 
 must be conceded that when the ser\dces are rendered the party would be 
 as much entitled to the land as he would be to the stipulated sum per 
 month, and this would as clearly be a sale of the land as if the considera- 
 tion therefor had been money. The principle involved in the case supposed 
 
72 
 
 is precisely the same as in the oae under consideration. And if it is a sale 
 in the one case, it is difficult to see why it would not be in the other. But 
 let us examine this character or mode of disposing of lands by the United 
 States, as constituting a " sale " when it is viewed as a transaction between 
 the Government and the party locating the warrant. Instead of patenting 
 specific land to the soldier entitled thereto, in virtue of his military ser- 
 vices, the Government issued to him it§ written obligation, payable in the 
 agreed quantity of land, to be selected by him from the whole body of 
 lands open for sale and entry throughout the country. These obligations 
 or " warrants" were made assignable by law, and subject to sale and trans- 
 fer in the market, from hand to hand, by mere delivery. In this way they ^ 
 became practically a species of Government scrip or currency, and persons 
 desirous of becoming land proprietors could and did go into the market 
 and purchase the same, and with them buy the land they wanted; and in 
 this way large quantities of the public lands were disposed of wherever the 
 same were subject to sale and entry at the different Land Offices. Now, it 
 is claimed to be against reason and common usage to say that these lands 
 are not sold because the Government receives in payment for them, instead 
 of cash, its own obligations, payable in land. Can it be considered less a 
 case of sale that the purchaser, instead of paying for his lands in green- 
 backs, does so with the Government's own paper obligations? 
 
 The chief difference in the two descriptions of paper is, that the first is 
 available for purchasing all commodities, indiscriminately, while the latter 
 is limited to purchase of land only. Suppose the United States had issued 
 pecuniary obligations, i. e., bonds payable to bearer at a future day, or pay- 
 able like greenbacks, whenever the Government should find itself able, 
 but with the proviso that they should be receivable at par in payment for 
 public lands, how would the case of lands paid for with such bonds differ 
 from the present case? The bonds might have been issued like land war- 
 rants, for military services, or for any other consideration, or for no con- 
 sideration. They might have been regarded by Congress strictly as a 
 gratuity to parties thought to have, for any reason, deserved well of their 
 country. The motive or consideration that induced or authorized the 
 issuing of the same would not affect the question whether lands entered 
 and paid for with such bonds ought to be considered as sold or not. In 
 both cases the Government would have received in such disposition of its 
 lands its own valid outstanding obligations, for the fulfillment of which its 
 faith was pledged, and the surrender of which by the holder would consti- 
 tute an ample consideration, both legal and equitable, for the conveyance. 
 These considerations apply, to the fullest extent, to the case of entries of 
 land by means of land warrants. For it is immaterial to the character of 
 this transaction for what consideration such obligation was issued. Its 
 legal capability of assignment has practically imparted to the land warrant 
 a negotiable quality. It has become part of the general mass of securities 
 passing from hand to hand in the market. The purchaser buys it relying 
 on the faith of the United States for the fulfillment of the agreement em- 
 bodied in it, and without inquiry as to the consideration in which it origi- 
 nated. In this connection it is proper to state that Congress has treated 
 these warrants, for military services, as money, both by receiving them in 
 payment for large tracts of land or by authorizing their conversion into 
 scrip, and then receiving this scrip in payment for any public land, wher- 
 ever situate. This scrip so issued in lieu of land warrants, orjn redemp- 
 tion of the same, has always been treated as money by the Government. 
 It has always been received in payment for land just the same as money; 
 and when lands have been taken up by this scrip, representing the land 
 
73 
 
 warrants, the Government has paid the five per cent to the States where it 
 was situate, while the per cent has been withheld where the land has been 
 taken up by the warrants themselves. We think no good reason c^n be 
 assigned for this distinction. The land absorbed by either class of paper 
 is precisely the same in effect, so far as the Government is concerned, and 
 both alike discharge its obligations, and for that very reason the land so 
 absorbed by both classes of paper should be treated as having been sold. 
 
 Again, on March 2, 1855, Congress passed an Act entitled " An Act to 
 settle certain accounts between the United States and the State of Ala- 
 bama." This Act provides: 
 
 That the Commissioner of the General Land Office be and he is hereby required to state 
 an account between the United States and the State of Alabama, for the purpose of ascer- 
 taining what sum or sums of money are due to said State, heretofore unsettled under the 
 Act of March 2, 1819, for the admission of Alabama into the Union, and that he be re- 
 quired to include in said account the several reservations under the various treaties with 
 the Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Creek Indians within the limits of Alabama, and allow and 
 pay to said State five per cent thereon, as in case of other sales. 
 
 Subsequently to this Congress passed an Act entitled "An Act to settle 
 certain accounts between the United States and the State of Mississippi 
 and other States," which was approved March 3, 1857, and is as follows: 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress 
 assembled, That the Commissioner of the General Land Office be and he is hereby required 
 to state an account between the United States and the State of Mississippi, for the pur- 
 pose of ascertaining what sum or sums of money are due to said State, heretofore unset- 
 tled, on account of the public lands in said State, and upon the same principles and 
 allowance as prescribed in the " Act to settle certain accounts between the United States 
 and the State of Alabama," approved the second of March, 1855; and that he be required 
 to include in said account the several reservations under the various treaties with the 
 Chickasaw and Choctaw Indians within the limits of Mississippi, and allow and pay to 
 the said State five per centum thereon, as in case of other sales, estimating the lands at 
 the value of $1 25 per acre. 
 
 Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the said Commissioners shall also state an ac- 
 count between the tinited States and each of the other States upon the same principles ; 
 and shall allow and pay to each State such amount as shall thus be found due, estimating 
 all lands and permanent reservations at $1 25 per acre. 
 
 The settlements authorized and required by these Acts between the Gov- 
 ernment and the States of Alabama and Mississippi, and the payment of 
 the five per cent for these reservations, estimating the land at $1 25 per 
 acre, are a clear recognition of the principle contended for by the States 
 named in the bill under consideration. The fee to the land in these reser- 
 vations was granted to the Indians, either out of good will and to encourage 
 friendly relations or in part consideration of their possessory right to large 
 tracts of this country, surrendered to the Government. It was no cash sale 
 of the lands to the Indians. So the military land warrants were granted 
 to the soldiers, either as a grateful acknowledgment of their services or in 
 part payment of the same ; and whether one or the other, the two cases are 
 the same in principle, and the five per cent should be paid in both cases or 
 should not be paid in either. But we wish to call especial attention to the 
 provisions of the Act with reference to Mississippi, as we think all ambi- 
 guity in respect to the question under consideration, if there be any, is 
 removed by the language there used; for if Congress meant anything, it 
 would seem the Commissioner, by that Act, is required to do three things: 
 First — He is to state an account between the United States and Mississippi 
 and the other States, for the purpose of ascertaining what sum or sums of 
 money are due to these States, heretofore unsettled, on account of public 
 lands in said States. Second — He is to include two things in said account, 
 which are, all lands and permanent reservations, estimating the same at 
 
74 
 
 $1 25 per acre; and, third — he is to pay five per cent thereon as in cases 
 of other sales. If Congress did not intend to inchide all lands upon which 
 military land warrants had been located as well as permanent reservation, 
 we are unable to see what was intended by the language employed in this 
 Act. We think it must be admitted that this account was to include all 
 public lands on which the five per cent was still unsettled, as well as reser- 
 vations. And by the express terms of the Act, this necessarily includes 
 the military locations, as these were a part of the public lands on which 
 the five per cent had not been paid. If these lands were not intended to 
 be included, what lands does the Act refer to? It cannot be the lands sold 
 for cash, for there was no dispute about them. The Government had faith- 
 fully complied with its obligations to the States as it respects these cash 
 sales, and had paid the five per cent on all the lands so sold. Neither can 
 it refer to the reservations, for they were fully provided for by the first sec- 
 tion of the Act by name, and are to be paid for upon the same principles 
 and allowance as those recognized and provided for in the case of the State 
 of Alabama. And in addition to these reservations, the Government is to 
 pay on account of all public lands in said State of Mississippi upon the 
 same principles and allowance. So that both lands and reservations are 
 clearly provided for in this first section, while the second section provides 
 that the United States shall state an account with the other States upon 
 the same principles, and shall allow and pay to them such amount as shall 
 be found due on account of all lands and reservations, estimating the same 
 at $1 25 per acre. So that other lands than those sold for cash and reser- 
 vations must be referred to by this Act -in order to give its provisions force 
 and effect. Indeed, we think that a proper construction of the scope and 
 meaning of this Act of Congress would include all lands in these States 
 disposed of by the Government for any purpose other than to the State 
 itself, or by the consent of the State. That it is broad enough to, and does, 
 include the lands in question, we think is beyond controversy. And to 
 avoid all question hereafter, as to its including all lands disposed of by the 
 General Government, and confining it to cash sales, and lands located for 
 military warrants, your committee recommend that the bill be amended to 
 that effect, and that the several States named be required, through their 
 Legislatures, to relinquish all claims to the five per cent, excepting cash 
 sales and those on which land warrants have been and shall be located. 
 It is further insisted by these States that if the General Government is not 
 obligated to pay the five per cent on the lands in dispute by the terms 
 of the contract with these States fairly construed, it would be within the 
 power of the Government to convey all the public lands, in any State, for 
 military services, and in that way defeat any benefit they were to derive 
 under the contract. It is claimed by these States, that as they were to have 
 five per cent of the proceeds of the sales of public lands, they were to be 
 disposed of only in such manner as would enable them to get this sum 
 therefrom, and that any other disposition of these lands defeats the consid- 
 eration that induced them to enter into the stipulations provided for on 
 their part. We think there are strong reasons for this position, and that 
 the Government in all justice cannot dispose of the public lands in these 
 States for military services, and then refuse to pay to them the per cent 
 provided for 'by the compact. Suppose that A agrees with B that he will 
 pay him a commission of five per cent for selling a section of land at a 
 given price, and after making this agreement he directs B to take a given 
 quantity of merchandise for the same, which B does, can there be any 
 doubt that B is entitled to the commission agreed upon for making the sale 
 because the mode of paying for the same is changed by A from cash to 
 
75 
 
 merchandise? And, if not, is not the Government as much bound under 
 its contract with these States to pay the five per cent agreed upon, where 
 the land is given for and in consideration of miUtary services, as it would 
 be if the sale had been for cash? In other words, the contract presupposes 
 that all the public lands will be so sold and disposed of that the States will 
 realize the per cent agreed upon; and that no disposition of them, to be 
 made in such manner as to defeat the same was contemplated at .the time, 
 and that such is the implication arising from the contract itself. Such was 
 clearly the view taken by Congress of this question in the Acts of March 2, 
 1855, and March 3, 1857. Hence, the language used, " all lands and per- 
 manent reservations f^ and, as if not to be misunderstood, the same are ^Ho 
 he valued at $1 25 per acre^ Not five per cent of the proceeds from the 
 cash sales, but five per cent on all lands disposed of in any other way, esti- 
 mating the same at $1 25 per acre. Any other view would defeat this leg- 
 islation, both in letter and in spirit, and would do violence to every rule of 
 construction known to the law. It could not have been within the contem- 
 plation of the parties that Congress might defeat the payment of the five 
 per cent by some other disposition of the public lands than a sale of the 
 same for cash, for if it had been, this privilege would have been reserved, 
 and it is clearly evident no right whatever was reserved to make any dis- 
 position of the same that would relinquish the payment of this five per cent. 
 Such being the contract, what is the duty of Congress in respect to this 
 claim made by these States? On this subject Chancellor Kent says: 
 
 That a law embodying a contract duly passed and promulgated, thenceforward becomes 
 the law of the land, and that is as binding upon Congress as upon the people, or any other 
 branch of the government, or as any other contract would be binding upon the govern- 
 ment executed under the authority of law. 
 
 The obligations imposed upon these States were onerous. The loss of 
 revenue in not being allowed to exercise the power of taxation, alone would 
 far exceed in value the amount that will be gained by them if the five per 
 cent is paid on all public lands including cash sales and those exchanged 
 for military services. After careful consideration and much deliberation, 
 jour committee have reached the following conclusions: 
 
 First — That the several enabling Acts admitting the new States into the 
 Union, as it respects the payment of five per centum on the sales of the 
 public lands, do embody the elements of a legal and binding contract 
 between said States and the National Government, which both parties are 
 entitled to have carried into effect in the same manner and on the same 
 principles as contracts are between individuals. 
 
 Second — That the agreement to pay the five per centum has a sufficient 
 consideration in the concessions made by these States in the acts of admis- 
 sion into the Union, in the surrender of revenue and otherwise, and that it 
 was not within the contemplation of the parties that Congress might defeat 
 the right of the States to the. five per cent on sales by adopting a policy of 
 disposing of the public lands in some other form than for money, and as a 
 matter of fact the Government did not reserve the right to give away the 
 public lands for objects and uses outside of the States, or to withhold the 
 payment of the five per cent on lands granted for military purposes; and 
 third, that the several grants of lands for military services rendered in the 
 three great wars of this country, namely, the Revolutionary war, the war 
 of 1812, and the Mexican war, were sales in the sense of the law and the 
 meaning of the compact between those States and the National Government. 
 
 Your committee would, therefore, recommend that the bill under con- 
 sideration be amended by providing, first, that no certificates provided for 
 
76 
 
 by the bill shall be issued to any State until said State, by its Legislature, 
 shall relinquish or release all further claims against the United States for 
 five per centum of the net proceeds of the sales of public lands other than 
 cash sales and locations by military land warrants; and second, that 
 whatever amount may be found due the State of Alabama, under the pro- 
 visions of this Act, shall, when paid to said State, be held in trust for the 
 use and benefit of the University of said State, and may be disposed of by 
 the Legislature thereof in such manner as may be deemed for the best 
 interests of said University; and that after it has been so amended it pass. 
 It may be proper to add that the mode of adjustment and settlement pro- 
 vided for by the bill does not make it burdensome, but easy to the Govern- 
 ment, as no money is required to be paid out of the Treasury for that 
 purpose. The bill provides that the Secretary of the Treasury shall be 
 authorized to issue and deliver to the Governors of the States named, or 
 their agents, United States certificates of indebtedness of the denomina- 
 tions of $100, $500, and $1,000 each, as the Secretary may direct, each of 
 which is to run twenty years from its date, to draw interest, payable semi- 
 annually, at the rate of three and sixty-five hundredths per centum per 
 annum. 
 
 It is believed that a sum far in excess of what will be necessary to meet 
 the payment of these certificates will be realized by the time they mature 
 from the sales of the public land belonging to the Government yet remain- 
 ing undisposed of. Your committee feel the more strongly inclined to 
 recommend the passage of this bill, from the fact that in nearly all the 
 States the revenue arising from this source has been set apart for educa- 
 tional purposes, in which the nation and the States are alike interested. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 11^. 
 
 Forty-seventh Congress, first session. S. 67. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States, December 5, 1881. 
 
 Mr. Voorhies asked and, by unanimous consent, obtained leave to bring^ 
 in the following bill, which was read twice and referred to the Committee* 
 on Public Lands: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to ascertain and certify the amount 
 of land located with military warrants in the States described therein, and 
 for other purposes. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior 
 be and he is hereby directed to ascertain the amount of public lands 
 entered by the location of military scrip and land warrants in the States 
 of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, 
 Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, 
 Oregon, Nevada, and Colorado (including Virginia military and United 
 States military land warrants located in the State of Ohio after her admis- 
 sion into the Union), whose enabling Acts of admission into the Union con- 
 tain a stipulation for the payment of five per centum on the sales of public 
 lands therein; and, after making such investigation, it shall be the duty 
 of the Secretary of the Interior to certify the amount so found to the Sec- 
 retary of the Treasury; and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the 
 
77 
 
 Treasury, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to 
 pay to such States five per centum on the amount of lands located by mil- 
 itary scrip and land warrants, estimating said lands at the rate of one 
 dollar and twenty-five cents per acre; provided, that the Secretary of the 
 Interior shall exclude from his estimate and certificate all lands so entered 
 upon which the said five per centum has been paid. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby au- 
 thorized and directed to pay the amounts allowed as herein provided by 
 issuing and delivering to the Governors of the States named, or their duly 
 authorized agents, United States certificates of indebtedness, said certifi- 
 cates to be of the denomination of one hundred, five hundred, and one 
 thousand dollars each, as the Secretary may direct, to be made and issued 
 by the Secretary in such form, and signed, and attested, and registered, as 
 he shall direct, each certificate to run twenty years from its date, to draw 
 interest, payable semi-annually, at the rate of three and sixty-five hun- 
 dredths per centum per annum, and be payable, both principal and inter- 
 est, when due, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
 on the presentation of the same; provided, that the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury may, at his option, pay the said amounts allowed, or any part thereof, 
 out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated ; and what- 
 ever may be necessary to carry out the purposes and provisions of this Act 
 is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury of the United 
 States not otherwise appropriated ; provided further, that the receipt of the 
 certificates of indebtedness, or money, provided for in this Act, by the Gov- 
 ernor of any one of the States named, or his duly authorized agent, shall 
 operate on the part of such State so receiving the same as an estoppel of any 
 and all claims which such State may have against the United States for 
 five per centum on account of any lands which have been, or may hereaf- 
 ter be, granted to such State, corporation, person, or persons, for the pur- 
 poses of internal improvements, or to aid in the construction of railroads or 
 canals, or for any other purpose whatsoever, or on account of any lands 
 which have been, or may hereafter be, entered under the homestead laws 
 of the United States. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 12. 
 
 Forty-seventh Congress, first session. S. 67. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States, May 17, 1882. 
 Ordered to lie on the table and be printed. 
 
 AMENDMENTS 
 
 Intended to he proposed by Mr. Farley to the hill {S. 67) to authorize the 
 Secretary of the Interior to ascertain and certify the amount of land located 
 with military warrants in the States described therein, and for other pur- 
 poses, viz : 
 
 In Section 1, line 16, after the word "Treasury," insert the following: 
 " And the Secretary of the Interior shall also ascertain and certify to 
 the Secretary of the Treasury the amount of sales of public lands made in 
 the State of California since the admission of said State into the Union, 
 including the amount of such lands entered or located in said State with 
 military scrip or land warrants." 
 
78 
 
 In same section, line 21, after the word '' acres," insert the following: 
 " And to pay to the said State of California five per centum of the pro- 
 •ceeds of such public lands, estimating the lands entered or located with 
 military scrip or land warrants at one dollar and twenty-five cents per 
 acre; and money received by said State under the provisions of this Act 
 shall be held by the said State of California as a school fund, the interest 
 upon which shall be used in aid of the support of the common schools of 
 said State." 
 
 Forty-seventh Congress, first session, S. 67. May 19, 1882. 
 
 To' authorize the Secretary of the Interior to ascertain and certify the amount 
 of land located with military warrants in the States described therein, and 
 for other purposes. 
 
 On passage, Yeas, twenty-two; Nays, seventeen. 
 
 Yeas— Allison, Cameron (Pa.), Cameron (Wis.), Chilcott, Cockrell, Conger, Davis (111.), 
 Farley, Ferry, Grover, Hale, Hill (Col.), Ingalls, Jones (Nev.), McDill, Miller (Cal.), Pugh, 
 Sawyer, Vest, Voorhees, Walker, Windom. 
 
 Nays— Anthony, Blair, Brown, Call, Camden, Coke, Davis (W. Va.), Dawes, Gorman, 
 Harris, Hawley, Hoar, Jackson, Maxey, Miller (N. Y.), Morgan, Saulsbury. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 13. 
 
 Page 461, Laws of Iowa, 1857. Number 16. 
 
 A JOINT RESOLUTION AND MEMORIAL IN RELATION TO 
 THE FIVE PER CENT FUNDS. 
 
 Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Iowa, That in the 
 opinion of this General Assembly the State of Iowa is entitled under and 
 by wtue of the proposition made thereto by the Congress of the United 
 States, by an Act supplemental to the Act for the admission of the States 
 of Iowa and Florida into the Union, approved March 3, 1845, and an Act 
 of the General Assembly of the State entitled an Act and Ordinance 
 accepting the proposition made by Congress on the admission of Iowa into 
 the Union as a State, approved January 15, 1849, to five per centum on 
 the Government price of all land sold in this State by the United States for 
 military land warrants since January 15, 1849. 
 
 Resolved, That the Governor of this State be authorized and requested 
 to take such steps as he may deem best to procure from the United States 
 the moneys as claimed to be due this State by the foregoing resolution, 
 approved January 23, 1857. 
 
 State of Iowa, Executive Department, ] 
 Des Moines, February 21, 1873. j 
 
 The resolution of the General Assembly of this State, passed February 
 19, 1873, a copy of which is hereto annexed, is made, as the former resolu- 
 tion, a part of this contract; except so far as Indian reservations are 
 concerned, on which the said Lowe is to have twenty-five per cent on the 
 amount which may be collected. 
 
 C. C. CARPENTER, 
 
 Governor of Iowa. 
 R. P. LOWE. 
 
79 
 
 State of Iowa, ss. 
 
 The following contract is hereby modified so as to authorize Edson A. 
 Lowe to assist the said Ralph P. Lowe, his father, as agent thereunder, and' 
 in case of the latter's death or inability to act, he, the said Edson A. 
 Lowe, shall become such agent in the room of his said father, and be enti- 
 tled to receive the same benefit and pay under said contract, if successful, 
 that the said Ralph P. Lowe would have been entitled to. 
 
 JNO. H. GEAR, Governor of Iowa. 
 Des Moines, Iowa, October 8, 1881. 
 
 JOINT RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO STATE AGENT, HIS 
 
 DUTIES, ETC. 
 
 Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Iowa, That the Joint 
 Resolution, relative to the appointment of an agent to collect from the 
 United States certain moneys due to the State of Iowa, approved February 
 21, 1872, and the action of the Governor thereunder in appointing Ralph 
 P. Lowe State Agent, be so amended as to embrace the claims of the State 
 of Iowa, on account of other lands in this State disposed of by the United 
 States, under all other warrants issued for military purposes, and for Indian 
 reservations. 
 
 Approved February 20, 1873. 
 
 I, Josiah T. Young, Secretary of State of the State of Iowa, hereby certify 
 that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Joint Resolution, passed 
 at the adjourned session of the Fourteenth General Assembly, as the same 
 appears in the original enrolled resolution, now on file in this office, and 
 approved February 20, 1873. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the 
 great seal of the State to be affixed. 
 
 Done at Des Moines, this twentieth day of February, A. D. 1873. 
 
 {The Great Seal of the State of Iowa.] 
 
 JOSIAH T. YOUNG, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 JOINT RESOLUTION. 
 
 Joint Resolution relative to the appointment of an agent for the collec- 
 tion of amount due from the United States to the State of Iowa, on account 
 of lands conveyed to non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates, in 
 the late Mexican war. 
 
 Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Iowa, That the Gov- 
 ernor be and is hereby authorized and empowered to appoint an agent in 
 behalf of this State to prosecute to final decision before Congress, or in the 
 Courts, the claim of this State for the five per cent due to the same from 
 the United States upon the lands in this State, disposed of under military 
 warrants issued to non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates, in 
 the late Mexican war, and that such agent shall be well informed in the 
 law, and shall be allowed such compensation as shall be agreed upon 
 between the Governor and himself, and to be paid only after the recovery 
 of the claim in whole or in part, and not to be paid out of any other fund ; 
 and provided that the State shall not be otherwise liable for any expenses 
 whatever attending the prosecution of such claim. 
 
 Approved February 21, 1872. 
 
80 
 
 I, Ed. Wright, Secretary of State of the State of Iowa, hereby certify that 
 the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution passed by 
 the Legislature of the State of Iowa, and approved February 21, 1872, as 
 the same appears from the original roll in this office. 
 
 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the great 
 seal of the State to be affixed. 
 
 Done at Des Moines, this twenty-third day of February, A. D. 1872. 
 
 [seal.] ED. WRIGHT, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 In pursuance of the object and intent of the foregoing resolution, which 
 is made a part of this agreement, I, C. C. Carpenter, Governor of the State 
 of Iowa, do by these presents stipulate with R. P. Lowe of Keokuk, Iowa, 
 that,- in consideration that he, the said Lowe, shall diligently and to the 
 best of his ability prosecute and collect the claim specified in said resolu- 
 tion, and upon the terms therein contemplated, that he, the said Lowe, 
 shall have and be entitled to receive for his services in the premises thirty- 
 three and one third per cent upon the amount so collected, provided there 
 shall be no charge whatever to the State, either for expenses or services, in 
 case of failure. 
 
 February 24, 1872. 
 
 C. C. CARPENTER, 
 
 Governor of Iowa. 
 R. P. LOWE. 
 State of Iowa, ss. 
 
 The foregoing contract is hereby modified so as to authorize Edson A. 
 Lowe to assist the said Ralph P. Lowe, his father, as agent thereunder; 
 and in case of the latter's death or inability to act, he, the said Edson A. 
 Lowe, shall become such agent in the room of his said father, and be 
 entitled to receive the same benefit and pay under said contract, if suc- 
 cessful, that the said Ralph P. Lowe would have been entitled to. 
 
 JNO. H. GEAR, 
 
 Governor of Iowa. 
 
 Des Moines, Iowa, October 8, 1881. 
 
 For and in consideration of certain lands sold and conveyed to me by 
 Wm. Leighton and Carleton H. Perry, I have transferred to them, the said 
 Leighton and Perry, by written instruments which they hold, an interest 
 in the within contract, to the amount of $13,440. 
 
 R. P. LOWE. 
 
 The following is a memorandum of an agreement, bearing date thirty- 
 first dav of May, A. D. 1878, by which I have assigned to Asa Whitehead, 
 of Washington, D. C, and Elijah G. Coffin, of Springfield, Ohio, $12,000 of 
 my interest in the within agreements, for a good and valuable considera- 
 tion, which has been fully paid by them. 
 
 R. P. LOWE. 
 
 Attest: Wm. A. Van Duzer. 
 
 State of Iowa, Executive Department. 
 
 To all whom these presents shall come, greeting: 
 
 Whereas, Ralph P. Lowe, of Lee County, has been appointed, in pursu- 
 ance of and in accordance with Joint Resolution Number Five, of the Acts 
 
81 
 
 and Joint Resolutions of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the State of 
 Iowa, approved February 21, 1872, an agent in behalf of this State to 
 prosecute to final decision, before Congress or in the Courts, the claim of 
 this State for the five per cent due to the same from the United States upon 
 the lands in this State disposed of under military warrants, issued to non- 
 commissioned officers, musicians, and privates in the late Mexican war; 
 
 Therefore, know ye, that in pursuance of law, I, Cyrus C. Carpenter, 
 Governor of the State of Iowa, in the name and by the authority of the 
 people of the State, do hereby commission him to said office, with full 
 powers and authority to execute and fulfill the duties thereof according to 
 law, and to enjoy all the rights, authorities, privileges, and emoluments 
 thereto legally appertaining for the full term of which he has been appointed, 
 unless this commission be sooner revoked or annulled by lawful authority. 
 
 In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be 
 affixed the great seal of the State of Iowa. Done at Des Moines, this 
 twenty-fourth day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight 
 hundred and seventy-two, of the State of Iowa, the twenty-sixth, and of 
 the Independence of the United States, the ninety-sixth. 
 
 By the Governor. C. C. CARPENTER. 
 
 [The Great Seal of the State of Iowa.] 
 
 ED. WRIGHT, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 I, Henry W. Sohon, a United States Commissioner for the District of 
 Columbia, do hereby certify that the foregoing copies of certain papers 
 have, each and all, been by me carefully compared with the originals 
 thereof this day shown me, and that they are, each and all, full, true, and 
 correct copies of said originals, which are as follows, to wit : 
 
 First — Modification of contract, signed, C. C. Carpenter, Governor of 
 Iowa, and R. P. Lowe, dated February 21, 1873. 
 
 Second — Modification of contract, signed, John H. Gear, Governor of 
 Iowa, dated October 8, 1881. 
 
 Third — Certified copy of a Joint Resolution of General Assembly of Iowa, 
 approved February 20, 1873. 
 
 Fourth — Certificate of Josiah T. Young, Secretary of State of Iowa, to 
 foregoing copy, dated February 20, 1873. 
 
 Fifth — Certified copy of Joint Resolution of General Assembly of Iowa, 
 approved February 21, 1872. 
 
 Sixth — Certificate of Ed. Wright, Secretary of State of Iowa, to foregoing 
 copy, dated February 23, 1872. 
 
 Seventh — Contract between C. C. Carpenter, Governor of Iowa, and R. P. 
 Lowe, dated February 24, 1872. 
 
 Eighth — Modification of contract, signed by John H. Gear, Governor of 
 Iowa, dated October 8, 1881. 
 
 Ninth — Transfer from R. P. Lowe to William Leighton and Carleton H. 
 Perry. 
 
 Tenth — Assignment of R. P. Lowe to Asa Whitehead and Elijah G. 
 Coffin, memorandum of May 31, 1878. 
 
 Eleventh — A commission to Ralph P. Lowe, signed C. C. Carpenter, 
 Governor of Iowa, dated February 24, 1872. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I have this eighth day of June, A. D. 1886, here- 
 
82 
 
 unto set my hand and affixed my seal, at the City of Washington, in the 
 District of Columbia. 
 
 [seal.] henry W. SOHON,. 
 
 United States Commissioner, District of Columbia. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 14. 
 
 Supreme].Court of the United States. Nos. 3 and 4 (original).— October Term, 1883. 
 
 No. 3. In the matter of The State of Iowa, 
 Petitioner. 
 
 No. 4. In the matter of The State of Illinois, 
 Petitioner. 
 
 Petitions for Writs of 
 Mandamus. 
 
 Under the Act of March 3, 1845, ch. 76, relating to the admission of Iowa into the 
 Union, or the Act of April 18, 1818, ch. 67, for the admission of the State of Illinois into 
 the Union, by which "five per cent of the net proceeds " of public lands lying within the 
 State, and afterwards "sold by Congress," shall be reserved and appropriated for certain 
 public uses of the State, the State is not entitled to a percentage on the value of lands 
 disposed of by the United States in satisfaction of military land warrants. 
 
 [March 3, 1884.] 
 
 Mr. Justice Gray delivered the opinion of the Court. 
 
 These are petitions filed in this Court by each of the States of Iowa and 
 Illinois, at the relation of its Governor, relying upon the provision of an 
 Act of Congress relating to its admission into the Union, by which it was 
 agreed that " five per cent of the net proceeds" of lands lying within the 
 State, and afterwards "sold by Congress," should be appropriated for cer- 
 tain public uses of the State; contending that the State was thereby 
 entitled to five per cent of the value, computed at the rate of one dollar 
 and twenty-five cents per acre, of lands disposed of by Congress in satisfac- 
 tion of military land warrants; and praying for a writ of mandamus to the 
 Commissioner of the General Land Office, to compel him, in accordance 
 with Section 456 of the Revised Statutes, to state an account between the 
 United States and the State, for the purpose of ascertaining the sum of 
 money so due to the State, and to transmit the account to the Comptroller 
 of the Treasury for his examination and action, to the end that that sum 
 might be allowed and paid by the United States. 
 
 The provisions of the Acts of Congress, on which the petitioners rely, are 
 as follows: 
 
 The sixth section of the Act of Congress of March 3, 1845, ch. 76, 
 supplemental to the Act of the same day by which the State of Iowa was 
 admitted into the Union, contained, among the propositions offered to the 
 Legislature of the State for its acceptance or rejection, and which, if ac- 
 cepted under the authority conferred on the Legislature by the Convention 
 which framed the Constitution of the State, should be obligatory upon the 
 United States, the following: 
 
 Fifth— That five per cent of the net proceeds of sales of all public lands lying within 
 the said State, which have been or shall be sold by Congress from and after the admission 
 of said State, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be appropriated 
 for making public roads and canals within the said State, as the Legislature may direct; 
 
 frovided, that the five foregoing propositions herein oflfered are on the condition 'that the 
 iCgislature of the said State, by virtue of the x^owers conferred upon it by the Convention 
 which framed the Constitution of the said State, shall provide, by an ordinance, irrevoca- 
 ble without the consent of the United States, that the said State shall never interfere with 
 the primary disposal of the soil within the same by the United States, nor with any regu- 
 
88 
 
 lations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide 
 purchasers thereof; and that no tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United 
 States; and that in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents; 
 and that the bounty lands granted, or hereafter to be granted, for military services during 
 the late war, shall ,"^ while they continue to be held by the patentees or their heirs, remain 
 exempt from any tax laid by order or under the authority of the State, whether for State, 
 county, township, or any other purpose, for the term of three years from and after the 
 date of the patents, respectively. (5 Stat. 790.) 
 
 The sixth section of the Act of Congress of April 18, 1818, ch. 67, to ena- 
 ble the people of the Illinois Territory to form a Constitution and State 
 Government, and for the admission of the State of Illinois into the Union, 
 contained among the propositions offered to the Convention of the Territory, 
 and which, if accepted by the Convention, should be obligatory upon the 
 United States, the following: 
 
 Third — That five per cent of the net proceeds of the lands lying within such State, and 
 which shall be sold by Congress from and after the first day of January, one thousand 
 eight hundred and nineteen, after deducting all expenses incident to the same, shall be 
 reserved for the purposes following, viz. : two fifths to be disbursed, under the direction of 
 Congress, in making roads leading to the State; the residue to be appropriated by the 
 Legislature of the State, for the encouragement of learning, of which one sixth part shall 
 be exclusively bestowed on a college or university; provided, always, that the four foregoing 
 propositions herein offered, are on the conditions that the convention of the said State 
 shall provide, by an ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that 
 every and each tract of land sold by the United States from and after the first day of Jan- 
 uary, one thousand eight hundred and nineteen, shall remain exempt from any tax laid 
 by order or under any authority of the State, whether for State, county, or township, or 
 arij'^ other purpose whatever, for the term of five years from and after the day of sale; 
 anti further, that the bounty lands granted, or hereafter to be granted, for military services 
 during the late war, shall, while they continue to be held by the patentees or their heirs, 
 remain exempt, as aforesaid, from all taxes, for the term of three years from and after 
 the date of the patents respectively; and that all the lands belonging to the citizens of the 
 United States, residing without the said State, shall never be taxed higher than lands 
 belonging to persons residing therein. (3 Stat. 430, 431.) 
 
 By the Act of Congress of March 2, 1855, ch. 139, entitled " An Act to 
 settle certain accounts between the United States and the State of Alabama," 
 it was enacted as follows: 
 
 That the Commissioner of the General Land Office be and he is hereby required to 
 state an account between the United States and the State of Alabama, for the purpose of 
 ascertaining what sum or sums of money are due to said State, heretofore unsettled, 
 under the sixth section of the Act of March second, eighteen hundred and nineteen, for 
 the admission of Alabama into the Union ; and that he be required to include in said 
 account the several reservations under the various treaties with the Chickasaw, Choctaw, 
 and Creek Indians within the limits of Alabama, and allow and pay to said State five per 
 centum thereon, as in case of other sales. (10 Stat. 630.) 
 
 By the Act of June 8, 1857, ch. 104, entitled "An Act to settle certain 
 accounts between the United States and State of Mississippi and other 
 States," it was enacted as follows: 
 
 Section 1. That the Commissioner of the General Land Office be and he is hereby 
 required to state an account between the United States and the State of Mississippi, for 
 the purpose of ascertaining what sum or sums of money are due to said State, heretofore 
 unsettled, on account of the public lands in said State, and upon the same principle of 
 allowance and settlement as prescribed in the "Act to settle certain accounts between 
 the United States and the State of Alabama," approved the second March, eighteen hun- 
 dred and fifty-five; and that he be required to include in said account the several reserva- 
 tions under the various treaties with the Chickasaw and Choctaw Indians within the 
 limits of Mississippi, and allow and pay to the said State five per cent thereon, as in case 
 of other sales, estimating the lands at the value of one dollar and twenty-five cents per 
 acre. 
 
 Sec, 2. That the said Commissioner shall also state an account between the United 
 States and each of the other States upon the same principles, and shall allow and pay to 
 . each State such amount ai; shall thus be found due, estimating all lands and permanent 
 reservations at one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre. (11 Stat. 200.) 
 
84 
 
 Each petition alleged that the State had accepted the propositions, and 
 faithfully kept and performed on its part the conditions set forth in the 
 Act of admission; that prior to the dates of the passage of the Acts 
 of 1855 and 1857 respectively, the five per cent on the cash sales of 
 the public lands lying within the States of Alabama and Mississippi 
 had been regularly and periodically paid to those States respectively, so 
 that at those dates there were no unsettled accounts growing out of the 
 five per cent clause of the Acts for the admission of those States into 
 the Union, except for lands entered and purchased with military land 
 warrants; and that by the Act of 1857 it was the duty of the Commis- 
 sioner of the General Land Office, when required to do so, to state an 
 account between the United States and each State upon the same princi- 
 ples of allowance as prescribed in the Act of 1855, and by that Act it was 
 his duty, upon proper application, to state such an account for the purpose 
 of ascertaining what sum or sums of money, theretofore unsettled, under 
 the Act for the admission of the State into the Union, were due to it on 
 account of lands lying within the State, disposed of by the United States 
 for or in the satisfaction and redemption of military land warrants, issued 
 by the United States for military services. 
 
 Each petition further alleged that the Government of the United States, 
 in disposing of the public lands by sale in this and other Western States, 
 adopted two methods: one for cash; the other for the redemption of its out- 
 standing military warrants or obligations, calling for a specific quantity of 
 land, issued to the soldiers who had enlisted and served in the different wars 
 of the country, under statutes enacted in advance of their enlistment, and 
 as a compensation for their military services. 
 
 Each petition suggested that by the Act of August 14, 1848, ch. 180 (9 
 Stat. 332), military land warrants were made receivable, at the rate of 
 one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre for the number of acres therein con- 
 tained, in payment for any of the public lands subject to private entry; 
 and that by the Act of March 22, 1852, ch. 19 (10 Stat. 3), all military 
 land warrants, theretofore and thereafter issued, were made assignable by 
 the persons to whom they were issued, and also made receivable from their 
 assignees, at the rate aforesaid per acre, in payment for any of the public 
 lands located and taken up under the preemption laws of the United 
 States. 
 
 Each petition further alleged that the five per cent had been allowed 
 and paid to the petitioner, at stated and proper periods, on sales for cash, 
 but had been withheld on lands located and purchased with military land 
 warrants; that the sum so withheld amounted to $881,006 60 in the case 
 of Iowa, and $595,853 31 in the case of Illinois; that the respondent, though 
 formally requested, had refused to state an account as prayed for; and that 
 the duty of stating such an account was purely ministerial and mandatory 
 in its character, leaving no room for the exercise of his own judgment and 
 discretion in its performance. 
 
 Upon each of these petitions a rule to show cause was granted at the last 
 term. The Commissioner of the General Land Office at this term filed 
 an answer, in the nature of a return to each rule, admitting that upon the 
 facts stated in the petition, as modified and explained by the facts set 
 forth below, he Tefused to state the account prayed for, and alleging that 
 the grounds of his refusal were these: 
 
 First — That neither the Act of Congress relating to the admission of the 
 State into the Union, nor the Acts of 1855 and 1857, authorized the State 
 to claim a percentage upon public lands disposed of hy the United States 
 to the holders of bounty land warrants. 
 
85 
 
 Second — That the meaning of those statutes had been established, as 
 between the parties, by the contemporaneous and continuous construction 
 thereof by the General Land Office and the State in numerous and impor- 
 tant transactions, each of which suggested a question, if one existed, as to 
 their construction. 
 
 In the case of the State of Iowa, the answer alleged that between August, 
 1848, and July, 1858, eleven different settlements had been made in the 
 General Land Office for the percentage due to the State, covering in all 
 the sum of $580,710 49, in none of which was the present claim suggested, 
 although from time to time during that period large amounts of the public 
 lands lying within the State had been disposed of by the United States to 
 the holders of such warrants; that this contemporaneous practical con- 
 struction had governed all transactions with the nineteen States interested 
 in the statutory provision under consideration; that on September 7, 1858, 
 the State of Iowa made a formal demand upon the Secretary of the Interior, 
 as the official superior of the then Commissioner of the General Land 
 Office, to be allowed the percentage now claimed; and that its demand 
 was refused, for the reason stated by the Secretary in the following letter 
 to the Governor of Iowa: 
 
 Department of the Interior, September 20, 1858. 
 
 In reply to your letter of the seventh instant, in relation to the application for an 
 allowance of five per centum, claimed to be due the State of Iowa on military land war- 
 rant locations, I have the honor to state that, in my opinion, the Act of 1847, to which 
 frou refer, is a bounty land Act, and that no distinction can properly be made between 
 ocations made undcT it and those made under other bounty land laws. The location of 
 warrants issued under the Act of 1847, is not considered as constituting a sale of the 
 public lands, as contemplated by the Act admitting Iowa into the Union. That Act 
 appropriated fi\^e per cent of the net proceeds of sales of all puT^lic lands for making pub- 
 lic roads and canals within the State. There being no net proceeds accruing from loca- 
 tions by military land warrants, the allowance of five per centum on such locations can- 
 not be regardedas having been appropriated or provided for by law\ 
 
 J. THOMPSON, Secretary. 
 Governor R. P. Lowe, Iowa. 
 
 The answer in the case of the State of Iowa further alleged that this 
 was the only demand ever made by the State of Iowa, or by any other 
 State, upon the Secretary of the Interior or upon the Commissioner of the 
 General Land Office, in accordance with the claim now set up; and that 
 the State of Iowa had ever since practically acquiesced in the construc- 
 tion suggested by the Secretary of the Interior, and had confined its efforts 
 to applications to Congress for a change in the statutes. 
 
 In the case of the State of Illinois, the answer alleged that from Novem- 
 ber, 1830, to September, 1863, thirty-three different settlements had been 
 made, covering in all the sum of $711,744 82, and of which that made in 
 1863, for $1,565 80, was for Indian reservations only, in none of which was 
 the present claim suggested, although from time to time during fifteen or 
 more years of that period large amounts of the public lands lying within 
 the State were disposed of by the United States to holders of bounty land 
 warrants. 
 
 Each answer concluded by denying that the petitioner, in any view of 
 the case, was entitled to a writ of mandamus. 
 
 The first question argued in each of these cases may be shortly stated 
 thus: Is the State, under the compact made with it by Congress at the 
 time of its admission into the Union, by which " five per cent of the net 
 proceeds" of public lands lying within the State, and " sold by Congress" 
 after such admission, shall be reserved and appropriated for the benefit of 
 the State, entitled to a percentage on the value of lands, not sold by the 
 
86 
 
 United States for cash, but disposed of by the United States in satisfaction 
 of military land warrants ? 
 
 This question is rendered important by the large sums of money involved, 
 and by the fact that similar stipulations are contained in Acts passed by 
 Congress relating to seventeen other western or southern States, beginning 
 with Section 7 of the Act of April 30, 1802, Chapter 40, for the admission 
 of the State of Ohio into the Union. (2 Stat. 175.) 
 
 Upon full consideration of the question, with the aid of the able argu- 
 ments of counsel, the Court is of opinion that lands disposed of by the 
 United States in satisfaction of military land warrants are not sold, within 
 the meaning of the statutes upon which the petitioners rely. 
 
 A sale, in the ordinary sense of the word, is a transfer of property for a 
 fixed price in money or its equivalent. When property or money is trans- 
 ferred or paid as a compensation for service, the property or money may be 
 said to be the price of the service; but it can hardly be said that the ser- 
 vice is the price of the property or money, or that the property or money is 
 sold to the person performing the service. Nor can it be said that the pay 
 of an officer or soldier in the army or navy is sold to him by the Govern- 
 ment in consideration of a price paid by him. 
 
 Land or money, other than current salary or pay, granted by the Gov- 
 ernment to a person entering the military or naval ser\dce of the country, 
 has always been called a bounty; and while it is by no means a gratuity, 
 because the promise to grant it is one of the considerations for which the 
 soldier or sailor enters the service, yet it is clearly distinguishable from 
 salary or pay measured by the time of service. For example, it was held 
 by Lord Mansfield and the Court of King's Bench in 1874, that though 
 the master of an apprentice was entitled by the Act of Parliament of 2 
 and 3 Anne, Chapter 6, Section 17, to the wages of his apprentice enlisting 
 into the navy, yet the apprentice's share of prize money belonged to him- 
 self, and not to his master, because it was not wages, but the bounty of the 
 crown. {Carsan v. Watts, 3 Doug. 350; Fades v. Vandeput, 4 Doug. 1.) 
 Upon like grounds, it has been held that bounty money .paid by the United 
 States, or by a State, city, or town, upon the enlistment of a minor as a 
 soldier, during the recent war, belonged to him, and not to his father or 
 master. (Banks v. Conant, 14 Allen, 497; Kelly v. Sprout, 97 Mass. 169. 
 See also Alexander v. Wellington, 2 Russ. & Myl. 35, 56, 64.) 
 
 The learned counsel for the State of Iowa referred to General Washington's 
 Circular Letter of June 8, 1783, to the Governors of the States, and especially 
 to the passage in which he insisted that the half pay and commutation 
 promised by the Congress of the Confederation to the officers of the army, 
 during the war of the Revolution, " should be viewed, as it really was, a 
 reasonable compensation offered by Congress, at a tinT,e when they had 
 nothing else to give, to the officers of the army for services, then to be per- 
 formed ; it was the only means to prevent a total dereliction of the service ; 
 it was a part of their hire; I may be allowed to say, it was the price of their 
 blood and of your independency; it is therefore more than a common debt; 
 it is a debt of honor; it can never be considered as a pension or gratuity, 
 nor be canceled until it is fairly discharged." But in the very next para- 
 graph he spoke of "the bounties many of the soldiers have received," 
 " besides the donation of lands." 
 
 The question before us is not whether the promise by the Government of 
 a bounty in land or money to persons entering the military service is a 
 contract for valuable consideration; but whether, when carried into effect, 
 it constitutes a sale by the Government; and it is quite clear that land 
 granted by way of reward for military services has never been treated, in 
 
87 
 
 the legislation of the United States upon the subject, as sold, but has always 
 been considered as analogous to money paid in a gross sum by way of 
 bounty. 
 
 By the resolution of September 16, 1776, the Congress of the Confederation 
 resolved that "twenty dollars be given as a bounty" to each non-commis- 
 sioned officer and private soldier enlisting to serve during the war, and that 
 "Congress make provision for granting lands" to officers and soldiers in 
 certain proportions; " such lands to be provided by the United States," and 
 any necessary expenses in procuring them to be paid and borne by the 
 United States in the same proportion as the other expenses of the war. (2 
 Journals of Congress, 357.) 
 
 The Act of Virginia of December 20, 1783, to cede the Northwest Terri- 
 tory to the United States, and the deed of cession of March 1, 1784, were 
 upon the following conditions: That the territory so ceded should be laid 
 out and formed into States, to be admitted members of the Federal Union. 
 That "a quantity, not exceeding one hundred and fifty thousand acres of 
 land, promised by this State, shall be allowed and granted" to General 
 George Rogers Clark and his officers and soldiers. "That in case the 
 quantity of good lands on the southeast side of the Ohio, upon the waters 
 of the Cumberland River, and between the Green River and Tennessee 
 River, which have been reserved by law for the Virginia troops upon Con- 
 tinental establishment, should, from the North Carolina line bearing in 
 further upon the Cumberland lands than was expected, prove insufficient 
 for their legal bounties, the deficiency should be made up to the said troops 
 in good lands, to be laid off" between the rivers Scioto and Little Miami, on 
 the northwest side of the river Ohio, in such proportions as have been 
 engaged to them by the laws of Virginia. That all the lands within the 
 territory so ceded to the United States, and not reserved for or appropri- 
 ated to any of the before mentioned purposes, or disposed of in bounties to 
 the officers and soldiers of the American army, shall be considered as a com- 
 mon fund for the use and benefit of such of the United States as have 
 become or shall become members of the confederation or federal alliance 
 of the said States." (1 Constitutions and Charters, 427, 428.) 
 
 The Acts of Congress, under the Constitution, containing grants of land 
 or money to soldiers, have habitually and repeatedly spoken of them as 
 bounties, using the words "bounty of three months' pay and one hundred 
 and sixty acres of land;" "military bounty lands;" "military land boun- 
 ties;" "bounty in money and land;" "money bounty;" "bounty of one 
 hundred and sixty acres of land;" "bounty in land;" "bounty right;" 
 " bounty land;" and " military land bounty." (Acts of December 24, 1811, 
 ch. 10, § 2; January 11, 1812, ch. 14, § 12; May 6, 1812, ch. 77; December 
 12, 1812, ch. 4, § 3; 2 Stat. 669, 673, 729, 788; January 28, 1814, ch. 9, § 2; 
 February 10, 1814, ch. 11, § 4; December 10, 1814, ch. 10, §§ 3-5; 3 Stat. 
 96, 97, 147; February 11, 1847, ch. 8, § 9; September 28, 1850, ch. 85; 9 
 Stat. 125, 520. See also French v. Spencer, 21 How. 228; Maxwell v. Moore, 
 22 How. 185.) They have never spoken of such grants of lands as sales, 
 or of the lands granted as sold. 
 
 The very provisions of the Acts for the admission of the States of Illinois 
 and Iowa into the Union, which are the foundation of the claims now urged, 
 clearly mark the distinction between lands sold for money, and bounty 
 lands granted for military services. 
 
 In the Illinois Act, the agreement on the part of the United States is 
 that " five per cent of the net proceeds of the lands lying within such State, 
 and which shall be sold by Congress," " shall be reserved," part "to be dis- 
 bursed," under the direction of Congress, in making roads leading to the 
 
State, and the rest " to be appropriated," by the Legislature of the State, 
 for the encouragement of learning. And among the conditions to be per- 
 formed on the part of the State are: First — "that every and each tract of 
 land sold by the United States" shall remain exempt from all State taxa- 
 tion for "five years from and after the day of sale." Second — "that the 
 bounty lands granted, or hereafter to be granted, for military services during 
 the late war, shall, while they continue to be held by the patentees or their 
 heirs," be exempt from State taxation for " three years from and after the 
 date of the patents respectively." To hold that "lands sold by Congress" 
 included " bounty lands granted for military services " would make these 
 two conditions contradictory of each other; for " every and each tract of land 
 sold by the United States" was to be absolutely exempt from State taxa- 
 tion for five years, whereas, military bounty lands were to be exempt only 
 while held by the patentees or their heirs, and not exceeding three years. 
 
 The Iowa Act manifests the same distinction; for, while it omits the 
 provision exempting "lands sold by the United States" from State tax- 
 ation, it retains the provision exempting from taxation " bounty lands 
 granted for military services;" and it emphasizes the meaning of the lead- 
 ing clause of the proposition, by inserting therein the words " of sales," so 
 as to read "five per cent of the net proceeds of sales of all public lands, 
 lying within the State, which have been or shall be sold by Congress from 
 and after the admission of said State, after deducting all the expenses inci- 
 dent to the same, shall be appropriated for making public roads and canals 
 within the said State, as the Legislature may direct." 
 
 When each of these Acts speaks of lands " sold by Congress," "five per 
 cent of the net proceeds " of which shall be reserved, and be " disbursed " or 
 " appropriated " for the benefit of the State in which the land lies, it evi- 
 dently has in view sales in the ordinary sense, from which the United States 
 receive proceeds, in the shape of money payable into the Treasury, out of 
 which the five per cent may be reserved and paid to the State ; and does 
 not intend to include lands promised and granted by the United States as 
 a reward for military service, for which nothing is received into the Treas- 
 ury. The question depends upon the terms in which the compact between 
 the United States and each State is expressed, and not upon any supposed 
 equity extending those terms to cases not fairly embraced within their mean- 
 ing. 
 
 From the very beginning of our- existence as a nation, the reward of mil- 
 itary service has been treated as a national object and a public use, to 
 which the national domain might justly and lawfully be applied. As new 
 States have been successively formed out of the territory of the United 
 States, and admitted into the Union, the Acts of admission have reserved, 
 for the making of public highways and other public uses of the State, a 
 twentieth part of the net proceeds of public lands lying within the State, 
 and afterwards sold by the United States. But public lands taken up on 
 military land warrants issued under general laws, passed for the national 
 object of encouraging and rewarding military service, and not limited to 
 any particular State, have no more been regarded as lands sold, for any 
 portion of the value of which the National Government should account to 
 the State in which the lands are actually taken up, than lands reserved 
 and used for forts, arsenals, or lighthouses. 
 
 Some reliance is placed by the petitioners upon the Acts of Congress of 
 August 14, 1848, ch. 180, and March 22, 1852, ch. 19, by which military 
 land warrants are made assignable, and are also made receivable, either 
 from the original grantee or from his assignee, in payment for public lands, 
 at the rate of one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre. But the promise 
 
89 
 
 of the United States is made to the soldier at the time of his entering the 
 service, and the grant, in execution of that promise, is made when the war- 
 rant is issued to him, and in consideration of services then already per- 
 formed. At that time, no particular land is transferred to him, nor even 
 the State designated in which the land shall be. The selection of the land, 
 which first determines the State where it is to be taken up, is the act, not 
 of the Government, but of the holder of the warrant. The Government 
 receives no new consideration, and makes no new promise or grant, when 
 the warrant is assigned by the soldier, or when it is actually located by 
 himself or his assignee, and the land and the State in which it lies thereby 
 for the first time designated; and never, at any stage of the transaction, 
 receives into the Treasury any money from any person. 
 
 The fact that the Registers and Receivers of the Land Office, performing 
 services in locating military bounty land warrants, are authorized by Sec- 
 tion 2 of the Act of 1852 to demand and receive for their services, from the 
 assignees or holders of such warrants, the same compensation " to which they 
 are entitled by law for sales of the public lands for cash, at the rate of one 
 dollar and twenty-five cents per acre," has no tendency to show that the 
 United States, under their agreement to pay to the State five per cent of the 
 net proceeds of lands sold by Congress, are bound to pay five per cent on 
 the value of lands which they have never sold, and for which they have 
 received no money. 
 
 The Acts of March 2, 1855, ch. 139, and March 3, 1857, ch. 104, requir- 
 ing five per cent to be paid to the States on the value of lands included in 
 reservations under treaties with Indian tribes, had reference only to lands 
 reseryed to the Indians by stipulations in such treaties. The fact that the 
 words "as in case of other sales" are used in speaking of lands reserved 
 for that purpose, and have never been so applied to lands disposed of in sat- 
 isfaction of military land warrants, appears to us, so far as it has any bear- 
 ing, to imply an intention to exclude the latter from the class of lands sold, 
 rather than to include them in this class. 
 
 That class of decisions of which United States v. WatUns, 97 U. S. 219 
 is an example, in which, under an Act of Congress, providing that in case 
 lands within territory ceded to the United States, claimed under grants 
 previously made by foreign governments and since confirmed, should be 
 sold by the United States before the confirmation, or could not be surveyed 
 and located, the claimant should be entitled to so much public land in lieu 
 thereof, it was held that lands granted by the United States to settlers 
 thereon were included, rests upon the reasons that the claimant had been 
 deprived of so much of his private property by the act of the United States, 
 and that the statutes in pari materia used the words " sold or disposed of." 
 Neither of those reasons is applicable to the cases before us. 
 
 The conclusion to which the Court is brought, upon a consideration of the 
 language of the statutes relied on, and of the nature of the subjects to 
 which they refer, accords with the contemporaneous and uniform construc- 
 tion given to them by the executive officers charged with the duty of put- 
 ting them in force. If the Court had a doubt of the true meaning of their 
 provisions, this practical construction would be entitled to great weight. 
 {Edwards v. Darby, 12 Wheat. 206; United States v. State Bank of North 
 Carolina, 6 Pet. 29; United States v. McDaniel, 7 Pet. 1; Surgett v. Lapice, 
 8 How. 48; Smythe v. Fiske, 23 Wall. 374; United States v. Moore, 95 U. S. 
 760; United States v. Pugh, 99 U. S. 265; Swift Co. v. United States, 105 
 U. S. 691, 695.) 
 
 The petitioners failing to prove any lawful claim against the United 
 States, it becomes unnecessary to determine the further question, discussed 
 
90 
 
 at the bar, whether the writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy in 
 such cases. 
 
 Petitions dismissed. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 15. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. S. 796. Calendar No. G82. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. December 18, 1883. Mr. Miller, of 
 California, asked and, by unanimous consent, obtained leave to bring in 
 the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
 Public Lands. 
 
 June 9, 1884. Reported by Mr. Plumb, with an amendment, viz.: Insert 
 the part printed in italics. 
 
 A BILL 
 
 Granting to the State of California five per centum of the net proceeds of the 
 sale of public lands in that State. 
 
 Whereas, The States of Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, 
 Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minne- 
 sota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, and Colorado, constituting the 
 list of all the public land States except California, have each received a 
 certain percentum of the net proceeds of the sales of the public lands 
 situate within their limits, respectively; and whereas, California is the 
 only public land State that has not received any percentum of the net pro- 
 ceeds of the sales of the public lands in said State ; therefore 
 
 Be it enacted by the Seriate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America in Congress assembled, That there be and is hereby 
 granted to the State of California five per centum of the net proceeds of the 
 sales of the public lands which have been or may hereafter be made in 
 said State, to aid in the support of the public or common schools of said 
 State; and the sum of money necessary to carry into effect the provisions of 
 this Act is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not other- 
 wise appropriated. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 16. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 111. Printer's No., 111. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 10, 1883. Read twice, 
 referred to the Committee on the Public Lands, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 Granting to the State of California five per centum of the net proceeds of the 
 sale of public lands in that State. 
 
 Whereas, The States of Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, 
 Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minne- 
 sota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, and Colorado, constituting the 
 list of all the public land States except California, have each received a 
 certain percentum of the net proceeds of the sales of the public lands situ- 
 
91 
 
 ate within their limits, respectively; and whereas, California is the only 
 public land State that has not received any percentum of the net proceeds 
 of the sales of the public lands in said State; therefore, 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America in Congress assembled, That there be and is hereby 
 granted to the State of California, five per centum of the net proceeds of the 
 sales of the public lands which have been or may hereafter be made in 
 said State, to aid in the support of the public or common schools of said 
 State. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 17. 
 
 1310 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D. C, } 
 January 30, 1884. J 
 
 Honorable John F. Miller, United States Senate: 
 
 Dear Sir: I have the honor to inclose you herewith a statement of facts 
 and argument in support of Senate Bill No. 796, by you introduced in the 
 Senate on December 18, 1883, and by it referred to the Senate Committee 
 on Public Lands. I have the honor to request that you will submit this 
 statement to the Chairman of said committee, and have it filed with said 
 bill, and request that the bill and papers maybe referred to the appropriate 
 sub-committee, in order that early action may be had thereon. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 Agent and Attorney for the State of California. 
 
 Relating to Senate Bill No. 796, First session. Forty-eighth Congress, 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. 
 
 In the matter of Senate Bill No. 796. 
 
 CALIFORNIA FIVE PER CENT BILL, 
 
 The object of Senate Bill No. 796, introduced in the United States Senate 
 on December 18, 1883, by Senator Miller of California, has solely for its 
 object to place the State of California upon an equal footing with all other 
 public land States, by extending to her the provisions of a law similar in 
 all respects to existing laws relating to the five per cent of the net proceeds 
 of the sales of the public lands of the United States in the several States. 
 A similar bill, H. R. No. 61, was introduced in the House of Representa- 
 tives by Hon, C, P, Berry of California, on December 13, 1881; and also 
 Senate Bill No. 311 was introduced in the United States Senate on Decem- 
 ber 8, 1881, by Senator Farley of California, and reported favorably to the 
 Senate, and without amendment from the Senate Committee on Public 
 Lands, February 20, 1882, by Senator Plumb of Kansas, and which prac- 
 tically passed the Senate by having the provisions therein contained incor- 
 porated in the general five per cent bill which passed the Forty-seventh 
 Congress, but all subsequent action thereon was delayed by a motion to 
 reconsider the general bill to which it was attached, or in which it was 
 incorporated, same being a bill ''to authorize the Secretary of the Interior 
 to ascertain and certify the amount of land located with military warrants 
 in the States described therein, and for other purposes." 
 
 Since the date of the organization of the Government of the United 
 
92 
 
 States, to the present time, it has ever been its policy, without a single 
 exception, when creating and admitting new States into the Union, to grant 
 to said States some certain percentum of the net proceeds of the sales of 
 the public lands therein. 
 
 The State of California was admitted into the Union September 9, 1850, 
 and in the Act of Congress (U. S. Stat., vol. 9, p. 452) so admitting her, 
 it was declared that she should be admitted on an equal footing with all 
 the other States in all respects whatsoever. 
 
 Congress, in Section 3 of said Act of her admission, imposed upon said 
 State the identical obligations and express conditions as then and hitherto 
 imposed upon all new States, to wit: "That California should never inter- 
 fere with the primary disposal of the public lands within its limits, and 
 pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States and right 
 to dispose of the same should be impaired or questioned, and that she 
 should never levy any tax or assessment, of any description whatsoever, 
 upon the public domain therein, and that the non-resident proprietors of 
 said lands — citizens of the United States — should not be taxed higher than 
 residents; and that all the navigable waters in said State should be com- 
 mon highways, forever free to all citizens of the United States, without 
 tax, impost, or duty therefor." 
 
 Now, these conditions relating to the public lands of the United States 
 in said State, were quite identical with those imposed by Congress upon 
 other new States, and in consideration thereof, and for other good and suffi- 
 cient reasons appearing, Congress has ever granted to all new public land 
 States a certain percentum of the net proceeds of the sales of the public 
 land therein, the same to be expended either as Congress indicated in the 
 granting Acts, or as the Legislatures of said States, with the consent of 
 Congress, should subsequently best determine. 
 
 These grants by Congress have been made either in the enabling Acts of 
 said States, or in their Act of admission, or by some subsequent legisla- 
 tion. 
 
 A table is hereto appended, wherein are fully given the dates, volumes, 
 and pages of the United States Statutes wherein Congress has extended 
 to the several States this class of legislation, as applicable to all the 
 so called public land States, and also to the thirteen original States. Cal- 
 ifornia was admitted into the Union without any enabling Act. The 
 public land laws of the United States were not extended to said State 
 until March 3, 1853 (U. S. Stat., vol. 10, page 244), and no sales of the 
 public lands in said State were reported prior to July 1, 1857. 
 
 In view thereof nothing was done until a later date, when the under- 
 signed, as agent and attorney in behalf of said State, requested the hon- 
 orable Commissioner of the General Land Office to state an account to the 
 United States Treasury Department, under existing laws, in behalf of said 
 State, for her five per cent of the net proceeds of the public lands therein. 
 This request was not complied with by said Commissioner, and because, as 
 stated by him, in writing, in reply to my request, that he was not vested 
 with sufficient authority of law to state such an account, and would not be 
 so enabled without additional legislation by Congress. 
 
 This last fact was thereupon duly communicated by the undersigned to 
 the proper authorities of California, whereupon the Legislature thereof, by 
 appropriate resolution, memorialized Congress on this subject, and that it 
 take action thereon by appropriate and early legislation. 
 
 Copies of this memorial have been duly sent to the California delegation 
 in Congress, and should be now matters of record with the papers relating 
 to this case before your committee. 
 
98 
 
 The California delegation in Congress have sought to execute the will of 
 said State as expressed in said memorial by securing the passage of Senate 
 Bill No. 796. 
 
 Copy of this memorial has been filed by the Governor of California, with 
 the Chairman of Public Land Committee in both the Senate and House, 
 under the seal of the Secretary of said State, and the same should be now 
 a matter of record before your committee. 
 
 California is the only public land State to which this provision of law has 
 not yet been extended. 
 
 This claim of the State of California, so long overlooked by Congress, is 
 well founded in equity. Similar claims have never as yet been denied in 
 any single instance to any of the public land States, but, on the contrary, 
 have been invariably granted, and that too by prompt and adequate legis- 
 lation of Congress whenever properly asked for. 
 
 California, through her Legislature, has memorialized Congress that it 
 enact appropriate legislation, by means of which she will be placed on an 
 equal footing with the other public land States, and, as I submit, was 
 intended and provided for in her Act of admission, but the details of same 
 have been overlooked and neglected. It is respectfully submitted that her 
 delegation in Congress, in both Senate and House, will be only executing 
 the views and wishes of said State and of the people thereof, as expressed 
 in their State Legislature, by securing the passage of Senate Bill No. 796. 
 
 The matters herein contained have all been by me heretofore laid before 
 the Public Land Committee of both Senate and House of a former Con- 
 gress in support of this measure, and have received due and favorable 
 attention. 
 
 In conclusion, I now very respectfully request that favorable action may 
 be had by the Committee on Public Lands, in order that Congress may 
 enact said bill into a law at the earliest date practicable. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 State Agent and Attorney for the State of California. 
 
 1310 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D. C. 
 
 To the Hon. Chairman and members of the Public Land Committee, 
 United States Senate. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 18. 
 
 1310 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D. C, 
 
 January 30, 1884. 
 
 Honorable Barclay Henley, United States House of Representatives: 
 
 Dear Sir: I have the honor to inclose you herewith a statement of facts 
 and argument in support of House Bill No. Ill, by you introduced in the 
 House on December 10, 1883; and by it referred to the House Committee on 
 Public Lands. I have the honor to request that you will submit this state- 
 ment to the Chairman of said committee, and have it filed with said bill, 
 and request that the bill and papers may be referred to the appropriate 
 sub-committee, in order that early action may be had thereon. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 Agent and Attorney for the State of California. 
 
94 
 
 Relating to H. R. No. Ill, first session, Forty-eighth Congress. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. 
 
 In the matter of House Bill No. 111. 
 
 CALIFORNIA FIVE PER CENT. 
 
 The object of House Bill No. Ill, introduced in the House of Repre- 
 sentatives on December 10, 1883, by Hon. Barclay Henley of California, 
 has solely for its object to place the State of California upon an equal foot- 
 ing with all other public land States, by extending to her the provisions of 
 a law, similar in all respects to existing laws relating to the five per cent 
 of the net proceeds of the sales for cash of the public lands of the United. 
 States in the several States. A similar bill, H. R. No. 61, was introduced 
 in the House of Representatives by Hon. C. P. Berry of California, on 
 December 13, 1881, and also Senate Bill No. 311 was introduced in the 
 United States Senate on December 8, 1881, by Senator Farley of Califor- 
 nia, and reported favorably to the Senate, and without amendment, from 
 the Senate Committee on Public Lands, February 20, 1882, by Senator 
 Plumb of Kansas, and passed the Senate by having the provisions therein 
 contained incorporated in the general five per cent bill which passed the 
 Forty-seventh Congress, but all subsequent action thereon was delayed by 
 a motion to reconsider the general bill to which it was attached or in which 
 it was incorporated, same being a bill " To authorize the Secretary of the 
 Interior to ascertain aad certify the amount of land located with military 
 warrants in the States described therein and for other purposes.''^ 
 
 Since the date of the organization of the Government of the United States 
 to the present time, it has ever been its policy, loithout a single exception, 
 when creating and admitting new States into the Union, to grant to said 
 States some certain percentum of the net proceeds of the sales of the pub- 
 lic lands therein, as might be made for cash. 
 
 The State of California was admitted into the Union September 9, 1860, 
 and in the Act of Congress (U. S. Stats., vol. 9, p. 452) so admitting her, 
 it was declared that she should be admitted on an equal footing with all 
 the other States in all respects whatsoever. 
 
 Congress, in Section 3 of said Act of admission, imposed upon said State 
 the identical obligations and express conditions as those and hitherto 
 imposed upon all new States, to wit: "That California should never inter- 
 fere with the primary disposal of the public lands within its limits, and pass 
 no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States and right to 
 dispose of the same should be impaired or questioned, and that she should 
 never levy any tax or assessment of any description whatsoever upon the 
 public domain therein, and that the non-resident proprietors of said lands — 
 citizens of the United States — should not be taxed higher than residents; 
 and that all the navigable waters in said State should be common high- 
 ways, forever free to all citizens of the United States, without tax, impost, 
 or duty therefor." 
 
 Now, these conditions relating to the public lands of the United States 
 in said States, were quite identical with those imposed by Congress upon 
 other new States, and in consideration thereof, and for other good and suffi- 
 cient reasons appearing. Congress has ever granted to all new public land 
 States a certain percentum of the net proceeds of the sales of the public 
 lands made in cash therein, the same to be expended, either as Congress 
 
95 
 
 indicated in the granting Acts, or as the Legislature of said States, with 
 the consent of Congress, should subsequently determine. 
 
 These grants by Congress have been made either in the enabling Acts 
 of said States, or in their Act of admission, or by some subsequent legis- 
 lation. 
 
 A table is hereto appended wherein are fully given the dates, volumes, 
 and pages of the United States Statutes, wherein Congress has extended to 
 the several States this class of legislation, as applicable to all the so called 
 public land States, and also to the thirteen original States. 
 
 California was admitted into the Union without any enabling Act. The 
 public land laws of the United States were not extended to said State until 
 March 3, 1853 (U. S. Stats., vol. 10, p. 244), and no sales of the public 
 lands in said State were reported prior to July 1, 1857. 
 
 In view thereof nothing was done until a later date, when the under- 
 signed, as agent and attorney in behalf of said State, requested the hon- 
 orable Commissioner of the General Land Office to state an account to the 
 United States Treasury Department, under existing laws, in behalf of said 
 State, for the five per cent of the net proceeds of the sale of the public 
 lands therein. 
 
 This request was not complied with by said Commissioner, and because, 
 as stated by him in writing, in reply to my request, that he was not vested 
 with sufficient authority of law to state such an account, and would not be 
 so enabled without additional legislation by Congress. 
 
 This last fact was, therefore, duly communicated by the undersigned to 
 the proper authorities of California, whereupon the Legislature thereof, by 
 appropriate resolution, memorialized Congress on this subject, and that it 
 take action thereon by appropriate and early legislation. 
 
 Copies of this memorial have been duly sent to the California delegation 
 in Congress, and should be now matters of record with the papers relating 
 to this case before your committee. 
 
 The California delegation in Congress have sought to execute the will of 
 said State, as expressed in said memorial, by securing the passage of House 
 Bill No. 111. 
 
 Copy of this memorial has been filed by the Governor of California with 
 the Chairman of the Public Land Committee in both the Senate and 
 House, under the seal of the Secretary of said State, and the same should 
 now be matter of record before your committee. 
 
 California is the only piiblic land State to which this provision of laic has 
 not yet been extended. 
 
 The claim of the State of California, so long overlooked by Congress, is 
 well founded in equity. Similar claims have never as yet been denied in 
 any single instance to any of the public land States, but, on the contrary, 
 have been invariably granted, and that, too, by prompt and adequate 
 legislation of Congress whenever properly asked for. 
 
 California, through her Legislature, has memorialized Congress that it 
 enact appropriate legislation, by means of which she will be placed on an 
 equal footing with the other public land States, and, as I submit, was in- 
 tended and provided for in her Act of admission, but the details of same 
 have been overlooked and neglected. It is respectfully submitted that her 
 ■delegation in Congress, in both Senate and House, will be only executing 
 the views and wishes of said State, and of the people thereof, as expressed 
 in their State Legislature, by securing the passage of House Bill No. 111. 
 
 The matters herein contained have all been by me heretofore laid before 
 the Public Land Committee of both Senate and House of a former Con- 
 
96 
 
 gress in support of this measure, and have received due and favorable 
 attention. 
 
 In conclusion, I now very respectfully request that favorable action may 
 be had by the Committee on Public Lands, in order that Congress may 
 enact said bill into a law at the earliest date practicable. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 State Agent and Attorney for the State of California. 
 
 To the honorable Chairman and members of the Public Land Com- 
 mittee, United States House of Representatives. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 19. 
 
 RECOVERY OF MONEYS FROM THE UNITED STATES GOV- 
 ERNMENT. 
 
 Information having been received by me that the expenses incurred by 
 this State, and by the citizens of Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, for the 
 suppression of Indian hostilities during the Modoc Indian war of 1872^ 
 had never been reimbursed by the General Government, I appointed Captain 
 John Mullan, at Washington City, D. C, to represent said interests, on 
 behalf of this State, before the proper authorities of the United States, for 
 the purpose of securing such reimbursements, and also, for such as were 
 provided for (for California) under the Act of Congress, approved June 22, 
 1882, authorizing an examination and adjustment of the claims of the States 
 of Kansas, Nevada, California, Oregon, Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas, for 
 repelling invasion and Indian hostilities therein, between April 15, 1861, 
 and June 22, 1882. Since writing the above, I have just been informed by 
 telegraph that success has attended Captain Mullan's eflfouts, and that the 
 Modoc war bill, reimbursing the State, has passed both houses of Con- 
 gress. 
 
 In addition to the foregoing, I also received information that many of the 
 States intended to petition the General Government for the return of moneys 
 paid by some of them in part, and by others in whole, of the sums assessed 
 to the several States under the Act of Congress, approved August 5, 1861, 
 to pay the interest on the public debt, and for other purposes. The amount 
 assessed to this State, under said Act, was $254,538 66, which sum has 
 been paid; but a few of the States have paid their assessments in full, 
 others but a portion, and some of them not anything. Equity would demand 
 that all or none should comply with the law. 
 
 Deeming the subject of considerable importance, and that the interests 
 of the State required an agent to act in her behalf, with others employed 
 in obtaining an equitable adjustment of these claims, I also authorized 
 Captain Mullan to represent the State before the proper authorities at 
 Washington, and would recommend that these appointments be ratified 
 and confirmed by you, and that you provide for his compensation, to be 
 paid out of the sums he may recover for the State, contingent, however, 
 upon his success, it having been expressly understood that such compensa- 
 tion should be left entirely to your judgment and discretion. 
 
 Under an appointment from Surveyor-General William Minis, subject to 
 legislative ratification, Captain Mullan, during the last four years, has 
 endeavored to secure for California five per cent of the net proceeds of the 
 sales of the j)ublic lands in this State, and has already made considerable 
 
97 
 
 progress in the same; and it is to be hoped before another Congress shall 
 have adjourned that California may be placed upon an equal footing with 
 all the other public land States in regard to this grant. 
 
 I invite your favorable attention to the report of Surveyor-General Shank- 
 lin touching this subject, and to the recommendations by him made in 
 regard thereto. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 20. 
 
 THE FIVE PER CENT FUND. 
 
 I would invite your attention to the law of Congress, approved Septem- 
 ber 4, 1841, relating to .the appropriation of the proceeds of the sales of 
 public lands, etc. This Act named the eight States in which public lands 
 were then for sale, giving said States ten per cent of the net proceeds, and 
 making provision for the distribution of five per cent among certain new 
 States and Territories. But this law did not contemplate a division among 
 other than the twenty-six States and the Territories then existing. No good 
 reason can be shown why California should be excluded from this distribu- 
 tion, for it is a public land State, and has contributed largely to the fund 
 to be distributed among other States. It was evidently an oversight in not 
 putting California upon an equal footing with other States in this matter 
 when she came into the Union. My predecessor, William Minis, taking 
 the same view of the matter that I do, appointed Captain John Mullan as 
 an agent of the State to aid in procuring Congressional legislation that 
 would give us an equitable distribution, and so well has he succeeded, that 
 mainly through his activity in presenting and urging the matter on the 
 attention of our Representatives and before the Land Committees in Con- 
 gress, that a bill has passed one house and is now pending in the other 
 house, which will, if it becomes a law, give California the share she is justly 
 entitled to in connection with the other States. Captain Mullan has con- 
 stantly kept this office informed of what he has been doing in the matter. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 21. 
 
 ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. 20, RELATIVE TO 
 DIRECTING THE GOVERNOR TO FIX THE COMPENSATION 
 FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY CAPTAIN JOHN MULLAN, 
 IN COLLECTIONS OF CLAIMS DUE THE STATE FROM THE 
 UNITED STATES. 
 
 [Adopted March 3, 1883.] 
 
 Whereas, The Governor and State Surveyor-General of this State have 
 heretofore respectively appointed Captain John Mullan of San Francisco, 
 California, agent and attorney to represent the interests of the State of Cali- 
 fornia before the proper authorities of the United States, at Washington, 
 District of Columbia, in the matter of the claim of this State to the five per 
 cent net proceeds of the sales of the public lands by the United States in 
 this State; and also in the matter of the direct tax levied upon this State 
 by the United States, under the Act of Congress of August sixth, eighteen 
 hundred and sixty-one; and also of her claim arising during the Modoc 
 war, in eighteen hundred and seventy-two; and also under the provisions 
 
 n m 
 
98 
 
 of the Act of Congress of June twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and 
 eighty-two; therefore, be it 
 
 Resolved by the Assembly of California^ the Senate concurring^ That the 
 appointments so conferred upon Captain John Mullan by the Governor and 
 Surveyor-General, respectively, are hereby ratified and confirmed; and the 
 Governor of this State be and he is hereby authorized and directed to fix 
 the compensation for services by Captain John Mullan heretofore and that 
 may be by him hereafter rendered, at twenty per cent of each of the sums 
 or claims that may be by him collected from the United States, and to pay 
 to him such per cent out of the moneys that may be collected by him and 
 paid to this State on account of each of the foregoing matters, respectively; 
 provided, however, that this State shall not in any event become liable for 
 any expenses, fees, and salaries, of any nature whatever, other than such 
 contingent commission. 
 
 Section 2. That the Controller of the State of California be and he is 
 hereby authorized to deliver to Captain John Mullan, or to his authorized 
 agent, all the original vouchers, certificates, and papers of every kind and 
 nature against the Government of the United States, for or on account of 
 each of the foregoing matters, respectively. 
 
 Sec. 3. That said Controller shall prepare and take from Captain 
 John Mullan, or from his authorized agent, a receipt in writing, bound in 
 a book, same as he keeps in his office for all such papers as aforesaid, and 
 which shall show what the papers are in each case, the date thereof, by 
 what Board of Examiners passed, the amount and date of the warrant, and 
 in whose favor drawn. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 22. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, tirst session. House of Representatives. Report No. 1969. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS OF SALES OF PUBLIC LANDS. 
 
 June 21, 1884 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
 state of the Union, and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Henley, from the Committee on the Public Lands, submitted the 
 following ' 
 
 REPORT. 
 [To accompany bill H. R. 111.] 
 
 The Committee on the Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (H. 
 R. Ill) granting to the State of California five per cent of the net proceeds 
 of the sales of public lands in the State, report as follows: 
 
 The object of this bill is to place the State of California upon an equal 
 footing with all the other public land States, by extending to her the pro- 
 visions of existing laws relating to the five per cent of the net proceeds of 
 the cash sales of public lands in the several public land States, and which 
 laws have been enacted for the benefit of, and which are now and have 
 been heretofore enjoyed by, the other eighteen public land States, respect- 
 ively, to wit: of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Illinois, 
 Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, 
 Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin. 
 
 Since the date of the organization of the Government of the United 
 States to the present time it has ever been the uniform policy of Congress, 
 without a single exception^ either before or at the date when creating and 
 
99 
 
 admitting new public land States into the Union, or subsequent thereto, 
 to grant to said States some certain percentum of the net proceeds of the 
 cash sales of the public lands therein. 
 
 The State of California was admitted into the Union September 9, 1850, 
 and in the Act of Congress (United States Statutes, volume 9, page 452) 
 so admitting her, it was declared that she should be admitted on an equal 
 footing with all the other States in all respects whatsoever. 
 
 Congress, in section three of said Act of her admission, imposed upon 
 said State the identical obligations and express conditions as then and 
 hitherto imposed upon all new public land States, to wit: 
 
 That California should never interfere with the primary disposal of the ptiblic lands 
 within its limits, and pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States to 
 and right to dispose of the same should be impaired or questioned, and that she should 
 never levy any tax or assessment of any description whatsoever upon the public domain 
 therein, and that the non-resident proprietors of said lands, citizens of the United 
 States, should not be taxed higher than residents; and that all the navigable waters in 
 said State should be common highways, forever free to all citizens of the United States, 
 without tax, impost, or duty therefor! 
 
 These conditions relating to the public lands of the United States in 
 said State were quite identical with those imposed by Congress upon other 
 new public land States, and in consideration thereof and for other good 
 and sufficient reasons appearing, Congress has ever ivithout a single excep- 
 tion, granted to all the new public land States a certain percentum of 
 the net proceeds of the cash sales of the public lands sold therein; the 
 same to be expended either as Congress indicated or as the Legislatures of 
 said States, with the consent of Congress, should subsequently best deter- 
 mine. 
 
 A table is hereto appended and made part hereof, wherein are fully 
 given the dates, volumes, and pages of the statutes by which Congress has 
 extended to the several public land States this class of legislation, applica- 
 ble to all the public land States, and also showing the proceeds of such 
 sales as were distributed among the thirteen original States of the Union. 
 
 California was admitted into the Union September 9, 1850, without any 
 enabling Act, but the public land laws of the United States were not 
 extended to California until March 3,1853 (United States Statutes, volume 
 10, page 244), more than two years thereafter, and no sales of the public 
 lands in said State were made and reported prior to July 1, 1857, as shown 
 by the letter of the honorable Commissioner of the General Land Office 
 hereto attached. The State of California, after that date, believing she 
 was already entitled to the benefit of said percentage Acts, heretofore 
 requested the honorable Commissioner of the General Land Office to state 
 an account to the United States Treasury Department in behalf of said 
 State for her five per cent of the net proceeds of the cash sales of the pub- 
 lic lands sold therein. This request was not complied with by said Com- 
 missioner, and because, as stated by him, he was not vested with sufficient 
 authority of law to state such an account, and would not be so enabled 
 without additional or further legislation by Congress thereon. This last 
 fact having been duly communicated to the proper authorities of the State 
 of California, the Legislature thereof, by appropriate resolution, memo- 
 rialized Congress on this subject, and petitioned that Congress take further 
 action thereon by appropriate and early legislation in regard thereto, as 
 appears from copy of said memorial hereto attached. 
 
 This matter was therefore duly and several times brought to the atten- 
 tion of both branches of Congress. Similar bills were before the House 
 Public Lands Committee during the Forty-sixth and Forty-seventh Con- 
 
100 
 
 gresses, introduced by Hon. C. P. Berry, and in the Senate by Senator Farley 
 of California. Senate Bill No. 311 was favorably reported by the Senate 
 Public Lands Committee on February 20, 1882, and passed the Senate 
 on May 19, 1882, but no action was ever had on this measure in the 
 House. 
 
 A similar bill. Senate No. 796, was again introduced by Senator Miller 
 of California, on the eighteenth December, 1883, and was favorably reported 
 from the Senate Public Lands Committee on June 9, 1884, with the amend- 
 ment following, to wit: 
 
 And the sum of money necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this Act is 
 hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasurj^ not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 This claim of the State of California, so long overlooked by Congress, is 
 well founded in equity, similar claims having never as yet been denied in 
 any single instance to any of the public land States, but, on the con- 
 trary, have been invariably granted by prompt and adequate legislation 
 whenever properly asked for. The total amounts received by each of the 
 several States up to June 30, 1880, are set forth in tables hereto attached 
 and made a part hereof. 
 
 The amount that the State of California would be entitled to receive up 
 to June 30, 1883, under this bill, is $458,434 50, and as fully set forth in 
 an official statement of the honorable Commissioner of the General Land 
 Office, hereto attached and made a part of this report. 
 
 Wherefore your committee concur in recommending the passage of this 
 bill, as amended by the Senate Public Lands Committee on June 9, 1884, 
 in a similar bill. Senate No. 796, by adding thereto the words as follows, to. 
 wit: 
 
 "And the sum of money necessary to carry into effect the provisions of 
 this Act is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not other- 
 wise appropriated." 
 
 [Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 111.] 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 10, 1883— Read twice, referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 Granting to the State of California five per centum of the net proceeds of the sale of jmMic 
 
 lands in that State. 
 
 Whereas, The States of Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Mis- 
 souri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, 
 Nebraska, and Colorado, constituting the list of all the public land States, except Cali- 
 fornia, have each received a certain percentum of the net proceeds of the sales of the 
 public lands situate within their limits, respectively ; and whereas, California is the only 
 public land State that has riot received ariy percentum of the net proceeds of the sales of 
 the public lands in said State ; therefore. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled, That there be and is hereby granted to the State of California five per 
 centum of the net proceeds of the sales of the public lands which have been or may here- 
 after be made in said State, to aid in the support of the public or common schools of 
 said State; and the sum of money necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this Act 
 is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 State of California, Department of State. 
 
 I, D. M. Burns, Secretary of State of the State of California, do hereby certify that I 
 have compared the annexed copy of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1, adopted Feb- 
 ruary 9, 1881, with the original now on file in my office, and that the same is a correct 
 transcript therefrom, and of the whole thereof. 
 
 Witness my hand and the great seal of State, at office in Sacramento, California, the 
 eighteenth day of January, A. D. 1882. 
 
 [seal.] D. M. burns, Secretary of State. 
 
 By Thos, H. Reynolds, Deput3^ 
 
101 
 
 (Chapter 7.) 
 
 Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1, relative to the sale of public lands. 
 
 _ Whjeeeas, The States x)f Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, -Illinois, Alabama, Mis- 
 souri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, 
 Nebraska, and Colorado, constituting the entire list of public land States, except California, 
 have each received a certain percentum of the net proceeds of the sales of the public 
 lands situate within their limits, respectively ; and whereas, California is the only State 
 of the public land States that has not received any percentum ; therefore, be it 
 
 Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, First — That the Legislature of California 
 does hereby memorialize Congress to place the State of California upon the same footing as 
 regards the proceeds of the sales of all public lands in said State as the other States named 
 in the preamble; and to give California all the benefits and payments to which said States, 
 ■or either of them, are entitled under all the Acts of Congress heretofore passed, or that 
 may hereafter be passed, and the same, when granted, to be dedicated to educational pur- 
 poses. 
 
 Second — That our Representatives in Congress are hereby requested, and our Senators 
 instructed, to vote for, and in all honorable ways endeavor to secure the passage of, an 
 Act of Congress granting this State five per centum for said purposes. 
 
 Third— That the Governor is hereby requested to forward a copy of this memorial to 
 €ach Senator and Representative from California in Congress, for his information and 
 favorable action in the premises. 
 
 JNO. MANSFIELD, 
 
 President of the Senate. 
 W. H. PARKS, 
 
 Speaker of the Assembly. 
 
 Attest: D. M. BURNS, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 Adopted February 9, 1881. 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, ) 
 Washington, D. C, December 21, 1881. j 
 
 Sir : I am in receipt of your letter of the nineteenth instant, inquiring whether any 
 public lands were sold in California prior to July 1, 1857, or not; and in answer thereto 
 have to inform you that the records of this office show that although the offices at Benicia 
 and Los Angeles were open in 1853, no sale was made until July 1, 1857. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 Hon. C. P. Berr5^ 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, ) 
 Washington, D. C, February 7, 1884. j 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt, by reference from the Department 
 for report, of letter dated the twenty-second dav of January, 1884, from Hon. P. B. Plumb, 
 Chairman of the Committee on Public Lands, tJnited States Senate, inclosing Senate Bill 
 No. 796, granting to the State of California five per cent of the net proceeds of the sale of 
 public lands in the State, and requesting information as to the area sold that would be 
 affected by the bill. 
 
 In the Acts of Congress admitting into the Union what are known as public land States, 
 with the exception of that admitting California (September 9, 1850, U. S. Stats., vol. 9, page 
 452), a provision was included granting to said States two, three, and five per cent, respect- 
 ively, of the net proceeds derived from the sales of public lands within their limits in 
 aid of certain internal improvements or of public schools. 
 
 As the Act admitting California into the Union did not provide for the payment of any 
 percentage of the proceeds of the public lands, no account therefor has been stated in 
 favor of said State. 
 
 The amount that would be affected by the passage of the bill referred to, not including 
 the amount derived from any location or disposal of the public lands other than cash 
 sales, including mineral land, to June 30, 1883, is $9,168,690 13, and five per cent thereof is 
 •$458,434 50. See statement herewith. 
 
 I return herewith the letter of Senator Plumb, inclosing Senate Bill No. 796. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 Hon. H. M. Teller, Secretary of the Interior. 
 
102 
 
 TABLE No. 1. 
 
 Acts of Congress Granting to the several States of the United States certain percentum upon 
 the Net Proceeds of the cash sales of the Public Lands. 
 
 States. 
 
 Date Granting. 
 
 United States 
 Statutes. 
 
 Vol. Page. 
 
 Alabama - 
 
 Arkansas . 
 
 Colorado -- 
 Florida ..- 
 
 Iowa - 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Indiana. -- 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Louisiana . 
 
 Missouri-. 
 Mississippi 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada 
 
 Ohio -. ..- 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Rhode Island- 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 New York. 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 Pennsylvania - 
 
 Delaware 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Virginia 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Vermont--- 
 
 Tennessee- -- 
 
 Maine--- 
 
 District of Columbia 
 
 September 4, 1841 
 March 2, 1819-.- 
 May 3,1822...... 
 
 July 4, 1836 
 
 March 2, 1855. ... 
 September 4, 1841 
 
 June 23, 1836 
 
 September 4, 1841 
 
 March 3,1875 
 
 March 3, 1845 
 
 March 3, 1845 
 
 March 3,1845 
 
 March 3, 1845 
 
 December 28, 1846 
 
 March 2, 1849 
 
 April 18, 1818 
 
 September 4, 1841 
 
 April 11, 1818 
 
 April 19, 1816 
 
 September 4, 1841 
 
 Mav 4, 1858 
 
 February 20, 1811 
 September 4, 1841 
 Februarv 28, 1859 
 
 May 3, 1822 
 
 March 6, 1820 
 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 
 March 1, 1817 
 
 May 3,1822 
 
 July 4,1836. 
 
 March 3, 1857..-- 
 September 4, 1841 
 
 June 23. 1836 
 
 September 4, 1841 
 February 26, 1857 
 
 May 11, 1858 
 
 April 19, 18&4.... 
 March 16,1864... 
 
 March 3, 1803 
 
 April 30,1802.-- 
 September 4, 1841 
 February 14, 1859 
 August 6, 1846.- 
 
 May 29,1848 
 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 September 4, 1841 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 10 
 
 5 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 10 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 10 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 10 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 10 
 
 5 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 1 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 
108 
 
 TABLE No. 2. 
 
 Statement of the Total Amounts of Money received by the several States of the United States 
 from the net proceeds of the cash sales of the Public Lands up to June 30, 1880. 
 
 States. 
 
 Al. 
 
 Bl. 
 
 A 2. 
 
 B2. 
 
 C. 
 
 Total. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Alabama 
 
 $17,119 35 
 3,134 60 
 
 $2,107 71 
 385 93 
 
 $5,248 74 
 1,348 19 
 
 $649 43 
 143 44 
 
 $1,004,365 57 «1 099 490 90 
 
 Arkansas 4-. 
 
 Colorado 
 
 227,359 05 
 9,589 73 
 
 232,371 21 
 9 589 73- 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 10,845 43 
 
 2,695 30 
 
 1,545 96 
 
 20,256 43 
 
 16,654 33 
 
 23,994 54 
 
 1,508 03 
 
 1,335 27 
 
 331 84 
 
 190 33 
 
 2,493 94 
 
 2,050 46 
 
 2,954 17 
 
 185 67 
 
 
 
 12,180 70 
 
 Delaware 
 
 
 
 
 3,027 14 
 
 30,711 73 
 
 22,750 37 
 
 763,307 92 
 
 648,555 63 
 
 627 768 86 
 
 Florida 
 
 
 
 28,975 44 
 
 Georgia . 
 
 
 
 
 Illinois 
 
 29,635 02 
 2,883 12 
 
 2,223 29 
 446 30 
 
 712,744 82 
 618,277 50 
 626,075 16 
 258,842 11 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Iowa -' 
 
 Kansas 
 
 
 
 258,842 11 
 27,776 19 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 24,731 31 
 9,971 59 
 17,554 90 
 15,187 54 
 25,807 93 
 7,426 03 
 
 3,044 88 
 1,227 69 
 2,161 33 
 1,869 88 
 3,177 43 
 914 28 
 
 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Maine 
 
 2,827 99 
 
 141 72 
 
 315,612 89 
 
 329,781 88 
 19,716 23 
 17,057 42 
 28,985 35 
 
 481,074 12 
 
 99,409 47 
 
 1,001,920 42 
 
 574,670 38 
 
 116,578 67 
 
 8,319 84 
 
 11,181 36 
 
 Maryland 
 
 
 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 
 
 
 Michigan 
 
 1,141 79 
 
 247 47 
 
 471,344 55 
 90,409 47 
 987,832 28 
 551,423 83 
 116,578 67 
 8,319 84 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Missouri 
 
 io,4io 19 
 
 12,608 57 
 
 1,281 69 
 1,552 35 
 
 2,396 26 
 8,388 24 
 
 
 697 39 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada 
 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 New Hampshire.. 
 
 New Jersey .-. 
 
 New York 
 
 9,955 64 
 13,050 42 
 84,974 15 
 22,917 97 
 53,157 53 
 
 1,225 72 
 1,606 75 
 10,461 89 
 2,821 63 
 6,544 67 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 14,657 17 
 
 
 
 
 95 436 04 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 
 
 
 25 739 60 
 
 Ohio 
 
 923 64 
 
 420 49 
 
 596,634 10 
 34,911 09 
 
 657,680 43 
 34,911 09 
 67 738 95 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 60,313 27 
 
 3,807 28 
 
 16,218 15 
 
 26,447 68 
 
 10,213 61 
 
 37,090 48 
 
 1,082 45 
 
 1,463 53 
 
 7,425 68 
 
 4()8 75 
 
 1,996 75 
 
 3.256 20 
 
 1.257 48 
 4,566 52 
 
 133 27 
 180 19 
 
 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 
 
 
 4,276 03 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 
 
 
 18,214 90 
 29,703 88 
 11,4T1 09 
 41 657 00 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 
 
 
 Vermont 
 
 
 
 
 
 Virginia 
 
 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 
 
 455,253 73 
 
 456.469 45 
 
 Dist. of Columbia. 
 
 
 
 1,643 72 
 
 
 
 
 
104 
 
 TABLE No. 3— A 1. 
 
 Statement showing the respective Shares of the several States and Territories of the United States 
 and the District of Columbia under the Distribution Act of fourth September, I84I, of the resi- 
 due of the net proceeds of the cash sale of the Public Lands sold in the half year ending thir- 
 tieth June, I842. 
 
 States, Territories, and District of Columbia. 
 
 Free 
 Population. 
 
 Slaves. 
 
 Federal 
 Numbers. 
 
 Distributive 
 Shares. 
 
 'Maine . -" 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Rhode Island- 
 
 Connecticut ..- 
 
 Vermont -.. 
 
 New York 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 Pennsylvania - 
 
 Delaware 
 
 Maryland--- 
 
 Virginia 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Georgia-- 
 
 Alabama - 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Kentucky .- 
 
 Ohio -. 
 
 Indiana-- 
 
 Illinois - 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Florida 
 
 District of Columbia 
 
 Totals - 
 
 501,793 
 
 284,573 
 
 737,698 
 
 108,825 
 
 309,998 
 
 291,948 
 
 2,428,917 
 
 372,632 
 
 1,723,969 
 
 75,480 
 
 380,282 
 
 790,810 
 
 507,602 
 
 267,360 
 
 410,448 
 
 337,224 
 
 180,440 
 
 183,959 
 
 646,151 
 
 597,570 
 
 1,519,4(>4 
 
 685,863 
 
 475,852 
 
 325,462 
 
 77,639 
 
 212,267 
 
 30,934 
 
 43,096 
 
 28,760 
 
 39,018 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 674 
 
 64 
 
 2,605 
 
 89,737 
 
 448,987 
 
 245,817 
 
 327,038 
 
 280,944 
 
 253,532 
 
 195,211 
 
 168,452 
 
 183,059 
 
 182,258 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 331 
 
 58,240 
 
 19.935 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 16 
 
 25,717 
 
 4,694 
 
 501,793 
 
 284,574 
 
 737,699 
 
 108,828 
 
 310,008 
 
 291,948 
 
 2,428,919 
 
 373,036 
 
 1,724,007 
 
 77,043 
 
 434,124 
 
 1,060,202 
 
 655,092 
 
 463,583 
 
 579,014 
 
 489,343 
 
 297,567 
 
 285,030 
 
 755,986 
 
 706,925 
 
 1,519,466 
 
 685,865 
 
 476,051 
 
 360,406 
 
 89,600 
 
 212,267 
 
 30,941 
 
 43,106 
 
 44,190 
 
 41,834 
 
 $17,554 90 
 
 9,955 64 
 
 25,807 92 
 
 3,807 28 
 
 10,845 43 
 
 10,213 61 
 
 84;974 15 
 
 13,050 42 
 
 60,313 27 
 
 2,695 30 
 
 15,187 54 
 
 37,090 48 
 
 22,917 97 
 
 16,218 15 
 
 20,256 43 
 
 17,119 35 
 
 10,410 19 
 
 9,971 59 
 
 26,447 68 
 
 24,731 31 
 
 53,157 53 
 
 23,994 54 
 
 16,654 33 
 
 12,608 57 
 
 3,134 60 
 
 7,426 03 
 
 1,082 45 
 
 1,508 03 
 
 1,545 96 
 
 1,463 53 
 
 14,576,034 
 
 2,487,356 
 
 16,068,447 
 
 $562,144 18 
 
 Department OP THE Interior, General Land Office, | 
 Washington, D. C, April 14, 1882. j 
 
 I hereby certify that I have caused the foregoing table to be examined 
 and compared with the records of this office, and find it to be correct. 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. * 
 
105 
 
 TABLE No. 4— B 1. 
 
 iStatement showing the respective Shares of the several States and Territories of the United States 
 and the District of Columbia, under the Distribution Act of fourth September, I84I, of the resi- 
 due of the net proceeds of the cash sale of the Public Lands sold from the first day of July to 
 the ttuenty-ninth of August, I842, inclusive. 
 
 States, Territories, AND District of Columbia. 
 
 Free - 
 Population. 
 
 Slaves. 
 
 -Federal 
 Numbers. 
 
 Distributive 
 
 Shares. 
 
 Maine 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Vermont 
 
 New York •.. 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Delaware 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Virginia 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Alabama . . . . 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Ohio....: 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Florida ._ 
 
 District of Columbia 
 
 Totals 
 
 501,793 
 
 284,573 
 
 737,698 
 
 108,825 
 
 309,998 
 
 291,948 
 
 2,428,917 
 
 372,632 
 
 1,723,969 
 
 75,480 
 
 380,282 
 
 790,810 
 
 507,602 
 
 267,360 
 
 410,448 
 
 337,224 
 
 180,440 
 
 183,959 
 
 646,151 
 
 597,570 
 
 1,519,464 
 
 685,863 
 
 475,852 
 
 325,462 
 
 77,639 
 
 212,267 
 
 30,934 
 
 43,096 
 
 28,760 
 
 39,018 
 
 4 
 
 674 
 
 64 
 
 2,605 
 
 89,737 
 
 448,987 
 
 245,817 
 
 327,038 
 
 280,944 
 
 253,532 
 
 195,211 
 
 168,452 
 
 180,059 
 
 182,258 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 331 
 
 58,240 
 
 19,935 
 
 11 
 
 16 
 
 25,717 
 
 4,694 
 
 501,793 
 284,574 
 737,699 
 108,828 
 310,008 
 291,948 
 
 2,428,919 
 378,036 
 
 1,724,007 
 
 77,043 
 
 434,124 
 
 1,060,202 
 655,092 
 463,583 
 579,014 
 489,343 
 297,567 
 285,030 
 755,986 
 706,925 
 
 1,519,466 
 
 685,865 
 
 476,051 
 
 360,406 
 
 89,600 
 
 212,267 
 
 30,941 
 
 43,106 
 
 44,190 
 
 41,834 
 
 12,161 33 
 
 1,225 72 
 
 3,177 43 
 
 468 75 
 
 1,335 27 
 
 1,257 48 
 
 10,461 89 
 
 1,606 75 
 
 7,425 68 
 
 831 84 
 
 1,869 88 
 
 4,566 52 
 
 2,821 63 
 
 1,996 75 
 
 2,493 94 
 
 2,107 71 
 
 1,281 69 
 
 1,227 69 
 
 3,256 20 
 
 3,044 88 
 
 6,544 67 
 
 2,954 17 
 
 2,050 46 
 
 1,552 35 
 
 385 93 
 
 914 28 
 
 133 27 
 
 185 67 
 
 190 33 
 
 180 19 
 
 14,576,034 
 
 2,487,356 
 
 16,068,447 
 
 39,210 35 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, ) 
 Washington, D. G.,Aprill4,4882. j 
 
 I hereby certify that I have caused the foregoing table to be examined 
 and compared with the records of this office, and find it tb be correct. 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 
106 
 
 TABLE No. 5~A 2. 
 
 Statement of the Additional Allowaiice to the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Arkan- 
 sas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Michigan of ten per cent of the net proceeds of the 
 cash sale of the Public Lands sold in the half year ending thirtieth June, 1842, xinder the Dis- 
 tribution Act of September 4, I84I, according to the mode prescribed by the First Comptroller of 
 the Treasury. 
 
 States and Territoeies. 
 
 Gross proceeds of 
 
 Lands sold in States 
 
 and Territories. 
 
 Proportion 
 
 of Expenses to be 
 
 deducted. 
 
 Net proceeds of 
 Sales after deduct- 
 ing proportion of 
 Expenses from 
 gross proceeds. 
 
 Additional allow- 
 ance of ten per cent 
 to each of the new 
 
 States on net 
 
 proceeds of Sales 
 
 therein. 
 
 Ohio- 
 
 $12,534 27 
 39,125 53 
 
 402,163 06 
 
 113,832 94 
 18,295 69 
 38,377 32 
 32,518 52 
 71,228 19 
 15,494 68 
 
 743,570 20 
 93,646 50 
 
 $3,297 88 
 
 10,294 29 
 
 105,812 86 
 
 29,950 51 
 
 4,813 78 
 10,097 43 
 
 8,555 92 
 18,740 80 
 
 4,076 79 
 
 195,640 26 
 
 24,639 27 
 
 $9,236 39 
 28,831 24 
 
 296,250 20 
 83,882 43 
 13,481 91 
 28,279 89 
 23,962 60 
 52,487 39 
 11,417 89 
 
 547,929 94 
 69,207 23 
 
 $923 64 
 2,883 12 
 29,(535 02 
 8,388 24 
 1,348 19 
 2,827 99 
 2,396 26 
 5,248 74 
 1,141 79 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Arkansas . 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Michigan . . 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Iowa _ 
 
 
 
 
 Totals 
 
 $837,216 70 
 
 $220,279 53 
 
 $616,937 17 
 
 $54,792 99 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office 
 Washington, D. C, April 14, 1882. 
 I hereby certify that I have caused the foregoing table to be examined 
 and compared with the records of this office, and find it to be correct. 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 
 TABLE No. 6-B 2. 
 
 Statement of the Additional Allowance to the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Arkan- 
 sas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Michigan, of the ten per cent of the net proceeds 
 of the cash sale of the Public Lands sold therein, respectively, from the first day of July to the 
 twenty-ninth of August, I842, inclusive, under the Distribution Act of September 4i 1841y 
 according to the mode prescribed by the First Comptroller of the Treasury I 
 
 States and Territories. 
 
 Gross proceeds of 
 Sales in the States 
 and Territories, 
 deducting propor- 
 tion of $5 43 
 excess of repay in 
 Mississippi. 
 
 Proportion of 
 Expenses deducted 
 from gross pro- 
 ceeds. 
 
 Net proceeds of 
 
 Sales after 
 
 deducting from 
 
 gross proceeds the 
 
 proportion of 
 Expenses as stated. 
 
 Additional 
 allowance to the 
 above mentioned 
 
 States of ten 
 
 per cent of net 
 
 proceeds of Lands 
 
 sold therein. 
 
 Ohio 
 
 $7,286 63 
 7,733 95 
 
 38.527 51 
 
 12,085 07 
 2,485 73 
 2,455 96 
 
 11,253 99 
 4,288 38 
 
 $3,081 76 
 3,270 95 
 
 16,294 59 
 5,111 19 
 1,051 30 
 1,038 71 
 4,759 69 
 2,813 70 
 
 $4,204 87 
 4,463 00 
 
 22,232 92 
 6,973 88 
 1,434 43 
 1,417 25 
 6,494 30 
 2,474 68 
 
 $420 49 
 
 Indiana 
 
 446 30 
 
 Illinois 
 
 2,223 29 
 697 39 
 143 44 
 
 Missouri _. 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 141 72 
 
 Alabama 
 
 649 43 
 
 Michigan - 
 
 247 47 
 
 
 
 Totals 
 
 $86,117 22 
 
 $36,421 89 
 
 $49,695 33 
 
 $4,969 53 
 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, ] 
 Washington, D. C, April 14, 1882. j" 
 
 I hereby certify that I have caused the foregoing table to be examined 
 and compared with the records of this office, and find it to be correct. 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 
107 
 
 TABLE No. 7— C. 
 
 Statement of the Amounts which have accrued to the following named States up to the thirtieth 
 June, 1880, on account of the two, three, and five per cent upon the net proceeds of the cash 
 Sales of the Public Land within their respective limits. 
 
 States. 
 
 Two Per Cent. 
 
 Three Per Cent. 
 
 Five Per Cent. 
 
 Aggregate. 
 
 
 $401,782 23 
 
 $602,583 34 
 
 
 $1,004,365 57 
 227,359 05 
 
 Arkansas -- 
 
 $227,359 05 
 
 9,589 73 
 
 28,975 44 
 
 626,075 16 
 
 Colorado 
 
 
 
 9,589 73 
 
 Florida 
 
 
 
 28,975 44 
 
 
 
 
 626,075 16 
 
 
 
 712,744 82 
 
 618,277 50 
 
 712,744 82 
 
 Indiana 
 
 
 
 618,277 50 
 258,842 11 
 
 
 
 258,842 11 
 315,612 89 
 
 
 
 
 315,612 89 
 
 
 395,142 08 
 
 15,587 78 
 
 592,690 20 
 535,836 05 
 
 987,832 28 
 551,423 83 
 
 Missouri . 
 
 ""47Y,344"55' 
 
 99,409 47 
 
 8,319 84 
 
 116,578 67 
 
 34,911 09 
 
 Michigan 
 
 471,344 55 
 99,409 47 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8,319 84 
 116,578 67 
 
 Nebraska _ . . 
 
 
 
 Oregon 
 
 
 
 34,911 09 
 596,634 10 
 
 Ohio 
 
 . 
 
 596,634 10 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 
 455,253 73 
 
 455,253 73 
 
 
 
 
 Totals 
 
 $812,512 09 
 
 $3,658,766 01 
 
 $2,652,271 73 
 
 $7,123,549 83 
 
 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, \ 
 Washington, D. C, April 14, 1882. \ 
 
 I hereby certify that I have caused the foregoing table to be examined 
 and compared with the records of this office, and find it to be correct. 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 22^. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 7235. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. Jmie 16, 1884 — Referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 
 
 AMENDMENT. 
 
 Intended to be proposed by Mr. Miller, of California, to the bill (H. R. 
 7235) making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations 
 for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty-four, 
 and for prior years, and for those certified as due by the accounting officers 
 of the Treasury, in accordance with section four of the Act of June four- 
 teenth, eighteen hundred and seventy-eight, heretofore paid from perma- 
 nent appropriations, and for other purposes, viz.: On page 40, at the end 
 of line 107, insert the following : 
 
 " To pay to the State of California, on account of five per centum of the 
 net proceeds of the cash sales of the public lands in said State prior to 
 June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, the sum of four hundred 
 and fifty-eight thousand four hundred and thirty-four dollars and fifty 
 cents." 
 
108 
 EXHIBIT No. 23. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. S. 994. Calendar No. 196. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. January 11-, 1886 — Mr. Stanford 
 introduced the following bill, which was read twice and referred to the 
 Committee on Public Lands. February 15, 1886 — Reported by Mr. Dolph 
 with amendments, viz.: Omit the part struck through and insert the parts 
 printed in italics. 
 
 A BILL 
 
 Gr(^nting to the State of California five per centum of the net proceeds of 
 the sales of public lands in said State. 
 
 Whereas, The States of Ohio, Louisiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, 
 Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ore- 
 gon, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, and Colorado, constituting the list of all 
 the public land States except California, have each received a certain per 
 centum of the net proceeds of the sales of the public lands situate within 
 their limits, respectively; and whereas, California is the only public land 
 State that has not received any percentum of the net proceeds of the sales 
 of the public lands in said State; therefore, 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That there be and is hereby 
 granted to the State of California five per centum of the net proceeds of the 
 sales of the public lands which have been made by the United States, since the 
 admission of said State or may hereafter be made in said State to aid in the 
 support of the public or common schools of said State; and the sum of money 
 necessary to pay said five per centum to said State is hereby appropriated 
 out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 24. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. 150. Report No. 994. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 21, 1885 — Read twice, re- 
 ferred to the Committee on the Public Lands, and ordered to be printed. 
 March 10, 1886 — Reported wath amendments, committed to the Committee 
 of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed. 
 Omit the part struck through and insert the parts printed in italics. 
 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 • A BILL 
 
 Granting to the State of California five per centum of the net proceeds of the 
 --<-- of public lands in said State. 
 
 Whereas, The States of Ohio, Louisiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, 
 Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ore- 
 gon, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, and Colorado, constituting the list of all 
 the public land States except California, have each received a certain per- 
 centum of the net proceeds of the sales of the public lands situate within 
 their limits, respectively; and whereas, California is the only public land 
 
109 
 
 State that has not received a certain percentum of the net proceeds of the 
 sales of the public lands in said State; therefore, 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America in Congress assembled, That there be and is hereby 
 granted to the State of California five per centum of the net proceeds of the 
 sales of the public lands which have been made by the United States since 
 the admission of said State, or may hereafter be made in said State, to aid 
 in the support of the public or common schools of said State ; and the sum 
 of money necessary to pay said five per centum to said State is hereby appro- 
 priated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 25. 
 
 Forty -ninth Congress, first session. House of Representatives. Report No. 994. 
 
 PROCEEDS OF SALES OF PUBLIC LANDS. 
 
 March 10, 1886 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
 the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Henley, from the Committee on Public Lands, submitted the follow- 
 ing 
 
 REPORT. 
 [To accompany bill H. R. 150.] 
 
 The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 
 150) granting to the State of California five per cent of the net proceeds of 
 the sales of public lands in said State, make the following report: 
 
 This bill is in accord with settled legislative precedents followed and 
 adhered to by Congress in the case of every public land State heretofore 
 admitted into the Union. This bill makes no grant other than or different 
 from that made by Congress to every public land State in the Union, but 
 simply places California upon an equal footing and upon the same plane 
 with all other public land States in regard to existing laws relating to the 
 five per cent of the net proceeds of the sales of the public lands in said 
 States, respectively. * 
 
 A bill similar to this has been heretofore favorably reported from the 
 Public Lands Committee in the House in a prior Congress, and in the Sen- 
 ate at three different times, to wit, during the Forty-seventh, Forty-eighth, 
 and Forty-ninth Congresses, but never acted upon in either House or Sen- 
 ate during either of said Congresses, and because said Congresses in every 
 instance adjourned before reaching said bills on the calendar of either body. 
 
 The Committee on the Public Lands of the Forty-eighth Congress made 
 an elaborate report on the matters contained in this bill, and which report, 
 to wit, Report No. 1969, Forty-eighth Congress, first session, your committee 
 now adopt and make and now submit the same as a part of this report. 
 
 The committee recommend an amendment to said bill by inserting in 
 line five after the word "been" the words "made by the United States 
 since the admission of said State;" and also amend in line eight by striking 
 out the words " carry into effect the provisions of this Act," and in lieu 
 thereof inserting the words " pay said five per centum to said State," which 
 amendments harmonize with the amendments as recommended in a similar 
 bill reported to the Senate from the Committee on Public Lands, February 
 15, 1886. 
 
110 
 And so amended, your committee recommend the passage of the bill. 
 
 [House Report No. 1969, Forty-eighth Congress, first session.] 
 
 The Committee on the PubHc Lands, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. Ill) granting 
 to the State of California five per cent of the net proceeds of the sales of public lands in 
 that State, report as follows : 
 
 The object of this bill is to place the State of California upon an equal footing with all the 
 other public land States, by extending to her the provisions of existing law^s relating to the 
 five per cent of the net proceeds of the cash sales of public lands in the several public land 
 States, and which laws have been enacted for the benefit of, and which are now and have 
 been heretofore enjoyed by, the other eighteen p^^blic land States, respectively, to wit: of 
 Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michi- 
 gan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin. 
 
 Since the date of the organization of the Government of the United States to the present 
 time it has ever been the uniform policy of Congress, without a single exception, either before 
 or at the date when creating and admitting new public land States into the Union, or sub- 
 sequent thereto, to grant to said States some certain percentum of the net proceeds of the 
 cash sales of the public lands therein. 
 
 The State of California was admitted into the Union September 9, 1850, and in the Act of 
 Congress (United States Statutes, volume 9, page 452) so admitting her, it was declared that 
 she should be admitted on an equal footing with all the other States in all respects what- 
 soever. 
 
 Congress, in Section 3 of said Act of her admission, imposed upon said State the identi- 
 cal obligations and express conditions as then and hitherto imposed upon all new^ public 
 land States, to wit : 
 
 "That California should never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands 
 within its limits, and pass no law, and do no act whereby the title of the United States to 
 and right to dispose of the same should be impaired or questioned, and that she should 
 never levy any tax or assessment of any description whatsoever upon the public domain 
 therein, and that the non-resident proprietors of said lands — citizens of the United States — 
 should not be taxed higher than residents; and that all the navigable waters in said State 
 should be common highways, forever free to all citizens of the United States, without tax, 
 impost, or duty therefor." 
 
 These conditions relating to the public lands of the United States in said State were 
 quite identical with those imposed by Congress upon other new public land States, and in 
 consideration thereof and for other good and sufficient reasons appearing. Congress has 
 ever, without a single exception, granted to all the new public land States a certain percen- 
 tum of the net proceeds of the cash sales of public lands sold therein ; the same to be 
 expended either as Congress indicated or as the Legislatures of said States, with the con- 
 sent of Congress, should subsequently best determine. 
 
 A table is hereto appended and made a part hereof, wherein are fully given the dates, 
 volumes, and pages of the statutes by which Congress has extended to the several public 
 land States this class of legislation, applicable to all the public land States, and also show- 
 ing the proceeds of such sales as were distributed among the thirteen original States of 
 the Union. 
 
 California was admitted into the Union September 9, 1850, without any enabling Act, but 
 the public land laws of the United States were not extended to California until March 3, 
 1853 (United States Statutes, volume 10, page 244), more than two years thereafter, and 
 no sales of the public lands in said State were made and reported prior to July 1, 1857, as 
 shown by the letter of the honorable Commissioner of the General Land Office, hereto 
 attached. The State of California, after that date, believing she was already entitled to 
 the benefit of said percentage Acts, heretofore requested the honorable Commissioner of 
 the General Land Office to state an account to the United States Treasury Department in 
 behalf of said State for her five per cent of the net proceeds of the cash sales of the public 
 lands sold therein. This request was not complied with by said Commissioner, and 
 because, as stated by him, he was not vested with sufficient authority of law to state Such 
 an account, and would not be so enabled without additional or further legislation by Con- 
 gress thereon. This last fact having been duly communicated to the proper authorities 
 of the State of California, the Legislature thereof, by appropriate resolution, memorialized 
 Congress on this subject, and petitioned that Congress take further action thereon by 
 appropriate and early legislation in regard thereto, as appears from copy of said memo- 
 rial hereto attached. 
 
 This matter was therefore duly and several times brought to the attention of both 
 branches of Congress. Similar bills were before the House Public Lands Committee dur- 
 ing the Forty-sixth and Forty-seventh Congresses, introduced by Hon. C. P. Berry, and 
 in the Senate by Senator Farley of California. Senate Bill No. 311 was favorable reported 
 by the Senate Public Lands Committee on February 20, 1882, and passed the Senate on 
 May 19, 1882, but no action was ever had on this measure in the House. 
 
 A similar bill. Senate No. 796, was again introduced by Senator Miller of California, on 
 the-eighteenth December, 1883, and was favorably reported from the Senate Public Lands 
 Committee on June 9, 1884, with the amendment following, to wit: 
 
 "And the sum of money necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this Act is 
 hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated." 
 
Ill 
 
 This claim of the State of California, so long overlooked by Congress, is well founded 
 in equity, similar claims having never as yet been denied in any single instance to any of 
 the public land States, but, on the contrary, have been invariably granted by prompt and 
 adequate legislation whenever properly asked for. The total amounts received by each of 
 the several States, up to June 30, 1880, are set forth in tables hereto attached and made a 
 part hereof. 
 
 The amount that the State of California would be entitled to receive, up to June 30, 1883, 
 under this bill, is $458,434 50, and as fully set forth in an official statement of the honor- 
 able Commissioner of the General Land Office, hereto attached and made a part of this 
 report. 
 
 Wherefore your committee concur in recommending the passage of this bill as amended 
 by the Senate Public Lands Committee on June 9, 1884, in a similar bill. Senate No. 796, by 
 adding thereto the words as follows, to wit: 
 
 "And the sum of money necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this Act is 
 hereby appropriated out or any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated." 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 111. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 10, 1883 — Read twice, referred to the Com- 
 mittee on the Public Lands, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill : 
 
 A BILL 
 
 Granting to the State of California five per centum of the net proceeds of the sale of public lands 
 
 in that State. 
 
 Whereas, The States of Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Mis- 
 souri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, 
 Nebraska, and Colorado, constituting the list of all the public land States, except Califor- 
 nia, have each received a certain percentum of the net proceeds of the sales of the public 
 lands situate within their limits, respectively; and whereas, California is the only public 
 land State that has not received any percentum of the net proceeds of the sales of the 
 public lands in said State ; therefore. 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Senate and Hoiise of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled, That there be, and is hereby, granted to the State of California five per 
 •centum of the net proceeds of the sales of the public lands which have been or may here- 
 after be made in said State, to aid in the support of the public or common schools of said 
 State; and the sum of money necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this Act is 
 hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 ■State of Califobnia, Department of State. 
 
 I, D. M. Burns, Secretary of State of the State of California, do hereby certify that I 
 have compared the annexed copy of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1, adopted Febru- 
 ary 9, 1881, with the original now on file in my office, and that the same is a correct tran- 
 script therefrom and of the whole thereof. 
 
 Witness my hand and the great seal of State, at office in Sacramento, Cal., the eighteenth 
 day of Januarv, A. D. 1882. 
 
 D. M. BURNS, 
 
 [seal.] ' Secretary of State. 
 
 By Thos. H. Reynolds, Deputy. 
 
 (Chapter 7.) 
 
 Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1, relative to the sale of public lands. 
 
 Whereas, The States of Ohio, Louisiana,. Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Mis- 
 souri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, 
 Nebraska, and Colorado, constituting the entire list of public land States, except Califor- 
 nia, have each received a certain percentum of the net proceeds of the sales of the public 
 lands situate within their limits, respectively ; and whereas, California is the only State 
 of the public land States that has not received any percentum ; therefore, be it 
 
 Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, First — That the Legislature of California 
 does hereby memorialize Congress to place the State of California upon the same footing 
 as regards the proceeds of the sales of all public lands in said State as the other States 
 named in the preamble, and to give California all the benefits and payments to which 
 said States, or either of them, are entitled under all Acts of Congress heretofore passed, 
 or that may hereafter be passed, and the same, when granted, to be dedicated to educa- 
 tional purj)Oses. 
 
 Second— That our Representatives in Congress are hereby requested, and our Senators 
 instructed, to vote for and in all honorable ways endeavor to secvire the passage of an Act 
 of Congress granting this State five per centum for said purposes. 
 
112 
 
 Third— That the Governor is hereby requested to forward a copy of this memorial to 
 each Senator and Representative from California in Congress, for his information and 
 favorable action in the premises. 
 
 W. H. PARKS, 
 
 Speaker of the Assembly. 
 JNO. MANSFIELD, 
 
 President of the Senate. 
 Attest: D. M. BURNS, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 Adopted February 9, 1881. 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, ) 
 Washington, D. C, December 21, 1881. j 
 Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of the nineteenth instant, inquiring whether an v pub- 
 lic lands were sold in California prior to .July 1, 1857, or not ; and in answer thereto I have 
 to inform you that the records of this office show that, although the offices at Benicia and 
 Los Angeles were open in 1853, no sales were made until July 1, 1857. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 Hon. C. P. Berry. 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, ) 
 Washington, D. C, February 7, 1884. ) 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt, by reference from the Department for 
 report, of letter dated the twenty-second day of January, 1884, from Hon. P. B. Plumb,. 
 Chairman of the Committee on Public Lands'^ United States Senate, inclosing Senate Bill 
 No. 796, granting to the State of California five per cent of the net proceeds of the sale of 
 public lands in the State, and requesting information as to the area sold that would be 
 affected by the bill. 
 
 In the Acts of Congress admitting into the Union what are known as public land States, 
 with the exception of that admitting California (September 9, 1850, U. S. Stats., vol. 9, 
 page 452), a provision was included granting to said States two, three, and five per cent, 
 respectively, of the net proceeds derived from the sales of public lands within their limits 
 in aid of certain internal improvements or of public schools. 
 
 As the Act admitting California into the Union did not provide for the payment of any 
 percentage of the proceeds of the public lands, no account therefor has been stated in 
 favor of said State. 
 
 The amount that would be affected by the passage of the bill referred to, not including 
 the amount derived from any location or disposal of the public lands other than cash 
 sales, including mineral land,'to June 30, 1883, is $9,168,690 13, and five per cent thereof is. 
 $458,434 50. See statement herewith. 
 
 1 return herewith the letter of Senator Plumb, inclosing Senate Bill No. 796. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 Hon. H. M. Teller, Secretary of the Interior. 
 
113 
 
 TABLE No. 1. 
 
 Acts of Congress granting to the several States of the United States certain percentum upon the 
 net proceeds of the cash sales of the Public Lands. 
 
 States. 
 
 Date Granting. 
 
 U. S. Stats. 
 
 Vol. Page. 
 
 States. 
 
 Date Granting. 
 
 U.S. Stats. 
 
 Vol. Page 
 
 Alabama. 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 Colorado . 
 Florida .. 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Illinois -. 
 Indiana. . 
 
 'Kansas .. 
 Louisiana 
 
 Missouri . 
 
 Mississippi. 
 
 Sept. 
 Mar. 
 May 
 July 
 Mar. 
 Sept. 
 June 
 Sept. 
 Mar. 
 Mar. 
 Mar. 
 Mar. 
 Mar. 
 Dec. 
 Mar. 
 Apr. 
 Sept. 
 Apr. 
 Apr. 
 Sept. 
 May 
 Feb. 
 Sept. 
 Feb. 
 May 
 Mar. 
 Sept. 
 Sept. 
 Mar. 
 Maj'- 
 July 
 Mar. 
 
 ,1841. 
 , 1819. 
 
 , 1822. 
 , 1836. 
 , 1855. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1836. 
 ,1841. 
 , 1875. 
 ,1845. 
 , 1845. 
 , 1845. 
 , 1845. 
 , 1846. 
 , 1849. 
 , 1818. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1818. 
 , 1816. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1858. 
 , 1811. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1859. 
 , 1822. 
 , 1820. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1817. 
 , 1822. 
 , 1836. 
 ;, 1857. 
 
 457 
 489 
 674 
 116 
 630 
 453 
 58 
 453 
 476 
 742 
 788 
 742 
 789 
 117 
 349 
 430 
 453 
 424 
 290. 
 453 
 270 
 643 
 453 
 388 
 674 
 547 
 453 
 457 
 348 
 674 
 116 
 200 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Minnesota , 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada 
 
 Ohio. 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 New Hampshire. 
 Massachusetts .. 
 Rhode Island ... 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 New York 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 Pennsylvania ... 
 
 Delaware 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Virginia 
 
 North Carolina.. 
 South Carolina.. 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Maine 
 
 Dist. of Columbia 
 
 Sept. 4, 
 
 June 23, 
 
 Sept. 4 
 
 Feb. 26; 
 
 May 11 
 
 Apr. 19: 
 
 Mar. 16 
 
 Mar. 3 
 
 Apr. 30: 
 
 Sept. 4, 
 
 Feb. 14! 
 
 Aug. 6. 
 
 May 29, 
 
 Sept. ■ 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Sept. 4 
 
 Sept, 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Sept, 
 
 Sept, 
 
 Sept, 
 
 Sept, 
 
 Sept, 
 
 , 1841. 
 , 1836. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1857. 
 , 1858. 
 ', 1864. 
 ,1864. 
 , 1803. 
 , 1802. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1859. 
 , 1846. 
 , 1848. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 , 1841. 
 
 453 
 
 60 
 453 
 167 
 285 
 
 49 
 
 32 
 326 
 175 
 453 
 384 
 
 58 
 233 
 453 
 453 
 453 
 453 
 453 
 453 
 453 
 453 
 453 
 453 
 453 
 453 
 453 
 453 
 453 
 453 
 453 
 453 
 
114 
 
 TABLE No. 2. 
 
 Statement of the Total Amounts of Money received by the several States of the United States from 
 the net proceeds of the cash sales of the Public Lands up to June 30, 1880. 
 
 States. 
 
 Al. 
 
 Bl. 
 
 A 2. 
 
 B2. 
 
 c. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 $17,119 35 
 3,134 60 
 
 $2,107 71 
 385 93 
 
 $5,248 74 
 1,348 19 
 
 $649 43 
 143 44 
 
 $1,004,365 57 
 
 227,359 05 
 
 9,589 73 
 
 $1,029,490 20 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 232,371 21 
 
 
 9,589 73 
 12,180 70 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 10,845 43 
 
 2,695 30 
 
 1,545 98 
 
 20,256 43 
 
 16,654 33 
 
 23,994 54 
 
 1,508 03 
 
 1,335 27 
 
 331 84 
 
 190 33 
 
 2,493 94 
 
 2,050 46 
 
 2,954 17 
 
 185 67 
 
 
 
 T)plflWJlT*P 
 
 
 
 
 3,027 14 
 30,711 73 
 
 Florida 
 
 
 
 28,975 44 
 
 
 
 
 22,750 37 
 
 Illinois 
 
 29,635 02 
 2,883 12 
 
 2,223 29 
 446 30 
 
 712,744 82 
 618,277 50 
 626,075 16 
 258,842 11 
 
 763,307 92 
 
 
 648,555 63 
 
 Iowa 
 
 627,768 86 
 
 
 
 
 258,842 11 
 
 
 24,731 31 
 9,971 59 
 17,554 90 
 15,187 54 
 25,807 92 
 7,426 03 
 
 3,044 88 
 1,227 69 
 2,161 33 
 1,869 88 
 3,177 43 
 914 28 
 
 
 "■" ~*' 
 
 27,776 19 
 329,781 88 
 
 Louisiana - - 
 
 2,827 99 
 
 141 72 
 
 315,612 89 
 
 IMaine 
 
 19,716 23 
 
 IMarvland 
 
 
 
 
 17,057 42 
 28 985 35 
 
 IVf fl s!Ma pli n sptts 
 
 
 
 
 Michigan 
 
 1,141 79 
 
 247 47 
 
 471,344 55 
 99,409 47 
 987,832 28 
 551,423 83 
 116,578 67 
 8,319 84 
 
 481,074 12 
 
 
 99,409 47 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 10,410 19 
 
 12,608 57 
 
 1,281 69 
 1,552 35 
 
 2,396 26 
 8,388 24 
 
 
 1,001,920 42 
 574,670 38 
 
 697 39 
 
 
 116,578 67 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8,319 84 
 
 New Hampshire . . . 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 New York 
 
 9,955 64 
 13,050 42 
 84,974 15 
 22,917 97 
 53,157 53 
 
 1,225 72 
 1,606 75 
 10,461 89 
 2,821 63 
 6,544 67 
 
 
 
 11,181 36 
 
 
 
 
 14,657 17 
 
 
 
 
 95.436 04 
 
 
 
 
 
 25,739 60 
 
 Ohio 
 
 923 64 
 
 420 49 
 
 596,634 10 
 34,911 09 
 
 657,680 43 
 
 Oregon 
 
 34,911 09 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 T?}inrlp TslnnH 
 
 60,313 27 
 
 3,807 28 
 
 16,218 15 
 
 26,447 68 
 
 10,213 61 
 
 37,090 48 
 
 1,082 45 
 
 1,463 53 
 
 7,425 68 
 
 468 75 
 
 1,996 75 
 
 3.256 20 
 
 1.257 48 
 4,566 52 
 
 133 27 
 180 19 
 
 
 
 67,738 95 
 
 
 
 
 4,276 03 
 
 
 
 
 
 18,214 90 
 
 
 
 
 
 29,703 88 
 
 Vermont 
 
 
 
 
 11,47J 09 
 
 Virp'Tiaifl 
 
 
 
 
 41,657 00 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 455,253 73 
 
 456,469 45 
 
 
 
 
 1,643 72 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
115 
 
 TABLE No. 3— A 1. 
 
 Statement showing the respective Shares of the several States and Territories of the United States 
 and the District of Columbia, under the Distribution Act of fourth September, I84I, of the resi- 
 due of the net proceeds of the cash sale of the Public Lands sold in the half year ending thir- 
 tieth June, I842. 
 
 States, Territories, and District of Columbia. 
 
 Free Popula- 
 tion. 
 
 Federal 
 Numbers. 
 
 Distributive 
 Shares. 
 
 Maine -. 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Rhode Island -.. 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Vermont 
 
 New York 
 
 ■ New Jersey 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Delaware 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Virginia 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Ohio .■-.. 
 
 Indiana -.. 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Wisconsin _ 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Florida.-- 
 
 District of Columbia. 
 
 501,793 
 
 284,573 
 
 737,698 
 
 108,825 
 
 309,998 
 
 291,948 
 
 2,428,917 
 
 372,632 
 
 .1,723,969 
 
 75,480 
 
 380.282 
 
 790,810 
 
 507,602 
 
 267,360 
 
 410,448 
 
 337,224 
 
 180,440 
 
 183,959 
 
 646,151 
 
 597,570 
 
 l,519,4r>4 
 
 685,863 
 
 475,852 
 
 325,462 
 
 77,639 
 
 212,267 
 
 30,934 
 
 43,096 
 
 28,760 
 
 39,018 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 674 
 
 64 
 
 2,605 
 
 89,737 
 
 448,987 
 
 245,817 
 
 327,038 
 
 280,944 
 
 253,532 
 
 195,211 
 
 168,452 
 
 183.059 
 
 182,258 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 331 
 
 58,240 
 
 19,935 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 16 
 
 25,716 
 
 4,694 
 
 501,793 
 
 284,574 
 
 737,699 
 
 108,828 
 
 310,008 
 
 291,948 
 
 2,428,919 
 
 373,036 
 
 1,724,007 
 
 77,043 
 
 434,124 
 
 1,060,202 
 
 655,092 
 
 463,583 
 
 574,014 
 
 489,343 
 
 297,567 
 
 285,030 
 
 755,986 
 
 706,925 
 
 1,519,466 
 
 685,865 
 
 476,051 
 
 360,406 
 
 89,600 
 
 212,267 
 
 30,941 
 
 43,106 
 
 44,190 
 
 41,834 
 
 $17,554 90 
 
 9,995 64 
 
 25,807 92 
 
 3,807 28 
 
 10,845 43 
 
 10,213 61 
 
 84,974 15 
 
 13,050 42 
 
 60,313 27 
 
 2,695 30 
 
 15,187 54 
 
 37,090 48 
 
 22,917 97 
 
 16,218 15 
 
 20,256 43 
 
 17,119 35 
 
 10,410 19 
 
 9,971 59 
 
 26,447 68 
 
 24,731 31 
 
 53,157 53 
 
 23,994 54 
 
 • 16,654 33 
 
 12,608 57 
 
 3,134 60 
 
 7,426 03 
 
 1,082 45 
 
 1,508 03 
 
 1,515 96 
 
 1,463 53 
 
 Totals 14,576,034 
 
 2,487,356 
 
 16,068,447 
 
 $562,144 18 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, | - 
 Washington, D. C, April 14, 1882. j 
 
 I hereby certify that I have caused the foregoing table to be examined 
 and compared with the records Of this office, and find it to be correct. 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 
116 
 
 TABLE No. 4— B. 
 
 Statement showing^ the respective Shares of the several States and Territories of the United States 
 and the District of Columbia, under the Distribution Act of fourth September, I84I, of the 
 residue of the net jrroceeds of the cash sale of the Public Lands sold from the first day of 
 July to the twenty-ninth of August, 18^2, inclusive. 
 
 States, Territoeies, and District of Columbia. 
 
 Free 
 Population. 
 
 Slaves. 
 
 Federal 
 Numbers. 
 
 Distributive 
 Shares. 
 
 Maine 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 Connecticut- 
 
 Vermont 
 
 New York 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Delaware 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Virginia . 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Georgia * 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Mississippi. _. 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Kentucky. 
 
 Ohio... 
 
 Indiana.- 
 
 Illinois -- 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Florida 
 
 District of Columbia 
 
 Totals 
 
 501,793 
 
 284,573 
 
 737,698 
 
 103,825 
 
 309,998 
 
 291,948 
 
 2,428,917 
 
 372,632 
 
 1,723,969 
 
 75,480 
 
 380,282 
 
 790,810 
 
 507,602 
 
 267,360 
 
 410,448 
 
 337,224 
 
 180,440 
 
 183,959 
 
 646,151 
 
 597,570 
 
 1,519,464 
 
 685,863 
 
 475,852 
 
 325,462 
 
 77.639 
 
 212,267 
 
 30,934 
 
 43,096 
 
 28,760 
 
 39,018 
 
 4 
 
 647 
 
 64 
 
 2,605 
 
 89,737 
 
 448,987 
 
 245,817 
 
 327,038 
 
 280,944 
 
 253,532 
 
 195,211 
 
 168,452 
 
 180,059 
 
 182,258 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 331 
 
 58,240 
 
 19,935 
 
 11 
 
 16 
 
 25,717 
 
 4,694 
 
 501,793 
 
 284,574 
 
 737,699 
 
 108,828 
 
 310,008 
 
 291,948 
 
 2,428,919 
 
 373,036 
 
 1,724.007 
 
 77,043 
 
 434,124 
 
 1,060,202 
 
 655,092 
 
 463,583 
 
 579,014 
 
 489,343 
 
 297,567 
 
 285,030 
 
 755,986 
 
 706,925 
 
 1,519,466 
 
 685,865 
 
 476,051 
 
 360,406 
 
 89,600 
 
 212,267 
 
 30,941 
 
 43,106 
 
 44,190 
 
 41,834 
 
 14,576,034 
 
 2,487,356 
 
 16,068,447 
 
 $2,161 33 
 
 1,225 72 
 
 3,177 43 
 
 468 75 
 
 1,335 27 
 
 1,257 48 
 
 10,461 89 
 
 1.606 75 
 
 7,425 68 
 
 331 84 
 
 1,869 88 
 
 4,566 52 
 
 2,821 63 
 
 1,996 75 
 
 2,493 94 
 
 2,107 71 
 
 1,281 69 
 
 1,227 69 
 
 3,256 20 
 
 3,044 88 
 
 6,544 67 
 
 2,954 17 
 
 2,650 46 
 
 1,552 35 
 
 385 93 
 
 914 28 
 
 133 27 
 
 185 67 
 
 190 33 
 
 180 19 
 
 $69,210 35 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, 
 Washington, D. C, April 14, 1882. 
 
 I hereby certify that I have caused the foregoing table to be examined 
 and compared with the records of this office, and find it to be correct. 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 
117 
 
 TABLE No. 5— A 2. 
 
 Statement of the Additional Alloioance to the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Arkan- 
 sas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Michigan, of ten per cent of the net proceeds of 
 the cash sale of the Public Lands sold in the half year ending thirtieth June, 1842, under 
 the Distribution Act of September 4, I84I, according to the mode prescribed by the First Comp- 
 troller of the Treasury. 
 
 States and Territories. 
 
 Gross proceeds of 
 
 Lands Sold 
 in States and Ter- 
 ritories. 
 
 Proportion 
 
 of Expenses to be 
 
 deducted. 
 
 Net proceeds of 
 Sales after deduct- 
 ing proportion 
 of Expenses from 
 gross proceeds. 
 
 Additional 
 allowance of ten per 
 
 cent to each of 
 
 the new States on 
 
 net proceeds 
 
 of Sales therein. 
 
 Ohio - 
 
 $12,534 27 
 39,125 53 
 
 402,163 06 
 
 113,832 94 
 18,295 69 
 38,377 32 
 32,518 52 
 71,228 19 
 15,494 68 
 
 743,570 20 
 93,646 50 
 
 $3,297 88 
 
 10,294 29 
 
 105,812 86 
 
 29,950 51 
 
 4,813 78 
 
 10,097 43 
 
 8,555 92 
 
 18,740 80 
 
 4,076 79 
 
 195,640 26 
 
 24,639 27 
 
 $9,236 39 
 28,831 24 
 
 296,250 20 
 83,882 43 
 13,481 91 
 28,279 89 
 23,962 60 
 52,487 39 
 11,417 89 
 
 547,929 94 
 69,207 23 
 
 $923 64 
 
 Indiana 
 
 2,883 12 
 29,635 02 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Missouri 
 
 8,388 24 
 1,348 19 
 
 2,827 99 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 2 396 26 
 
 Ala bania 
 
 5,248 74 
 
 Michigan 
 
 1,141 79 
 
 W^isconsin _ _ . 
 
 Iowa 
 
 
 
 
 Totals 
 
 $837,216 70 
 
 $220,279 53 
 
 $616,937 17 
 
 $54,792 99 
 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, ) 
 Washington, D. C, April 14, 1882. ' J 
 
 I hereby certify that I have caused the foregoing table to be examined 
 and compared with the records of this office, and find it to be correct. 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 
 TABLE No. 6— B 2. 
 
 Statement of the Additional Allowance to the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Arkan- 
 sas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Michigan, of the tender cent of the net proceeds 
 of the cash sale of the Public Lands sold therein respectively, from the first day of July to 
 the twenty-ninth of August, 1842, inclusive, under the Distribution Act of September 4, I84I, 
 according to the mode prescribed by the First Comptroller of the Treasury. 
 
 States and Territories. 
 
 Gross proceeds of 
 Sales in the States 
 and Territories, 
 deducting propor- 
 tion of $5 43 
 excess of repay in 
 Mississippi. 
 
 Proportion of 
 
 Expenses deducted 
 
 from 
 
 gross proceeds. 
 
 Net proceeds of 
 Sales after deduct- 
 ing from the 
 gross proceeds the 
 
 proportion of 
 Expenses as stated. 
 
 Additional allow- 
 ance to the above 
 
 mentioned States of 
 ten per cent of net 
 
 proceeds of Lands 
 sold therein. 
 
 Ohio 
 
 $7,286 63 
 7,733 95 
 
 38,527 51 
 
 12,085 07 
 2,485 73 
 2,455 96 
 
 11,253 99 
 4,288 38 
 
 $3,081 76 
 3,270 95 
 
 16,294 59 
 5,111 19 
 1,051 30 
 1,038 71 
 4,759 69 
 1,813 70 
 
 $4,204 87 
 4,463 00 
 
 22,232 92 
 6.973 88 
 1,434 43 
 1,417 25 
 6,494 30 
 2,474 68 
 
 $420 49 
 
 Indiana 
 
 448 30 
 
 Illinois 
 
 2,223 29 
 
 Missouri 
 
 697 39 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 143 44 
 
 Louisiana.. 
 
 141 72 
 
 Alabama 
 
 649 43 
 
 Michigan 
 
 247 47 
 
 
 
 Totals 
 
 $86,117 22 
 
 $36,421 89 
 
 $49,695 33 
 
 $4,969 53 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, 
 Washington, D. C, April 14, 1882. 
 
 I hereby certify that I have caused the foregoing table to be examined 
 and compared with the records of this office, and find it to be correct. 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 
118 
 
 TABLE No. 7— C. 
 
 Statement of the Amounts which have accrued to the following named States up to the thirtieth 
 June, 1880, on account of the two, three, and five per cent, upon the net proceeds of the cash 
 " of the Public Lands within their respective limits. 
 
 States. 
 
 Two Per Cent. 
 
 Three Per Cent. 
 
 Five Per Cent. 
 
 Aggregate. 
 
 A 1 ji1"»nmfi 
 
 $401,782 23 
 
 $602,583 34 
 
 
 $1,004,365 57 
 227,359 05 
 
 
 $227,359 05 
 
 9,589 73 
 
 28,975 44 
 
 626,075 16 
 
 Colorado 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 9,589 73 
 
 Florida 
 
 
 
 
 28,975 44 
 
 
 
 
 626,075 16 
 
 
 
 712,744 82 
 618,277 50 
 
 712,744 82 
 
 
 
 
 618,277 50 
 
 Kansas - 
 
 
 258,842 11 
 315,612 89 
 
 258,842 11 
 
 liOuisiana 
 
 
 
 315,612 89 
 
 TVTi «! si s!si nni 
 
 395,142 08 
 
 15,587 78 
 
 592,690 20 
 535,836 05 
 
 987,832 28 
 
 IVTisisjonTi 
 
 
 551,423 83 
 
 
 471,344 55 
 
 99,409 47 
 
 8,319 84 
 
 116,578 67 
 34,911 09 
 
 471,344 55 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 
 
 99,409 47 
 
 Nevada 
 
 
 
 8,319 84 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 
 
 116,578 67 
 
 
 
 
 34,911 09 
 
 Ohio . - -- 
 
 
 596,634 10 
 
 596,634 10 
 
 "Wisconsin 
 
 
 455,253 73 
 
 455,253 73 
 
 
 
 
 
 Totals -- - 
 
 $812,512 09 
 
 $3,658,766 01 
 
 $2,652,271 73 
 
 $7,123,549 83 
 
 
 
 Department of the Interior, General Land Office, \ 
 Washington, D. C, April 14, 1882. j 
 
 I hereby certify that I have caused the foregoing table to be examined 
 and compared with the records of this office, and find it to be correct. 
 
 N. C. McFARLAND, Commissioner. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 26. 
 CALIFORNIA LAND SALES. 
 
 The bill (S. 994) granting to the State of California five per cent of the 
 net proceeds of the sales of lands in said State was announced as next in 
 order. 
 
 Mr. Allison. I object to that. 
 
 The President pro tempore. Objection being made, the bill goes over 
 under the rule. 
 
 Mr. Dolph. I believe the Senator from California (Mr. Stanford) desires 
 it to keep its place on the calendar without prejudice. 
 
 The President pro tempore. Does- the Senator from Iowa object to its 
 retaining its place on the calendar? 
 
 Mr. Allison. I do not. 
 
 The President pro tempore. The bill will retain its place on the calendar. 
 
 [Congressional Record of May 18, 1886, page 4769.] 
 
119 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 27. 
 
 CALIFORNIA LAND SALES. 
 
 The bill (S. 994) granting to the State of California five per cent of the 
 net proceeds of the sal^ of lands in said State, was announced as next in 
 order. 
 
 Mr. Plumb. I think that had better go over. 
 
 Mr. Dolph. I ask that it retain its place on the calendar. 
 
 The Presiding Officer. If there be no objection, the bill will be passed 
 over, retaining its place on the calendar. 
 
 [Congressional Record of June 8, 1886, page 5582.] 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 28. 
 
 CALIFORNIA LAND SALES. 
 
 The bill (S. 994) granting to the State of California five per cent of the 
 net proceeds of the sales of lands in said State, was announced as next in 
 order. 
 
 Mr, Allison. I object. 
 
 The President pro tempore. Objection being made, the bill goes over. 
 
 [Congressional Record of June 19, 1886, page 6155.] 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 29. 
 
 CALIFORNIA LAND SALES. 
 
 The bill (S. 994), granting to the State of California five per cent of the 
 net proceeds of the sales of lands in said State, was announced as next in 
 order. 
 
 Mr. Miller. Let that go over. 
 
 The President pro tempore. The bill will be passed over. 
 
 [Congressional Record of July 9, 1886, page 7028.] 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 30. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. 9478. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. July 12, 1886 — Referred to the 
 Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed. 
 
 AMENDMENT 
 
 Intended to be proposed by Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon, to the bill (H. R. 
 9478) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government 
 for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty- 
 seven, and for other purposes, viz.: Insert the following: 
 
 And the First Comptroller of the Treasury is hereby authorized and 
 directed to have reported to him by the Commissioner of the General Land 
 
120 
 
 Office, who is hereby authorized and directed to report the same, the 
 amounts of the five per centum of the net proceeds of the cash sales of 
 the pubHc lands made by the United States in any of the public land 
 States since the admission of such States; and the sum of money neces- 
 sary to pay such States said five per centum is hereby appropriated ; and 
 when the accounts for the same shall have been duly audited by the proper 
 accounting officers, the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and 
 directed to pay the same in all cases where the same have not been here- 
 tofore paid. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 31. 
 
 Fiscal Years. 
 
 Net Proceeds. 
 
 Five per 
 
 centum of 
 
 Net Proceeds. 
 
 Interest on 
 
 said per 
 
 centum for 
 
 one year at 7 
 
 per cent. 
 
 No. of 
 Years. 
 
 Interest at 
 
 7 per cent for 
 
 the number 
 
 of Years. 
 
 1858 ) 
 
 1859 / 
 
 I860 
 
 $82,118 51 
 
 4,283 41 
 62,430 51 
 
 31,313 93 
 
 101,239 02 
 
 90,151 16 
 
 339,945 42 
 
 578,412 60 
 
 2,166,280 85 
 583,578 78 
 347,060 21 
 424,366 71 
 447,722 93 
 460,576 33 
 606,897 66 
 484,994 54 
 435,637 27 
 349,684 47 
 171,094 08 
 
 • 140,066 84 
 255,754 61 
 284,316 88 
 720,763 41 
 814,782 63 
 625,634 33 
 
 $4,105 93 
 
 214 17 
 3,121 53 
 
 1,565 70 
 
 5,061 95 
 4,507 56 
 16,997 27 
 28,920 63 
 108,314 04 
 29,178 94 
 17,353 01 
 21,218 34 
 22,386 15 
 23,02« 82 
 30,344 88 
 24,249 73 
 21,781 86 
 17,484 22 
 8,554 70 
 7,003 34 
 12,787 73 
 14,215 84 
 36,038 17 
 40,739 13 
 31,281 71 
 
 $287 41 
 
 14 99 
 218 51 
 
 109 60 
 
 354 34 
 315 53 
 
 1,189 81 
 
 2,024 44 
 
 7,581 98 
 
 2,042 52 
 
 1,214 71 
 
 1,485 28 
 
 1,567 03 
 
 1,612 02 
 
 2,124 14 
 
 1,697 49 
 
 1,524 73 
 
 1,223 90 
 
 598 83 
 
 490 23 
 
 895 14 
 
 995 11 
 
 2,522 67 
 
 2,851 74 
 
 2,189 72 
 
 27 
 
 26 
 25 
 
 22 
 
 21 
 
 20 
 
 19 
 
 18 
 
 17 
 
 16 
 
 15 
 
 14 
 
 13 
 
 12 
 
 11 
 
 10 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 $7,760 07 
 389 74 
 
 1861 
 
 5,462 75 
 
 1862 ^ 
 
 1863 y 
 
 1864 > 
 
 1865 
 
 2,411 20 
 7,441 14 
 
 1866 --- 
 
 6,310 60 
 
 1867 - - 
 
 22,606 39 
 
 1868 --- 
 
 36,439 92 
 
 1869 - -- -- 
 
 128,893 66 
 
 1870 - 
 
 32,680 32 
 
 1871 
 
 18,220 65 
 
 1872 - 
 
 20,793 92 
 
 1873 
 
 . 20,371 39 
 
 1874 
 
 19,344 24 
 
 1875 
 
 23,365 54 
 
 3876 -. 
 
 16,974 90 
 
 1877 -- 
 
 13,722 57 
 
 1878 
 
 9,791 20 
 
 1879 .* -- 
 
 4,191 81 
 
 1880 - -.- 
 
 2,941 38 
 
 1881 
 
 4,475 70 
 
 1882 - - -- 
 
 3,980 44 
 
 1883 
 
 7,568 01 
 
 1884 --. 
 
 5,703 48 
 
 1885 
 
 2,189 72 
 
 
 
 Totals 
 
 $10,609,107 09 
 
 $530,455 35 
 
 $37,131 87 
 
 
 $424,030 74 
 
 
 
EXHIBITS 
 
 DIRECT TAX CLAIM 
 
EXHIBIT No. 1. 
 
 State of California, Executive Department, 
 Sacramento, December 12, 1882. 
 
 ! 
 
 John Mullan, Esq.^ Washington^ D. C: 
 
 Sir : It having come to my knowledge that measures are being taken 
 by several of the States, through their duly appointed agents, to recover 
 from the National Government certain moneys paid by such States under 
 an Act of Congress, approved August 5, 1861, entitled "An Act to provide 
 increased revenue from imports to pay interest on the public debt, and for 
 other purposes," and as the State of California has paid the sum of two 
 hundred and fifty-four thousand five hundred and thirty-eight ($254,538) 
 dollars under the provisions of said Act, it being the total amount assessed 
 against the State, I, therefore, following the action of our sister States, do 
 appoint you as the agent of the State of California to act in her behalf in 
 taking such steps as may be necessary to recover from the United States 
 Government the sums of money so paid under said Act. Your compensa- 
 tion for services rendered thereunder to be left to the discretion of the State 
 Legislature. 
 
 GEORGE C. PERKINS, 
 
 Governor of California. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 2. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 108. Printer's No., 108. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 10, 1883 — Read twice, 
 referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 For the relief of the State of California. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of California 
 the sum of thirty-eight thousand one hundred and eighty dollars and 
 seventy-nine cents; the same being fifteen per centum of two hundred and 
 fifty-four thousand five hundred and thirty-eight dollars and sixty-six 
 cents, her quota of the direct tax assessed under the Act of August fifth, 
 eighteen hundred and sixty-one, and by her paid without any expense 
 whatsoever to the United States, and which percentum has not heretofore 
 been paid or allowed the State of California. 
 
124 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. S. 810. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. December 19, 1883 — Mr. Miller of 
 California asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in the 
 following bill; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on 
 Finance. 
 
 A BILL 
 
 For the relief of the State of California. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury be and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of 
 California the sum of thirty-eight thousand one hundred and eighty dollars 
 and seventy-nine cents; the same being fifteen per centum of two hundred 
 and fifty-four thousand five hundred and thirty-eight dollars and sixty-six 
 cents, her quota of the direct tax assessed under the Act of August fifth, 
 eighteen hundred and sixty-one, and by her paid without any expense 
 whatsoever to the United States, and which percentum has not heretofore 
 been paid or allowed the State of California. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 3. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. K. 953. Printer's No., 983. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 11, 1883 — Read twice, 
 referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Cassidy introduced the following bill- 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To authorize the payment of certain money to the State of Nevada. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of Nevada 
 the sum of six hundred and eighty-eight dollars and eighty-four cents, the 
 same being fifteen per centum of four thousand five hundred and ninety- 
 two dollars and sixty-six cents, her quota, when a Territory, of the direct 
 tax assessed under the Act of August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, 
 and by her paid without any expense whatsoever to the United States, and 
 which percentum has not heretofore been paid or allowed the State of 
 Nevada. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. S. 655. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. December 13, 1883 — Mr. Jones of 
 Nevada asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in the 
 following bill; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on 
 Claims: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 For the relief of the State of Nevada. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 
125 
 
 be and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of Nevada 
 the sum of six hundred and eighty-eight dollars and eighty-nine cents, the 
 same being fifteen per centum of four thousand five hundred and ninety- 
 two dollars and sixty-six cents, her quota, when a Territory, of the direct 
 tax assessed under the Act of August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, 
 and by her paid without any expense whatsoever to the United States, and 
 which percentum has not heretofore been paid or allowed the State of 
 Nevada. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 4. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. S. 511, 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. December 10, 1883 — Mr. Slater 
 asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in the following 
 bill, which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Claims: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 For the relief of the State of Oregon. 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of Oregon 
 the sum of five thousand two hundred and seventy-one dollars and nine 
 cents, the same being fifteen per centum of thirty-five thousand one hun- 
 dred and forty dollars and sixty-six cents, her quota of the direct tax 
 assessed under the Act of August 5, 1861, and by her paid without any 
 expense whatsoever to the United States, and which percentum has not 
 heretofore been paid or allowed the State of Oregon. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 1310. Printer's No., 1360. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 11, 1883 — Read twice, re- 
 ferred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. George introduced the following bill : 
 
 A BILL 
 
 For the relief of the State of Oregon. 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of Oregon 
 the sum of five thousand two hundred and seventy-one dollars and nine 
 cents, the same being fifteen per centum of thirty-five thousand one hun- 
 dred and forty dollars and sixty-six cents, her quota of the direct tax 
 assessed under the Act of August 5, 1861, and by her paid without any 
 expense whatsoever to the United States, and which percentum has not 
 heretofore been paid or allowed the State of Oregon. 
 
126 
 EXHIBIT No. 5. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. 
 Se7iate Bill No. 511, Senate Bill No. 655, Senate Bill No. 810. 
 
 Senate Bill No. 511, introduced in the Senate by Hon. James H. Slater 
 of Oregon, December 10, 1883, and Senate Bill No. 655, introduced by 
 Hon. J. P. Jones of Nevada, December 13, 1883, and Senate Bill No. 810, 
 introduced by Hon. John F. Miller of California, December 19, 1883, have 
 each and all but one object, to wit: 
 
 To allow to each of said States fifteen per centum of the amounts by 
 them respectively paid into the U. S. Treasury as their proportion of the 
 direct tax levied upon and apportioned to each of said States under the 
 Direct Tax Act of fifth August, 1861 (U. S. Stats., vol. 12, page 294), and 
 paid by said States respectively without any expense whatsoever to the 
 Government of the United States or any of its officers. 
 
 Under Section 8 of said Direct Tax Act of August 5, 1861, there was 
 apportioned: 
 
 To the State of California, the sum of. $254,538 66 
 
 To the State of Oregon, the sum of 35,140 66 
 
 To the State of Nevada, the sum of - 4,592 QQ 
 
 Under Section 9 of said Act the appointment of assessors and collectors 
 was provided for in' each and every State and Territory, and the subdivision 
 of said States and Territories into collection districts for the purpose of 
 assessing and collecting said tax, said appointments to be made after 
 February, 1862. 
 
 Section 11 of said Act provided for the subdividing each collection dis- 
 trict into subdistricts, with the authority to appoint assistant assessors 
 therein, etc. 
 
 Section 13 of said Act provided that the assessments and collection 
 should be made upon the assessed value of the properties in each district 
 as ascertained in April, 1862, etc. 
 
 Section 22 of said Act provided for advertising assessment list, valua- 
 tions, and enumerations in each and every district, and that the officers 
 should visit each and every county seat in each of such districts, etc. 
 
 Section 24 of said Act provided for the creation of a Board of Assessors 
 in each State, etc. 
 
 Section 25 of said Act provided for the appointment of clerks to such 
 Boards, etc. 
 
 Section 30 of said Act provided for the pay of such assessors and assist- 
 ant assessors, etc. 
 
 Section 34 of said Act provided that the collector should appoint as 
 many deputies as he might think proper, etc. 
 
 Section 35 of said Act provided for other expenditures of money for 
 advertising, etc., and for distraining upon the property of the people in 
 each of said districts, etc. 
 
 Sections 36 and 38 of said Act provided for more expenditures of 
 money, etc. 
 
 Section 39 of said Act provided for fees to clerks, etc. 
 
 Section 40 of said Act provided for a period of fifteen months, beginning 
 with the annual day (April 1, 1862), with respect to the taxes contained 
 in the lists transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
127 
 
 Section 48 of said Act provided for salaries of said collectors and assist- 
 ants, reaching a maximum of $6,000, with contingent and other ex- 
 penses, etc. 
 
 Now it was estimated, in view of all the premises and necessities of the 
 situation, that the costs to the United States in each State and Territory 
 for compensation to collectors and assistant collectors, assessors and assist- 
 ant assessors, per diem clerks and assistant clerks, percentages prescribed 
 and allowed to assessors and assistant assessors, and to collectors, with 
 other and necessary and contingent expenses, advertising, traveling ex- 
 penses, rents, postage, and the usual et ceteras always to be found in the 
 return of those who disburse public moneys, would aggregate a sum of 
 from ten to fifteen per centum of the total tax authorized to be collected. 
 
 In view thereof, Congress provided, in the fifty-third section of said Act, 
 that any State, Territory, or district may assume and pay its quota, in its 
 own way, by and through its own officers; and that if any State, Territory, 
 or the District of Columbia shall give notice, by the Governor or other 
 proper officer thereof, to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United 
 States, on or before the second Tuesday of February next thereafter, of its 
 intention to assume and pay, or to assess, collect, and pay into the Treasury 
 of the United States the direct tax imposed by this Act, said State, Ter- 
 ritory, or district shall be entitled to a deduction of fifteen per centum on 
 such portion of its quota as shall have been actually paid into the Treas- 
 ury of the United States on or before the last day of June in the year to 
 which such payment relates, and of ten per centum on such part or parts of 
 its quota as shall have been actually paid into the Treasury of the United 
 States on or before the last day of September in the year to which such 
 payment relates. The same section also provides that the amounts appor- 
 tioned to any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia may be paid in 
 whole or in part by the release of such State, Territory, or District to the 
 United States of any " liquidated and determined claim of such State, 
 Territory, or District of equal amount against the United States," and that 
 in such release the same abatement shall be allowed as would be allowed 
 in case of payment of the direct tax in money. 
 
 A subsequent Act, approved May 13, 1862, extends the provisions of 
 Section 53, above referred to, to war claims which may be presented on or 
 before the thirtieth of July, 1862. 
 
 Now all three of these States have heretofore paid into the public Treas- 
 ury of the United States, in whole or in part, the several amounts assessed 
 to them respectively, and without any expense whatsoever to the United 
 States, and the same principles of equity as extended to other States 
 should be now extended to California, Oregon, and Nevada, even though 
 they did not come strictly up to the directory requirement as to the exact 
 date of payment. 
 
 All three, however, strictly conformed to the underlying principle in said 
 Section 53, by saving to the United States all costs of assessment and col- 
 lection in the premises, by defra5dng all such costs and expenses themselves, 
 and thereby have a good claim in equity for the amount of the fifteen per 
 centum deduction provided for in said Section 53. 
 
 First — California paid into the United States Treasury: 
 
 On Octobers, 1862 $63,839 31 
 
 On February 26, 1863. 183,606 10 
 
 On January 30,1883 495 72 
 
 Aggregating $247,941 13 
 
128 
 
 Now fifteen per centum of $247,941 13 is $37,191 16, and which sum is 
 now equitably due the State of Cahfornia under the terms of said Senate 
 Bill No. 810, which should be amended so as to read $37,191 16, instead of 
 $38,180 79, as stated in said bill. 
 
 Second — The Territory of Nevada, on January 18, 1864, paid into the 
 U. S. Treasury the sum of $4,592 33, and without any expense whatsoever 
 to the United States; the fifteen per centum of which sum is $688 84, and 
 which sum is now equitably due under Senate Bill No. 655, to the State of 
 Nevada, as successor to the Territory of Nevada. 
 
 Third — The State of Oregon assumed said debt in 1864, and paid into 
 the United States Treasury, without any expense whatsoever to the United 
 States, as follows, to wit: 
 
 On December 13, 1881 $1,891 60 
 
 On March 31, 1883 33,249 07 
 
 Aggregating $35,140 67 
 
 The fifteen per centum of which is $5,271 09, and which sum is now 
 equitably due under Senate Bill No. 511, to the State of Oregon. 
 
 It is therefore suggested that a substitute of one bill for these three bills 
 may be reported by the honorable committee having the same in charge, 
 and of the tenor, as follows, to wit: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 For the relief of the States of California, Oregon, and Nevada. 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Senate and, House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury be and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of 
 California, the sum of thirty-seven thousand one hundred and ninety-one 
 dollars and sixteen cents; and to the State of Nevada, the sum of six hun- 
 dred and eighty-eight dollars and eighty-four cents; and to the State of 
 Oregon, the sum of five thousand two hundred and seventy-one dollars 
 and nine cents; the same being fifteen per centum of the amounts of direct 
 tax paid into the Treasury of the United States by said States respectively, 
 under the Direct Tax Act of August 5, 1861, without any expense or costs 
 whatsoever incurred therein by the United States, and which percentum 
 has not heretofore been paid or allowed to said States, or to any of them. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 State Agent and Counsel for the States of California, Oregon, and Nevada. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 6. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. House Bills Nos. 108, 953, 1310. 
 
 House Bill No. 108, introduced December 10, 1883, by Hon. Barclay Hen- 
 ley, of California ; House Bill Ne. 953, introduced December 11, 1883, by 
 Hon. George W. Cassidy, of Nevada; House Bill No. 1310, introduced 
 December 11, 1883, by Hon. M. C. George, of Oregon; 
 
 Have for their object, respectively : 
 
 To allow to each of said States fifteen per centum of the amounts by 
 them respectively paid into the United States Treasury as their proportion 
 
129 
 
 of the direct tax levied upon and apportioned to each of said States under 
 the Direct Tax Act of the fifth of August, 1861 (U. S. Stats., vol. 12, p. 
 292) , and paid by said States, respectively, without any expense whatso- 
 ever to the Government of the United States or any of its officers. 
 
 Under Section 8 of said Direct Tax Act of August 5, 1861, there was 
 apportioned : 
 
 To the State of California, the sum of $254,538 67 
 
 To the State of Oregon 35,140 67 
 
 To the Territory of Nevada 4,592 67 
 
 [See letters of the honorable Secretary of the Treasury of February 11, 
 1884, and of the First Comptroller, of February 9, 1884, herewith attached, 
 marked "A" and " B," and made a part hereof.] 
 
 Under Section 9 of said Act, the appointment of assessors and collect- 
 ors was provided for in each and every State and Territory, and the 
 subdivision of said States and Territories into collection districts for the 
 purpose of assessing and collecting said tax, said appointments to be made 
 after February, 1862. 
 
 Section 11 of said Act provided for the subdividing each collection dis- 
 trict into sub-districts, with authority to appoint assistant assessors therein, 
 etc. 
 
 Section 13 of said Act provided that the assessments and collection 
 should be made upon the assessed value of the properties in each district, 
 as ascertained in April, 1862, etc. 
 
 Section 22 of said Act provided for advertising assessment list, valu- 
 ations, and enumerations in each and every district, and that the officers 
 should visit each and every county seat in each of such districts, etc. 
 
 Section 24 of said Act provided for the creation of a Board of Assessors 
 in each State, etc. 
 
 Section 25 of said Act provided for the appointment of clerks to such 
 Boards, etc. 
 
 Section 30 of said Act provided for the pay of such assessors and assist- 
 ant assessors. 
 
 Section 34 of said Act provided that the collector should appoint as 
 many deputies as he might think proper, etc. 
 
 Section 35 of said Act provided for other expenditures of money for 
 advertising, etc., and for distraining upon the property of the people in 
 each of said districts, etc. 
 
 Sections 36 and 38 of said Act provided for more expejiditures of 
 money, etc. 
 
 Section 39 of said Act provided for fees to clerks, etc. 
 
 Section 40 of said Act provided for a period of fifteen months, begin- 
 ning with the annual day (April 1, 1862), with respect to the taxes con- 
 tained in the lists transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Section 48 of said Act provided for the salaries of said collectors and 
 assistants, reaching a maximum of $6,000, with contingent and other 
 expenses, etc. 
 
 In other words, this Direct Tax Act of August 5, 1861, and the fifty- 
 eight sections comprising it, provided for an immense and expensive 
 Federal machinery to be organized and to be set in motion in every State 
 and Territory of the United States, for the assessment of the property, 
 and collection of the twenty million dollars direct tax, provided for in 
 Section 8 of said Act. 
 
 Now it was estimated, in view of all the premises and necessities of the 
 
130 
 
 situation, that the costs to the United States in each State and Territory, 
 for compensation to collectors and assistant collectors, assessors and 
 assistant assessors, per diem clerks and assistant clerks, percentages pre- 
 scribed and allowed to assessors and assistant assessors, and to collectors, 
 with other and necessary and contingent expenses, advertising, traveling 
 expenses, rents, postage, and the usual et ceteras always to be found in the 
 return of those who disburse public moneys, would aggregate a sum of 
 from ten to fifteen per centum of the total tax authorized to be collected. 
 
 In view thereof Congress provided, in the fifty-third section of said Act, 
 that any State, Territory, or District, may assume and pay its quota in its 
 own way, by and through its own officers; and that if any State, Territory, 
 or District of Columbia, shall give notice, by the Governor or other proper 
 officer thereof, to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, on 
 or before the second Tuesday of February next thereafter, of its intention 
 to assume and pay, or to assess, collect, and pay into the Treasury of the 
 United States the direct tax imposed by this Act, said State, Territory, or 
 District shall be entitled to a deduction of fifteen per centum on such 
 portion of its quota as shall have been actually paid into the Treasury of 
 the United States on or before the last day of June in the year to which 
 such payment relates; and of ten per centum on such part or parts of its 
 quota as shall have been actually paid into the Treasury of the United 
 States, on or before the last day of September in the year to which such 
 payment relates. 
 
 The same section provides also that the amounts apportioned to any 
 State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, may be paid in whole or in 
 part by the release of such State, Territory, or District, to the United 
 States of any "liquidated and determined claim of such State, Territory, 
 or District, of equal amount against the United States," and that in such 
 release the same abatement shall be allowed as would be allowed in case 
 of payment of the district tax in money. 
 
 A subsequent Act, approved May 13, 1862, extends the provisions of Sec- 
 tion 53 above referred to, to war claims which may be presented on or 
 before the thirtieth of July, 1862. 
 
 Now all these three States have heretofore paid into the public Treasury 
 of the United States, in whole or in part, the several amounts assessed to 
 them respectively and without any expense whatsoever to the United 
 States, and the same principles of equity as extended to other States should 
 be now extended to California, Oregon, and Nevada, even though they did 
 not come strictly up to the directory requirements as to the exact date of 
 payment. 
 
 All these, however, strictly conformed to the underlying principle in said 
 Section 53, by saving to the United States all costs of assessment and col- 
 lection in the premises, by defrajdng all such costs and expenses them- 
 selves, and thereby have a good claim in equity for this amount of the fifteen 
 per centum deduction provided for in said Section 53. 
 
 First — California paid into the United States Treasury: 
 
 On October 2, 1862 .|63,839 31 
 
 On February 26, 1863 183,606 10 
 
 On January 30, 1883... 495 72 
 
 Aggregating $247,941 13 
 
 Now fifteen per centum of $247,941 13 is $17,191 16, and which sum is 
 now equitably due the State of California under the terms of said House 
 Bill No. 6772. 
 
131 
 
 Second — The Territory of Nevada, on January 18, 1864, paid into the 
 United States Treasury the sum of $4,592 33, and without any expense 
 whatever to the United States, the fifteen per centum of which sum is 
 $688 34, and which sum is now equitably due, under the terms of said 
 House Bill No. 6772, to the State of Nevada, as successor to the Territory 
 of Nevada. 
 
 Third — The State of Oregon assumed said debt October 20, 1862, and 
 paid into the United States Treasury, without any expense whatever to the 
 United States, as follows, to wit : 
 
 On December 13,1881.- $1,891 60 
 
 On March 31, 1883... 33,249 07 
 
 Aggregating... $35,140 67 
 
 The fifteen per centum of which is $5,271 09, and which sum is now 
 equitably due, under the terms of House Bill No. 6772, to the State of 
 Oregon. 
 
 A similar measure, identical even in language, was passed by Congress 
 in August, 1882, for the State of Kansas, and attached to the Deficiency 
 Bill (see U. S. Stats., vol. 22, p. 261), and which measure was recom- 
 mended by the Treasury Department in a letter of March 28, 1862, from 
 the First Comptroller to the honorable Secretary of the Treasury, copy of 
 which is hereto annexed, marked '' C," and made a part hereof, and in 
 which letter said Department called attention to the fact of the equity and 
 justice in all cases like that of Kansas. 
 
 The cases of California, Oregon, and Nevada are quite identical with 
 that of Kansas, differing only in this: that the equity in the cases of Cali- 
 fornia, Oregon, and Nevada is even greater than it was in the State of 
 Kansas. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 State Agent and Counsel for California, Oregon, and Nevada. 
 
 "A." 
 
 Treasury Department, First Comptroller's Office, ) 
 Washington, D. C, February 9, 1884. j" 
 
 Hon. Chares J. Folger, Secretary of the Treasury: 
 
 Sir : By reference and request of your office, I have the honor to return 
 herewith the letter of the Hon. Barclay Henley, of the thirtieth ultimo, in 
 relation to the direct tax account with California, Nevada, and Oregon, 
 respectively, under the Act of August 5, 1861, to wit : 
 
 The quota of California under said Act was $254,538 67 
 
 The deposits on account thereof, per covering warrants : 
 
 No. 5, of December 31, 1862 $63,838 31 
 
 No. 2, of March 31, 1863 183,606 10 
 
 No. 2566, of June 30, 1883 495 72 
 
 247,941 13 
 
 Leaving a balance due the United States of $6,597 54 
 
 The quota of Nevada under the said Act was $4,592 67 
 
 The deposit on account thereof, per covering warrant No. 26, of 
 
 March 31, 1864, was.. $4,592 33 
 
 Warrant No. 1834, of December 31, 1881 34 
 
 $4,592 67 
 
132 
 
 The quota of Oregon under said Act was $35,140 67 
 
 The deposit on account thereof, per covering warrant No. 1835, of 
 
 December 31, 1881, was $1,891 60 
 
 Warrant No. 2696, of March 31, 1883 33,249 07 
 
 $3 5,140 67 
 
 Said accounts with Nevada and Oregon now stand balanced and closed. 
 No deduction of percentage has been allowed to any of these three States 
 in the adjustment of said accounts, and I am not aware of any expense 
 incurred by the United States in collecting the several sums deposited to 
 the credit thereof as aforesaid. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 [Signed:] WM. LAWRENCE, Comptroller. 
 
 By J. Tarbell, Deputy Comptroller. 
 
 "B." 
 
 Treasury Department, February 11, 1884. 
 
 Hon. Barclay Henley, House of Representatives: 
 
 Sir : In response to your letter of the thirtieth ultimo, relative to pay- 
 ment of direct tax under the Act of August 5, 1861, by the States of Cali- 
 fornia, Oregon, and Nevada, and asking whether any expenses were incurred 
 therein or any per cent allowed therefor, by the United States, I have the 
 honor to inclose herewith an official report from the office of the First 
 Comptroller of the Treasury covering the points of your inquiry. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 [Signed:] CHARLES J. FOLGER, Secretary. 
 
 "C." 
 
 Treasury Department, First Comptroller's Office, 
 Washington, D. C, March 28, 1882. 
 
 Hon. Charles J. Folger, Secretary of the Treasury: 
 
 Sir : By your reference to this office of the twenty-third instant, I have 
 the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a letter addressed to you under 
 date of the twenty-first instant, by Robert J. Stevens, Clerk of the Com- 
 mittee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, in which he 
 states that by direction of the committee he incloses to you a paper sub- 
 mitted to them, being the form of a clause proposed to be embraced in the 
 Sundry Civil Bill, to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the 
 State of Kansas fifteen per centum of the amount of her quota of the 
 direct tax provided for by the Act of August 5, 1861, as an equitable settle- 
 ment of the cost for assuming the collection of the same. 
 
 He further states that the committee requests that you will have the 
 application examined and returned to the committee, with full information 
 and your recommendation thereupon. 
 
 Your reference to this office is for report. 
 
 All the facts necessary to a complete understanding of this subject will 
 be found in the appendix to my annual report. 
 
 The material facts may be thus stated : 
 
 The Act of Congress of August 5, 1861 (12 Stats., 292,) imposed a direct 
 tax of $20,000,000 upon the United States, and apportioned the same to 
 the States, respectively, including $71,743 33 to the State of Kansas. 
 
133 
 
 The fifty-third section of the Act provides that any State may lawfully 
 assume, assess, collect, and pay into the Treasury of the United States, the 
 direct tax, or its quota thereof, in its own way and manner. 
 
 And it is provided (12 Stats. 311), that any State which shall give notice, 
 by the Governor, to the Secretary of the Treasury, on or before the second 
 Tuesday in February, 1862, and in each succeeding year thereafter, of its 
 intention to assume and pay into the Treasury of the United States, the 
 direct tax imposed by this Act, shall be entitled to a deduction of fifteen 
 per cent on the quota of direct tax apportioned to such State, levied and 
 collected by such State, through its officers; provided, that the deduction 
 shall only be made to apply to such part of the sum as shall have been 
 actually paid into the Treasury of the United States on or before the last 
 day of June in the year to which such payment relates, and the Act for 
 collecting the tax, through officers of the United States, in case the same 
 should not be paid by any State. 
 
 Under this Act, on the twenty-ninth of May, 1868, the then First Comp- 
 troller audited and certified that $71,743 33 are due and payable from the 
 State of Kansas to the United States. 
 
 The State was accordingly charged in the Kegister's office with this sum. 
 
 In pursuance of the Act of July 27, 1861, to indemnify the States for 
 expenses incurred by them in defense of the United States (12 Stats. 276), 
 the State of Kansas filed claim in the Treasury Department in April, 1862, 
 on which there was allowed, September 20, 1867, $9,360 82, which was 
 placed to the credit of the State on account of the direct tax charged to it 
 as aforesaid. 
 
 On the twenty-second of June, 1881, $26,604 05 were credited to the 
 State of Kansas for expenses incurred by that State under the Act of July 
 27,1861. 
 
 The Deficiency Appropriation Act of March 3, 1881, appropriated for the 
 State of Kansas, for amount due of the five, three, and two per cent funds 
 to States, from the proceeds of sales of lands, $190,268 27. 
 
 Of this sum there was credited to the State of Kansas, on the charge 
 against it for direct taxes, about June 23, 1881, $35,778 46, and the residue 
 of the sum appropriated by the Act of March 3, 1881, was paid to the 
 State of Kansas. 
 
 The direct tax, thus charged to the State of Kansas, was paid by the 
 three sums named, to wit, $9,360 82, $26,604 05, for expenses incurred by 
 the State in the defense of the United States under the Act of July 27, 
 1861, and $35,778 46 out of the sum appropriated by the Act of March 3, 
 1881. 
 
 The purpose of the clause proposed to be embraced in the Sundry Civil 
 Bill is to allow to the State of Kansas fifteen per cent on these three sums, 
 making $10,761 49.9, or, as stated in the bill, $10,761 50. 
 
 From this it will be seen that as the law now stands the State of Kansas 
 has no legal claim to this payment. 
 
 The only question, I suppose, therefore to be determined, is whether the 
 State has a claim founded upon principles of substantial equity and jus- 
 tice which ought to be allowed by Congress. 
 
 I learned informally that you desire an expression of my opinion upon 
 this question. In favor of the payment of this sum to the State of Kansas, 
 it may, with great propriety and force be argued that the United States 
 has not been put to the expense of collecting the tax from the citizens or 
 property in the State of Kansas, and that the amount has been paid with- 
 out this expense to the United States, and that therefore the State should 
 be reimbursed to this extent. 
 
134 
 
 On the other hand it may be urged that other States paid years since, 
 whereas the State of Kansas has delayed its payment. 
 
 It may properly be said, however, I think, that if the General Govern- 
 ment chose to omit collecting the tax from the citizens or property in the 
 State of Kansas it is no fault of that State, or its citizens, and that no com- 
 plaint can properly be made on that score by the General Government. 
 
 It is to be presumed that if the United States had taken the necessary 
 steps at an earlier date to collect this tax, it would have been collected, 
 and if the officers of the General Government did not deem it expedient to 
 press an earlier payment, the State should not be charged with any failure 
 or delinquency on that account. 
 
 It seems to me, therefore, that this claim by the State of Kansas for 
 reimbursement to the extent of $10,761 50 is supported by strong con- 
 siderations of equity and justice. 
 
 It is proper to say that if Congress should make this appropriation, a 
 similar appropriation will doubtless be asked in behalf of other States. 
 
 On the twenty-fifth instant I requested the Register of the Treasury to 
 give me information as- to the sums which had been covered into the 
 Treasury on account of the direct tax, to the credit of the several States, 
 where the tax of fifteen per cent was not allowed under the Act of August 
 5, 1861, and, under date of the twenty-seventh, I received from him a letter 
 on this subject, which is herein inclosed. 
 
 This shows that the several States and Territories have been credited to 
 the amount of $5,463,588 57, without an allowance of fifteen per cent. I 
 learn, informally, that the records in the Register's office do not now show 
 how much of this gross sum arises from expenses incurred by the States 
 in defense of the United States, under the Act of Congress of July 27, 
 1861 (12 Stats., 276), nor how much of it comes from other sources. 
 
 It seems to me proper, however, that attention should be called to the 
 fact that claim will doubtless be made by other States, if this appropri- 
 ation should be made in favor of the State of Kansas. 
 
 I have the honor to inclose herewith the letter of Mr. Stevens, with its 
 inclosure, and the letter to me by the Assistant Register, of the twenty- 
 seventh instant. Also my annual report, the appendix to which gives 
 more at large the facts necessary to a proper understanding of this subject. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 [Signed:] WM. LAWRENCE, Comptroller. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 7. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. May 9, 1884 — Mr. Farley intro- 
 duced the following bill, which was read twice and referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Claims: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 For the relief of the State of California. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That to enable the Secretary of 
 the Treasury to pay to the State of California fifteen per centum of the 
 amount of her quota of the direct tax of eighteen hundred and sixty-one. 
 
135 
 
 for assuming the cost of the collection of the same, and as paid by her 
 without any expense to the United States, the sum of thirty-seven thou- 
 sand one hundred and ninety-one dollars and seventeen cents is hereby 
 appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 1%, 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. Senate. Report No. 550. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. May 14, 1884 — Ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Dolph, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany bills S. 511, 655, and 2191.] 
 
 Your committee, to which were referred the bills S. 511, for the relief of 
 the State of Oregon; S. 655, for the relief of the State of Nevada; and S. 
 2191, for the relief of the State of California, respectfully reports: 
 
 Th-at it is proposed by said bills to authorize and direct the Secretary of 
 the Treasury to pay to the States of California, Oregon, and Nevada the 
 following amounts, namely: Oregon, $5,271 10; Nevada, $688 90; Califor- 
 nia, $37,191 11; being fifteen per cent of the amounts apportioned to the 
 said States, respectively, of the direct tax of $20,000,000 imposed by Act of 
 Congress of August 5, 1861, upon the United States. 
 
 That the amounts of said direct tax apportioned to said States of Califor- 
 nia, Oregon, and Nevada were as follows: California, $247,941 13; Oregon, 
 $35,140 67; Nevada, $4,592 67. 
 
 It was provided by the fifty-third section of said Act, that any State 
 might lawfully assume, collect, assess, and pay into the Treasury of the 
 United States the direct tax, o-r its quota thereof, in its own way and man- 
 ner, and that any State which should give notice by its Governor to the 
 Secretary of the Treasury on or before the second Tuesday of February, 
 1862, and in each succeeding year thereafter, of its intention to assume and 
 pay into the Treasury of the United States the direct tax imposed by said 
 Act, should be entitled to a deduction of fifteen per cent upon such portion 
 of the tax as should be paid on or before the last day of June in the year 
 to which such tax payment related. 
 
 The States of California and Oregon, and the Territory of Nevada, at the 
 first session of their respective Legislative Assemblies after the imposition 
 of said tax, assumed and made provision for the collection of the same. 
 
 The State of California, by the first section of an Act of the Legislative 
 Assembly of that State, approved April 12, 1862, provided for an annual 
 tax of fifteen cents upon each $100 in value of all the property in the State 
 liable to taxation, for the purpose of paying the quota of said direct tax 
 apportioned to that State; and by the tenth section of said Act directed 
 the Treasurer of the State to pay over to the Assistant Treasurer of the 
 United States, at the City of San Francisco, on the first Monday in each 
 month, all moneys in the State Treasury belonging to the Federal Tax 
 Fund, not exceeding in each fiscal year the quota of the direct tax allotted 
 to the State by Act of Congress after retaining therefrom the deduction 
 allowed by the said Act of Congress to the State, in lieu of compensation, 
 pay, per diem, and percentage. By the first section of an Act passed b}^ 
 the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon, approved October 20, 1862, 
 
136 
 
 the sum of $35,140 66f was appropriated for the payment to the United 
 States of the amount of said direct tax apportioned to that State, and by 
 Section 2 of said Act the State Treasurer was authorized, whenever the 
 proper officer of the Treasury Department of the United States should 
 draw upon the State therefor, to pay the sum of $10,000, and to pay the 
 further sum of $25,140 66f upon hke draft at any time after the first of 
 March, 1863. 
 
 The Territory of Nevada, by an Act of the Legislative Assembly of said 
 Territory, approved November 29, 1861, provided for the levying and col- 
 lecting of a special tax of one mill on each dollar of the taxable property 
 in the Territory for the purpose of paying the quota of said direct tax 
 apportioned to said Territory, and by Section 3 of said Act made it the 
 duty of the Territorial Treasurer, upon demand of the proper officer, to pay 
 over to the Treasurer of the United States the amount due from the Ter- 
 ritory under the said Act of Congress. 
 
 Your committee is not informed why the quota of said States and Terri- 
 tory was not collected in accordance with the provisions of said Acts. The 
 full amount of said tax has been paid into the Treasury of the United 
 States, and without cost to the United States, but the same was paid after 
 the time specified in said Act of Congress, within which the payment would 
 have entitled them to the deduction of fifteen per cent. 
 
 It is conceded that said States have no legal claim to the deduction asked 
 for, but it is contended that as the United States has not been put to the 
 expense of collecting said tax, said States should be reimbursed to the 
 extent proposed by the bills under consideration.- Congress has adopted 
 this view of the question and has refunded to the State of Kansas fifteen 
 per cent of the amount of such direct tax paid by her under similar cir- 
 cumstances. Such repayment was authorized by the following clause of 
 the Deficiency Appropriation Bill of August 5, 1882: 
 
 To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the State of Kansas fifteen per cent 
 of the amount of her quota of the direct tax or 1861 on account of proper costs for assum- 
 ing the collection of the same, $10,761 50. 
 
 Your committee submits herewith a letter from the honorable Secretary 
 of the Treasury, together with the report of the First Comptroller of the 
 Treasury of March 28, 1882, and the copy of the report of the Register of 
 the Treasury, referred to therein, all relating to the payment to the State 
 of Kansas of the fifteen per cent of her quota of said direct tax. 
 
 Your committee is of the opinion that the claims of the States of Cali- 
 fornia, Oregon, and Nevada, for the . repayment of fifteen per cent of the 
 direct tax paid by them, are as meritorious as was the claim of the State 
 of Kansas, and that the equitable .principle of equality requires the like 
 consideration of the claims of said States by Congress. Your committee 
 therefore reports the accompanying amendment to the Deficiency Appro- 
 priation Bill as a substitute for said bills: Senate 511. Senate 655, and 
 Senate 2191. 
 
 Treasury Department, April 19, 1884. 
 
 Sir: Referring to -your communication of the fifteenth instant, request- 
 ing information in relation to the payment to the State of Kansas of fifteen 
 per centum of her quota of the direct tax of 1861, I have the honor to 
 inclose herewith copy of the report of the First Comptroller of March 28, 
 1882, upon the subject, which was forwarded to the Chairman of the House 
 Committee on Appropriations, March 31, 1882. 
 
 I would also invite your attention, in this connection, to the inclosed 
 
137 
 
 copy of letter of the Register of the Treasury of the eighteenth instant, 
 giving the aggregate amounts that have been covered into the Treasury on 
 account of direct tax to the credit of the several States and Territories and 
 the District of Columbia, where a deduction of fifteen per centum was not 
 allowed under the Act of August 5, 1861. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 CHARLES J. FOLGER, Secretary. 
 
 Hon. J. N. Dolph, United States Senate. 
 
 Treasury Department, First Comptroller's Office, ) 
 Washington, D. C, March 28, 1882. J 
 
 Sir : By your reference to this office of the twenty-third instant, I have 
 the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a letter addressed to you under 
 date of the twenty-first instant by Robert J. Stevens, clerk of the Com- 
 mittee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, in which he 
 states that by direction of the committee he incloses to you a paper sub- 
 mitted to them, being the form of a clause proposed to be embraced in the 
 Sundry Civil Bill— 
 
 To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the State of Kansas fifteen per centum 
 of the amount of her quota of the direct tax provided for by the Act of August 5, 1861, as 
 an equitable settlement of the cost for assuming the collection of the same. 
 
 . He further states that the committee requests that you will have the 
 application examined and returned to the committee, with full information 
 and your recommendation thereupon. Your reference to this office is for 
 report. 
 
 All of the facts necessary to a complete understanding of this subject 
 will be found in the appendix to my annual report. The material facts 
 may be thus stated: The Act of Congress of August 5, 1861 (12 Stats., 
 292) , imposed a direct tax of $20,000,000 upon the United States, and ap- 
 portioned the same to the States respectively, including $71,743 33 to the 
 State of Kansas. The fifty-third section of the Act provides that any 
 State may lawfully assume, assess, collect, and pay into the Treasury of 
 the United States the direct tax, or its quota thereof, in its own way and 
 manner. And it is provided (12 Stats., 311) that any State which shall 
 give notice by the Governor to the Secretary of the Treasury, on or before 
 the second Tuesday of February, 1862, and in each succeeding year there- 
 after, of its intention to assume and pay into the Treasury of the United 
 States the direct tax imposed by this Act, shall be entitled to a deduction 
 of fifteen per cent on the quota of direct tax apportioned to such State, 
 levied and collected by such State through its officers, provided that the 
 deduction shall only be made to apply to such part of the sum as shall 
 have been actually paid into the Treasury of the United States on or before 
 the last day of June in the year to which such payment relates; and the 
 Act provided for collecting the tax through officers of the United States, 
 in case the same should not be paid by any State. Under this Act, on the 
 twenty-ninth of May, 1868, the then First Comptroller admitted and cer- 
 tified that $71,743 33 are due and payable from the State of Kansas to the 
 United States. The State was accordingly charged in the Register's office 
 with this sum. In pursuance of the Act of July 27, 1861, to indemnify 
 the States for expenses incurred by them in defense of the United States 
 (12 Stats., 276), the State of Kansas filed claims in the Treasury Depart- 
 ment in April, 1862, on which there was allowed September 20, 1867, 
 $9,360 82, which was placed to the credit of the State on account of the 
 
138 
 
 direct tax charged to it as aforesaid. On the twenty-second of June, 1881, 
 $26,604 05 were credited to the State of Kansas for expenses incurred by 
 that State under the Act of July 27, 1861. The Deficiency Appropriation 
 Act of March 3, 1881, appropriated for the State of Kansas for amount due 
 of the five, three, and two per cent funds to States from the proceeds of 
 sales of lands, $190,268 27. Of this sum there was credited to the State 
 of Kansas, on the charge against it for direct taxes, about June 23, 1881, 
 $35,778 46, and the residue of the sum appropriated by the Act of March 
 3, 1881, was paid to the State of Kansas. The direct tax thus charged to 
 the State of Kansas was paid by the three sums named, to wit, $9,360 82 
 and $26,604 05 for expenses incurred by the State in defense of the United 
 States, under the Act of July 27, 1861, and $35,778 46 out of the sum appro- 
 priated by the Act of March 3, 1881. 
 
 The purpose of the clause proposed to be embraced in the Sundry Civil 
 Bill is to allow to the State of Kansas fifteen per cent on these three sums, 
 making $10,761 42^, or, as stated in the bill, $10,761 50. From this it 
 will be seen that as the law now stands the State of Kansas has no legal 
 claim to this payment. The only question, I suppose, therefore to be deter- 
 mined is, whether the State has a claim founded upon principles of substan- 
 tial equity and justice which ought to be allowed by Congress. I learned 
 informally that you desired an expression of my opinion upon this question. 
 
 In favor of the payment of this sum to the State of Kansas, it may with 
 great propriety and force be urged that the United States has not been put 
 to the expense of collecting the tax from the citizens or property in the State 
 of Kansas, and tl^at the amount has been paid without this expense to the 
 United States, and that, therefore, the State should be reimbursed to this 
 extent. On the other hand, it may be urged that other States paid years 
 since, whereas the State of Kansas has delayed its payment. It may prop- 
 erly be said, however, I think, that if the General Government chose to 
 omit collecting the tax from the citizens or property in the State of Kansas, 
 it is no fault of the State or its citizens, and that no complaints can properly 
 be made on that score by the General Government. It is to be presumed 
 that if the United States had taken the necessary steps at an earlier date 
 to collect this tax, it would have been collected; and if the ofiicers of the 
 General Government did not deem it expedient to press an earlier payment, 
 the State should not be charged with any failure or delinquency on that 
 account. 
 
 It seems to me, therefore, that this claim by the State of Kansas for reim- 
 bursement to the extent of $10,761 50 is supported by strong considerations 
 of equity and justice. It is proper to say, that if Congress shall make this 
 appropriation a similar appropriation will doubtless be asked in behalf of 
 other States. 
 
 On the twenty-fifth instant I requested the Register of the Treasury to 
 give me information as to the sums which had been covered into the Treas- 
 ury on account of the direct tax to the credit of the several States where 
 the tax of fifteen per cent was not allowed under the Act of August 5, 1861, 
 and under date of the twenty-seventh 1 received from him a letter on the 
 subject, which is herein inclosed. This shows that the several States and 
 Territories have been credited to the amount of $5,483,588 57, without an 
 allowance of fifteen per cent. I learn, informally, that the records in the 
 Register's office do not show how much of this gross sum arises from 
 expenses incurred by the States in defense of the United States under the 
 Act of Congress of July 27, 1861 (12 Stats., 276), nor how much of it comes 
 from other sources. It seems to me proper, however, that attention should 
 
139 
 
 be called to the fact that claims will doubtless be made by other States, if 
 this appropriation should be made in favor of the State of Kansas. 
 
 I have the honor to inclose herewith the letter of Mr. Stevens with its 
 inclosure and the letter addressed to me by the Assistant Register, of the 
 twenty-seventh instant; also my annual report, the appendix to which 
 gives more at large the facts necessary to a proper understanding of this 
 subject. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 WM. LAWRENCE, Comptroller. 
 
 Hon. Charles J. Folger, Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Treasury Department, Register's Office, 
 
 April 18, 1884. 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to submit the following as the aggregate amounts 
 that have been covered into the Treasury on acc^ount of direct tax to the 
 credit of the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia, 
 where a deduction of fifteen per centum was not allowed under Act of 
 August 5, 1861 (12 Stat., Sec. 53), as appears from the books of this office: 
 
 Alabama. .$8,491 46 
 
 Arkansas 184,082 18 
 
 California 247,941 13 
 
 Colorado 1,516 89 
 
 Delaware* 1 70,332 83 
 
 District of Columbia 49,437 33 
 
 Florida 43,529 81 
 
 Georgia 71,407 75 
 
 Kansas . 71,743 33 
 
 Louisiana _ 268,515 12 
 
 Mississippi 74,742 57 
 
 Nebraska 19,312 00 
 
 Nevada 4,592 67 
 
 New Mexico 62,648 00 
 
 North Carolina . 386,194 45 
 
 Oregon 35,140 67 
 
 South Carolina 1 377,961 30 
 
 Tennessee 387,722 06 
 
 Texas 130,008 06 
 
 Virginia 515,569 72 
 
 Washington 4,268 16 
 
 Wisconsin 166,887 13 
 
 Total $3,182,044 62 
 
 Very respectfully, etc., 
 
 W. P. TITCOMB, Acting Register. 
 Hon. Chas. J. Folger, Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 * Additional amount allowed State on compromise, |4,350 50. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 7>^. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 6772. Printer's No., 7800. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. April 28, 1884 — Read twice, referred 
 to the Committee on Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Glascock introduced the following bill: 
 
140 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To authorize an allowance to the States of California, Oregon, and Nevada 
 of fifteen per centum of the direct tax levied under the Act of August 
 fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one. 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled. That to enable the Secretary of 
 the Treasury to pay to the States of California, Oregon, and Nevada, 
 respectively, fifteen per centum of their respective quotas of the direct tax 
 of August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, on account of their proper 
 costs for assuming the collection of the same, there is hereby appropriated, 
 out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sums 
 following, to wit: The sum of thirty-seven thousand one hundred and 
 ninety-one dollars and sixteen cents, to be paid to the State of California; 
 the sum of five thousand two hundred and seventy-one dollars and ten 
 cents, to be paid to the State of Oregon; and the sum of six hundred and 
 eighty-eight dollars and ninety cents, to be paid to the State of Nevada. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 8. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. Report No. 550. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. May 14, 1884 — Referred to the 
 Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed. 
 
 AMENDMENT 
 
 Reported by Mr. Dolph, from the Committee on Claims, and intended to 
 
 be proposed to the bill (H. R. ) to provide for deficiencies in the 
 
 appropriations for the service of the Government for the fiscal year ending 
 June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty-four, and for other purposes, 
 viz.: Insert the following: 
 
 To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the States of Califor- 
 nia, Oregon, and Nevada, respectively, the fifteen per centum of the amount 
 of their quota of the direct tax of eighteen hundred and sixty-one, on 
 account of the proper costs for assuming the collection of the same, as 
 follows, to wit: To the State of California, thirty-seven thousand one hun- 
 dred and ninety-one dollars and seventeen cents; to the State of Oregon, 
 five thousand two hundred and seventy-one dollars and ten cents; and to 
 the State of Nevada, six hundred and eighty-eight dollars and ninety 
 cents. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 9. 
 
 Treasury Department, Fifth Auditor's Office, [ 
 Washington, June 18, 1886. ) 
 
 John Mullan, Esq., State Agent, etc., Washington, D. C: 
 
 Sir: The inclosed copies of accounts with the State of California for 
 direct tax have been sent to this office for transmittal by the Hon. Register 
 
141 
 
 of the Treasury, to which officer your letter of the seventeenth instant 
 shoulci have been addressed. 
 
 ANTH. EICKHOFF, 
 Auditor. 
 
 Form 13. No. 43,395. Recorded July 23, 1884. M. J. L. 
 
 Treasury Department, Fifth Auditor's Office, 
 
 July 23, 1884. 
 
 I hereby certify that I have examined and adjusted an account between 
 the United States and the State of California on account of Direct Tax Act, 
 August 5, 1861, for , 188-, and find that said State is chargeable, viz.: 
 
 To balance due from said State, per Report No. 39,283 $6,597 54 
 
 To warrants on the Treasury, viz.: 
 
 To amount allowed under Act July 7, 1884 31,583 26 
 
 $38,180 80 
 
 I also find that said State is entitled to credit: 
 
 By amount of fifteen per cent of quota ($254,538 67) $38,180 80 
 
 $38,180 80 
 
 As appears from the statement and vouchers herewith transmitted for the 
 decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury thereon. 
 
 J. B. MANN, 
 
 Acting Fifth Auditor. 
 To the First Comptroller of the Treasury. 
 
 $31,583 26. Comptroller's Office, August 22, 1884. 
 
 I admit and certify the above balance of thirty-one thousand five hun- 
 dred eighty-three dollars and twenty-six cents is due and payable to the 
 Governor of the State of California, at San Francisco, California, out of the 
 appropriation to supply deficiencies for the fiscal year 1884, and for prior 
 years of July 7, 1884; draft to the care of Capt. John Mullan, State Agent, 
 present; the State to be charged. 
 
 WM. LAWRENCE, 
 
 Comptroller. 
 
 By Z. M. LAWRENCE, 
 Acting Deputy Comptroller, S. C. C. 
 To the Register of the Treasury. 
 
 Treasury Department, Register's Office, ) 
 
 June 18, 1886. J 
 A true copy. 
 
 . ROS. A. FISH, 
 
 Assistant Register, P. 
 
142 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 10. 
 
 Treasury Department, Kegister's Office, | 
 
 July 14, 1886. j 
 
 John Mullan, Esq.^ State Agent for California, etc.: 
 
 Sir: Referring to yours of twenty-third ultimo, I transmit herewith a 
 certified transcript of reports relating to direct tax between the State of 
 California and the United States, under Act of August 5, 1861, as requested 
 therein. 
 
 Very- respectfully, 
 
 ROS. A. FISH, 
 Assistant Register, A. H. , 
 
 Office of the Register of the Treasury, Form A, Transcript Certificate. 
 
 Treasury Department, Register's Office, 
 Washington, D. C, July 12, 1886. 
 
 Pursuant to Section 886 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, 
 I, W. S. Rosecrans, Register of the Treasury Department, do hereby certify 
 that the annexed is a transcript from the books and proceedings of the 
 Treasury Department, and true copies of the originals on file in the case of 
 State of California on account of direct tax; Act August 5, 1861. 
 
 W. S. ROSECRANS, 
 
 Register, A. H. 
 
 Be it remembered, that William S. Rosecrans, Esq., who certified the 
 annexed transcript, is now, and was at the time of doing so. Register of 
 the Treasury of the United States, and that full faith and credit are due 
 to his official attestations. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I, Charles S. Fairchild, Acting Secretary of the 
 Treasury of the United States, have hereunto subscribed my name, and 
 caused to be affixed the seal of this department, at the City of Washington, 
 this thirteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord 1886. 
 
 [seal.] C. S. fairchild, 
 
 Acting Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 No. 55,633. 
 
 Treasury Department, Fifth Auditor's Office, \ 
 
 May 15, 1868. j 
 
 I hereby certify, that I have examined and adjusted an account between 
 the United States and the State of California, and find that the sum of 
 two hundred and fifty-four thousand five hundred and thirty-eight two 
 thirds dollars is due from said State to the United States, as follows, viz.: 
 
 For amount of direct tax, imposed and apportioned by the provisions of 
 the eighth section of an Act to provide increased revenue from imports, 
 to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes, approved August 
 5, 1861. 
 
 Amount to be debited to the State of California on the books of the 
 Register of the Treasury, as appears from statement and vouchers, herewith 
 
143 
 
 transmitted for the decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury thereon, 
 $254,538 67. 
 
 C. M. WALKER, 
 
 Auditor. 
 To the First Comptroller of the Treasury. 
 
 $254,5383%. 
 
 Treasury Department, Comptroller's Office, ) 
 
 May 29, 1868. ' J 
 
 I admit and certify that two hundred fifty-four thousand five hundred 
 thirty-eight and -^-^ dollars are due and payable, as stated in the above 
 report. 
 
 R. W. TAYLOR, 
 
 Comptroller. 
 To the Register of the Treasury. 
 
 No. 10,813. 
 
 Treasury Department, Fifth Auditor's Office, 
 
 March 17, 1874. 
 
 I hereby certify that I have examined and adjusted an account between 
 the United States and State of California, for direct tax imposed under 
 
 Act approved August 5, 1861, for the month ending , 187 — , and find 
 
 said State chargeable therein, as follows, viz. : 
 
 To amount due from said State, per Register's Certificate, Report 
 No. 55,633- ...$254,538 67 
 
 I also find said State entitled to credit as follows: 
 
 By amount deposited to the credit of the United States, per cover- 
 ing *Warrant No. 5, 4 Qr., 1862. ... $63,839 31 
 
 By amount deposited to the credit of the (Jnited States, per cover- 
 ing Warrant No. 2, 1 Qr., 1863 18.3,606 10 
 
 247,445 41 
 
 By balance due from said State $7,093 26 
 
 As appears from the statement and vouchers herewith transmitted for 
 the decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury thereon. 
 
 J. H. ELA, 
 Auditor. 
 To the First Comptroller of the Treasury. 
 
 * Deposited after September 30th. 
 
 $7,093 26. 
 
 Treasury Department, Comptroller's Office, 
 
 October 8, 1875. 
 
 I admit and certify that a balance of seven thousand and ninety-three and 
 3^ dollars is due to the United States, as stated in the foregoing report. 
 
 WILLIAM HEMPHILL JONES, 
 
 To the Register of the Treasury. Acting Comptroller. 
 
144 
 EXHIBIT No. 11. 
 
 Form 13. No, 39,283. Recorded February 8, 1884. 
 
 Treasury Department, Fifth Auditor's Office, 
 
 February 7, 1884. 
 
 I hereby certify that I have examined and adjusted an account between 
 the United States and the State of California, on account of direct tax, Act 
 August 5, 1861, and find that said State is chargeable, viz.: 
 
 To balance due from said State, per Report No. 10,813 $7,093 26 
 
 I also find that said State is entitled to credit: 
 
 By warrant in favor of the Treasurer, viz.: 
 
 No. 2,566, dated June 30, 1883 $495 72 
 
 Balance due the United States. 6,597 54 
 
 $7,093 26 
 
 As appears from the statement and vouchers herewith transmitted for the 
 decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury thereon. 
 
 D. S. ALEXANDER, 
 Fifth Auditor, E. K. 
 To the First Comptroller of the Treasury. 
 
 $6,597 54. Comptroller's Office, February 8, 1884. 
 
 I admit and certify that a balance of six thousand five hundred ninety- 
 seven dollars and fifty-four cents is due to the United States as stated in the 
 foregoing report. 
 
 WM. LAWRENCE, 
 
 Comptroller. 
 
 By J. TARBELL, 
 Deputy Comptroller, S. C. C. 
 To the Register of the Treasury. 
 
 Treasury Department, Register's Office 
 
 A true copy 
 
 June 18, 1886. 
 
 ROS. A. FISH, 
 
 Assistant Register, P. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 12. 
 
 FEDERAL CLAIMS. 
 
 In reference to the several claims of the State alleged to exist against 
 the United States, I beg to report that the agent for this State at Washing- 
 ton, D. C, under the executive authority heretofore conferred upon him 
 and duly ratified by the Legislature, has brought to the official attention 
 of the proper authorities and departments of the United States, sundry 
 claims of this State. While the reports made by him from time to time 
 
145 
 
 in regard thereto show considerable and favorable progress, still, only two 
 of such claims have been allowed and paid by the United States, namely, 
 that of $495 72 on account of the expenses incurred by the State in the 
 year 1872 for the transportation of arms to the northern counties during 
 the Modoc Indian war; and that of $38,180 80, on account of the rebate 
 of the fifteen per centum of the direct war tax levied upon and assessed to 
 this State under the Act of Congress approved August 5, 1861 (U. S. 
 Statutes, vol. 12, p. 296). 
 
 The total amount of the Federal direct war tax levied upon the State of 
 California, under the aforesaid Act of Congress, was $254,538 67. This 
 the State assumed and made pro\asion for its payment in the Act of the 
 Legislature approved April 12, 1862, and of the sum, up to February, 1863, 
 had paid $247,445 41. This left the amount, still due from the State to 
 the United States, $7,093 26. 
 
 It was claimed by the agent of this State that, though the State failed 
 to make her payment of this direct war tax within the time prescribed in 
 said Federal statute, and though she was in consequence not legally 
 entitled to the rebate of fifteen per centum thereof, as described in Section 
 53 of said Act, this State, nevertheless, was in equity entitled to said fifteen 
 per centum rebate, since the collection and payment had been made with- 
 out any expense whatever to the United States. By establishing this right 
 in equity the agent succeeded in securing and collecting the rebate in the 
 per centum mentioned. 
 
 ■ In the settlement had between the United States and this State, arising 
 under the two claims mentioned, the proper United States authorities 
 deducted said sum of $7,093 26 then delinquent and due the United 
 States, and thereafter issued in the name of the Governor of California, a 
 draft for the remainder, viz., $31,583 26, upon the United States Sub- 
 Treasurer at San Francisco. This amount, after deducting the commission 
 for collection as fixed by the joint resolution of the Legislature adopted 
 March 3, 1883, was by me paid over to the State Treasurer in the sum of 
 $23,847 96. 
 
 In this connection I beg to report that under the belief that a proper 
 effort, made by a competent person, to collect from the United States the old 
 California Indian war debts would be crowned with success, I have duly 
 appointed Captain John Mullan, the present agent, as agent also for such 
 purposes, the appointment being subject to ratification by the Legislature. 
 I have authorized him to present all the matters connected with the said 
 war debts, including the interest paid by and due to this State on account 
 of moneys heretofore expended and guaranteed by this State on account of 
 Indian and other hostilities within its borders, to the proper United States 
 authorities at Washington, with a view to the favorable recognition and 
 payment of such claims. Such a presentation has been made by him, 
 and the State may expect through his efforts an eventually favorable action 
 in final adjustment. 
 
 The intelligence and fidelity displayed by Captain Mullan in the mat- 
 ters described fully reflect the confidence reposed in him by his selection 
 for this special work, and I therefore recommend that the Legislature con- 
 firm the executive appointment of Captain Mullan made by me for the 
 purposes above described. 
 
 10- 
 
146 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 13. 
 
 Office of Treasurer of State, | 
 
 Sacramento, November 1, 1862. | 
 
 Hon. Gilbert R. Warren, Controller of State, Sacramento, California : 
 
 Sir: The warrant for sixty-three thousand eight hundred and thirty- 
 nine dollars and thirty-one cents, which amount was to be paid to the 
 United States Assistant Treasurer at San Francisco, on account of the 
 Federal or National tax — an obligation assumed by the State of Cali- 
 fornia — was duly paid. 
 
 But as said Assistant Treasurer, under his construction of his duties, 
 refused to come to the seat of the State Government, either to receive from 
 the Controller the warrant for said amount, or payment of the same, it 
 became necessary to pay the same at San Francisco, and that on or before 
 the thirtieth day of September, A. D. eighteen hundred and sixty-two, to 
 secvire the State the deduction of ten per cent allowed by Act of Congress, 
 which deduction was the consideration for this State itself making the 
 collection. Consequently, on the thirtieth September, ultimo, I paid to D. 
 AV. Cheesman, United States Assistant Treasurer at San Francisco, the said 
 amount of sixty-three thousand eight hundred and thirty-nine dollars and 
 thirty-one cents, and as the State is entitled to a deduction of ten per cent, 
 the payment was, in effect, seventy thousand nine hundred and thirty-two 
 dollars and fifty-six and two thirds cents — nine tenths being actually paid 
 and one tenth being the State percentage. The receipt given for said pay- 
 ment is only for the amount actually paid, as said Assistant Treasurer 
 said the reduction allowed must be settled with the auditing officers at 
 Washington. 
 
 Said Assistant Treasurer, on the thirtieth of September, eighteen hundred 
 and sixty-two, after counting the money so paid and giving change there- 
 for (sixty-nine cents), declined giving his receipt for the same until he 
 should be so instructed by the Secretary of the United States Treasury, 
 and on said September thirtieth he so telegraphed to the said United States 
 Secretary, and on seventh October received reply instructing him to receive 
 said sum. 
 
 In addition to said ten per cent deduction, I have, from the amount 
 placed in my hands, saved the farther sum of four thousand four hundred 
 and eighty-six dollars and thirty-nine cents, which, on your order, I pro- 
 pose to place in the State Treasury. 
 
 Under the Act of February twentieth, eighteen hundred and fifty, I sup- 
 posed this last named sum would go into the General Fund; but as the 
 National tax is not all paid, I think it advisable not to place this money 
 in that fund until it is known that the receipts into the Federal Tax Fund 
 during the approaching settlements of the County Treasurers will be fully 
 sufficient to pay said tax, as in case of deficiency, I think this money 
 should first be applied to the payment of said Federal tax. 
 
 If my desire could be gratified, a donation of this money should be 
 made for the Nation, for the purpose of further assisting it in this time of 
 peril, and as this would require the assent of the Legislature, it is for you 
 to consider if it be not advisable to hold this money unused until legisla- 
 tive directions can be had. 
 
147 
 
 The total of Federal tax assumed by the State is $254,538 66§ 
 
 The payment actually made is - $63,839 31 
 
 The deciuction to which the State is entitled is 7,093 25§ 
 
 70,932 56§ 
 Leaving the amount still to be paid by the State - - $183,606 10 
 
 The saving of the State at this payment has been said deduction of 10 per cent- $7,093 25§ 
 And said sum saved on payment, of 4,486 39 
 
 Total $11,579 64§ 
 
 This includes every cent saved, and was impossible to make it greater 
 under the circumstances. It is true the last Legislature anticipated saving 
 a greater sum, but as the State failed to make any payment in June last, 
 on which payment it would be entitled to fifteen per cent deduction, and 
 as it had not sufficient money to make full payment in September, ten per 
 cent was lost on the deficiency, for all which there was no remedy; the 
 collections under the State laws being made too late to enable the State 
 to receive the full benefits offered by Congress, and intended to be secured 
 by the Legislature when it provided for the State to pay the tax. 
 
 Since completing said payment to the United States this is the first 
 report made from this office, and I avail myself of the first opportunity as 
 provided by law to advise you of the facts. 
 
 . (Signed:) D. R. ASHLEY, State Treasurer. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 14. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. S. 792. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. December 18, 1883 — Mr. Miller of 
 California, asked and, by unanimous consent, obtained leave to bring in 
 the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
 Finance: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To adjust certain accounts between the United States and the several States 
 and Territories and the District of Columbia. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America^ in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury be and he is hereby authorized and directed to credit each of the 
 several States and Territories and the District of Columbia with the 
 amounts of money heretofore laid upon and apportioned to said States, 
 Territories, and District of Columbia, respectively, levied as a direct tax 
 under the provisions of the eighth section of the Act of Congress approved 
 August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, entitled "An Act to provide 
 increased revenue from imports, to pay interest on the public debt, and for 
 other purposes;" and he shall thereafter state an account between the 
 United States and each of said States, Territories, and District, respect- 
 ively, and he shall pay to each thereof, out of any money in the Treasury 
 not otherwise appropriated, such sums of money as may appear to the 
 credit of each thereof upon the books of the Treasury arising from such 
 settlements. 
 
148 
 EXHIBIT No. 15. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 110. Printer's No., 110. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 10, 1883 — Read twice, 
 referred to the Committee on Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To adjust certain accounts between the United States and the several States 
 and Territories and the District of Columbia. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby authorized and directed to credit each of the several 
 States and Territories and the District of Columbia with the amounts of 
 money heretofore laid upon and apportioned to said States, Territories, and 
 District of Columbia, respectively, levied as a direct tax under the pro- 
 visions of the eighth section of the Act of Congress approved August fifth, 
 eighteen hundred and sixty-one, entitled "An Act to provide increased 
 revenue from imports to pay interest on the public debt, and for other pur- 
 poses;" and he shall thereafter state an account between the United States 
 and each of said States, Territories, and District, respectively; and he shall 
 pay to each thereof, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
 priated, such sums of money as may appear to the credit of each thereof 
 upon the books of the Treasury arising from such settlements. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 16. 
 
 Washington City, D. C, 
 January 10, 1884. 
 
 DIRECT TAX OF AUGUST 5, 1861. 
 
 To the Chairman Senate Committee on Finance: 
 
 Sir: Senate Bill No. 795, introduced in the Senate on the eighteenth 
 day of December, 1883, by Senator Miller of California, and referred to 
 the Committee on Finance, provides that the Secretary of the Treasury 
 shall credit each State with the amounts assessed against it for direct taxes 
 under the Act of August 5, 1861. The effect of it will be to return to those 
 States which have paid, the amounts of such assessments, and to release 
 those which have not paid, from all taxes and from liability for them. 
 The levy provided for in the Act of August, 1861, was for twenty millions, 
 and it provided for a deduction of fifteen per cent if the same was paid by 
 the last day of June; and ten per cent if paid by the last day of Septem- 
 ber, 1862; that is, giving the States the right to assume the payment of 
 the amount, and thus avoid levying upon the real estate, on the one hand, 
 and allowing the payers an equivalent to what it was supposed would be 
 the expense to the Government for collecting it. Whilst the right of the 
 Government to raise revenue by direct taxation is unquestionable, it is 
 patent that this tax was in the nature of an enforced loan, and it was 
 required to meet the great exigency then upon the country. Fifteen of the 
 States and Territories still owe large balances on account of this tax, whilst 
 
149 
 
 many of the others came forward promptly and assumed and paid it, or 
 else it was collected from them in the mode provided by the statute, or else 
 by crediting against it demands due to them from the Government. 
 
 The report of the Secretary of the Treasury to the Senate through reso- 
 lution of March 28, 1884, asking for a statement of this war tax, shows 
 that the compliance with the law has been very unequal and altogether 
 partial. Several States now owe the Government from a quarter to half a 
 million of dollars each on account of this tax, whilst others have paid in 
 full more than twenty years ago. 
 
 An examination of the question clearly indicates that one of two courses 
 should now be adopted in relation to this tax; that in order to equalize this 
 burden the States which have paid should be credited with the amount 
 assessed against them, and be paid the balance upon the adjustment of the 
 accounts, or else that the Government should proceed to enforce the Acts 
 against the delinquent States, and collect the balance now remaining 
 unpaid. 
 
 To the latter course many objections will at once suggest themselves. 
 The first, perhaps, would be that the Government does not need the money; 
 the time in which the States can assume it has passed, under the provisions 
 of the law, and the machinery for its collection has passed out of use. An 
 appropriation will therefore be necessary in order to provide the suitable 
 machinery; and the enforcement of the Act can only be made now with 
 the additions of the penalty of fifty per centum, and, according to the con- 
 struction of the Treasury Department, a sum as interest at the rate of ten 
 per centum from the first day of July, 1862, which would be a sum of two 
 hundred and seventy per cent, in addition to the quota as originally fixed. 
 Unnecessary as this would be, it is clearly more equal and just, and there- 
 fore more desirable, than that Alabama and Georgia should each owe the 
 Government over half a million dollars, and Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, 
 and Virginia about a quarter of a million each; whilst the Government has 
 had the use for more than twenty years of the full quota promptly paid by 
 many other States, and whilst from South Carolina it has not only actually 
 collected more than was due, but has done so by selling out an entire town 
 and over fifty-two thousand acres of agricultural land at merely nominal 
 prices, the titles to which have been declared valid by the Supreme Court 
 of the United States. 
 
 On the other hand, it seems but reasonable that the amounts paid should 
 be returned to the several States that have paid said tax, leaving them to 
 adjust any question which may arise with their own citizens in those cases 
 in which the amounts have been collected from individuals, personally, or 
 by the sale of property, and thus avoid the unnecessary expense of collect- 
 ing the balances, which are not needed, and avoid the constant issues and 
 friction that have arisen and are constantly arising between the States and 
 the General Government, in consequence of the amounts earned by the 
 several States, which, instead of being paid in cash to said States are now 
 credited upon their delinquent direct tax of 1861, upon the books of the 
 United States Treasury Department. 
 
 Sound statesmanship suggests, provided it does not now even demand, 
 that all the unadjusted accounts between the United States and the several 
 States should be now adjusted, and the' logic and propriety of an adjust- 
 ment of this kind was forcibly and clearly shown in the language of a dis- 
 tinguished Senator during the Forty-seventh Congress, and now a member 
 of the Senate, Senator Morgan of Alabama, and whose words are found 
 recorded on page 4112 of the Congressional Record, in the proceedings of 
 the Senate on May 19, 1882, and are as follows, to wit: 
 
150 
 
 Let us wipe out all of these debts ; let us make a clean book of it between the Govern- 
 ment of the United States and the various States, so far as these debts are concerned. 
 
 It is right and proper it should be done, and in effect this has been done. 
 
 It seems to me there could scarcely be a more hazardous condition of affairs in this 
 country than for a State to be indebted to the United States Government, or for the Gov- 
 ernment to be indebted to a State. Such relations ought not to exist between the States 
 and the Union. Their transactions ought to be cash transactions. It is contrary to sound 
 policy to have States indebted to the Government, or to have the Government indebted 
 to the States. 
 
 If either the Government of the United States, or of any State, should refuse to pay its 
 debts, there is no remedy for it but war, and we ought never to allow ourselves to be put 
 in a condition where the" only remedy and redress for our differences and difficulties is war. 
 
 Who can collect a judgment out of a State, although the United States may be plaintiff 
 in that judgment? 
 
 Who can collect a judgment against the United States, although the State of New York 
 may be plaintiff in the judgment? 
 
 There is no compulsory power to reach the exigency. If you have to resort to compul- 
 sion under such circumstances, war is the only compulsion to which you can resort. 
 
 Therefore, sir, I protest that we never allow the relation between the States and the 
 Federal Government to become of such a character as that strife might be the result. 
 
 It would be a healing act which would benefit these people greatly, if we could now 
 to-day clean the books of the Treasury of all the obligations between the Government of 
 the United States and the States, growing out of these two statutes of which I speak. 
 
 I suljmit this to the candid judgment and consideration of Senators. If they are not 
 prepared to do it— if they are not willing to do it— I hope the day may soon arrive when 
 they will be willing. 
 
 I am quite as sure as I now address the Senate, that the people of this country, from 
 border to border, would approve of an arrangement by which all these debts were to be 
 obliterated. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 State A^ent and Counsel for California. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 17. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. House Bill No. 110. 
 
 House Bill No. 110 was introduced by Hon. Barclay Henley, in the 
 House, December 10, 1883, and referred to the House Committee on 
 Claims, and is as follows, to wit: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To adjust certain accounts between the United States and the several States and Territories and 
 
 the District of Columbia. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby authorized 
 and directed to credit to each of the several States and Territories, and the District of 
 Columbia, with the amounts of money heretofore laid upon and apportioned to said 
 States, Territories, and District of Columbia, respectively, levied as a direct tax under 
 the provisions of the eighth section of the Act of Congress, approved August fifth, 
 eighteen hundred and sixty-one, entitled "An Act to provide increased revenue from 
 imports t6 pay interest on the pubUc debt, and for other purposes ; " and he shall there- 
 after state an account between the United States and each of said States, Territories, and 
 District, respectively; and he shall pay to each thereof, out of any money in the Treasurv 
 not otherwise aj)propriated, such sums of money as may appear to the credit of each 
 thereof upon the books of the Treasury arising from such settlements. 
 
 The intention and effect of this bill is to refund to the several States and Territories, 
 and the District of Columbia, and people of all thereof, the amounts of the direct tax 
 which each thereof respectively have heretofore paid into the Treasury of the United 
 States, under the direct tax Acts of Congress, and to release such States, Territories, and 
 District, and people thereof, from hereafter paying such amounts as may appear dehn- 
 quent or due by them, as shown upon the books of the United States Treasury Depart- 
 ment, thereby equalizing the burden heretofore placed upon them, and reinstate all of 
 them upon an equal footing in regard to said tax, and restore their financial relation with 
 the General Government as the same existed prior to August 5, 1861, and June 7. 1802. 
 
 In some instances certain of the States and Territories assumed and paid this direct 
 tax in full; in others only partial payment has been made by certain States, and in others 
 no portion has been either assumed or paid at aU, 
 
151 
 
 This direct tax was, in some respects, in the nature of a forced loan, and 
 the effect of the passage of this bill will be to refund this loan to the States, 
 Territories, District, and persons that have paid same, and pro tanto, and 
 to release from paying in all instances whenever any of the States or per- 
 sons have failed to pay, and thus wipe out from the books of the Treasury 
 Department all evidences of delinquency on the part of any State and 
 people thereof. 
 
 Under the present rulings of the First Comptroller of the Treasury, 
 whenever any one of said delinquent States earns any sum, either by a 
 direct appropriation from Congress or from the five per centum of the net 
 proceeds of the sales of the public lands, or allowances for advances made 
 during any war, or from any other source whatsoever, said amounts, in- 
 stead of being paid over to such State so earning, receiving, or being allowed 
 same, are credited (as partial payments) to the amount apportioned to said 
 States and not paid, but delinquent, and thereby reducing their said debt 
 to the United States pro tanto. 
 
 The machinery by which this direct tax has been collected has not been 
 uniform in its working and application, and the rulings of the Treasury 
 Department thereon have not been in perfect harmony. In some instances 
 the States paid said tax direct, and in other instances the tax has been 
 levied directly upon the property of citizens within the delinquent States, 
 and in many instances with great distress. 
 
 During the administration of the Treasury Department under Hon. H. 
 McCulloch, and of the First Comptroller's office under Hon. A. G. Porter, 
 not only were certain, sums paid to the delinquent States, notwithstanding 
 such delinquency, as in the case of Georgia, but even a refusal was made 
 to permit a delinquent State, as in the case of Texas, from ever paying the 
 same to the United States. This rule adopted by Hon. A. G. Porter has 
 not been followed by the present Comptroller, Hon. William Lawrence, but 
 just the opposite is the rule, and is as hereinbefore declared to be. 
 
 When the State of Texas offered to assume the payment of the uncol- 
 lected portion of the direct tax due by her under the provisions of the Act 
 of June 7, 1862, the Hon. H. McCulloch, on December 28, 1866, refused to 
 receive same, as fully appears from his letters as Secretary of the Treasury 
 to Hon. J. W^. Throckmorton, Governor of Texas, and is as follows : 
 
 Treasury Department, December 28, 1866. 
 
 Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of December fourteenth, in which 
 vou inclose a copy of an Act of the Legislature of Texas, assuming payment of the uncol- 
 lected portion of the direct tax due from Texas under the provisions or the law of June 7, 
 1862. You ask for a statement showing the amount collected and the sum still due. The 
 law under which this tax has been collected contains no provision authorizing its assump- 
 tion by a State, the permissory clause of the Act of August 5, 1861, not having been 
 reenacted in that of June 7, 1862. In the absence of such a provision, this department 
 would not be justified in recognizing such assumption. In my annual report of Decem- 
 ber, 1865, 1 recommended that sales under this law should be suspended until the States 
 interested had an opportunity of assuming payment of the tax, but this recommendation 
 has only been so far carried out as to authorize the suspension of collections for a definite 
 time, no provision for assuming the debt being contained in the law which gives authority 
 for such suspension. 
 
 Under such circumstances it is unnecessary to reply in detail to that portion of your 
 letter which asks, for a statement of collections, or to your suggestion for the acceptance 
 of Texas indemnity bonds in part payment. 
 
 (Signed:) H. McCULLOCH, 
 
 Secretarj^ of the Treasury. 
 
 Hon. J. W. Throckmorton, Governor of Texas. 
 
 Treasury Department, March 13, 1867. 
 
 Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of February nineteenth, proposing a plan for pay- 
 ment of the direct taxes still due by citizens of Texas to the United States. As the plan 
 
152 
 
 proposed proceeds wholly upon the assumption that payment of their taxes may be 
 accepted from the State government, I am under the necessity of calling your attention 
 to the inclosed copy of my former letter of December 28, 1866; a letter which, from the 
 tenor of that just received, must, I fear, have failed to reach you. 
 
 As the direct tax laws remain unchanged since that letter'was written, I have only to 
 repeat that this department is not at liberty to accept payment in any other manner, or 
 through any other agencies, than as proposed in those laws. 
 
 (Signed:) H. McCULLOCH, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 Hon. J. W. Throckmorton, Governor of Texas. 
 
 So that it would appear that while the head of the Treasury Department 
 at one date construing that clause of the Constitution which provides for 
 direct taxation in the following language: " Representation and direct taxes 
 shall be apportioned among the States according to their respective num- 
 bers," held this direct tax law to mean that tax was due and payable by 
 the citizens of the States, and belonging to a class whose property was taxed, 
 we find that same head, at another date, holding that such tax was due 
 by the State in its political capacity. ^^ 
 
 Senate Ex. Doc. 24, first session, Forty-sixth Congress, contains a most 
 complete history of this character of legislation, and of the liability of the 
 States in the premises, and the official views therein contained are sup- 
 ported by authority — legislative and judicial — from the date of the adop- 
 tion of the Articles of Confederation, July 12, 1776, to May 24, 1879, the 
 date of said report of Hon. A. G. Porter, then First Comptroller of the 
 Treasury Department; and also contains all the statutes of the United 
 States relating to direct taxes in this country by Congress, from 1798 to 
 1868, which, with Senate Ex. Doc. 85, second session. Forty-seventh Con- 
 gress, and the letter of the Treasury Department Officer of Internal Rev- 
 enue, May 3, 1880, contain much valuable information on this subject; and 
 to all of which your honorable committee is now referred. 
 
 From these reports it would appear that the amount of money that would 
 be refunded, under this bill, to the several States, Territories, and people 
 thereof, that have heretofore paid said tax, would aggregate the sum of 
 about fifteen millions of dollars. 
 
 Wherefore, and in view of the foregoing, and of the rulings of the Treas- 
 ury Department under the Act of August 5, 1861 (U. S. Stats, vol. — p. — ) 
 and those under the Act of June 7, 1862 (U. S. Stats, vol. — p. — ), it is sug- 
 gested that a substitute for said House Bill No. 110 be favorably reported 
 by honorable committee to your honorable body, and of the form, as follows, 
 to wit: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To adjust certain accounts between the United States and the several States and Territories and 
 
 the District of Golumhia. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby authorized 
 and directed to credit each of the several States and Territories and the District of Colum- 
 bia, respectively, with the amounts of money laid, levied, apportioned, and charged upon 
 them, respectively, as a direct tax under the provisions of the Act of August 5, 1861, 
 entitled "An Act to provide increased revenue from imports, to pay interest on the public _ 
 debt, and for other purposes;" and the Act of June 7, 1862, entitled "''An Act for the collec- ' 
 tion of direct taxes in insurrectionary districts within the United States, and for other pur- 
 poses ;" and he shall thereafter state an account between the United States and each of 
 said States, Territories, and District of Columbia, respectively, and he shall pay to each 
 thereof, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such' sums of 
 money as may appear to the credit of each thereof upon the books of the Treasury arising 
 from such settlements. 
 
 Verv respectfully, 
 
 JOHNMULLAN, 
 Agent and Attorney for the States of California, Oregon, and Nevada. 
 
153 
 
 EXHIBIT NO. 18. 
 
 LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF THJ5 TREASURY, 
 
 Recommending the passage of bills H. R. No. 110 and Senate No. 795, to 
 adjust certain accounts between the United States and the several States 
 and Territories and the District of Columbia. 
 
 Treasury Department, June 14, 1884. 
 
 Hon. A. J. Warner, Chairman of Sub-Committee of Committee on Claims, 
 House of Representatives: 
 
 Sir: I have the honor of acknowledging the receipt from you of H. R. 
 Bill No. 110, entitled " A Bill to adjust certain accounts between the United 
 States and the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia." 
 
 This bill relates to the direct tax of $20,000,000 annually laid upon the 
 United States, and apportioned to the States, the Territories, and the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, under the Act of Congress passed August 5, 1861 (12 
 Stat, at Large, p. 294). 
 
 The purpose of the bill is to relieve and discharge from further liability 
 for that tax those States and Territories which have not paid the portion 
 thereof apportioned to them respectively; and to repay, out of any money 
 in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to those States and Territories 
 which have paid any portion, the sums by them respectively paid. Though 
 by the Act above cited this tax was made an annual one, an attempt to col- 
 lect it for more than one year has never been made. By that attempt there 
 were collected about $15,000,000, principally from the States which did not 
 seek to go out of the Union; and there were left uncollected about $5,000,- 
 000, principally in the States which did seek to go out of the Union. The 
 sum uncollected remains a charge against these States, and, for the pur- 
 poses of this letter, it may be assumed that it is a valid and enforcible 
 charge. It is plain, however, that no legislator at this day would propose 
 to raise revenue by a tax of that kind. There is no need of resorting to 
 such methods. The revenues of the Government from sources not so extra- 
 ordinary, and collectible by means and appliances not so objectionable as 
 those involved therein, are ample for its purposes. They are, indeed, 
 superabundant, and the concern of statesmen is rather how they may be 
 reduced than how they may be increased. The Government then needs not 
 the money to be got by enforcing this tax. 
 
 At the same time it is plain that to enforce it would put a grievous bur- 
 den upon the people of the States which are in default in payment. It 
 needs no array of facts to show this. Congress, in one, if not both branches, 
 has this session considered the proposition of large pecuniary aid to those 
 people to help them place and keep up common schools, and the Senate 
 has passed a bill therefor. 
 
 If there be need for that succor, there would be harm in enforcing this 
 charge. It is to be considered, too, that while taxes are seldom looked 
 upon with favor, this would be specially objectionable. The purpose for 
 which it was laid can be remembered with distaste. It can scarcely be 
 expected that there would be cheerful aid from the State authorities in the 
 enforcement of it. It may be doubted whether there would be any. Indeed 
 it would, without further legislation, have to be enforced by the machinery 
 provided by the Act under which it was laid. This would call for the 
 
154 
 
 appointment of numerous Federal officials, who would go among the peo- 
 ple as obnoxious exactors. I think it must be conceded that there is, and 
 ever will be, great reluctance to ever setting about the collection of this 
 tax. That it never had great favor, is shown by that it was never put in 
 force but one year. In practical effect, then, the law for it is obsolete. 
 Why, then, should there remain this unenforced liability, a menace to the 
 people, the enforcement of which is called for by no public need, nor by 
 any public opinion? 
 
 In my judgment, the people and the property of the States in default 
 should be relieved and discharged from it. 
 
 But to give such relief and discharge would be to put an inequality of 
 burden upon the States which paid, unless they in turn were in some way 
 relieved. This the bill proposes to do by repaying to them the sums re- 
 ceived from them. Assuming that the tax was lawful, and the collection^ 
 as far as made, was warranted, this, apart from the circumstances, would 
 be a proposition to donate to the States surplus moneys of the United 
 States — a proposition which I should not favor. But, as connected with 
 the proposition to discharge from onerous and needless liability one portion 
 of the people, it takes on a different character; it is presented as an adjust- 
 ment between different bodies of the people, and is worthy of acceptation. 
 Indeed, it would be unjust to the people of the loyal States to release the 
 people of the once insurrectionary States from their liability, without refund- 
 ing to the former the sums paid by them, and there are analogies in the 
 legislation of Congress. Acts have been passed refunding to States mon- 
 eys raised by them for the raising, arming, and equipping of troops for the 
 Army of the United States in the civil war, and for making other refunds 
 of like character. The purpose of laying this direct tax was to aid in the 
 ultimate payment of the extraordinary expenses of the Government caused 
 by the civil war. The raising, arming, and equipping of troops by the 
 States served to keep down those expenses for the time. It was a voluntary 
 act upon the part of the States. There is no violation of principle or funda- 
 mental law in repaying to the States from the funds of the United States 
 the cost thereof. The purpose and effect of this bill is not so unlike in 
 nature to that as not also to be freed from the objections to a bald distri- 
 bution among the States of what are called the surplus revenues of the 
 United States. 
 
 Under the peculiar facts of the case, and as it is not likely to become a 
 precedent for other disposals of Federal moneys, my judgment is, that the 
 proposed measure is a good one. It is true that exactly equal justice cannot 
 be done in carrying out the proposition of the bill. Thus, in some of the 
 Southern States the tax was to some extent enforced. Tax sales were made 
 of pieces of real estate in instances for less than the value of them. Only 
 the surplus of purchase money over the tax and charges has been availa- 
 ble to the owners, and they have lost the difference between that and the 
 total of the purchase money, and between the purchase money and the real 
 value. 
 
 On the other hand, in most, if not all, of the Northern States, the pay- 
 ment to the United States of the tax was assumed by the State government, 
 which collected the amount of its own people in its own tax levy. Of 
 course, in the changes of citizenship and of ownership of taxable property, 
 while a repayment into the State Treasury will tend to reduce the amount 
 of State tax, it will not inure to the benefit of some of those who in 1861 
 were taxpayers. But these failures of full and general compensation in 
 dealing with transactions so long past must ensue, and are not to be 
 potentially urged against proposed measures, which in the main do work 
 equal benefit. 
 
155 
 
 It is worthy .of consideration, too, whether this is not a suitable occasion 
 to deal with the matter of the Federal surplus moneys deposited or to be 
 deposited with the States by the Act of 1836. (5 Stats, at Large, 55, 207.) 
 
 Why may not those States which made payment of their portion of the 
 direct tax under the Act of 1861 be debited in the settlement proposed by 
 the bill before your committee with the amount of that deposit made with 
 them, and be paid the balance, and thus the liability of the United States 
 under the deposit Ac.t be extinguished ? 
 
 Thus the anomalous state of things existing under the last named Act 
 would be ended, so far as those States are concerned. 
 
 It is true that some of the States, as Virginia and Arkansas, for instance, 
 may not have received their full proportion of the deposit fund of 1836; 
 and it is true that in remitting the liability of the States to repay the de- 
 posit with them, there will, as to some of them, be no claim for a refund 
 under this bill against which that liability may be set off ; and that, there- 
 fore, complete equality of benefit and burden may not be realized. It is 
 well to consider, however, whether, inasmuch as it is desirable that the 
 relation of creditor and debtor between the United States and the States 
 be closed, it should not be done at this favorable opportunity, though at 
 the sacrifice of complete equality. 
 
 In connection herewith, I refer to the fifty-third section of the Direct Tax 
 Act (see 12 Stats, at Large, pp. 311, 312), and suggest that there may be 
 instances in which the principle of that section may be applied. 
 
 I also inclose herewith a communication to me from the First Comp- 
 troller of the Treasury, which presents views in accord with some of those 
 expressed by me, and gives tables of value, and a draft of a bill; and to 
 this communication I ask attention. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 CHAS. J. FOLGER, Secretary. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 19. 
 
 Treasury Department, First Comptroller's Office, | 
 Washington, D. C, May 2, 1884. j 
 
 Hon. Charles J. Folger, Secretary of the Treasury: 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to state that I have received a letter from the Hon. 
 Wade Hampton of the Senate of the United States, dated twenty-fourth 
 ultimo, transmitting to me a copy of Senate Bill No. 795, to adjust certain 
 accounts between the United States and the several States and Territories, 
 and the District of Columbia, and asking me to give my views on it. . 
 
 I have also received a letter dated twenty-fifth ultimo, from the Hon. 
 Barclay Henley of the House of Representatives, transmitting a copy of 
 House Bill No. 1.10, which is in form similar to said Senate Bill. 
 
 This latter letter is addressed to you and to me jointly, "to be furnished 
 with the views" of the Treasury Department, and with mine, also, in rela- 
 tion thereto. 
 
 ^ The object of these bills is to remit, so far as not collected or paid, the 
 direct taxes laid upon and apportioned to the States, Territories, and Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, under the Direct Tax Act of August 5, 1861, and to 
 refund to such States, Territories, and District, respectively, the amount of 
 such taxes, so far as paid in any mode whatever. 
 
 I have considered the subject with care, and now have the honor to state 
 that, in my judgment, it is alike just, judicious, and practicable to remit 
 
156 
 
 all such taxes not yet collected, to refund the amounts paid "in any form by 
 any State or Territory, and to refund to private persons, or their legal rep- 
 resentatives, all amounts of such tax by them paid or collected by sale of 
 real estate or otherwise. 
 
 I have accordingly prepared the draft of a bill to effect these objects, 
 which I have the honor to submit for your consideration. 
 
 I will briefly state some of the reasons in support of the views above pre- 
 sented. The amounts apportioned to States which have not in any form 
 paid or been credited with any sums, as the accounts stand in this office, 
 are as follows: / 
 
 Alabama $529,313 33 
 
 Arkansas 261,886 00 
 
 Dakota 3,241 33 
 
 Florida 77,522 67 
 
 Georgia 584,367 33 
 
 Louisiana 385,886 67 
 
 Mississippi : 413,084 67 
 
 New Mexico 62,648 00 
 
 North Carolina 576,194 67 
 
 South Carolina 363,570 67 
 
 Tennessee . 669^498 00 
 
 Texas 355,106 67 
 
 Utah . 26,982 00 
 
 Virginia $937,550 67 
 
 Less 208,479 65 
 
 729,071 02 
 
 Total . $5,038,373 03 
 
 These are the sums charged against the States and Territories men- 
 tioned, all of which, as stated, appear by the records of this office as unpaid. 
 It is proper to say, however, as to all these— except Alabama, Dakota, New 
 Mexico, and Utah — that payments for each have been made into the Treas- 
 ury by Direct Tax Commissioners, which have not been settled in this 
 office. 
 
 Most of these payments are shown in the letter of the Commissioner of 
 Internal Revenue, appended to the Georgia case, 4 Lawrence Compt. Doc. 
 380. So, to a limited extent, other payments have been made but not yet 
 credited. 
 
 I. 
 
 As to the amounts thus apportioned and which remain unpaid, only 
 three things can be done: • 
 
 1. They can be paid by an increase of taxes in these States, if they should 
 respectively assume payment. 
 
 2. Or they can be paid by enforcing collection by Act of Congress of 
 assessments against the real estate of private owners thereof, or; 
 
 3. They can be left uncollected. 
 
 First — It is certainly well understood that the burden of taxation under 
 State and local authority in these States is such that it cannot be desirable 
 to increase it. It is not at all certain that these States would increase and 
 collect taxes for this purpose. With the general feeling which now so for- 
 tunately prevails in favor of Congressional aid to States to promote com- 
 mon school education, it is quite evident that Congress will not require any 
 such taxes to be levied. 
 
 There is no necessity now for requiring the payment of these amounts. 
 The revenues of the Government are more than abundant, and it is not at 
 all probable that conditions will ever exist to require the payment of these 
 amounts. 
 
157 
 
 ■ Second — The same reasons operate against enforced collections under the 
 authority of an Act of Congress. In fact, it is believed that there is no 
 desire now on the part of any class of citizens that the payment of this tax 
 should be enforced. 
 
 This in part grows out of the consideration having almost universal 
 assent, that direct taxes are unequal and hence unjust. 
 
 The apportionment against States is made on the basis of population 
 and not wealth, and is hence unequal as between States. 
 
 When collection is enforced by authority of Congress against real estate, 
 the inequality and injustice are aggravated, because the burden is imposed 
 on a species of property generally less productive of profit than any other, 
 and hence least able to bear it, and chattel wealth, including a vast 
 amount of corporate resources, constituting in all a large proportion of the 
 aggregate of all forms of property, totally escape from all burden, while 
 requiring and receiving more of the protecting care of Government, and 
 hence realizing benefits at the expense of the owners of real estate. 
 
 The objectionable character of direct taxes is shown by the fact that they 
 have been authorized but three times since the adoption of the Constitution. 
 And although the Act of August 5, 1861 (12 Stats. 294) provided "that a 
 direct tax of twenty millions of dollars be and is annually laid upon the 
 United States," yet the purpose to collect all beyond one year has been 
 abandoned. 
 
 It may, then, be assumed that the direct taxes collected were unequal 
 and unjust as between the States, and still more so among the property 
 owners of the United States. 
 
 A wrong having thus been done, it should be repaired by remitting the 
 taxes not collected, and refunding those collected upon the same principle 
 sanctioned in many statutes of remitting taxes improperly assessed, and 
 of refunding those which have been improperly collected. 
 
 3. The result will undoubtedly be that the amounts of direct tax not 
 yet paid will remain unpaid. 
 
 In view of all this, the inquiry is now presented whether an5rthing, and 
 if so, what, should be done as to (1) the States which have assumed and 
 paid their respective quotas of the direct tax, and (2) as to those in which 
 sums allowed by accounting officers in their favor respectively have been 
 withheld and credited on account of the quota of such State. 
 
 It seems to me advisable to refund to such States the amount so assumed 
 and paid or withheld. This ^dew is supported by all the considerations 
 already mentioned, which show the inexpediency of enforcing payment in 
 the States the quotas of which have not been paid. The policy of refund- 
 ing is supported by the manifest injustice of retaining money collected as 
 direct taxes from some States from which others are exempt. 
 
 Equality of burdens, as among the States, in those cases in which they 
 are imposed in fixed proportions directly upon the real estate therein, is 
 simple justice. 
 
 In such cases inequality is injustice. 
 • Assuming that no more of the direct tax should be collected, the only 
 mode of securing equality is to refund the direct taxes collected. If this 
 refund should be made, States would receive money substantially as 
 follows: 
 
158 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 California 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Delaware 
 
 District Columbia. 
 Florida 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Maine 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 $8,491 46 
 
 184,082 18 
 
 247,941 13 
 
 1,516 89 
 
 308,214 00 
 
 74,683 33 
 
 49,437 33 
 
 43.529 81 
 
 71,407 75 
 
 ,146,551 33 
 
 904,875 33 
 
 452,088 00 
 
 71,743 33 
 
 716,695 33 
 
 268,515 12 
 
 420,826 00 
 
 436,823 33 
 
 824,581 33 
 
 501,763 33 
 
 108,524 00 
 
 74,742 57 
 
 Missouri $761,127 33 
 
 Nebraska 19,312 00 
 
 Nevada-...*. 4,592 67 
 
 New Hampshire 218,40() 67 
 
 New Jersey 450,134 00 
 
 New Mexico 62,648 00 
 
 New York 2,603,918 67 
 
 North Carolina 386,194 45 
 
 Ohio 1,567,089 33 
 
 Oregon 35,140 67 
 
 Pennsylvania 1,946,719 33 
 
 Rhode Island 116,963 67 
 
 Tennessee 387,722 06 
 
 Texas 130,008 06 
 
 Vermont 211,068 GO 
 
 Virginia 515,569 22 
 
 West Virginia 208,479 65 
 
 Washington Territory 7,268 16 
 
 Wisconsin 468,543 11 
 
 South Carolina 377,961 30 
 
 Tables showing the condition of the direct tax accounts with the several 
 States and Territories will be found appended to the Georgia case (4 Law- 
 rence Comp. Dec. 376, 380). The first table shows the accounts as they 
 stand adjusted in this office. The second table shows some payments not 
 yet adjusted in this office, and hence the apparent discrepancy between 
 the tables. There are still other credits to a limited extent as to some 
 States, not shown by either of these tables. 
 
 III. 
 
 In some of the States, the Tax Commissioners under the direct tax 
 of July 7, 1862 (12 Stat. 432), sold the real estate of many private own- 
 ers, and thus collected in part the quota of tax apportioned to such States 
 respectively. The Senate and House bills submitted for my consideration 
 propose to refund directly to the State the taxes thus collected in each 
 State. It is submitted that it would seem more equitable and just to 
 refund directly to the private parties who paid such taxes, or whose lands 
 were sold to enforce payment. This is the policy -< established as to the 
 "surplus proceeds" arising from sales "after satisfying the tax, costs, 
 charges, and commissions," Act August 5, 1861 (12 Stat. 304, Sec. 36); 
 Act June 7, 1862 (12 Stat. 422); Act June 8, 1872 (17 Stat. 382); Act 
 March 3, 1883 (22 Stat. 595). It is not perceived that any State can 
 have any claim to a refund of money paid by its citizens. It is believed 
 the draft of a bill herewith submitted may be made the basis of a judi- 
 cious'mode of disposing of the subject to which it applies. The last clause 
 of section two of the bill is added by reason of the undoubted rule of law 
 learnedly discussed and clearly stated by the Supreme Court in United 
 States V. Ross, 92 U. S. 284. 
 
 I append hereto a table showing with substantial accuracy the amounts 
 of taxes remaining uncollected in several States and Territories, and which 
 it is proposed to remit, and the amounts which it is proposed to refund to 
 the several States and Territories. 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, 
 
 WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Comptroller. ' 
 
159 
 
 TABLE. 
 
 Statement of the Condition of the Direct Tax Accounts of the several States and Territories and 
 the District of Columbia, under Acts of August 5, 1861, and June 7, 1862, as appears from 
 the Books of the Register's Office. 
 
 State or Territory. 
 
 Amount Im- 
 posed. 
 
 Amount Paid. 
 
 Fifteen per Cent 
 Allowance. 
 
 Balance Due 
 United States. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Arkansas -.- 
 
 California- -- -.. 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Dakota 
 
 Delaware --. -.. 
 
 District of Columbia. 
 
 Florida : 
 
 Oeorgia 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Iowa -. 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Maine 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Michigan -.. 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Mississippi. 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 New Mexico 
 
 New York 
 
 North Carolina . 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 Tennessee ... 
 
 Texas 
 
 Utah 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Virginia 
 
 West Virginia 
 
 Washington 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 $529,313 33 
 
 261,886 00 
 
 254,538 67 
 
 22,905 33 
 
 308,214 00 
 
 3,241 33 
 
 74,683 33 
 
 49,437 33 
 
 77,522 67 
 
 584,367 33 
 
 1,146,551 33 
 
 904,875 33 
 
 452,088 00 
 
 71,743 33 
 
 713,695 33 
 
 385,886 67 
 
 420,826 00 
 
 436,823 33 
 
 824,581 33 
 
 501,763 33 
 
 108,424 00 
 
 413,084 67 
 
 761,127 33 
 
 19,312 00 
 
 4,592 67 
 
 218,406 67 
 
 450,134 00 
 
 62,648 00 
 
 2,603,918 67 
 
 576,194 67 
 
 1,567,089 33 
 
 35,140 67 
 
 1,946,71« 33 
 
 116,963 67 
 
 669,498 00 
 
 355,106 67 
 
 26,982 00 
 
 211,068 00 
 
 t729,071 02 
 
 t208,479 65 
 
 7,755 33 
 
 519,688 67 
 
 363,570 67 
 
 $8,491 46 
 
 184,082 18 
 
 247,941 13 
 
 1,516 89 
 
 261,987 90 
 
 74,683 33 
 
 49,437 33 
 
 43,529 81 
 
 71,407 75 
 
 974,568 63 
 
 769,144 03 
 
 384,274 80 
 
 71,743 33 
 
 606,641 03 
 
 268,515 12 
 
 357,702 10 
 
 371,299 83 
 
 700,894 14 
 
 426,498 83 
 
 92,245 40 
 
 74,742 57 
 
 646,958 23 
 
 19,312 00 
 
 4,592 67 
 
 185,645 67 
 
 3^2,614 83 
 
 62,648 00 
 
 2,213,330 86 
 
 386,194 45 
 
 1,332,025 93 
 
 35,140 67 
 
 1,654,711 43 
 
 99,419 11 
 
 387,722 06 
 
 130,008 08 
 
 $46,232 10 
 "'*4"350'50" 
 
 $520,821 87 
 
 77,803 82 
 
 6,597 54 
 
 21,388 44 
 
 3,241 33 
 
 171,982 70 
 
 135,731 30 
 
 67,813 20 
 
 179,407 80 
 515,569 72 
 181,306 93 
 4,268 16 
 429,196 68 
 377,961 30 
 
 107,054 30 
 
 63,123 90 
 65,523 50 
 123,687 19 
 75,264 50 
 16,278 60 
 
 411,869 10 
 (See note.) 
 
 32,761 00 
 
 67,519 17 
 
 (See note.) 
 
 390,587 81 
 
 235,063 40 
 
 292,007 90 
 17,544 56 
 
 31,660 20 
 2y,i72"72' 
 
 39,346 43 
 J 14 ,390 63 
 
 33,992 86 
 512,959 58 
 
 117,371 55 
 
 338,342 10 
 
 190,000 22 
 
 281,775 94 
 
 225,098 61 
 
 26,982 00 
 
 213,501 30 
 
 3,487 17 
 51,145 56 
 
 * Included on compromise. 
 
 t Joint resolution February 25, 1867, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer $208,479 65 of the 
 amount originally appropriated to Virginia to the State of West Virginia. 
 X Overpaid. 
 
 NOTE. 
 Nebraska : 
 
 Amount collected $4,281 60 
 
 Amount allowed by Act of August 7, 1882 (22 Stat., p. 314) 15,030 40 
 
 $19,312 00 
 
 New Mexico: 
 
 Amount allowed by Act of July 1, 1862 ( 12 Stat., p. 489) 62,648 00 
 
 A BILL. 
 
 Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be and is author- 
 ized and required (1) to repay to the proper officer of each State the 
 amount paid by such State for direct taxes laid upon and apportioned to it, 
 as a direct tax under the Direct Tax Act of August 5, 1861, and (2) to pay 
 
160 
 
 to the proper officer of any such State any and all sums allowed by the 
 accounting officers of the Treasury Department as due to it, but withheld 
 and credited on account of such direct tax; and (3) to place to the credit 
 of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia in the Treasury of the 
 United States a sum equal to the amounts paid by or collected from said 
 District on account of said direct tax, and (4) to cause to be audited by 
 the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department and paid to the 
 original legal owner or owners of every lot or parcel of land sold for non- 
 payment of such taxes, or to his or their legal representatives, the amount 
 paid at such sales or otherwise collected after deducting the cost thereof 
 including charges and commissions not otherwise paid. 
 
 And all such taxes laid upon any State but not paid, are hereby remitted, 
 and the charges made against such State therefor are canceled. All 
 accounts with any State shall be so adjusted that taxes not collected are 
 remitted and amounts paid shall be refunded. 
 
 And a sufficient sum of money is appropriated, out of any mouey in the 
 Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to make the payment herein author- 
 ized. The word " State" herein shall include " Territory" and the District 
 of Columbia, so far as necessary to effect the objects of this Act. 
 
 Sec. 2. In making payments as aforesaid to the original legal owner or 
 owners, or their legal representatives, of any lot or land sold for non-pay- 
 ment of direct taxes, and for refunding of the surplus proceeds of such 
 sales as now authorized (Act August 5, 1861, 12 Stats. 304, Sec. 36), and 
 for refunding moneys collected or repaying money withheld, evidence of 
 payment to any officer authorized to receive it shall be deemed a payment 
 into the Treasury of the United States. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 20. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, second session. House of Representatives. Report No. 248G. 
 
 PAYMENT OF DIRECT TAXES. 
 
 February 4, 1885 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
 the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Price, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany bill H. R. 6047.] 
 
 The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (PI. R. 6047) to 
 adjust certain accounts between the United States and the several States 
 and Territories and the District of Columbia, has had the same under con- 
 sideration, and reports: 
 
 Under the Act of August 5, 1861 (12 Stat, at L. 292), a direct tax of 
 $20,000,000 was laid upon the United States, and was apportioned amongst 
 the different States and Territories, and the District of Columbia, based on 
 population. 
 
 By Section 53 it was provided that each State might assume the pay- 
 ment of its quota thereof, and if it did so on or before the second Tuesday in 
 February next, after the passage of the Act, it should have a deduction of 
 fifteen per cent on so much of the quota of direct tax apportioned to such 
 State in lieu of the compensation of officers for collecting the tax as was 
 
161 
 
 actually paid into the Treasury on or before the last day of June, and a 
 deduction of ten per cent upon so much as should be paid into the Treas- 
 ury thereafter and before the last day of September of that year. 
 
 Some of the loyal States assumed their quotas, whilst others did not do 
 so. Of those which assumed the payment, some paid prior to the last of 
 June, others prior to the last day of September, whilst some of them have 
 only paid in part, and still owe balances. 
 
 Of the loyal States which did not assume their quotas, the amount thereof 
 has been collected from some in full by the First Comptroller stopping in 
 the Treasury sums going to them on account of five per cents from sales of 
 public lands and other allowed claims in their favor against the United 
 States. 
 
 An Act for the collection of direct taxes in insurrectionary districts within 
 the United States was passed June 7, 1862. (12 Stat, at L. 422.) This 
 contained no provision for the assumption of its quota by the insurrection- 
 ary States. Under this Act a portion of the quota of some of the States 
 was collected directly from the owners of real estate, and other portions 
 were collected by sales of real estate, whilst from others nothing whatever 
 was collected. 
 
 Since the war, as in the case of loyal States, the First Comptroller has 
 withheld and applied to the quota of these States such sums as they were 
 entitled to receive on account of five per cents from the sales of public lands 
 or upon other allowed claims in favor of these States respectively against 
 the United States. 
 
 The quota of each State is not a liability upon the State as such, but 
 upon the real estate of the people of the State, and was by the law made a 
 lien upon each piece thereof in proportion of its value to the aggregate 
 value of the real estate in that State. 
 
 The quota of each State and Territory has been charged to it upon the 
 books of the Treasury, and such sums as have been paid or collected, 
 whether directly or by sale of property, has been credited against this quota, 
 as has also all such sums as were going to said State on account of five per 
 cents from sales of public lands and other allowed accounts. This system 
 of withholding sums due to States and crediting them on account of this 
 tax due by its ^citizens (or by only a portion of its citizens where some have 
 paid) is a source of constant dissatisfaction and friction, and at the last 
 session of Congress a bill was passed providing that a claim should be paid 
 directly to a State in money for the purpose of avoiding its being thus 
 credited, and a bill is now pending in the House to pay in money to a 
 State an amount which has been credited in the Treasury upon its quota 
 of this direct tax. The extreme undesirability of these issues over accounts 
 between the States and the General Government cannot be overstated, and 
 is so apparent as not to require to be more than mentioned. The injustice, 
 too, of the utter inequality of payments is so apparent as to require no 
 argument as to the importance of adopting some mode of adjusting and 
 equalizing them, and if this cannot be done absolutely, then at least as far 
 as is practicable and possible. 
 
 To do this is the purpose of the bill under consideration. It provides 
 that the account of each State and Territory be credited with a sum equal 
 to all collections made from each State and Territory, or any citizens thereof, 
 under the Act of Congress approved August 5, 1861, and Acts amendatory 
 thereto, with an additional sum of fifteen per centum on such payments 
 made without cost to the United States, and also to relinquish all claims 
 for all sums remaining unpaid on said direct tax. This will give to those 
 States which assumed and paid their quotas the benefit of the deductions 
 11^ 
 
162 
 
 to which they thus entitled themselves. In those cases in which the tax 
 has been collected from individuals, either in money directly or by sale of 
 land, it provides, by an amendment herewith submitted, that the amount 
 thus paid back shall be made to the State in trust for those of her citizens 
 who have paid the same. 
 
 The bill was fully and carefully considered by the late Secretary of the 
 Treasury, Hon. Charles J. Folger. On June fourteenth, ultimo, he wrote a 
 letter, in which he uses the following language: 
 
 The purpose of the bill is to relieve and discharge, from further liability for that tax, 
 those States and Territories which have not paid the portion thereof apportioned to them 
 respectively; and to repay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
 to those States and Territories which have paid any portion, the sums by them respect- 
 ively paid. Though by the Act above cited, this tax was made an annual one, an attempt 
 to collect it for more than one year has never been made. By that attempt there were col- 
 lected about fifteen millions of dollars, principally from the States which did not seek to 
 go out of the Union ; and there were left uncollected about five millions of dollars, prin- 
 cipally in the States which did not seek to go out of the Union. The sum uncollected 
 remains a charge against these States, and, for the purposes of this letter, it may be 
 assumed that it is a valid and enforceable charge. It is plain, however, that no legislator 
 at this day would propose to raise revenue by a tax of that kind. There is no need of 
 resorting to such methods. The revenue of the Government from sources not so extra- 
 ordinary, and collectible by means and appliances not so objectionable as those involved 
 herein, are ample for its purposes. They are, indeed, superabundant, and the concern of 
 statesmen is rather how they may be reduced than how they may be increased. The 
 Government then, needs not the money to be got by enforcing this tax. 
 
 At the same time, it is plain that to enforce it would put a grievous burden upon the 
 people of the States which are in. default in payment. It needs no array of facts to show 
 this. Congress in one if not both branches has this session considered the proposition of 
 large pecuniary aid to these people to help them place and keep up common schools, and 
 the Senate has passed a bill therefor. 
 
 If there be need for that succor, there would be harm in enforcing this charge. It is to 
 be considered, too, that while taxes are seldom looked upon with favor, this would be 
 specially objectionable. The purpose for which it was laid can but be remembered with dis- 
 taste. It can scarcely be expected that there would be cheerful aid from the State authori- 
 ties in the enforcement of it. It may be doubted whether there would be any. Indeed 
 it would, without further legislation, have to be enforced by the machinery provided by 
 the Act under which it was laid. This would call for the appointment of numerous Fed- 
 eral officials, who would go among the people as obnoxious exactors. I think it must be 
 conceded that there is, and ever will be, great reluctance to ever setting about the collec- 
 tion of this tax. That it never had great favor, is shown by that it was never put in force 
 but one year. In practical effect, then, the law for it is obsolete. Why, then, should there 
 remain this unenforced liability, a menace to the people, the enforcement of which is 
 called for by no public need, nor by any public opinion ? 
 
 In my judgment, the people and" the property of the States in default sjiould be relieved 
 and discharged from it. 
 
 But to give such relief and discharge would be to put an equality of burden upon the 
 States which paid, unless they in turn were in some way relieved. This the bill proposes 
 to do by repaying to them tlie sums received from them. Assuming that the tax was 
 lawful, and the collection, as far as made, was warranted, this, apart from the circum- 
 stances, would be a proposition to donate to the States surplus moneys of the United 
 States — a proposition which I should not favor. But, as connected with the proposition 
 to discharge from onerous and needless liability one portion of the people, it takes on a 
 different character: it is presented as an adjustment between different bodies of the peo- 
 ple, and is worthy of acceptation. Indeed, it would be unjust to the people of the loyal 
 States to release the people of the once insurrectionary States from their liability without 
 refunding to the former the sums paid by them, and there are analogies in the legislation 
 of Congress. Acts have been passed refunding to States moneys raised by them for the 
 raising, arming, and equipping of troops for the Army of the United States in the civil 
 war, and for making other refunds of like character. The purpose of laying this direct 
 tax was to aid in the ultimate payment of the extraordinary expenses of the Government 
 caused by the civil war. The raising, arming, and equipping of troops by the States 
 served to keep down those expenses for the time. It was a voluntary act upon the part 
 of the States. There is no violation of principle or fundamental law in repaying to the 
 States from the funds of the United States the cost thereof. The purpose and effect of 
 this bill is not so unlike in nature to that as not also to be freed from the objections to a 
 bald distribution among the States of what are called the surplus revenues of the United 
 States. 
 
 Under the peculiar facts of the case, and as it is not likely to become a precedent for 
 other disposals of Federal moneys, my judgment is, that the proposed measure is a good 
 one. It IS true that exactly equal justice cannot be done in carrying out the proposition 
 of the bill. Thus, in some of the Southern States the tax was to some extent enforced. 
 Tax sales were made of pieces of real estate in instances for less than the value of them. 
 
163 
 
 Only the surplus of purchase money over the tax and charges has been available to the 
 owners, and they have lost the difference between that and the total of the purchase 
 money, and between the purchase money and the value. 
 
 On the other hand, in most, if not all, of the Northern States, the payment to the 
 "United States of the tax was assumed by the State Government, which collected the 
 amount of its own people in its own tax levy. Of course, in the changes of citizenship 
 and ownership of taxable property, while a repayment into the State Treasury will tend 
 to reduce the amount of State tax, it will not inure to the benefit of some of those who 
 in 1861 were taxpayers. But these failures of full and general compensation in dealing 
 with transactions so long past must ensue, and are not to be potentially urged against 
 proposed measures, w^hich in the main do work equal benefit. 
 
 The Comptroller of the Treasury, Hon. William Lawrence, also recom- 
 mends the passage of this bill in the following terms: 
 
 The object of these bills is to remit, so far as not collected or paid, the direct taxes laid 
 upon and apportioned to the States, Territories, and District of Columbia under the 
 Direct Tax Act of August 5, 1861, and to refund to such States, Territories, and District, 
 respectively, the amount of such taxes, so far as paid in any mode whatever. 
 
 I have considered the subject with care, and now have the honor to state that, in my 
 judgment, it is alike just, j.udicious, and practicable to remit all such taxes not yet col- 
 lected, to refund the amounts paid in any form by any State or Territory, and to refund 
 to private persons or their legal representatives all amounts of such tax by them paid, or 
 collected by sale of real estate, or otherwise. 
 
 In view of the status of this tax as exhibited by these facts, your com- 
 mittee fully concur in the recommendations herein set out. In those cases 
 in which the money, wherewith any State stands credited, was collected 
 from its citizens, the amount to be returned to said State under this bill 
 should be for the use and benefit of those citizens from whom it was col- 
 lected, or their legal representatives-, and your committee recommends that 
 the bill be amended by adding the following at the end thereof: ^^ Provided^ 
 that where the sums, or any part thereof, credited to any State or' Terri- 
 tory, has been collected from the citizens thereof, either directly or by sale 
 of property, such amount shall be regarded as received by said States in 
 trust for the benefit of those of its citizens from whom it was collected, or 
 their legal representatives." 
 
 Your committee recommends that the bill thus amended do pass. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, second session. House of Representatives. Report 2486, Part 2. 
 
 REPAYMENT OF THE DIRECT TAX. 
 
 February 9, 1885 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
 the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. A. J. Warner, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the follow- 
 as the 
 
 VIEWS OF THE MINORITY. 
 [To accompany bill H. R. 6047.] 
 
 Bill No. llO, introduced by Mr. Henley of California, provides for the 
 repayment to the several States and Territories and District of Columbia, 
 respectively, the direct tax levied under the Act of August 5, 1861. 
 
 The bill (No. 6047) introduced by Mr. Price of Wisconsin, provides, in 
 addition to the repayment of the several sums collected under said Act, for 
 the payment of the fifteen per cent allowed to the States and Territories 
 for collecting said tax, when the collection was made by States or Terri- 
 tories. This bill also provides for the remission of taxes apportioned, but 
 not collected or paid. This report, therefore, is made to cover Bill 6047 as 
 well as Bill 110. 
 
 The following statement shows the amount of direct tax apportioned to 
 
164 
 
 each State and Territory, the amount paid, the amount on which fifteen 
 per cent was allowed, and the balance due the United States under the Act 
 of August 5, 1861, and the States and Territories from which it is due: 
 
 Teeasury Department, March 31, 1884. 
 Sir: In reply to your communication of the fourteenth instant, requesting to be fur- 
 nished with a statement of the amount of taxes apportioned to the several States and 
 Territories and the District of Columbia, under the Acts of August 5, 1861, and June 7, 
 1862, and the amounts still standing against said States and Territories on the books of 
 the Department, I have the honor to transmit herewith a statement containing the infor- 
 mation called for. 
 H. R. No. 110 inclosed in your letter is returned herewith. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 CHAS. J. rOLGER, Secretary. 
 Hon. A. J. Warner, of Committee on Claims, House of Representatives. 
 
 Statement of the condition of the Direct Tax accounts of the several States and Territories and 
 the District of Columbia, mider Acts of August 5, 1S61, and June 7, 1862. 
 
 State oe Tekbitoby. 
 
 Amount Im- 
 posed. 
 
 Amount Paid. 
 
 Fifteen per 
 Cent Allowance. 
 
 Balance Due 
 United States. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Arkansas -.. 
 
 California 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Dakota 
 
 Delaware 
 
 District of Columbia 
 
 Florida i 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Hlinois 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Kentucky. 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Maine 
 
 Maryland. ...- 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 New Mexico 
 
 New York 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 Ohio-. 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Texas 
 
 Utah 
 
 Vermont. 
 
 Virginia 
 
 "West Virginia 
 
 Washington ■... 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 $529,313 33 
 261,886 00 
 254,538 67 
 
 22,905 33 
 
 308,214 00 
 
 3,241 33 
 
 74,683 33 
 
 49,537 33 
 
 77,522 67 
 
 584,367 33 
 
 1,146,551 33 
 
 904,875 33 
 
 452,088 00 
 
 71,743 33 
 713,695 33 
 385,886 67 
 420,826 00 
 436,823 33 
 824,581 33 
 501,763 33 
 108,524 00 
 413,084 67 
 761,127 33 
 
 19,312 00 
 
 4,592 67 
 
 218,406 67 
 
 450,134 00 
 
 62,648 00 
 
 2,603,918 67 
 
 576,194 67 
 
 1,567,089 33 
 
 35,140 67 
 
 1,946,719 33 
 
 116,963 67 
 
 669,498 00 
 
 355,106 67 
 
 26,982 00 
 211,068 00 
 
 * 729,071 02 
 
 * 208,479 65 
 
 7,755 33 
 519,688 67 
 363,570 67 
 
 $8,491 46 
 
 184,082 18 
 
 247,941 13 
 
 1,516 89 
 
 261,981 90 
 
 * 74,683 33 
 
 49,437 33 
 
 43,529 81 
 
 71,407 75 
 
 974,568 63 
 
 769,144 03 
 
 384,274 80 
 
 71,743 33 
 
 608,G41 03 
 
 268,515 12 
 
 357,702 10 
 
 371,299 83 
 
 700,894 14 
 
 426,498 83 
 
 92,245 40 
 
 74,742 57 
 
 646,958 23 
 
 + 19,312 00 
 
 4,592 67 
 
 185,645 67 
 
 382,614 83 
 
 X 62,648 00 
 
 2,213,330 86 
 
 386,194 45 
 
 1,332,025 93 
 
 35,140 67 
 
 1,654,711 43 
 
 99,419 11 
 
 287,722 06 
 
 130,008 06 
 
 179,407 80 
 515,569 72 
 181,306 93 
 4,268 16 
 429,196 68 
 377,961 30 
 
 $46,232 10 
 
 171,982 70 
 
 135,731 30 
 
 67,813 20 
 
 107,054 30 
 
 63,123 90 
 65,523 50 
 123,687 19 
 75,264 50 
 16,278 60 
 
 114,169 10 
 
 32,761 00 
 67,519 17 
 
 390,587 81 
 235,063"45 
 
 292,007 90 
 17,544 56 
 
 31,660 20 
 27,172' 72 
 
 39,346 43 
 14,390 63 
 
 $520,821 27 
 
 77,803 82 
 
 6,597 54 
 
 21,388 44 
 
 3,241 33 
 
 33,992 86 
 512,959 58 
 
 117,371 55 
 
 338,342 10 
 
 190,000 22 
 
 281,775 94 
 
 225,098 61 
 
 26,982 00 
 
 213,501 30 
 
 3,487 17 
 51,145 56 
 
 * Including $4,350 50 on compromise. 
 
 * Joint resolution, February 25, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer $208,479 65 of the amount 
 originally appropriated to Virginia to the State of West Virginia. 
 
 t Nebraska : Amount collected, $4,281 60; amount allowed by Act August 7, 1882 (22 Stat., p. 314), $15,030 40; 
 total, $19,312. 
 
 t New Mexico : Amount allowed by Act of July 1, 1862 (12 Stat., p. 489j, $62,648. 
 gOverpaid. 
 
 Treasuey Depabtment, March 29, 1884. 
 
165 
 
 To aid in reaching a proper understanding of the questions involved in 
 the bills under consideration, the following summary of the Act of August 
 5, 1861, and subsequent Acts relating to the imposition and collection of 
 the direct tax, is here given. 
 
 Section 8 of the Act of August 5, 1861, provided — 
 
 That a direct tax of twenty millions of dollars be and is hereby annually laid upon the 
 United States, and the same shall be and is hereby apportioned to the States, respectively, 
 in manner following. 
 
 Then follow the sums apportioned to the several States, Territories, and 
 the District of Columbia, as given above. 
 Section 9 of the same Act provided — 
 
 That, for the purpose of assessing the above tax and collecting the same, the President 
 of the United States be and he is hereby authorized to divide, respectively, the States and 
 Territories of the United States and the District of Columbia into convenient collection 
 districts. 
 
 Section 11 provided — 
 
 That each of the assessors shall divide his district into a convenient number of assess- 
 ment districts, within each of which he shall appoint one respectable freeholder to be 
 assistant assessor. 
 
 Section 13 provided — 
 
 That the said direct tax laid by this Act shall be assessed and laid on the value of all 
 lands and lots of ground, with their improvements and dwelling houses, which several 
 articles subject to taxation shall be enumerated and valued by the. respective assessors at 
 the rate each of them is worth in money on the first day of April, eighteen hundred and 
 sixty-two. 
 
 The Act also provided for equalization and apportionment to be made 
 by a Board of Assessors. 
 
 Section 33 provided that the taxes so assessed should be and remain a 
 lien during two years after the time it should become due and payable. 
 
 Section 35 provided for the collection of the taxes by distraint and sale 
 of the goods, chattels, or effects of the persons delinquent. 
 
 Section 36 provided for the sale of real estate when personal property 
 was not found to satisfy the tax and cost. 
 
 The same Act imposed an income tax of three per cent on all incomes 
 over $800. 
 
 Section 52 provided that if any State was in rebellion when the Act 
 went into effect, the tax might be collected as soon as the authority of the 
 United States was reestablished. 
 
 Section 53 provided "that any State or Territory and the District of 
 Columbia may lawfully assume, assess, collect, and pay into the Treasury 
 of the United States the direct tax, or its quota thereof, imposed by this 
 Act upon the State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, in its own way 
 and manner, by and through its own officers, assessors, and collectors;" 
 provided notice was given "to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United 
 States on or before the second Tuesday of February next" (1862), in 
 which case the Act allows fifteen per cent to the State for collecting. 
 
 All the Northern States, except Delaware, accepted the collection of the 
 direct tax. The Act of February 25, 1867, fixed the quota to West Vir- 
 ginia, and provided for offsetting the tax against claims of the State 
 against the tJnited States. 
 
 Missouri, by the Act of July 17, 1866, was authorized to offset the direct 
 
166 
 
 tax against money expended in arming State troops. It has been held 
 that without the authority of Congress no State could assume the tax after 
 February, 1862, and Secretary McCulloch declined to allow Texas and 
 Georgia to pay this tax to the United States without further authority of 
 law. (See letter of Secretary McCulloch to the Governor of Texas, 1866.) 
 
 The Act of June 7, 1862, superseded the Act of August 5, 1861, so far as 
 related to States in rebellion. (9 Wallace, 326; 14 Wallace, 553.) 
 
 Section 1 of this Act provided — 
 
 That when in any State or Territory, * * * by reason of insurrection or rebellion, 
 the civil authority of the Government of the United States is obstructed so that the pro- 
 visions of the Act [of August 5, 1861 * * *] for levying and collecting the direct taxes 
 therein mentioned cannot be peaceably executed, the said direct taxes, by said Act appor- 
 tioned among the several States and Territories, respectively, shall be apportioned and 
 charged in each State and Territory, or part thereof, wherein the civil authority is thus 
 obstructed, upon all the lands or lots of ground situate therein, respectively, except such 
 as are exempt from taxation under the laws of said State or of the United States, as the 
 said lands or lots of ground were enumerated and valued under the last assessment and 
 valuation thereof made under the authority of said State or Territory previous to the 
 first of January, Anno Domini eighteen hundred and sixtv-one ; and each and every par- 
 cel of the said lands, according to said valuation, is hereby declared to be, by virtue of 
 this Act, charged with the payment of so much of the whole tax laid and apportioned 
 by said Act upon the State or 'Territory wherein the same is respectively situate, as shall 
 bear the same direct proportion to the whole amount of the direct tax apportioned to 
 said State or Territory as the value of said parcels of land shall respectively bear to the 
 whole valuation of the real estate in said State or Territory, according to the said assess- 
 ment and valuation made under the authority of the same; and in addition thereto a 
 penalty of fifty per centum of said tax shall be charged thereon. 
 
 By Section 2, the President was required to issue his proclamation declar- 
 ing in what States and parts of States insurrection existed. 
 
 This Act also provided for Commissioners, and by Section 2, if the tax 
 was not paid — 
 
 The title of, in, and to each and every piece or parcel of land upon which said tax has 
 not been paid as above provided, shall thereupon become forfeited to the United States, 
 and, upon the sale hereinafter provided for, shall vest in the United States or in the pur- 
 chasers at such sale, in fee simple, free and discharged of all prior liens, incumbrances, 
 right, title, and claim whatsoever. 
 
 The Commissioners were authorized to lease the lands, etc. 
 
 The Act of July 1, 1862, suspended the direct tax until 1865. 
 
 The Act of June 7, 1862, was modified by the Acts of February 6, 1863, 
 and March 3, 1865. 
 
 By the Act of July 28, 1866, collection of the direct tax in the States 
 theretofore declared to be in insurrection was suspended until January 
 1, 1868. 
 
 By the Act of July 23, 1868, the collection of the direct tax in the 
 States formerly in insurrection was suspended until January 1, 1869. 
 
 The Act of June 8, 1872, provided for the restoration of lands held by 
 the United States under the several Acts levying direct taxes, upon pay- 
 ment of taxes and cost. 
 
 Since the suspension of the collection by the Act of July 23, 1868, no 
 further taxes have been collected. 
 
 EARLIER LEVIES OF A DIRECT TAX. 
 
 The first direct tax levied under the present Constitution was in 1798; 
 the next in 1813, and again in 1815. The direct tax of 1798 was for 
 $2,000,000, the tax of 1813 was for $3,000,000, the tax of 1815 was for 
 $6,000,000, the tax of 1861 was for $20,000,000. By each of these Acts 
 
167 
 
 the tax was levied "upon the United States." By "United States" is 
 meant, of course, the people of the United States. Under these several 
 Acts the tax was apportioned among the several States, as provided in 
 Clause 3, Section 2, Article 1, and Clause 4, Section 9, Article 1, of the Con- 
 stitution. The Act of August 2, 1813, apportioned the tax, not only among 
 the several States, but allotted to each county in a State its proportion 
 according to population. The direct tax of 1798, 1813, and 1815 was 
 assessed upon " lands, dwelling-houses, and slaves" (in apportioning the 
 taxes, according to population, five slaves were counted as three persons), 
 and was made a lien on lands, tenements, and slaves, and, if not paid', 
 the several Acts provided for the collection of the same by distress and 
 sale of personal property, and, secondly, by sale of lands. The Act of 
 August 5, 1861, levied the tax on "lands, buildings, etc." Each of the 
 Acts referred to exempted from taxation property of the United States, 
 and of any State. Under the several Acts, too. United States Assessors 
 and Collectors were provided for, and provision was made for States to 
 assume and collect, through their own machinery, and pay to the United 
 States, the direct tax apportioned to them respectively, and fifteen per cent 
 has been uniformly allowed to States assuming the tax for collecting it. 
 The several Acts referred to are, therefore, substantially the same in all 
 their important features. 
 
 The clauses in the Constitution which provide for a direct tax are as 
 ■follows: 
 
 Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: 
 
 Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which 
 may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers. 
 
 And Clause 4, of Section 9, Article 1: 
 
 No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or 
 enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken. 
 
 Section 8, Article 1, of the Constitution, provides that — 
 
 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises * 
 * * but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. 
 
 Hence, we have the two methods of laying taxes: the one under the 
 apportionment clause, according to population; the other under the uni- 
 formity clause, which requires that " duties, imposts, and excises shall be 
 uniform throughout the United States." 
 
 ■ Direct taxes can be levied only under the apportionment clause of the 
 Constitution, and it has been held that a direct tax can be levied only upon 
 land, or as a capitation tax. 
 
 In the case of Hylton vs. United States, 3 Dallas, 171, Chase, J., says: 
 
 I am inclined to think that the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution are only 
 two, to wit: a capitation or poll tax, and a tax on land. 
 
 And in the same case, Patterson, J., says: 
 
 Whether direct taxes, in the sense of the Constitution, comprehend any other tax than 
 a capitation tax and a tax on land, is a questionable point. 
 
 Under the several Acts providing for a direct tax, such taxes have been 
 levied only on land and dwellings, except that in the three earlier Acts 
 
168 
 
 slaves were included. From the debates on the Act of 1861, it is clear 
 that the opinion prevailed that a direct tax could only be levied on real 
 estate. 
 
 Mr. Stevens said: 
 
 A direct tax, under the Constitution, is a tax upon real estate. 
 Mr. Bingham said: 
 
 The uniform construction has been that the power to levy and apportion direct taxes 
 could be rightfully applied only to lands and slaves. 
 
 And again: 
 
 I undertake to say that the uniform construction of that clause of the Constitution is 
 this— that under the head of direct taxation, as provided for in the Constitution, to be 
 apportioned among the several States, according to the ratio of representation, there is 
 nothing to be taxed except land, tenements, and slaves, as appurtenant to land, unless it 
 be a direct capitation tax on the person, without respect to his property or to his income. 
 
 In the Senate, Mr. Grimes asked: 
 
 What is the direct tax on ? 
 
 Mr. Collamer, On all real estate. 
 
 Mr. Grimes. Not on personal property ? 
 
 Mr. Collamer. No, sir. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Mr. Grimes. I have never even known until this moment that there was no tax on 
 personal property in these bills ; but that all this is to go on real estate. * * * 
 
 Mr. Collamer. I stated before, and I state now, that the bill is essentially the same in 
 all its essential features with the bill by which a direct tax has been laid four times by the 
 Government, lived under, and collected; and there never was a tax on personal property 
 by this Government. 
 
 'Mr. Simmons. I will explain to the Senator from Iowa, that it is competent for any 
 State to assume its quota of this direct tax, and pay it into the Treasury with a deduction 
 of fifteen per cent, and to take its own machinery for collecting it. If they tax personal 
 property now in the States, they can tax personal property to get the money, under this 
 bill, into their Treasuries ; so that it will leave personal property as the States now leave it. 
 
 Not only, therefore, has it been the practice of the Government in the 
 matter of direct taxes, to levy them directly upon the people of the States, 
 and to limit them to real estate and slaves, but it has in every case provided 
 the machinery for collecting directly from the people the tax so levied. 
 In other words, the Government in levying and collecting a direct tax, as 
 in all other taxes, acts directly upon the people, although it has in every 
 direct tax levy provided for the assumption and payment of the tax by 
 States. Although the tax must have been apportioned among the several 
 States and Territories, under the apportionment clause of the Constitution^ 
 according to population, nevertheless, it has been held that States assuming 
 to pay the tax might themselves make the levy under their own laws, and 
 collect it by their own machinery, and this has been the practice where 
 States have assumed the collection of the tax. 
 
 Under the Articles of Confederation Congress had no power to levy taxes^ 
 but made requisition upon the States for money. The difficulties that were 
 encountered during and after the close of the war of the Revolution made 
 manifest to the framers of the new Constitution that the possession of the 
 power of taxation was necessary to the existence of any Government, and 
 the power to levy duties, imposts, and excises — indirect taxes — was given 
 to the General Government with the provision that these taxes should be 
 uniform throughout the United States. The power to levy direct taxes was 
 also given by the Constitution to the General Government, but this tax 
 
169 
 
 must be apportioned according to population as determined by the census; 
 and under decisions of the Supreme Court, and in accordance with the 
 uniform practice of the Government, such taxes, as has been shown, have 
 been levied only on land, or as a capitation tax. 
 
 Webster clearly states the power of the Government under the Constitu- 
 tion in the matter of taxes. He says: 
 
 The Constitation of the United States creates direct relations between this Government 
 and individuals. * * * It has power, also, to tax individuals in any mode and to any 
 extent. * * * The Constitution was adopted that there might be a Government which 
 should act directly on individuals without borrowing aid from the State governments. 
 It was to be a Government with direct powers to make laws over individuals and to 
 lay taxes and imposts without the consent of the States. 
 
 On the other hand it has been uniformly held that the General Govern- 
 ment cannot levy a tax on a State. The State, as a corporation, indeed, 
 has little to levy a tax upon. And under every direct tax Act the property 
 of the State has been exempted from the tax. 
 
 The State itself must go to the people for the means to carry on its own 
 government. The United States, except as limited by the Constitution, 
 has the right to go to the people of all the States for the means of support- 
 ing the General Government; and the power of the United States to levy 
 a tax upon the people of all the States is as full and complete as the power 
 of the States to levy taxes upon the people of the respective States. But 
 there is no constitutional power to levy a tax upon, or to collect a tax from, 
 a State as a corporate entity. It follows, then, that a State, as such, cannot 
 owe taxes to the General Government, and that taxes levied upon the peo- 
 ple of a State cannot lie as a debt against the State. Accordingly, the Act 
 of 1861, as did all other Acts providing for direct taxes, contained provis- 
 ions, not for forcing payment of the tax from the States that had assumed 
 it, but for going back to the people of the State to collect it from them 
 directly, if the State, after having assumed the tax, should fail to collect 
 and pay it over to the United States. 
 
 What foundation, then, is there for the claim of a State to the payment, 
 or repayment, of the direct tax of 1861 ? 
 
 It has been shown that the tax was not upon the State; that, on the con- 
 trary, the property of the State was expressly exempted. The State, as 
 such, paid no tax. The tax was levied upon that class of persons who, in 
 1861-62, held real estate in the several States, and when collected by the 
 United States Government was collected from no others. The tax was 
 constitutional and regular. It is true that the privilege was given to the 
 States to collect the tax and pay it over to the United States, in which case 
 fifteen per cent was allowed for making the collection. 
 
 It must be upon this fact, if upon anything, that the claim of a State to 
 a repayment of the tax is made to hinge. No other basis for the claim of 
 a State, as a State, to repayment, can possibly exist. 
 
 But, if the right to a repayment of the tax is made to hinge on this point, 
 it is as valid for a repayment of the tax of 1798, 1813, and 1815 as for that 
 of 1861. The tax in each case was levied in the same way, and, for the 
 most part, each time collected by the States through their own machinery, 
 for which fifteen per cent was allowed. But do the States, because they 
 collected the tax for the General Government, come thereby into the right 
 to claim the tax as their own ? 
 
 Some have gone so far as to speak of these taxes as a "forced loan." 
 But they who use such language use it without comprehending its meaning. 
 As well might a Sheriff who collects taxes for the Treasury of a county or 
 
170 
 
 State, for which he is allowed a percentage, set up a claim to the taxes as 
 his own, and demand them back from the County or State Treasurer on 
 the plea that the money he paid over was a " forced loan." 
 
 Admitting, as it must be admitted, that the direct tax was constitutional 
 and regular, that it was levied upon and paid by the people of the States, 
 either directly to officers of the United States, or through officers of the 
 States, it would seem impossible to come to any other conclusion than that 
 there is no foundation whatever for the claim of a State to the repayment 
 of this tax. The tax, as has been shown, was not levied upon the State — 
 it could not be — nor could it be collected from a State. It was a tax upon 
 individuals as much as any other tax is, and a State would have just as 
 good reason for claiming a right to any other tax paid by its citizens, 
 whether a direct tax, an income tax, or an excise tax under the internal 
 revenue laws, as to this particular tax. 
 
 But suppose this bill should pass, out of what fund would the direct tax 
 be repaid to the States? The Government has no resources of its own. It 
 must go to the people for the money. It might levy another direct tax, or 
 it might impose some indirect tax; but in the end the people must pay it. 
 The idea that there is a great surplus in the Treasury, out of which it can 
 be paid without any tax, is not sustained. The interest-bearing debt of 
 the Government is $1,200,000,000, of which nearly $200,000,000 is payable 
 at the option of the Government, and if money in the Treasury is directed 
 to other uses, taxes must be levied to pay the debt; so in the end all comes 
 from taxes. No State could therefore expect to receive more than, in some 
 way or other, it would have to pay. Besides, it costs something to collect 
 money into the Treasury and pay it out again. The Government allowed 
 fifteen per cent to such States as assumed the collection of the tax for col- 
 lecting it; and it is proposed to pay to the States this fifteen per cent as 
 well as the amount actually received by the Government. To collect anew 
 the $20,000,000 of direct tax, or so much of it as was in the first instance 
 collected, would cost, perhaps, fifteen per cent again, and by the time it 
 was all paid out the actual cost of collecting the money and adjusting all 
 the claims arising under it would hardly be less than twenty-five per cent. 
 In other words, the direct tax can only be paid by new taxes, to collect and 
 pay over which twenty-five per cent must be paid to officials, agents, clerks, 
 etc. To get, therefore, the $1,500,000 direct tax paid by Ohio, the people 
 of Ohio would have to pay anew, in some way or other, probably not less 
 than $2,000,000, one fourth of it to be expended in working the machinery 
 necessary to collect and pay out the money, especially if the repayment is 
 to extend to the individual citizens who in the first instance paid it; and 
 what would be true of Ohio would be true of every other State. They 
 would all pay in the end $1 25 for every $1 that would reach the people 
 again, if the repayment is to extend to the people who in the first instance 
 paid it, as it plainly should if repaid at all. 
 
 The next question is, if a State cannot lay claim to the tax levied under 
 the Act of August 5, 1861, have individuals, who paid the tax, a better 
 right? They no doubt have a better right, for the State, in its corporate 
 capacity, it is believed, has none at all. The first question, however, that 
 arises is, was the tax, as it related to individuals, constitutional? Was it 
 lawfully levied and collected? That it was not an equal tax is admitted. 
 No direct tax levied under the apportionment clause of the Constitution is 
 an equal tax, but it is, nevertheless, one of the modes of levying taxes 
 expressly provided for by the Constitution. That this ta;x was levied under 
 the apportionment clause, instead of under the uniformity clause, does not 
 of itself give those who paid it a right to demand it back. So far as the 
 
171 
 
 tax was paid by individuals directly to officers of the Government, it was 
 paid by that class who in 1861-'62 (or when it was collected) owned "lands 
 and dwellings " upon which the tax was levied. No other classes paid this 
 tax, and certainly no other class can have any claim whatever to any part 
 of it now, even if it should be repaid. And for this reason a State which 
 left the tax to be paid by its individual citizens owning property liable for 
 the tax is without a shadow of right to it. And in this connection it may 
 be stated that the provision in the Act of August 5, 1861, not having been 
 reenacted in the Act of June 7, 1862, the direct tax could not after the 
 latter date be assumed by a State. In the Georgia case the First Comp- 
 troller, Mr. A. G. Porter, decided that the citizens of the State owed the tax 
 to the Government, and not the State, and consequently that money due 
 by the United States to the State of Georgia could not be credited " as upon 
 a debt owing by that State to the United States." 
 
 The hardship in the collectioji of this tax comes in where lands were 
 taken possession of in insurrectionary States and sold. In many cases the 
 lands sold far below their ordinary value, their owners being away from 
 them, or under the circumstances not possessing at the time the means of 
 paying the taxes or of subsequently redeeming the lands. 
 
 In some States a portion only of the taxes was collected in this way, the 
 collection being generally limited to districts within the military lines of 
 the United States. 
 
 The injustice here consists in the taxes having been collected from one 
 part of the people, and not from all alike. But, after all, this is one of 
 the exigencies of the war, and, like a thousand other things, could not be 
 controlled at the time, and can not now be remedied without creating new 
 wrongs. It must be admitted, however, that the claim to repayment of the 
 taxes to the individuals who paid them rests upon a much better founda- 
 tion than the claim of a State. But the difficulty lies in the impractica- 
 bility of repayment to individuals who might be entitled to it. While 
 this might not be so difficult in those States where individuals paid the 
 tax directly to the United States Commissioners, or where lands were sold 
 for the tax in other States, where the tax was collected by the State 
 through its own machinery, the repayment to individuals in the propor- 
 tions it was paid by them would be extremely difficult if not impossible, 
 and certainly would involve a vast deal of labor. There can be no ques- 
 tion as to the right of individual owners of lands sold for the direct tax to 
 a repayment of the excess of sales or excess of proceeds of resales over 
 and abov^ taxes, costs, etc. Thus the Government realized on resales of 
 land bought in for taxes in the State of South Carolina some $300,000 over 
 and above taxes and costs. As the object of these purchases and sales was 
 to get the tax, and not confiscation, it is difficult to find a reason for not 
 paying the surplus back to the original owners of these lands. 
 
 The only question that remains to be considered is, shall the Govern- 
 ment proceed to collect the tax in States where the full tax has not been 
 collected? Under the original Act of June 5, 1861, the tax was made a 
 lien upon lands and buildings upon which it was assessed for two years, 
 and it is assumed that if the Government should proceed now to collect 
 the tax, it could collect it only from those owning the property liable for 
 the tax at the time it was levied, or before the lien upon it expired. The 
 Government having failed to collect the tax at the time, no matter for 
 what reason, it cannot proceed now to collect it from any other class than 
 that particular class upon whom the tax was originally laid. A new 
 apportionment cannot be made. The census has been twice taken since 
 levying this tax, and a new apportionment would necessarily be very dif- 
 
172 
 
 ferent from the apportionment under the Act of 1861. Consequently the 
 collection of this tax now has become altogether impracticable, and, in 
 part at least, impossible. Would it not be as well, then, to recognize the 
 fact that this country from 1861 to 1865 was in a state of war, and that in 
 parts of the States taxes of any kind were not and could not be collected; 
 that during this time neither the direct tax nor the income tax nor any 
 other United States tax was collected, and could not be collected in a large 
 part of the territory of the United States; that it is impossible at this late 
 day to go back over all these accounts and open them up anew, and ex- 
 pect to mete out even-handed justice the same as though there had been 
 no war ? We cannot now collect the income tax or the internal revenue 
 tax that was not paid in those years, and these taxes were many times 
 larger than the direct tax. We could not now collect any of these taxes 
 that were not paid, and we could not collect the full direct tax if it were 
 undertaken. 
 
 It is therefore recommended that all direct tax laws be repealed, and 
 that the bills referred to be laid on the table. 
 
 It may not be out of place to refer here to a suggestion made by the late 
 Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Folger, in a communication printed as a 
 part of this report, that in the adjustment of the direct tax of 1861 an 
 account should be taken of the surplus distributed under the law of 1836. 
 The fourth installment of the sum which the Act of 1836 authorized to be 
 distributed among the States accepting it was never paid, and claims have 
 been recently preferred by certain States for this fourth installment. It is 
 claimed on the one hand that the acceptance by the States which shared 
 in the distribution under the Act of 1836 amounted to a contract which 
 bound the Government to pay over the full sum of $37,468,859 embraced 
 in the Act. But, on the other hand, one condition of the Act was " that 
 when said money or any part thereof shall be wanted by the said Secre- 
 tary to meet appropriations by law, the same shall be called for, in ratable 
 proportions, within one year, as nearly as conveniently may be, from the 
 different States with which the same is deposited." 
 
 ^ This surplus, distributed under the Act of 1836, was shared in by twenty- 
 six States. It had been collected from the people of these States. There 
 was no great inequality probably in the payment or distribution of this 
 surplus, but now to collect the nine or ten millions claimed to be due to 
 the twenty-six States from the people of the whole country and pay it over 
 to those States would be manifestly unjust. If it be as important as it is 
 claimed to be to square the accounts between these twenty-six States and 
 the United States, it is suggested that an easy and just way to do it would 
 be to call in the first installment and with that pay the fourth installment. 
 There can surely be no question as to the right of the Government to call 
 for any or all of the distributed surplus. 
 
 The barest consideration of these claims shows how difficult it is to go 
 back and open up these accounts with a view to a more equitable settle- 
 ment than has been made. It is a question whether in attempting it 
 greater injustice would not be done than would exist if they were let 
 alone. 
 
 In order to show the condition of the claims arising under the Act of 
 1836, the opinion of Justice Harlan on petition of Virginia for mandamus 
 (Supreme Court, October term, 1883) is printed in connection with the 
 communication of the late Secretary. 
 
 Communications from the First Comptroller, Hon. William Lawrence, 
 and from the late Secretary, the Hon. Charles J. Folger, containing certain 
 recommendations, are herewith submitted as a part of this report, and also 
 
173 
 
 the opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan on the surplus distributed under the 
 law of 1836. It will be seen that the recommendations of the late Secre- 
 tary and of the First Comptroller are not altogether in harmony with the 
 recommendations here submitted. 
 
 A. J. WARNER. 
 
 BENTON McMillan. 
 
 CHAS. B. LORE. 
 
 Treasury Department, June 14, 1884. 
 
 Sir: I have the honor of acknowledging receipt from you of H. K Bill No. 110, entitled 
 *' A Bill to adjust certain accounts between the tJnited States and the several States and 
 Territories and the District of Columbia." 
 
 This bill relates to the direct tax of $20,000,000 annually laid upon the United States, 
 and apportioned to the States, the Territories, and the District of Columbia under the 
 Act of Congress passed August 5, 1861 (12 Stat, at Large, p. 294). The purpose of the bill 
 is to relieve and discharge from further liability for that tax those States and Territories 
 which have not paid the portion thereof apportioned to them respectively, and to repay, 
 out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to those States and Terri- 
 tories which have paid any portion, the sums by them respectively paid. Though by the 
 Act above cited this tax was made an annual one, an attempt to collect it for more than 
 one year has never been made. By that attempt there were collected about $15,000,000, 
 principally from the States which did not seek to go out of the Union, and there were 
 left uncollected about $5,000,000, principally in the States which did seek to go out of the 
 Union. The sum uncollected remains a charge against those States, and for the purposes 
 of this letter it may be assumed that it is a valid and enforceable charge. It is plain, 
 however, that no legislator at this day would propose to raise revenue by a tax of that 
 kind. There is no need of resorting to such method. The revenues of the Government, 
 irom sources not so extraordinary, and collectible by means and appliances not so objec- 
 tionable as those involved therein, are ample for its purposes. They are, indeed, super- 
 abundant, and the concern of statesmen is rather how they may be reduced than how 
 they may be increased. The Government, then, needs not the money to be got by enforc- 
 ing this tax. At the same time it is plain that to enforce it would put a grievous burden 
 •upon the people of the States which are in default in payment. It needs no array of facts 
 to show this. Congress, in one, if not both branches, has this session considered the 
 proposition of large pecuniary aid to these people, to help them place and keep up com- 
 mon schools, and the Senate has passed a bill therefor. If there be need for that succor, 
 there would be harm in enforcing'this charge. It is to be considered, too, that while taxes 
 are seldom looked upon with favor, this would be specially objectionable. The purpose 
 for which it was laid can but be remembered with distaste. It can scarcely be expected 
 that there would be cheerful aid from the State authorities in the enforcement of it. It 
 may be doubted whether there would be any. Indeed, it would, without further legisla- 
 tion, have to be enforced by the machinery provided by the Act under which it was laid. 
 This would call for the appointment of numerous Federal officials, who would go among 
 the people as obnoxious exactors. I think it must be conceded that there is, and ever will 
 be, great reluctance to ever setting about the collection of this tax. That it never had 
 great favor is shown by the fact that it was never put in force but one year. In practical 
 effect, then, the law for it is obsolete. Why, then, should there remain this unenforced 
 liability, a menace to the people, the enforcement of which is called for by no public need, 
 nor by any public opinion ? 
 
 In my judgment, the people and the property of the States in default should be relieved 
 and discharged from it. 
 
 But to give such relief and discharge would be to put an inequality of burden upon 
 the States which paid, unless they in turn were in some way relieved. This the bill 
 proposes to do by repaying to them the sums received from them. Assuming that the 
 tax was lawful, and the collection as far as made was warranted, this, apart from the 
 circumstances, would be a proposition to donate to the State surplus moneys of the 
 United States, a proposition which I should not favor. But as connected with the propo- 
 sition to discharge from onerous and needless liability one portion of the people, it takes 
 on a different character; it is presented as an adjustment between different bodies of the 
 people, and is worthy of acceptation. Indeed, it would be unjust to the people of the 
 loyal States to release the people of the once insurrectionarj^ States from their liability, 
 without refunding to the former the sums paid by them, and there are analogies in the 
 legislation of Congress. Acts have been passed, refunding to States moneys raised by 
 them for the raising, arming, and equipping of troops for the army of the Itnited States 
 in the civil war; and for making other refunds of like character. The purpose of laying 
 this direct tax was to aid in the ultimate payment of the extraordinary expenses of the 
 Government caused by the civil war. The raising, arming, and equipping of troops by 
 the States served to keep down those expenses for the time. It was a voluntary act upon 
 the part of the States. There is no violation of principle or fundamental law in repaying 
 to the States from the funds of the United States the cost thereof. The purpose and 
 effect of this bill is not so unlike in nature to that, as not also to be freed from the objec- 
 
• 174 
 
 tions to a bald distribution among the States of what are called the surplus revenues of 
 the United States. 
 
 Under the peculiar facts of the case, and as it is not likelj^ to become a precedent for 
 other disposals of Federal moneys, my judgment is that the proposed measure is a good 
 one. It is true that exactly equal justice cannot be done in carrying out the proposition 
 of the bill. Thus, in some of the Southern States, the tax was to some extent enforced. 
 Tax sales were made of pieces of real estate, in instances, for less than the value of them. 
 Only the surplus of purchase money over the tax and charges has been available to the 
 owners, and they have lost the difference between that and the total of the purchase 
 money, and between the purchase money and the real value. On the other hand, in most,, 
 if not all, of the Jforthern States, the payment to the United States of the tax was 
 assumed by the State Government, which collected the amount of its own people in its own 
 tax levy. Oi course, in the changes of citizenship and of ownership of taxable property, 
 while a repayment into the State Treasury will tend to reduce the amount of State tax, it 
 will not enure to the benefit of some of those who, in 1861, were taxpayers. But these 
 failures of full and general compensation in dealing with transactions so long past must 
 ensue, and are not to be potentially urged against proposed measures which, in the main^ 
 do work equal benefit. 
 
 It is worthy of consideration, too, whether this is not a suitable occasion to deal with 
 the matter of the Federal surplus moneys deposited, or to be deposited, with the States 
 by the Act of 1836 (5 Stat, at Large, 55-207). Why may not those States which made pay- 
 ment of their portion of the direct tax under the Act of 1861 be debited in the settlement 
 proposed by the bill before your committee with the amount of that deposit made with 
 them, and be paid the balance, and thus the liability to the United States under the 
 Deposit Act be extinguished ? Thus the anomalous "state of things existing under the 
 last named Act would be ended so far as those States are concerned. 
 
 It is true that some of the States, as Virginia and Arkansas, for instance, may not have 
 received their full proportion of the Deposit Fund of 1836, and it is true that in remitting 
 the liability of the States to repay the deposit with them there will, as to some of them, 
 be no claim for a refund under this bill against which that liability may be set off, and 
 that therefore complete equality of benefit and burden may not' be realized. It is well to' 
 consider, however, whether, inasmuch as it is desirable that the relation of creditor and 
 debtor between the United States and the States be closed, it should not be done at this 
 favorable opportunity, though at the sacrifice of complete equality. In connection here- 
 with, I refer to the fifty-third section of the Direct Tax Act (see 12 Stat, at Large, pp. 311,^ 
 312), and suggest that there may be instances in which the principal of that section may 
 be applied. 
 
 I also inclose herewith a communication to me from the First Comptroller of the 
 Treasury, which presents views in accord with some of those expressed by me, and gives 
 tables of value, and a draft of a bill; and to this communication I ask attention. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 CHAS. J. FOLGER, Secretary. 
 
 Hon. A. J. Warner, Chairman of Sub-Committee of Committee on Claims, House of 
 Representatives. 
 
 Treasury Department, First Comptroller's Office, ) 
 Washington, D. C, May 2, 1884. j 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to state that I have received a letter from the Honorable Wade 
 Hampton, of the Senate of the United States, dated twenty-fourth ultimo, transmitting 
 to me a copy of Senate Bill No. 795, " to adjust certain accounts between the United States 
 and the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia," and asking me to 
 
 five my views on it. I have also received a letter, dated twenty-fifth ultimo, from the 
 [on. Barclay Henley, of the House of Representatives, transmitting a copy of House 
 Bill No. 110, which is in form similar to said Senat'e bill. This latter letter is addressed 
 to you and to me jointly, and asks "to be furnished with the views" of the Treasury 
 Department, and with mine also in relation thereto. 
 
 The object of these bills is to remit, so far as not collected or paid, the direct taxes laid 
 upon and apportioned to the States, Territories, and District of Columbia, under the 
 Direct Tax Act of August 5, 1861, and to refund to such States, Territories, and District, 
 respectively, the amount of such taxes so far as paid in any mode whatever. 
 
 I have considered this subject with care, and now have the honor to state that, in my 
 judgment, it is alike just, judicious, and practicable to remit all such taxes not yet col- 
 lected, to refund the amounts paid in any form by any State or Territory, and to refund 
 to private persons, or their legal representatives, all amounts of such tax by them paid, 
 or collected by sale of real estate or otherwise. I have accordingly prepared the draft of 
 a bill to effect these objects, which I have the honor to submit for your consideration. 
 
 I will briefly state some of the reasons in support of the views above presented : The 
 amounts apportioned to States which have not in any form paid, or been credited with 
 any sum, as the accounts stand in this office, are as follows : 
 
175 
 
 Alabama $529,313 33 
 
 Arkansas ..- 261,886 00 
 
 Dakota... 3,241 33 
 
 Florida 77,522 67 
 
 Georgia 584,367 33 
 
 Louisiana 385,886 67 
 
 Mississippi 413,084 67 
 
 New Mexico 62,648 00 
 
 North Carolina ..-.- 576,194 67 
 
 South Carolina .- 363,570 67 
 
 Tennessee -- - 669,498 00 
 
 Texas 355,106 67 
 
 Utah 26,982 00 
 
 $4,309,302 01 
 
 Virginia $937,550 67 
 
 Less 208,479 65 
 
 729,071 02 
 
 Total $5,038,373 03 
 
 These are the sums charged against the States and Territories mentioned, all of which, 
 as stated, appear by the records of this office as unpaid. It is proper to say, however, as 
 to all these, except Alabama, Dakota, New Mexico, and Utah, that payments for each have 
 been made into the Treasury by direct tax Commissioners, which Have not been settled 
 in this office. Most of these payments are shown in the letter of the Commissioner of 
 Internal Revenue, appended to the Georgia case (4 Lawrence, Compt. Dec, 380). So, to a 
 limited extent, other payments have been made, but not yet credited. 
 
 I. As to the amounts thus apportioned, and which remain unpaid, only three things 
 can be done. (1) They can be paid by an increase of taxes in these States, if they should 
 respectively assume payment, or (2) they can be paid by enforcing collection by Act of 
 Congress of assessments against the real estate of private owners thereof, or (3) they can 
 be left uncollected. 
 
 (1) It is certainly well understood that the burdens of taxation, under State and local 
 authority in these States, is such that it cannot be desirable to increase it. It is not at all 
 certain that these States would increase and collect taxes for this purpose. With the 
 general feeling which now so fortunately prevails in favor of Congressional aid to States 
 to promote common school education, it is quite evident that Congress will not require 
 any such taxes to be levied. There is no necessity now for requiring the payment of 
 these amounts. The revenues of the Government are more than abundant; and it is not 
 at all probable that conditions will ever exist to require the payment of these amounts. 
 
 (2) Th6 same reasons operate against enforced collections under the authority of an 
 Act of Congress. In fact, it is believed that there is no desire now on the part of any 
 class of citizens that the payment of this tax should be enforced. This, in part, grows 
 out of the consideration having almost universal assent, that direct taxes are unequal, 
 and hence unjust. The apportionment against* States is made on the basis of population, 
 and not wealth, and is, hence, unequal as between States. When collection is enforced 
 by authority of Congress against real estate, the inequality and injustice are aggravated, 
 because the burden is imposed on a species of property generally less productive of profit 
 than any other, and hence least able to bear it, and chattel wealth, including a vast 
 amount of corporate resources, constituting in all a large proportion of the aggregate of 
 all forms of property, totally escapes from all burden, while requiring and receiving more 
 of the protecting care of Government, and hence reaping benefits at the expense of the 
 owners of real estate. The objectionable character of direct taxes is shown by the fact 
 that they have been authorized but three times since the adoption of the Constitution; 
 and although the Act of August 5, 1861 (12 Stat., 294), provided "that a direct tax of 
 twenty millions of dollars be and is annually laid upon the United States," yet the pur- 
 pose to collect ail beyond one year has been abandoned. It may, then, be assumed that 
 the direct taxes collected were unequal and unjust, as between the States, and still more 
 so among the property owners of the United States. 
 
 A wrong having thus been done, it should be repaired by remitting the taxes not col- 
 lected, and refunding those collected, upon the same principle sanctioned in many statutes 
 of remitting taxes improperly assessed, and of refunding those which have been improp- 
 erly collected. 
 
 (3) The result will undoubtedly be that the amounts of direct tax not yet paid will 
 remain unpaid. 
 
 II. In view of all this, the inquiry is now presented, whether anything, and, if so, what 
 should be done as to (1) the States which have assumed and paid their respective quotas 
 of the direct tax, and (2) as to those in which sums allowed by accounting officers in their 
 favor, respectively, have been withheld and credited on account of the quota of such 
 States. 
 
 It seems to me advisable to refund to such States the amount so assumed and paid or 
 withheld. This view is supported by all the considerations already mentioned, which 
 show the inexpediency of enforcing payment in the States the quotas of which have not 
 been paid. The policy of refunding is 'supported by the manifest injustice of retaining 
 money collected as direct taxes from some States from which others are exempt. Equality 
 
176 
 
 of burdens, as among the States, in those cases in which they are imposed in fixed pro- 
 portions directly upon the real estate therein, is simple justice. In such cases inequality 
 is injustice. Assuming that no more of the direct tax should be collected, the only mode 
 of securing equality is to refund the direct taxes collected. If this refund should be made, 
 States would receive money, substantially, as follows : 
 
 States and Teebitories. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 States and Territories. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Alabama i 
 
 $8,491 46 
 
 184,082 18 
 
 247,941 13 
 
 1,516 89 
 
 308,214 00 
 
 74,683 33 
 
 49,437 33 
 
 43,529 81 
 
 71,407 75 
 
 1,146,551 33 
 
 904,875 33 
 
 452,088 00 
 
 71,743 33 
 
 713,695 33 
 
 268,615 12 
 
 420,826 00 
 
 436,823 33 
 
 824,581 33 
 
 501,763 33 
 
 108,524 00 
 
 74,742 00 
 
 Missouri 
 
 $761,127 33 
 
 19,312 00 
 
 4,592 67 
 
 218,406 67 
 
 450,134 00 
 
 62,648 00 
 
 2,603,918 67 
 
 386,194 45 
 
 1.567,089 33 
 
 35,140 67 
 
 1,946,719 33 
 
 116,963 67 
 
 387,722 06 
 
 130,008 06 
 
 211,088 00 
 
 515,569 22 
 
 208,479 65 
 
 4,268 16 
 
 468,543 11 
 
 377,961 30 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 Nebraska. 
 
 California 
 
 Nevada 
 
 Colorado 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 New Mexico 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Delaware 
 
 District of Columbia 
 
 New York . 
 
 Florida 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Georgia 
 
 lUi nois 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Indiana . 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Iowa - - 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Tennessee. 
 
 Texas 
 
 Kentucky ._ 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Maine.- _ . . . _ 
 
 Virginia 
 
 Maryland 
 
 West Virginia 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Washington Territory. 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Michigan _ 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 
 
 
 Tables showing the condition of the direct tax accounts with several States and Terri- 
 tories will be found appended to the Georgia case (4 Lawrence, Compt. Dec, 376, 380). The 
 first table shows the accounts as they stand adjusted in this office. The second table 
 shows some payments not yet adjusted in this office, and hence the apparent discrepancy 
 between the tables. There are still other credits, to a limited extent, as to some States, 
 not shown by either of these tables. 
 
 III. In some of the States the Tax Commissioners, under the direct tax of June 7, 1862 
 (12 Stat., 422), sold the real estate of many private owners, and thus collected in part the 
 quota of tax apportioned to such States, respectively. The Senate and House bills sub- 
 mitted for my consideration propose to refund directly to the State the taxes thus collected 
 in each State. It is submitted that it would seem more equitable and just to refund 
 directly to the private parties who paid such taxes, or whose lands were sold to enforce 
 payment. This is the policy established as to the "surplus proceeds" arising from sales, 
 "after satisfying the tax, costs, charges, and commissions." Act August 5, 1861 (12 Stat., 
 304, Sec. 36); Act June 7, 1862 (12 Stat., 422); Act June 8, 1872 (17 Stat., 382); Act March 3, 
 1883 (22 Stat., 595). It is not perceived that any State can have any claim to a refund of 
 money paid by its citizens. It is believed the draft of a bill herewith submitted may be 
 made the basis of a judicious mode of disposing of the subject to which it applies. The 
 last clause of Section 2 of the bill is added oy reason of the undoubted rule of law learn- 
 edly discussed and clearly stated by the Supreme Court in United States vs. Boss, 92 U. S., 
 284. 
 
 I append hereto a table showing, with substantial accuracy, the amounts of taxes 
 remaining uncollected in several States and Territories, and 'which it is proposed to 
 remit, and the amounts which it is proposed to refund to the several States and Terri- 
 tories. 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, 
 
 WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Comptroller. 
 
 Hon Charles J. Folger, Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 A BILL. 
 
 Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be and is authorized and required 
 (1) to repay to the proper officer of each State the amount paid by such State for direct 
 taxes laid upon and apportioned to it as a direct tax, under the Direct Tax Act of 
 August 5, 1861 ; and (2) to pay to the proper officer of any such State any and all sums 
 allowed by the accounting officers of the Treasury Department as due to it, but withheld 
 and credited on account of such direct tax; and (3) to place to the credit of the Commis- 
 sioners of the District of Columbia, in the Treasury of the United States, a sum equal to 
 the amount paid by or collected from said District on account of said direct tax; and (4) 
 to cause to be audited by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department, and 
 paid to the original legal owner or owners of every lot or parcel of land sold for non- 
 payment of such taxes, or to his or their legal representatives, the amount paid at such 
 
177 
 
 sales, or otherwise collected, after deducting the cost thereof, including charges and com- 
 missions not otherwise paid. 
 
 And all such taxes laid upon any State, hut not paid, are hereby remitted, and the 
 charges made against such State therefor are canceled. All accounts with any State shall 
 be so adjusted that taxes not collected are remitted and amounts paid shall be refunded. 
 And a sufficient sum of money is appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not 
 otherwise appropriated to make the payments herein authorized. The word "State" 
 herein shall include "Territory " and the District of Columbia, so far as necessary to effect 
 the objects of this Act. 
 
 Sec. 2. In making payments as aforesaid to the original legal owner or owners, or their 
 legal representatives, of any lot or land sold for non-payment of direct taxes, and for 
 refunding of the surplus proceeds of such sales as now authorized (Act August 5, 1861, 12 
 Stat., 304, Sec. 36), and for refunding moneys collected or repaying money withheld, evi- 
 dence of payment to any officer authorized to receive it shall be deemed a payment into 
 the Treasury of the United States. 
 
 Supreme Court of the United States. 
 
 No. 16 (original), October term, 1883. 
 
 (Ex parte: In the matter of the Commonwealth of Virginia, petitioner. Petition for 
 mandamus. March 17, 1884.) 
 
 Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the Court : 
 
 This is an application for a writ of mandamus directed to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 commanding him to deliver to the proper officer of the Commonwealth of Virginia the 
 sum of $732,809 33, that being, it is claimed, the amount of the fourth installment of public 
 money of the United States required hj the Act of Congress approved June 23, 1836, to be 
 deposited with that State upon the terms and conditions therein prescribed. 
 
 The thirteenth and fourteenth sections of that Act— the only parts thereof material to 
 the present inquiry — are as follows : 
 
 " Sec. 13. And be it further enacted, That the money which shall be in the Treasury of the 
 United States on the first day of January, 1837, reserving the sum of $5,000,000, shall be 
 deposited with such of the several States, in proportion to their respective representation 
 in the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, as shall, by law, 
 authorize their Treasurers, or other competent authorities, to receive the same on the 
 terms hereinafter specified ; and the Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver the same to 
 such Treasurers or other competent authorities, on receiving certificates of deposit 
 therefor, signed by such competent authorities, in such form as may be prescribed by the 
 Secretary aforesaid, which certificates shall express the usual and legal obligations, and 
 pledge the faith of the State'for the safe keeping and repayment thereof, and shall pledge 
 the faith of the States receiving the same to pay the said moneys, and every part thereof, 
 from time to time, whenever the same shall be "required by the Secretary of the Treasury 
 for the purpose of defraying any wants of the public Treasury beyond the amount of the 
 five millions aforesaid; provided, that if any State declines to receive its j)roportion of 
 the surplus aforesaid, on the terms before named, the same shall be deposited with the 
 other States agreeing to accept the same on deposit, in the proportion aforesaid ; and pro- 
 vided further, that when said money, or any part thereof, shall be wanted by the said 
 Secretary to meet appropriations by law, the same shall be called for, in ratable propor- 
 tions, within one year, as nearly as conveniently may be, from the different States with 
 which the same is deposited, and shall not be called for in sums exceeding ten thousand 
 dollars from any one State, in any one month, without previous notice of thirty days for 
 every additional sum of twenty thousand dollars which may at any time be required. 
 
 " Sec 14. And be it further enacted, That the said deposits shall be made with said States 
 in the following proportions, and at the following times, to wit, one quarter part on the 
 first day of January, 1837, or as soon thereafter as may be; one quarter part on the first 
 day of April, one quarter part on the first day of July, and one quarter part on the first 
 day of October, all in the same year.*' (5 Stat., 55.) 
 
 On the twentieth of December, 1836, Virginia, by legislative enactment, signified her 
 acceptance of the terms and conditions of this Act, of which due notice was given to the 
 Secretary of the Treasury and to Congress. 
 
 On the first day of January, 1837, as appears from a letter of the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury to the Speaker of the llouse of Representatives, under date of January 3, 1837, the 
 balance in the Treasury— in excess of $5,000,000— subject to be deposited with the States, 
 was $37,468,859 97, of which Virginia would have been entitled, under the Act of June 23, 
 1836, to the sum of $2,931,237 34, payable in four installments. (Ex. Doc, second session 
 Twenty-fourth Congress, vol. 2, Doc. No. 62.) The first three installments were deposited 
 with the States at the respective dates fixed in the Act of Congress, but no part of the 
 fourth has ever been delivered. The reason whv the last installment was not deposited 
 on the first of October, 1837, is shown by the niessage of President Van Buren to Con- 
 gress, at its extra session in September of that vear. He said: "There are now in the 
 Treasury $9,367,214, directed by the Act of the twenty-third of June, 1836, to be deposited 
 with the States in October next. This sum, if so deposited, will be subject, under the law, 
 to be recalled, if needed, to defray existing appropriations ; and, as it is now evident that 
 
 12- 
 
178 
 
 the whole, or the principal part of it, will be wanted for that purpose, it appears most 
 
 E roper that the deposits should be withheld." (Cong. Globe and Appendix,-vol. 5, p. 8, 
 rst session Twenty-fifth Congress.) 
 
 The Secretary of the Treasury, in his report to Congress at the same session, after 
 alluding to the then disturbed condition of the finances, and to the fourth installment, 
 payable in October, 1837, suggested that, in view of the condition of the finances, " and the 
 importance of meeting with efficiency and good faith all the obligations of the Govern- 
 ment to the public creditors, it would be most judicious to apply the whole installment, 
 as fast as it is wanted and can be collected, to the prompt discharge of these obligations, 
 and that the last deposit with the States, not being a debt, but a mere temporary dis- 
 posal of a surplus, should be postponed until Congress, in some different state of the 
 finances, when such an available surplus may exist, shall see a manifest propriety and 
 ability in completing the deposits, and shall give directions to that effect." (Ex, Doc. and 
 Eeports of Committees, first session Twenty-fifth Congress, Doc. No. 2.) 
 
 By an Act of Congress approved October 2, 1837, it was provided " that the transfer of 
 the fourth installment of deposit directed to be made with the States under the thirteenth 
 section of the Act of June 23, 1836, be and the same is hereby postponed until the first day 
 of January, 1839; provided, that the three first installments under the said Act shall 
 remain on deposit with the States until otherwise directed by Congress." (5 Stat., 201.) 
 
 But on the first day of January, 1839, there was not, as the petition admits, in the 
 Treasury a sufficient amount to meet that installment after paying existing appropria- 
 tions for the current expenses of the Government. And by the third section of an Act 
 approved August 13, 1841, the entire Act of June 23, 1836, "excepting its thirteenth and 
 fourteenth sections, was repealed. (5 Stat., 440.) 
 
 The petition concedes that at no time since January 1, 1841, until within the past few 
 years, has there been in the Treasury a surplus of money large enough, after defraying 
 existing charges imposed by Congress, to make the fourth installment of deposit. 
 
 It is, however, alleged that there is now in the Treasury of the United States a sufficient 
 sum of money, after defraying all the existing charges imposed by Congress upon the 
 Treasury, and not needed or wanted by the Secretary to meet appropriations by law, or 
 to meet the interest accruing upon the public debt, or to meet all the expenditures of the 
 Government, estimated or ascertained by him for the present fiscal year, to make the 
 deposits of the fourth installment with all of the States with which said deposits were 
 directed to be made. 
 
 The present Secretary of the Treasury having refused, upon the demand of Virginia, by 
 its duly authorized agent, to use any part of the public moneys for the purpose of meet- 
 ing that installment, the present application has been made for a mandamus compelling 
 him to deposit with that State an amount equal to one fourth of the said sum of $2,931,- 
 237 32. 
 
 No case is made for a mandamus. If it was the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 in execution of the Act of 1836, to make the fourth installment of deposit on the day fixed 
 in that Act, whatever may have been on that day the wants of the public Treasury, his 
 failure to do so was legalized by the Act of October 2, 1837, postponing that deposit until 
 January 1, 1839. Of the latter Act the States could not complain, because that of January ' 
 23, 1836, created no debt or legal obligation upon the part of the Government, but only 
 made the States the depositaries, temporarily, of a portion of the public revenue not 
 needed, as was then supposed, for the purposes of the United States. 
 
 What was the duty of the Secretary on January 1, 1839, to which time, by the Act of 
 1837, the deposit of the fourth installment was postponed ? It is conceded that there was 
 not in the Treasury on January 1, 1839, a sufficient amount available and applicable to 
 public purposes, after paying necessary appropriations for the expenses of tne Govern- 
 ment, to meet that installment. He could not, therefore, do what he might then lawfully 
 have done, had the Treasury, on January 1, 1839, been in the condition contemplated by 
 Congress when the Act of 1837 was passed. The last direction given by the legislative 
 department upon the subject of this installment is found in the latter Act. No authority 
 has been conferred upon the Secretary, by subsequent legislation, to use any surplus rev- 
 enue accruing after January 1, 1839, for the purpose of meeting the fourth installment of 
 deposit. Congress, by the original Act, as we have seen, charged the payment of the 
 several installments upon the revenue, above $5,000,000, which might be in the Treasury 
 on January 1, 1837. That charge was transferred to and imposed upon the surplus rev- 
 enue in the Treasury on January 1, 1839. But no such charge has been imposed upon the 
 revenue accruing subsequently to the latter date. 
 
 Congress has permitted the thirteenth and fourteenth sections of the Act of 1836, as 
 modified by the Act of October 2, 1837, to stand, for the purpose, as we infer, of showing 
 not only the terms upon which the States received the first three installments of deposit, 
 but that those installments are held by the States, subject to be recalled in the discretion 
 of the United States. 
 
 But the legislative department of the Government seems purposely to have refrained 
 from making the fourth installment of deposit a charge directly upon any revenues accru- 
 ing since January 1, 1839. Since the last direction given by Congress upon the subject, 
 the financial necessities and obligations of the Government have laeen largely increased, 
 and this circumstance, perhaps, suggests the reason why the legislative department has 
 not fixed any day for the final execution of the Act of 1836. Be the reason what it may, 
 we are of opinion that the Secretary of the Treasury has no authority under existing leg- 
 islation, and without further direction from Congress, to use the surplus revenue in the 
 
179 
 
 Treasury, from whatever source derived, or whenever, since January 1, 1839, it may have 
 accrued, for the purpose of making the fourth installment of the deposit required by the 
 Act of 1836. 
 
 The^ petition for a mandamus must, consequently, be denied. 
 
 It is' so ordered. 
 
 The Fourth Installment claimed to he due under the Act of June 23, 1836. 
 
 Name of the State. 
 
 Date of Acts of Acceptance 
 by States. 
 
 Fourth Install- 
 ment Due. 
 
 Maine 
 
 New Hampshire . 
 Massachusetts... 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 New York 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 Pennsylvania — 
 
 Delaware 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Virginia 
 
 North Carolina . 
 South Carolina . 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Mississippi 
 Tennessee . 
 Kentucky . 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Missouri... 
 Indiana ... 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Michigan .. 
 Arkansas .. 
 
 January 26, 1837 
 
 January 11, 1837 
 
 January 19, 1837 
 
 November 17,1836 .-.. 
 
 December 29, 1836 
 
 November 10, 1836 -... 
 
 January 10, 1837 
 
 November 4, 1836 
 
 December 22, 1836 
 
 January 16, 1837 
 
 December 30, 1836 
 
 December 20, 1836 
 
 January 11, 1837 
 
 December 21, 1836 
 
 December 26, 1836 
 
 December 16, 1836 
 
 Februarv 7, 1837 
 
 March 13, 1837 
 
 May 2, 1837 
 
 October 29, 1836 
 
 December 16, 1836 
 
 December 19, 1836 
 
 December 29, 1836 
 
 December 21, 1836 
 
 December 17, 1836 
 
 July 22, 1836 
 
 October 29, 1836 
 
 $318,612 75 
 223,028 93 
 446,057 86 
 223,028 93 
 254,890 20 
 127,445 10 
 
 1,338,173 57 
 254,890 20 
 955,838 26 
 95,583 83 
 318,612 75 
 732,809 33 
 477,919 13 
 350;474 03 
 350,474 03 
 223,028 93 
 
 159,306 38 
 
 127,445 10 
 477,919 13 
 477,919 13 
 669,086 78 
 127,445 10 
 286,751 48 
 159,308 38 
 95,583 83 
 95,583 83 
 
 Total amount due all of said States. 
 
 1,367,214 97 
 
 Letter of the First Comptroller of the Treasury respecting the direct tax collected in South 
 
 Carolina. 
 
 Treasury Department, First Comptroller's Office, ) 
 Washington, D. C, February 14, 1885. j 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the ninth instant, 
 relative to the direct tax account of the State of South Carolina. 
 
 As you state, the quota of South Carolina was $363,570 67; of which $152,781 35 was col- 
 lected, leaving uncollected taxes aggregating $210,789 32. But no account with the State 
 for her said quota has yet been adjusted. 
 
 The account to which you refer, was with the Direct Tax Commissioners for South Car- 
 olina, who had been debited, not only with the State quota of taxes, but with penalties, 
 interest, costs, proceeds of sales of land, proceeds of redemption of land, resale and rent 
 of land, and other miscellaneous collections, and credited with cash deposited and with 
 disbursements for salaries of collectors and clerks, stationery, joostage, advertising, rent 
 of office, etc., and for the taxes remaining uncollected, as aforesaid. 
 
 Of the foregoing debits the aggregate sum of $241,503 92 is understood to be the pro- 
 ceeds of the leases and sales of land, as made to the Army and Navy, heads of familias, 
 citizens, etc.; and of said sum the one fourth part ($60,375 98) has been paid to the Gov- 
 ernor of the State of South Carolina, under Act of June 7, 1862, 12 Stat., 422. 
 
 Of the actual net avails of said leases and resales this office has not the means at hand 
 to determine. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Comptroller. 
 By J. TARBELL, Deputy Comptroller. 
 
 Hon. A. J. Warner, Chairman of Sub-Committee on Claims, House of Representatives, 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
180 
 EXHIBIT No. 21. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 6713. Printer's No., 7688. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. April 21, 1884 — Read twice, referred 
 to the Committee on Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Bennett introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To suspend the collection of the direct tax imposed hy an Act of Congress 
 passed August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one. 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
 of America, in Congress assembled,' That the collection in any of the States 
 heretofore declared in insurrection of the direct tax imposed by an Act of 
 Congress passed August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, entitled 
 "An Act to provide increased revenue from imports, to pay interest on the 
 public debt, and for other purposes," be and the same is hereby suspended 
 until otherwise provided by law. 
 
 # 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 22. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. S. 595. Report No. 124. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. December 11, 1883 — Mr. Colquitt 
 asked and by unanimous consent obtained leave to bring in the following 
 bill, which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Claims. 
 
 February 6, 1884 — Reported by Mr. Hoar with an amendment, viz. : Strike 
 out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italics. 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To repay the State of Georgia twenty-seven thousand one hundred and seventy- 
 five dollars and fifty cents, money advanced hy said State for the defense of 
 her frontiers against the Indians from seventeen hundred and, ninety five to 
 eighteen hundred and eighteen, and not heretofore repaid. 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America^ in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury is hereby authorized and directed to audit the claims of the State of 
 Georgia for moneys advanced by said State to pay troops ordered into 
 service for the defense of her frontiers against the -Indians from seventeen 
 hundred and ninety-five to eighteen hundred and eighteen, inclusive, and 
 not heretofore repaid to said State; and to pay to said State such sum, not 
 exceeding twenty-two thousand five hundred and sixty-seven dollars and 
 forty-two cents, as he shall find due and unpaid, out of any moneys in the 
 Treasury not otherwise appropriated; provided, that if there be any sums of 
 money due or owing to the United States by the State of Georgia, whatever 
 amount, if any, may be found due under the provisions of this Act to the 
 State of Georgia shall be credited to that State, and the balance only shall 
 be paid by the State of Georgia or the United States, as shall appear by 
 the striking of a balance to be due from the one party or the other. 
 
181 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 4703. Printer's No. 6496. Report No. 752. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. February 5, 1884 — Read twice, referred 
 to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed. 
 
 March 11, 1884 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
 the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Hammond introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To require the payment in cash to the State of Georgia of thirty-five thousand 
 five hundred and fifty-five dollars and forty-two cents, appropriated for said 
 State by an Act to refund to the State of Georgia certain money expended 
 by said State for the common defense i^ seventeen hundred and seventy- 
 seven, approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby directed and required to pay to the State of Georgia, 
 or its lawfully authorized agent, out of any money in the Treasury not 
 otherwise appropriated, the sum of thirty-five thousand five hundred and 
 fifty-five dollars and forty-two cents in cash, which sum was appropriated 
 for the said State by an Act to refund to the State of Georgia certain money 
 expended by said State for the common defense in seventeen hundred and 
 seventy-seven, approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three. 
 
 Sec' 2. That all laws or parts of laws, and all rulings or decisions of 
 any department of the Government, or of any officer thereof, inconsistent 
 with the foregoing section, be and are hereby repealed and annulled. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. S. 1948. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. March 28, 1884 — Mr. Brown intro- 
 duced the following bill, which was read twice and referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Claims: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To require the payment in cash to the State of Georgia of thirty-five thousand 
 five hundred and fifty-five dollars and forty-two cents appropriated for said 
 State by an Act to refund to the State of Georgia certain money expended 
 by said State for the common defense in seventeen hundred and seventy- 
 seven, approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby directed and required to pay to the State of Georgia, 
 or its lawfully authorized agent, out of any money in the Treasury not 
 otherwise appropriated, the sum of thirty-five thousand five hundred and 
 fifty-five dollars and forty -two cents in cash, which sum was appropriated 
 for the said State by an Act to refund to the State of Georgia certain money 
 expended by said State for the common defense in seventeen hundred and 
 seventy-seven, approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three. 
 
 Sec. 2. That all laws or parts of laws, and all rulings or decisions of 
 any department of the Government, or of any officer thereof, inconsistent 
 with the foregoing section, be and are hereby repealed and annulled. 
 
182 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 23. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. House of Representatives. Report No. 752. 
 
 PAYMENT TO STATE OF GEORGIA. 
 
 March 11, 1884 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
 the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Hammond, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the fol- 
 lowing 
 
 REPORT. 
 [To accompany bill H. R. 4703.] 
 
 The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred bill H. R. 4703^ 
 have considered the same, and submit the following report: 
 By Act approved March 3, 1883, it was enacted: 
 
 That the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby authorized and required to pay 
 to the State of Georgia, or its lawfully authorized agent, out of any money in the Treasury 
 not otherwise appropriated, the sum of thirty-five thousand five hundred and fifty-five 
 dollars and forty-two cents ; the payment herein directed to be made, being for money 
 paid by said State for supplies for the troops in seventeen hundred and seventy-seven,, 
 under the command of General James Jackson, engaged in local defense for the common 
 cause of independence, and which was not included in the account of the State of Georgia 
 in the settlement with the General Government under the Assumption Act of seventeen 
 hundred and ninety (22 IJ. S. Stat. 485). 
 
 The bill under consideration is to compel payment of said sum in cash^ 
 and that all laws or parts of laws, and all rulings or decisions of any 
 department of the Government, or of any officer thereof, inconsistent with 
 such payment, be repealed and annulled. 
 
 The necessity for the legislation arises because Mr. Lawrence, the First 
 Comptroller of the Treasury, decided that the amount so appropriated 
 should not be paid, but be entered as a credit upon an alleged indebted- 
 ness of the State of Georgia to the United States, on account of its quota 
 of direct tax levied by Acts of 1861 and 1862; and therefore the money has 
 been withheld. 
 
 A little history will cast much light upon the subject. The Act of August 
 5, 1861, provided for collectors and assessors, and for lists of property 
 " from all persons owning, possessing, and having the care or management 
 of any lands," etc., for the purpose of taxing the same. (Sections fourteen 
 to twenty-nine, inclusive.) 
 
 Section thirty-three enacted that "the taxes so assessed shall be and 
 remain a lien upon all lands and other real estate of the individuals who 
 may be assessed for the same " for two years. 
 
 Section fifty-two provided that as soon as Federal authority could be 
 restored in the Southern States, the tax should be collected " from the per- 
 sons residing or holding property or stocks therein." 
 
 The eighth section enacted: 
 
 That a direct tax of twenty miUions of dollars be and is hereby annually laid upon the 
 United States, and the same shall be and is hereby apportioned to the States respectively, 
 in manner following: * * * To the State of Georgia, five hundred and eighty -four 
 thousand three hundred and sixty-seven and one third dollars. 
 
 To the other States according to their populations respectively. But so 
 far from proposing to tax the States as such, by section thirteen, it expressly 
 
183 
 
 exempted from such taxes " all property of, of whatever kind * * * 
 belonging to the United States or any State," etc. 
 
 Section fifty-three enacted: "That any State or Territory and the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, may lawfully assume, assess, collect, and pay into the 
 Treasury of the United States the direct tax, or its quota thereof, imposed 
 by this Act upon the State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, in its 
 own way and manner, by and through its own officers, assessors, and col- 
 lectors," with addition of fifteen per cent if paid by the thirtieth of June, 
 and of ten per cent if paid by the last of September of the tax year. It 
 further provided, " that whenever notice of the intention to make such pay- 
 ment by the State, Territory, and the District of Columbia shall have been 
 given to the Secretary of the Treasury," then the United States should 
 cease trying to collect by its officers, unless such State should "be in 
 default." In that event the Secretary of the Treasury "was to collect all 
 or any part of said direct tax the same as though said State, Territory, or 
 District had not given notice .nor assumed to levy, collect, and pay said 
 taxes or any part thereof (Section 46)." 
 
 Said section fifty-three further provided: 
 
 That the amount of direct tax apportioned to any State, Territory, or the District of Col- 
 umbia, shall be liable to be paid and satisfied in whole or in part by the release of such 
 State, Territory, or District, duly executed to the United States, of any liquidated and 
 determined claim of such State, Territory, or District of equal amount against the United 
 States, with the same abatement as if it were paid in money. (See 12 U. S. Stat., 292-312.) 
 
 Another law of June 7, 1862, applied only to the States in "insurrection 
 or rebellion." It made the tax upon each parcel of land in each State 
 chargeable with the tax due upon that parcel, plus fifty per cent, and 
 made a lien on the lands therefor. It provided that "the owner or owners 
 of said lots or parcels of lands " might discharge them by paying within a 
 fixed time. 
 
 It provided for commissions to collect the tax in those States, to sell the 
 lands of defaulting owners, etc., but was silent as to any assumption of the 
 tax by those States. (12 U. S. Statutes, 422-426.) 
 
 From time to time Congress passed other Acts as to direct taxes, but 
 none of them seem to have any bearing upon this question. For instance, 
 that of May 13, 1862, enlarged the release proviso to include certain expend- 
 itures of the States in sending troops to the war, etc. {lb., 384); that of 
 July 1, 1862, Hmited the collection to one year, till April, 1865 (lb., 489), 
 and that of February 6, 1863, provided for sales of lands and redemption 
 by their "owners" (lb., 640). 
 
 All the States, etc., "formally assumed the payment of the tax, except 
 Delaware, the Territory of Colorado, and the eleven insurrectionary States." 
 (Report Commissioner Internal Revenue, 1870. Sen. Ex. Doc. 24, first 
 session Forty-sixth Congress, 236). 
 
 The collection of them was suspended as to unpaid sums by Congress. 
 
 In 1868 an account was opened upon the books of the Treasury Depart- 
 ment against the State of Georgia, for her said quota of the direct tax, 
 though Georgia had in no way assumed to pay the same. We stop not 
 now to discuss why that was done, but proceed with the history. 
 
 The Western and Atlantic Railroad belonged to Georgia. The State 
 bought for said road some of the rolling stock which had been used by the 
 United States at the South in prosecuting the late war. This property was 
 paid for in cash, the last payment being on the sixteenth of October, 1867. 
 By an Act approved the third of March, 1877, because of alleged over- 
 valuation of said property when sold, Congress authorized the reopening of 
 said account and adjustment thereof. The Act required: 
 
184 
 
 That when said claims shall have been adjusted in pursuance of the provisions of this 
 Act, the Secretary of War be and he is hereby authorized to issue his warrant on the 
 Treasury of the United States to the Governor of Georgia or his order, for the amount 
 of money it is found ought to be refunded to said railroad on account of said settlement 
 (19 U. S. Stat., 402-3). 
 
 The amount found to be due the State on that account was $199,038 58. 
 (See Q. M. Genl's Report, 1877, p. 120.) 
 
 So far as we are advised, no question of set-off was then made. Cer- 
 tainly the money was paid in cash. 
 
 On the third of March, 1879, Congress enacted in the Sundry Civil Bill: 
 
 That the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby directed to pay to the State of 
 Georgia $72,298 94, for advances made to the United States for the suppression of hostilities 
 by the Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee Indians in 1835, 1836, 1837, and 1838, and that said 
 sum be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 When payment was requested, the Third Auditor called attention to this 
 direct tax account, and asked information. Mr. Sherman, Secretary of 
 the Treasury, referred to Hon. A. G. Porter, First Comptroller: 
 
 Whether said amount should be set off against the amount of the direct tax under Act 
 August 5, 1861, and Acts amendatory thereto, apportioned to the State. 
 
 He wrote an opinion. In stating the facts, after giving a Synopsis of the 
 Acts of 1861 and of June, 1862, ante, he added: 
 
 The State of Georgia never assumed the amount apportioned to that State, or any part 
 of it. 
 
 And then, after stating the question, he said: 
 
 If the sum apportioned is a debt owing by the State of Georgia as a political corporation, 
 then it may be assumed that it ought to be so credited. If, however, it is a debt owing by 
 the persons within that State, whose lands have been taxed, and not by the State itself, 
 then payment ought not to be withheld. 
 
 He then called attention to the decision of Mr. McCulloch, Secretar}^ of 
 the Treasury in 1866, as to Texas, and said: 
 
 Mr. McCulloch treated the apportionment of the direct tax as a debt owing by citizens 
 of Texas, belonging to the class whose property was taxed, and not as a debt owing by the 
 State in its political capacity. 
 
 Proceeding, he said: 
 
 The privilege of a State to assume implies that the debt before the assumption was not its 
 own. Before the adoption of the Constitution the person whose property was charged 
 with the tax owed the tax to the State, because the State imposed it and levied and col- 
 lected it. Since the adoption of that instrument the United States has imposed the tax, 
 and has itself levied and collected it. The obligation of the citizen is therefore to the 
 Union and not to the State, and he, and not the State, is the debtor. 
 
 Enforcing his view by various citations, urging that any other would 
 leave the States with power to thwart the collection of taxes, in an emer- 
 gency, directly from the people, and declaring that this direct tax of 1861 
 could still be collected when the United States wishes, he concluded: 
 
 It follows, therefore, that it is my duty to direct that the sum appropriated to the State 
 of Georgia shall not be credited as upon a debt owing by that State to the United States, 
 but shall be paid at once to the State. 
 
185 
 
 In answer to a resolution by the Senate this decision was transmitted, 
 ''with accompanying papers," to the Senate by Secretary Sherman on May 
 24, 1879. (See Senate Ex. Doc. No. 24, first session Forty-sixth Congress.) 
 
 The "accompanying papers" show that, before this opinion was made, 
 attention was called to the fact that Kansas, Missouri, West Virginia, and 
 other States had been credited with various sums there stated. Mr. Porter 
 paid no attention to them, because (as we presume) they had assumed 
 their respective quotas, and thus made them a debt against the States as 
 such. Subsequently, in May, 1881, Mr. Lawrence, the successor of Mr. 
 Porter, decided the Kansas case. His opinion contains thirty-three head- 
 notes and twenty-five sub-headnotes. Those which are material, in our 
 opinion, to the present discussion, are as follows: 
 
 In May, 1879, it was decided by the then First Comptroller that the direct tax appor- 
 tioned to the State of Georgia by the Acts of August 5, 1861, and of June 7, 1862, was 
 not a debt of the corporate State, which had not by an Act assumed it; and that although 
 the tax had not been paid, yet money due from the United States to the State must be 
 paid to the latter, and could not be used by way of set-off or in discharge of any part of 
 the claim for direct taxes. (S. Ex. Doc. 24, first session, Forty-sixth Congress.) That con- 
 clusion is correct in law. The decision of that question was affected somewhat by the Act 
 of June 7, 1862, not applicable to the question now presented. But the same result would 
 be reached without reference to it. Under the Constitution, Congress cannot levy or 
 enforce the collection of a tax or assessment on a corporate State which has not assumed 
 it. The National Government does not operate on States in the collection of revenues, 
 but on persons or property, or both. (2 Lawrence, Compt., Dec, 310.) 
 
 He further held that his predecessors had decided that Kansas had vol- 
 untarily assumed her quota of the tax; that he was bound by that decision, 
 and that therefore a sum appropriated to Kansas should not be paid, but 
 must be placed to her credit against said assumed debt. (lb. 324.) 
 
 The decision of Lawrence, Comptroller, made twelfth May, 1883, refusing 
 to pay this money to Georgia, has thirty headnotes. We do not believe that 
 we need differ with any of them but the sixth, seventh, tenth, and nine- 
 teenth. We call attention to them, and the eighth also. 
 
 They are: 
 
 6. The First Comptroller had •jurisdiction and authority in May, 1868, to certify a bal- 
 ance as due from the State of Georgia to the United states, for the quota of direct taxes 
 apportioned to said State by the direct tax Act of August 5, 1861. (12 Stat, 294.) 
 
 7. The Comptroller now in office cannot inquire whether the Comptroller in office in 
 May, 1868, who then certified a balance due from the State of Georgia to the United States 
 on account of direct taxes, and before him sufficient evidence to authorize such action, or 
 whether on such evidence as he then had he properly construed the law. The J udicial Courts 
 or Congress can furnish the only relief in such case, if the Comptroller erred in charging 
 the State with such liability. 
 
 8. Congress may by law require the accounting officers of the Treasury Department to 
 set off a claim of the'^United States against a State, when such State demands payment of 
 a claim due to it from the United States, although in such case Congress might not under 
 the Constitution charge such corporate State with a liability and enforce its payment in 
 any other mode except by such set-off". 
 
 9. The legislation of Congress in relation to the quota of direct taxes apportioned to 
 Missouri and West Virginia seems in principle to recognize the correctness of the judg- 
 ment of the First Comptroller, by which, in May, 1868, he certified a balance as due from 
 the State of Georgia to the United States for its quota of the direct tax apportioned to that 
 State by the Act of August 5, 1861. 
 
 10. The direct tax Act of August 5, 1861 (12 Stat., 311, Section 53), provides a special statu- 
 tory mode of paying the quota of tax apportioned to any State by declaring that it shall be 
 liable to be paid by set-off " of any liquidating and determined claim of such State * * * 
 against the United States." 
 
 ******* * **** 
 
 19. The balance certified by the First Comptroller, May 29, 1868, as due to the United 
 States from the State of Georgia, for its quota of direct tax, under the Act of August 5, 
 1861, has not been in any form set aside or rendered inoperative. 
 
186 
 
 First — Did any Comptroller ever, in any fair sense, try to raise a debt 
 against Georgia for this tax? Mr. Lawrence, in this opinion, stated the 
 facts in this language: 
 
 May 11, 1868, by Report No. 55,448 the Fifth Auditor " examined and adjusted an account 
 between the United States and the State of Georgia," and found "that' the sum of $584,- 
 367 33 is due from said State to the United States * * * for amount of direct tax 
 imposed and apportioned by the eighth section of" the direct tax Act of August 5, 1861, 
 "amount to be debited to the State of Georgia on the books of the Register of the 
 Treasury." 
 
 May 19, 1868, the First Comptroller certified to the Register a balance due and payable 
 as stated in the above report, and it was accordingly charged on the Register's books, as 
 a debt due from the State of Georgia to the United States. 
 
 September 3, 1874, the Fifth Auditor by Report No. 5 adjusted an account between the 
 United States and T. P. Robb, Samuel A. Pancoast, and John C. Bates, Commissioners of 
 Direct Tax for the State of Georgia, from August 1, 1865, to December 15, 1866, and f oun d 
 them chargeable with " amount of direct tax laid upon the State of Georgia by Act of 
 Congress approved August 5, 1861, $584,367 33." The report shows costs chargeable to the 
 State $649 72, and finds the Commissioners entitled to credit for salaries and expenses 
 $9,835 06, amount of taxes remaining uncollected $501,939 86, amount refunded to tax- 
 payers on account of collections improperly made $46 17, and cash deposited'$71,407 75, 
 covered into the Treasury by miscellaneous warrants numbered and dated in 1866, 
 respectively, 747 March 31, 524 June 25, 697 June 30, 596 September 29, and 726 Decem- 
 ber 31. 
 
 January 9, 1875, the Acting First Comptroller certified a balance of $1,788 22 " due to 
 the United States from the Commissioners, as stated in the above report." The amount 
 of these warrants was placed to the credit of the State of Georgia in the Register's Office 
 on said account for direct taxes. 
 
 In May, 1868, the amount fixed by the statute as the quota of Georgia 
 was charged to her, and afterwards, in 1874, the same amount was charged 
 by the same office to the United States Commissioners of Direct- Tax for 
 the State of Georgia, and they were credited with various sums collected 
 and uncollected, and among others an "amount refunded to taxpayers on 
 account of collections improperly made, $46 17." The dealing with " tax- 
 payers " showed that the State was not considered the debtor. The " tax- 
 payers " owed only if GeorgiU had not assumed the debt. Taking the two 
 accounts together, it seems plain that the account was so stated only for 
 convenience of keeping the books of the Department. Any other view 
 makes us to assume that the officer raising the account acted in ignorance 
 of the law. The First Comptroller could have no jurisdiction under the 
 Act of 1861 to state an account against any State which had not assumed 
 the debt. 
 
 It is true, as stated in the tenth headnote, supra, that said Act provides 
 a special statutory mode of paying the quota of tax apportioned to any 
 State, by declaring that it " shall be liable to be paid" by set-off " of any 
 liquidated and determined claim of such State * * ^ against the 
 United States." But more is true. That "special statutory mode of pay- 
 ing" is in the words which Mr. Lawrence omitted from the quotation, viz., 
 " by the release of such State * * * didy executed to the United States.''^ 
 By such release, with a view to such credit, the State consents to the 
 account against it, and thus assumes the debt. It was by such a release 
 that Missouri was credited (see Act July 17, 1862, in said Senate Ex. 
 Doc. 24, p. 197). The same is true as to West Virginia, under the Act of 
 February 25, 1867 (7b., 207). They assumed the debt and sought to have 
 certain credits allowed. Georgia did not assume it, and therefore nothing 
 in their cases authorizes the raising of such an account against Georgia. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence admits that this action of his predecessor is the only 
 obstacle, and that it is not in the way of payment if it was " unauthorized 
 or void." If no statute authorized it, it was " unauthorized." No statute 
 created such a debt except by the consent of the State, and the State did 
 
, 187 
 
 not consent. There is no pretense that the First Comptroller found such 
 fact upon inquiry. It is only stated that he did an act from which it is 
 inferred that he found such fact. But that does not follow; for he may 
 have raised the account for other reasons. Congress cannot make such a 
 debt against a State without its consent. There was no consent, and there- 
 fore the Act raising such account, when considered whether that Act made 
 Georgia the debtor, is "void." 
 
 We admit that " all claims or demands whatever by the United States 
 * * * shall be settled and adjusted in the Department of the Treasury '^ 
 (Rev. Stat., § 236). But there must be a claim of demand to adjust. The' 
 statute declared there could be none against a State till it assented, and 
 Georgia nevOT assented. So, while the Second Comptroller must " examine 
 all accounts" settled by the Auditors (lb., 273), and the First Auditor 
 "must examine all accounts accruing in the Treasury Department" (lb., 
 277) ; there must be a debtor, by law, before an account can exist for 
 examination. 
 
 It is useless to examine whether Congress " may so far declare a State 
 indebted to the United States as to secure satisfaction of the debt by with- 
 holding from it by set-off, as in this case, money admitted to be due from 
 the United States to such State," for Congress has never made such decla- 
 ration. Nor need we discuss whether Congress had power " to enforce the 
 collection of tax against the corporate property of the State," though Mr. 
 Lawrence said " the power to do so in time of war seems undoubted." Mr. 
 Thaddeus Stevens, when he presented the direct tax bill to Congress, in 
 the midst of war and to raise means promptly to prosecute the war, said 
 "Congress has no constitutional power to assess taxes upon a State. It 
 must assess it upon the individual (Sen. Ex. Doc. 24, ante, page 41). And 
 the Act levying the tax expressly exempted all State property. It sought 
 not to exercise such power if it existed. 
 
 Suppose we admit that Congress might legislate as the eighth head- 
 note declares; Congress has not so legislated in this case. On the contrary, 
 an effort to have it so legislate was defeated. On the sixth of December, 
 1882, the bill was reached and taken up in the House. 
 
 Mr. Holman, as soon as the report had been read, said: 
 
 The question is presented whether or not this sum should be paid by the United States 
 directly to the State of Georgia, or whether it shall be allowed as a credit to that State on 
 the amount of direct tax apportioned against the State under the Act of August 5, 1861. 
 
 Mr. Turner replied: 
 
 The direct tax is a tax due by the people of the State, not by the State in its corporate 
 or aggregate capacity, etc. (Congressional Record, vol. 59, page 59.) 
 
 The issue thus made was debated pro and con. Mr. Holman moved to 
 add to the bill — 
 
 Provided, however, that the said sum, $35,555 42, shall not be paid by the Secretary of the 
 Treasury until the sum due the United States of direct taxes apportioned to the State of 
 Georgia under the Act entitled " An Act to provide increased revenue from imports to 
 pay the interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved August 5, 1861, 
 shall have been adjusted. {lb., 65.) 
 
 A motion to strike out the enacting clause was lost; the ayes were fifty- 
 two and the nays were seventy-six. 
 
 Mr. Holman's proposed amendment was also lost by ayes fifty-three to 
 nays ninety. An effort to adjourn was lost by eighty nays to fifty yeas. 
 
188 
 
 Upon the passage of the bill the yeas and nays were demanded, and it 
 was passed by yeas ninety-six to nays eighty. {lb., 68.) The report was 
 read in the Senate, and the bill passed without debate. (Congressional 
 Record, vol. 62, pp. 3660, 3670-3672.) 
 
 Again, we think the payments made to the State of Georgia, aforesaid, 
 were at least waivers of any such claim by the United States as is here 
 asserted, and did set aside and render inoperative said certification of the 
 account in May, 1868, if it ever were operative for the purpose claimed. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence does not claim that the decision of his predecessor was 
 correct. He seems to admit, in the opinion, that he would reverse it if he 
 thought he could. He really suggests this legislation in his annual report 
 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883. His language was this: 
 
 In 1868 the First Comptroller then in office certified balances due to the United States 
 from the several States respectively, for direct taxes due and unpaid, under the direct tax 
 Act of August 5, 1861 (12 Stat., 292), and such States were accordingly debited on the books 
 in the office of the Register of the Treasury. It may well be doubted whether any cor- 
 porate State was properly so charged, but as the Comptroller had jurisdiction of the sub- 
 ject-matter, his action, even if erroneous, cannot be treated as void by the Comptroller 
 now in office. The result is, that money due, or which may become due, from the United 
 States to any State so charged, to the extent of the amount so ch^arged, cannot be paid to 
 the State, but, by usage and law is to be applied by way of set-ofF. It may thus happen 
 that some States will in this mode pay the direct tax, while others indebted in the same 
 form will continue so indebted, and nence there will seem to be inequality, if not injustice, 
 in the dealings between the United States and such States. The monejr appropriated by 
 the Act of March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 485), "to refund to the State of Georgia certain money 
 expended by said State for the common defense in 1877," was withheld and applied by 
 way of set-off on the sum charged against said State for direct taxes. If it be the purpose 
 of Congress that moneys due to such States shall be paid, it is respectfully suggested that 
 provision should be made authorizing payment without reference to the charge against 
 any such States. 
 
 Suppose this money cannot be paid, and that Mr. Lawrence is right that 
 the judicial Courts or Congress can furnish the only relief in such case, if 
 the Comptroller erred in charging the State with such liability; still this 
 bill should pass, and for that very reason. The United States admits this 
 indebtedness to Georgia; it admits Georgia is not in debt to the United 
 States, and it has formally undertaken to pay this debt to Georgia. Why 
 should she be remitted to the Court of Claims? We see no reason therefor. 
 
 By reason of a real or supposed obstacle, unknown to Congress when the 
 bill for payment was passed, the debt of the United States has not been 
 paid. An officer of the United States erroneously put that obstacle in" the 
 way. It should be removed, unless there is some other reason to the con- 
 trary. 
 
 Is there any? There is none, unless the United States should refuse to 
 pay simply because Georgia did not pay the direct tax. Laying aside the 
 question whether this tax Act was operative within the States with which 
 the United States was then at war, a refusal on that ground seems to be 
 unjust for these and other reasons : Georgia does not owe the debt to the 
 United States, but, at most, parts of it are due from certain of her citizens 
 respectively. Only those citizens who in 1861 owned the lands taxed owe 
 the taxes, and no property is bound for the tax except those lands. If 
 Secretary McCullogh was right in his Texas decision, ante, and Mr. Porter 
 was right in the Georgia case, ante, Georgia could not, after a fixed day in 
 1862, assume the debts if she wished. Georgia cannot collect these taxes 
 without such assumption. 
 
 It does not seem just to collect from Georgia, as a State, any part of a 
 debt she does not owe, nor from her, as representing the land owners of 
 1861, by withholding money which belongs to Georgia as a State, and if, as 
 
189 
 
 representing any citizens, as representing all her citizens, whether owning 
 lands in 1861 or anything else at any time. 
 
 It does not seem that the United States will ever collect those direct 
 taxes of 1861. But could it and should it determine to do so, equal col- 
 lections should he made from all the Southern States simultaneously. To 
 make Georgia pay indirectly by withholding from her admitted dues from 
 the United States has not been the policy of the Government, as appears 
 from the payments already of over a quarter of a million of dollars to her 
 in cash since said account was raised in 1868. We do not think it should 
 become the policy of the Government; therefore we recommend that the 
 bill do pass. . 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. Senate Report No. 124. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. February 6, 1884 — Ordered to be 
 printed. 
 
 Mr. Hoar, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany bill S. 595.] 
 
 The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 595) to 
 .repay the State of Georgia $27,175 50, money advanced by said State for 
 the defense of her frontiers against the Indians, from 1795 to 1818, and not 
 heretofore repaid, have considered the same, and respectfully report : 
 
 The committee adopt the report made by Mr. Hoar, from the Committee 
 on Claims, February 8, 1882, and report the accompanying bill as a sub- 
 stitute for Senate Bill 595, and recommend its passage. 
 
 [Senate Report, No. 148, Forty-seventh Congress, first session.] 
 
 The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 270) to repay to the State of 
 Georgia $27,175 50, money advanced by said State for the defense of her frontier against 
 the Indians, from 1795 to 1818, and not heretofore repaid, have considered the same, and 
 respectfully report that a bill like this was introduced in the last Congress, and referred 
 by the Senate to this committee. Mr. Hereford made the following report by authority of 
 the committee : 
 
 The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill to repay to the State of Georgia 
 $27,175 50, for money advanced by said State for the defense of her frontiers against the 
 Indians, from 1795 to 1818, and not heretofore repaid, have had the same under considera- 
 tion, and make the following report: 
 
 The State of Georgia presents an account for money expended in the defense of her 
 frontiers against hostile Indians, as follows : 
 
 In the years 1795-1800 $4,607 00 
 
 In the years 1812-1814 1 16,801 38 
 
 In the years 1817-1818 5,766 04 
 
 Original vouchers on which Georgia disbursed said sums, except for the first item of 
 $4,607, were examined by the committee and compared with the account certified to have 
 been paid by the officials of the State of Georgia, stating the number of the warrant, name 
 of the officer, the number of the voucher, page in the Treasurer's book, and the amount 
 paid ; and the account corresponded with the vouchers in every particular, with the before- 
 mentioned exception. From these proofs the committee find due and unpaid the State of 
 Georgia the sum of $22,567 42. 
 
 The bill was referred to the Secretary of the Treasury, asking whether any of the items 
 contained therein have been paid by any special or general Act of Congress, or by anj* of 
 the proper departments, and if there is any reason why they should not be paid, and the 
 following reply was received, which is made a part of this report : 
 
190 
 
 Treasury Department, December 15, 1880. 
 
 Sir : In reply to your communication of the eleventh instant, inclosing bill for the relief 
 of the State of Georgia, and asking to be informed whether any of the items contained 
 therein have been paid by any special or general Act of Congress, or by any of the proper 
 departments, and if there is any reason why they should not be paid, 1 have the honor to 
 inform you that the Second Auditor of the Treasury reports that the claim of the State of 
 Georgia for repayment of $27,175 50 advanced for the defense of her frontier against Indians 
 from 1795 to 1818 has not been paid through his office; that the greater portion of the 
 time covered by the account is prior to the organization of his office (March 3, 1817), and 
 that the records thereof do not afford any information bearing upon the validity of the 
 claim. Further, that the Third Auditor reports that the records or his office do not show 
 that the said claim has been paid, or the claim been filed since it was withdrawn March 4, 
 1858, and invites attention to the letter of his office of January 22, 1880, in relation to the 
 subject, a copy of which is inclosed herewith. 
 
 The papers accompanying your letter are returned herein. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 JOHN SHERMAN, Secretary. 
 
 Hon. Frank Hereford, United States Senate. 
 
 Treasury Department, Third Auditor's Office, ) 
 Washington, D. C, January 22, 1880. 5 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the seventeenth 
 instant, requesting information relative to the claim of the State of Georgia for militia 
 expenses from December, 1795, to August, 1827. 
 
 In reply I have to state that it appears from the records of this office that "William M. 
 Varnum,' Esq., as agent for the State of Georgia, filed in this office a claim for payment to 
 certain commissioned officers from 1795 to 1818, on the sixteenth of February, 1858 (No. 
 2862). On the twenty-third of February, 1858, the agent withdrew vouchers numbered 43, 
 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, and 75, for payments of services since 1815, for reference to 
 the Second Auditor. These vouchers (pay-rolls) amounted to $10,718 26. 
 
 The whole amount filed February 16, 1858, was $49,056 39, and the balance of the claim 
 was withdrawn from this office March 4, 1858, by said agent, as will more fully be seen by 
 reference to the letter of this office to him of that date herewith inclosed, marked Exhibit 
 A. There is no evidence on file in this office that the State of Georgia has since that time 
 presented these claims, for settlement, to the accounting officers of the Treasury. 
 
 The claims withdrawn by the agent for reference to the Second Auditor have not been 
 returned to this office, and this office has no official knowledge of the action of the Second 
 Auditor thereon. The certified copy of abstract and letter of Hon. R. J. Atkinson, dated 
 March 4, 1858 (marked Exhibit A), herewith returned. 
 I am, very respectfully, 
 
 E. W. KEIGHTLEY, Auditor. 
 
 W. O. Tuggle, Agent for the State of Georgia, Washington, D. C. 
 
 That the protection of the several States and the citizens thereof from Indian hostilities 
 is, and has been from the organization of the Federal Government, a duty and a charge 
 incumbent on the United States, and when, in the absence of such protection, the States 
 themselves have made necessary expenditures for this purpose they should be reimbursed, 
 are principles well founded in law and justice, and fully sanctioned by an unbroken line 
 of precedents. 
 
 As the original vouchers for the expenditure of $4,607, in the years 1795 to 1800 inclusive, 
 were not furnished to the committee, said sum is not allowed. 
 
 The committee recommend the passage of the bill with the following amendments: 
 Strike out "$27,175 50" and insert "$22,567 42," also strike out " 1795" and insert " 1812." 
 
 It appears from the papers accompanying the bill that the original vouchers were mis- 
 laid, and only discovered during the administration of Governor J. E. Brown, in 1857; 
 that they were forwarded and presented for payment, and were pending before Congress 
 in 1861, and by order of the Senate in January, 1879, the vouchers and papers were delivered 
 to the agent of the State of Georgia. 
 
 We adopt Mr. Hereford's statement of the facts, but, for greater security in the case of 
 a claim so old, we prefer to recommend a bill providing that the claim be audited in the 
 Treasury Department before payment. 
 
 We therefore report the accompanying bill as a substitute for Senate bill and recom- 
 mend its passage. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 24. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 7032. Printer's No., 8269. Report No. 1658. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. May 20, 1884 — Read twice, committed 
 to the Committee of the Whole House, and ordered to be printed. 
 
191 
 
 Mr. Hammond, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported the fol- 
 lowing bill as a substitute for H. R. 6867: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To prevent the claim of the war taxes under the Act of August fifth, eighteen 
 hundred and sixty-one, and Acts amendatory thereof, by the United States, 
 as set-off against States having claims against the General Government. 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That it shall not be lawful for the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, or other person charged with or concerned in the 
 payment of any sum of money from the United States to any State of the 
 Union, to withhold the same from such State, or its duly authorized agent, 
 by reason of any claim that such State is bound for any part of the war tax 
 levied by the Act of August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, or any 
 Act amendatory thereof, or to treat the said tax in any way as a set-off 
 against any claim in favor of any State. 
 
 Sec. 2. That all laws or parts of laws, and all rulings or decisions of 
 any department of the Government, or of any officer thereof, inconsistent 
 "with the foregoing section, be and are hereby repealed and annulled. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. House of Representatives. Report No. 1658. 
 
 CLAIMS OF THE STATES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 May 20, 1884 — Committed to .the Committee of the Whole House, and 
 ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Hammond, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
 following 
 
 report' 
 
 [To accompany bill H. R. 7082.] 
 
 The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 
 7082), to adjust the claims of the States against the United States, submit 
 the following report: 
 
 The obstacles in the way of paying claims of the States against the 
 General Government growing out of the charge of the direct war tax 
 against the States on the books of the Treasury Department, and the 
 opinions of Treasury officials thereon, as well as the reasons why those 
 obstacles should be removed, are set forth in Report No. 752 of this session 
 of Congress in the Georgia case, made on the — th of March, 1884. 
 
 Your committee believe that the relief therein recommended for that 
 State should be general as to all the States against which such set-off of 
 war taxes is being or may be claimed, and report accordingly. They, 
 however, report a substitute for Bill H. R. 6867, and recommend the 
 passage of the substitute herewith submitted. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 25. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. May 28, 1884— Ordered to be 
 printed.. 
 
192 
 
 Mr. Hoar, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following report, 
 to accompany bill S. 1948 : 
 
 The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1948) to 
 require the payment in cash to the State of Georgia of $35,555 42, appro- 
 priated for said State by an Act to refund to the State of Georgia certain 
 money expended by said State for the common defense in 1777, approved 
 March 3, 1883, have considered the same, and respectfully report : 
 
 The last Congress passed an Act approved March 3, 1883, to refund to 
 the State of Georgia certain moneys expended by her for the common 
 defense in 1777, the evidence of which expenditure, having been lost for 
 many years, had recently been discovered. The accounting officers of 
 the Treasury declined to pay over to Georgia the money so appropriated, 
 but claimed that it should be set off against moneys due from that State 
 as her share of the direct tax assessed during the late rebellion. 
 
 We do not think that it was the expectation of Congress that such a 
 set-off would be required, or that it is intended to enforce against any 
 delinquent State the payment in money of its share of such tax. All the 
 States which took part in the rebellion we suppose to be so delinquent. If 
 matters should be left as they now are, it would be unjust to Georgia to 
 withhold from her the sum due to her and thereby indirectly to compel 
 the payment of a part of said tax from which the other Southern States 
 are relieved. If, on the other hand. Congress shall reimburse to the States 
 the amounts which have been paid by them equal justice will have been 
 rendered to all, and there will be no propriety in withholding from Georgia 
 the sum now in question, which is her due. 
 
 We therefore recommend the passage of the bill. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 26. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. S. 1948. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. May 28, 1884 — Ordered to be printed. 
 
 AMENDMENT 
 
 Intended to be proposed by Mr. Dolph to the bill (S. 1948) to require 
 the payment in cash to the State of Georgia of thirty-five thousand five 
 hundred and fifty-five dollars and forty-two cents, appropriated for said 
 State by an Act to refund to the State of Georgia certain money expended 
 by said State for the common defense in seventeen hundred and seventy- 
 seven, approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, viz:: In 
 Section 1, at the end of line 12, insert the following: 
 
 And the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby authorized and 
 directed to pay to the State of Oregon" the sum of thirty-five thousand one 
 hundred and forty dollars and sixty-seven cents, and to the State of Cali- 
 fornia the sum of four hundred and ninety-five dollars and seventy-two 
 cents, for moneys paid by said States in suppressing Modoc Indian hostili- 
 ties during the Modoc war, and in defending said States from invasion by 
 said Indians during the years eighteen hundred and seventy-two and 
 eighteen hundred and seventy-three; and the said sums are hereby appro- 
 priated for such purpose out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise 
 appropriated, and which sums were appropriated for the States of Oregon 
 and California by an Act to reimburse said States, and the citizens thereof, 
 in the suppression of Indian hostilities during the Modoc war in eighteen 
 
193 
 
 hundred and seventy-two and eighteen hundred and seventy-three, in the 
 Act of Congress approved January sixth, eighteen hundred and eighty- 
 three. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 27. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. S. 1948. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. June 16, 1884 — Ordered to he on the 
 table and be printed. 
 
 AMENDMENT 
 
 Intended to be proposed by Mr. Miller of California, to the bill (S. 1948) 
 to require the payment in cash to the State of Georgia of thirty-five thousand 
 five hundred and fifty-five dollars and forty-two cents, appropriated for said 
 State by an Act to refund to the State of Georgia certain money expended by 
 said State for the common defense in seventeen hundred and seventy-seven, 
 approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, viz.: Strike out 
 all after the enacting clause, and insert the following: 
 
 That the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby authorized and 
 directed to credit each of the several States and Territories and the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia with amounts of money heretofore laid upon and 
 apportioned to said States, Territories, and District of Columbia, respect- 
 ively, levied as a direct tax under the provisions of the eighth section of 
 the Act of Congress approved August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty- 
 one, entitled " An Act to provide increased revenue from imports, to pay 
 interest on the public debt, and for other purposes;" and he shall thereafter 
 state an account between the United States and each of said States, Terri- 
 tories, and District, respectively, and he shall pay to each thereof, out of 
 any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums of money 
 as may appear to the credit of each thereof upon the books of the Treasury 
 arising from such settlements. 
 
 Amend the title so as to read: "An Act to adjust certain accounts 
 between the United States and the several States and Territories and the 
 District of Columbia." 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 28. 
 
 SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. 26. 
 
 Requesting our Senators and Representatives in Congress to give their 
 support to certain measures now pending in Congress, or such as may here- 
 after be presented thereto, designed to feffect the proper adjustment of the 
 accounts of the different States, Territories, and the District of Columbia 
 with the United States, arising out of the proceedings under the " direct 
 tax" law of August 5, 1861 (adopted March 3, 1885). 
 
 Whereas, under the pro^dsions of the law of August 5, 1861, a direct tax 
 of $20,000,000 was levied for war purposes by the United States and appor- 
 tioned to the various States and Territories of the Union and the District 
 of Columbia, according to their respective populations; and whereas, the 
 amount of said tax so apportioned to the State of California was paid by 
 the State in conformity with the provisions of said law; and whereas, while 
 part of the other States and Territories and the District of Columbia have, 
 like California, paid in full the tax thus apportioned to them, respectively, 
 13"^ 
 
194 
 
 many of those remaining have only paid in part, and some have paid 
 nothing at all; and whereas, by such reason of such partial collection of 
 said taxes (as shown by the official letter of the Secretary of the Treasury 
 dated June 14, 1884) over $5,000,000 of the same remains unpaid, and now 
 stands charged on the books of the Treasury against the States and Terri- 
 tories delinquent, according to the measure of their respective delinquencies; 
 and whereas, while, by the Act of Congress, the operation of said law as 
 to the collection of said tax has long been suspended, still the interest and 
 penalties thereby required to be collected, have been permitted to accumu- 
 late, until now the amount of the original levy, where delinquent, has 
 almost quadrupled; and whereas, to enforce collection of such unpaid tax, 
 penalties, and costs would, in the language of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 '^ put a grievous burden upon the people of the States which are in default 
 of payment;" and therefore, in the words of the Comptroller of the Treas- 
 ury, " it is believed that there is no desire now, on the part of any class of 
 citizens, that the payment of this tax should be enforced;" and whereas, 
 it is contemplated by the Constitution of the United States, and is required 
 by the principles of common justice, that "taxes should be uniform 
 throughout the United States," and that it would be violative of both to 
 compel the payment of such levy by part of the United States and Terri- 
 tories while others were exempt from such burden; and whereas, measures 
 are now pending in both branches of the present Congress (being House 
 Bill No. 110, and Senate No. 795), which provides for the adjustment of 
 this whole question, by authorizing the refunding to the States and Terri- 
 tories which have paid any or all of said tax the amount so paid, and the 
 cancellation of all charges on account of delinquency against such States 
 and Territories as have not paid the same; and whereas, the method of 
 adjustment proposed by said bills has the hearty approval and indorsement 
 of the Secretary and Comptroller of the Treasury, to whom said bills were 
 referred by the committees of Congress considering the same for their effi- 
 cient examination and report; and whereas, approving said plan of adjust- 
 ment as being in its nature a measure of relief to the States in default, and 
 one of simple justice to those which have paid, and in view of the impor- 
 tant interests therein involved to the State of California; therefore. 
 
 Be it resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That our Senators 
 and Representatives in Congress be requested to urge the passage of the 
 bills hereinbefore referred to, or other measures having the same object in 
 view, and to use their best endeavors, in cooperation with the agent of this 
 State and in support of his efforts, to thus secure to the State the amount 
 paid by her on account of said tax. 
 
 Be it further resolved, That a copy of the above preamble and resolution 
 be sent, by the Governor of this State, to our Senators and Representatives 
 in Congress, and to our State agent. 
 
 State of California, Department of State. 
 
 I, Thomas L. Thompson, Secretary of State of the State of California, do 
 hereby certify that I have carefully compared the annexed copy of Senate 
 Concurrent Resolutions Nos. 25 and 26, adopted by the Legislature of the 
 State of California March 5, 1885, with the original now on file in my office, 
 and the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof. 
 Also that this authentication is in due form and by the proper officer. 
 
 Witness my hand and the great seal of State, at office in Sacramento, 
 California, the ninth day of April, A. D. 1886. 
 
 [seal.] T. L. THOMPSON, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 By A. E. Shattuck, Deputy. 
 
195 
 EXHIBIT No. 29. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. 164. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 21, 1885 — Read twice, 
 referred to the Committee on Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
 . Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To credit and pay to the several States and Territories and the District of 
 Columbia all moneys collected under the direct tax levied by the Act of Con- 
 gress approved August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That it shall be the duty of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury to credit to each State and Territory of the 
 United States and the District of Columbia, a sum equal to all collections 
 made from said States and Territories and the District of Columbia under 
 the Act of Congress approved August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, 
 and the amendatory Acts thereto, with an additional sum of fifteen per 
 centum upon all amounts so collected, where such States or Territories or 
 the District of Columbia have collected the same without cost to the United 
 States. 
 
 Sec. 2. That all moneys still due to the United States on the quota of 
 direct tax apportioned by section eight of the Act of Congress approved 
 August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, are hereby remitted and 
 relinquished. 
 
 Sec. 3. That there are hereby appropriated, out of any money in the 
 Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to 
 reimburse each State, Territory, and the District of Columbia for all money 
 found due to them under the provisions of this Act; and the Treasurer of 
 the United States is hereby directed to pay the same; provided, that where 
 the sums, or any part thereof, credited to any State, Territory, or the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, has been collected from any citizen thereof, either directly 
 or by sale, resale, or lease of property, such sums shall be held in trust by 
 such State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, for the benefit of those of 
 its citizens from whom it was collected, or their legal representatives. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 30. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R, 2776. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. January 7, 1886— Read twice, referred 
 to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed. (With pro- 
 posed amendments.) 
 
 Mr. Price introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To credit and pay the several States and Territories, and the District of Colum- 
 bia, all moneys collected under the direct tax levied by the Act of Congress 
 approved August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That it shall be the duty of the 
 
196 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury to credit to each State and Territory of the 
 United States and the District of Columbia, a sum equal to all collections 
 made from said States and Territories and the District of Columbia under 
 the Act of Congress, approved August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty- 
 one, and the amendatory Acts thereto, with such additional credits as 
 under said Act they are entitled to have in consequence of having paid 
 any portion thereof without expense of collection to the United States; and 
 such sums also as have been collected from lands or owners thereof under 
 supplemental Acts on any account whatever. 
 
 Sec. 2. That all moneys still due to the United States, on the quota of 
 direct tax apportioned by section eight of the Act of Congress approved 
 August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, are hereby remitted and 
 relinquished. 
 
 Sec. 8. That there is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the 
 Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to 
 reimburse each State, Territory, and the District of Columbia for all money 
 found due to them under the provisions of this Act; and the Treasurer of 
 the United States is hereby directed to pay the same; provided, that when 
 the sums, or any part thereof, credited to any State, Territory, or the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, have been collected from any citizen thereof, either directly 
 or by sale, resale, or lease of property, such sums shall be held in trust by 
 such State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, for the benefit of those 
 of its citizens from whom it was collected, or their legal representatives. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 31. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. S. 995. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. January 11, 1886 — Mr. Stanford 
 introduced the following bill, which was read twice, and referred to the 
 Committee on the Judiciary: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To credit and pay to the several States and Territories and the District u)f 
 Columbia all moneys collected under the direct tax levied by the Act of 
 Congress approved August fifth ^ eighteen hundred and sixty-one. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That it shall be the duty of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury to credit to each State and Territory of the 
 United States, and the District of Columbia, a sum equal to all collections 
 made from said States and Territories and District of Columbia under the 
 Act of Congress approved August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, 
 and the amendatory Acts thereto, with an additional sum of fifteen per 
 centum upon all amounts so collected where such States or Territories or 
 the District of Columbia have collected the same without cost to the 
 United States. 
 
 Sec. 2. That all moneys still due to the United States on the quota of 
 direct tax apportioned by section eight of the Act of Congress approved 
 August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, are hereby remitted and 
 relinquished. 
 
 Sec. 3. That there is hereby appropriated out of any money in the 
 Treasury not otherwise appropriated such sums as may be necessary to 
 reimburse each State, Territory, and the District of Columbia for all money 
 
197 
 
 found due to them under the provisions of this Act, and the Treasurer of the 
 United States is hereby directed to pay the same; provided, that where the 
 sums, or any part thereof, credited to any State, Territory, or the District 
 of Columbia, have been collected from the citizens thereof, either directly 
 or by sale of property, such sums shall be held in trust by such State, 
 Territory, or the District of Columbia for the benefit of those of its citizens 
 from whom they were collected, or their legal representatives. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 32. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. S. 2457. Calendar No. 1310. Report No. 1138. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. May 18, 1886 — Mr. George, from 
 the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted a report (No. 1138) accompanied 
 by the following bill; which was read the first and second times, by unani- 
 mous consent: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 For the relief of the State of Georgia. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury be and he hereby is directed to pay, in lawful money, to the State of 
 Georgia, the sum of $35,555 42, appropriated to said State by an Act en- 
 titled ''An Act to refund to the State of Georgia certain money expended 
 by said State for the common defense," approved March 3, 1883, notwith- 
 standing any claim of set-off arising from the direct tax apportioned to the 
 State of Georgia, by an Act entitled "An Act to provide increased revenue 
 from imposts, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes." 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 33. 
 
 Forty-nintli Congress, first session. Senate. Report No. 1138. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. May 18, 1886 — Ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. George, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the follow- 
 ing 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany bill S. 2457.] 
 
 The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred certain resolu- 
 tions of the State of Georgia in relation to a claim of the State against the 
 United States, submit the following report, with accompanying bill : 
 
 By an Act approved March 3, 1883 (22 U. S. Stat. L., p. 485) Congress 
 appropriated to the State of Georgia $35,555 42 to reimburse the State for 
 an expenditure made in the year 1777 for the common defense, that claim 
 never having before been paid to the State. The accounting officers of the 
 Treasury Department have declined to pay this sum to the State in 
 money. They allege as the ground of this refusal that the books of the 
 Treasury Department show that the State of Georgia is indebted to the 
 United States in the sum of $501,939 86 for a balance due on the sum of 
 $584,367 34 apportioned to the State as her quota of $20,000,000, direct 
 
198 
 
 tax levied by the Act of August 5,1861 (12 U. S. Stat, p. 294). These offi- 
 cers claim the right to apply the said sum of $35,555 42, so appropriated 
 by the Act of March 3, 1883, as a set-off against this alleged indebtedness 
 of the State of Georgia. 
 
 An examination of the printed opinion of the First Comptroller on this 
 subject will show that this alleged indebtedness of the State of Georgia is 
 based mainly upon the fact that his predecessor, on May 29, 1868, certified 
 to the Register of the Treasury that the State of Georgia was a debtor to 
 the United States to the amount of the direct tax so apportioned to her, 
 -and that on this an entry was made on the books of the Treasury charging 
 the State accordingly, and that this certificate and entry, however errone- 
 ous they may be, are irreversible by the Treasury officials. It is also 
 insisted that this charge against the State is proper and legal under the 
 Acts of Congress. Against this the State of Georgia protests through reso- 
 lutions of her Legislature, and insists that she is entitled to payment in 
 money. These resolutions have been referred to the committee, and they 
 constitute the subject-matter on which we are now called on to act. 
 
 We express no opinion as to the propriety of the action of the Treasury 
 Department in holding as final, so far as it is concerned, the action of the 
 Comptroller in 1868, in causing the State of Georgia to be entered as a 
 debtor to the United States on the books of the Treasury, as above stated. 
 
 Our inquiry will be confined to the question raised, as to the reality 
 and lawfulness of the alleged indebtedness on the part of the State in its 
 organized and corporate capacity, for we assume that it will not be contro- 
 verted that the State is riot liable either to the United States or any other 
 person or corporation for the separate and individual debts of any portion 
 of her citizens, or even of all of them if the demand be against each one 
 separately for a distinct and separate share of the aggregated whole. If 
 there be no legal demand against Georgia as a State, in her organized 
 political capacity, no demand which she is bound to pay out of her Treas- 
 ury, by taxation levied according to her laws on the persons and property 
 in the State liable to taxation, it is too clear for controversy, that the United 
 States cannot, by any trick in bookkeeping in any of her departments 
 lawfully refuse to pay to her an ascertained and acknowledged debt to the 
 State, or apply it as a set-off. 
 
 A set-off', ex vi termini, means the application of a valid legal demand 
 against the creditor in satisfaction or diminution of his claim. A set-off 
 actually completed implies the prior existence of valid and lawful de- 
 mands between the creditor and debtor, and which are finally settled by 
 the transaction. The demand against the creditor must be against him 
 in the same character and affecting the same right as the demand against 
 which it is opposed. A demand against one in a fiduciary or trust rela- 
 tion cannot be set-off against a claim which he asserts in his individual 
 and personal right, and vice versa ; and a demand against one in a par- 
 ticular fiduciary character cannot be set-off against a claim he asserts in 
 a different fiduciary relation. A set-off is allowable only because it is a 
 lawful satisfaction or diminution of a demand, which is of itself property 
 out of which the person asserting the set-off is entitled to be paid. 
 
 An acknowledged debtor cannot therefore rightfully refuse payment of 
 his indebtedness upon any ground connected with the right of set-off unless 
 he can show he has a valid debt against his creditor, which the latter owes 
 to him in the same character and in the same right in which the creditor's 
 debt is due. 
 
 That the United States are a debtor is undisputed. The debt to 
 Georgia is acknowledged by statute directing it to be paid. Whether the 
 
199 
 
 State of Georgia is a debtor to the United States is therefore the only 
 question to be settled. 
 
 Whatever may be the effect of the entry on the books of the Treasury 
 Department, made in 1868, so far as it relates to the powers and duties of 
 the accounting officers to observe or to disregard it, is wholly immaterial 
 in this controversy. Such entry is the . mere ex parte act of one of the 
 parties or its agents. It does not bind the other, either in law or in morals. 
 It cannot be maintained that a debt can be created by a wrongful entry, 
 whether it came from the fraud or ignorance of the officer making it. Its 
 legal effect and force depends not on the fact of entry, but on its rightful- 
 ness and legality. The State of Georgia cannot be estopped by it, nor 
 affected by it in any way, for the State was no party to it. She had neither 
 the power to object to it effectually, nor to appeal from it. 
 
 So we must consider the question as if such entry constituted a mere 
 assertion of right made on behalf of the United States, not a decision or 
 settlement of the rights of Georgia. We must look into the case as if no 
 such entry had been made. 
 
 It is unnecessary to inquire whether Congress had constitutional power 
 to make the State of Georgia a debtor to the United States on account of 
 the direct tax, if it shall appear that the Acts of Congress do not attempt 
 to create such a relation. 
 
 An examination of the Act of August 5, 1861, heretofore cited, will make 
 it very clear that the intent of Congress in enacting it was to levy a tax on 
 individuals, making them debtors to the United States for their several and 
 separate shares after they were ascertained by assessment. The thing 
 taxed was land, and the persons who were to pay the tax were the owners 
 of the land, each according to the value of his land, as compared with the 
 value of all land within the State. 
 
 Two Acts were necessary in relation to the apportionment of the tax; 
 one was to be done by Congress itself, and the other under their authority^ 
 and according to rules prescribed by them. The first was to fix the total 
 amount to be collected throughout the Union, and to apportion this sum 
 among the people of the several States. The second was, after fixing the 
 sum to be collected in each State from the owners of the land therein, to 
 apportion this sum for payment among the land owners in that State. By 
 the Constitution the apportionment, as between the States, was to be on 
 the basis of population, without reference to their aggregate or individual 
 wealth; by a necessary law of taxation, the apportionment of the sum 
 allotted to the people of each State was among the owners of the property 
 taxed, and according to the value of the property owned by each. 
 
 When Congress came to perform this last act, or prescribe rules for its 
 performance, they provided, in unmistakable language, who were to be the 
 debtors for the tax. If the States were to be the debtors, provision would 
 have been made for payment by the States out of their Treasuries, or by 
 State action in some way. Nothing else would have been necessary. But 
 this course was not pursued. The Act carefully provides for the appoint- 
 ment of A-Ssessors to fix the share of each taxpayer. It then provides for 
 Collectors to enforce collection from each taxpayer. All the ■ lands in the 
 State, with inconsiderable exceptions (and among them lands owned by 
 the State), were to be valued. The amount due for each tract was to be 
 charged against the owner, who was declared to be "liable to pay the 
 direct tax." A list of these, together "with the tax payable by each," was 
 required to be made. The tax was to be demanded of the taxpayers at 
 their dwellings. On refusal of payment the personal property of each 
 delinquent was required to be seized and sold for the payment of his tax. 
 
200 
 
 If no personalty could be found, then so much of the land of each tax- 
 payer was required to be sold as was necessary to pay the tax assessed 
 against him; and if the amount was not bid, then the Collector was to bid 
 the amount for the United States, and buy the land for them. The sur- 
 plus produced by a sale was required to be paid to the owner, and he and 
 his heirs were allowed to redeem.- The tax, when collected, was to be paid 
 by United States Collectors into the United States Treasury. 
 
 In all this there is not a single word or hint that Congress regarded the 
 State as a debtor, or that the State was in any way to have any agency in 
 or responsibility for the collection. The State, so far, is not allowed even 
 to pay it out of its Treasury. 
 
 In the fifty-third section, however, the States are mentioned, but in terms 
 which necessarily exclude the idea that Congress intended to impose a 
 liability on them. This section, among other things, provides " that any 
 State or Territory, or the District of Columbia, may lawfully assume, assess, 
 collect, and pay into the Treasury of the United States the direct tax or its 
 quota imposed by this Act;" and pro\dsion is made for notice to be given 
 of this assumption, and a deduction of fifteen per cent is allowed in case 
 of prompt payment. This is wholly inconsistent with the idea that the 
 State was a debtor until assumption and notice of it, as provided in this 
 section; but this is made still plainer, if possible, by a subsequent pro- 
 vision in the same section, where it is enacted that the quota of each 
 " shall be liable to be paid and satisfied, in whole or in part, by the release 
 of such State, Territory, or District of Columbia, duly executed to the 
 United States, of any determined or liquidated demand against the United 
 States." Here the right of set-off is allowed, but only on the condition that 
 the State should first release a determined and liquidated demand against 
 the United States. In the case of Georgia there was no assumption of the 
 tax, and no release nor willingness to release to the United States a demand 
 held by her. To say now that the State is a debtor reverses and abrogates 
 all these various provisions of the statute, clearly proving that the land 
 owners, and not the State, are the debtors. 
 
 Plain as this is, it is, if possible, made even clearer by a consideration 
 of the Act of July 2, 1862 (12 U. S. Stat., p. 422), in relation to the col- 
 lection of this tax in the insurrectionary States, of which Georgia was one. 
 As to said States, this Act provides that whenever any portion of them 
 shall become subject to the authority of the United States, the President 
 may provide for collecting the tax in such portions; that the lands in such 
 parts shall be charged with that portion of the tax apportioned to the State 
 in which they lie as their value should bear to the value of all the lands in 
 the State, as shown by the last assessment under State authority prior to 
 1861. The Act distinctly and clearly provides that, on payment of the 
 tax so apportioned, the land so paid on shall be discharged from all fur- 
 ther liability on account of said tax. It is impossible that this can stand 
 with the idea that the tax is a debt against the State, to be paid out of its 
 general revenue, or out of debts due to it, which are but, pro tanto, a sub- 
 stitute for its general revenue; since, if a debt be lost, or in any way should 
 become unavailable, the deficit thereby created must be made good out of 
 the general revenues of the State. 
 
 Under this law, as appears by the Comptroller's report, about $70,000 
 (or about one eighth of the tax) has been paid; and the lands on which 
 this payment was made are discharged from all liability on account of 
 this tax. Now, if this set-oft* is enforced against the State, then the amount 
 is lost to the general Treasury of the State, and this sum would have to be 
 made good by taxation under State authority, under its general revenue 
 
201 
 
 laws, under which these lands would be equally taxed with all other lands 
 in the State. And thus would the plighted faith of the United States to 
 the owners of these lands be broken. 
 
 Another provision in this Act of July 2, 1862, shows clearly that this tax 
 was not regarded as a debt against the State. By Section 12 of the Act it 
 is provided that lands bought by the United States for this direct tax 
 should be sold, and one half the proceeds should be paid to the State — one 
 fourth to indemnify loyal citizens for losses sustained in war, and the other 
 fourth to be used by the State in removing persons (willing to go) of Afri- 
 can descent to Hayti or Liberia. If the State was regarded as a debtor to 
 the United States to the whole amount of the uncollected tax, it seems 
 strange that money accruing in the attempt to enforce the collection of the 
 tax should be directed to be paid to the State. 
 
 Again, this tax is a tax on land; and it could not have been apportioned 
 among the States as this was, except as a direct tax on land. Being a tax 
 on land, no other property but land could be taxed under the law, and no 
 other persons but land owners made liable to pay it. The statute recog- 
 nizes this, and proceeds, as we have shown, on this theory, and on that 
 alone. Of the 1,500,000 people of Georgia in 1862, when this tax was 
 required to be assessed and paid, probably not more than twenty-five thou- 
 sand were land owners, or could be made liable to pay the tax. It has 
 been shown that the true intent of this Act was to make each of these 
 twenty-five thousand persons separate debtors to the United States, each for 
 the ascertained and apportioned amount accruing on his land, which, when 
 paid by him, relieved him and his property from all further liability on 
 account of said tax. Now, if the principle on which alone this set-off can 
 be allowed is recognized as true, viz.: that the State is debtor, then it will 
 follow that, contrary to the plain provisions of the Acts of 1861 and 1862, 
 all the people of Georgia who own property of any kind, or pay taxes on 
 polls, become jointly liable for the amount of the unpaid tax — a sum 
 made up of the separate debts of these twenty-five thousand land owners — 
 and thus this tax on land alone becomes in fact a tax on all the property 
 and .persons in the State subject to taxation. 
 
 So far we have considered the question solely on its legal aspects ; we do 
 not propose to present any other. It is, however, clearly relevant to the 
 legal merits of the controversy, if not directly involved in it, to consider 
 the relations which the present population of Georgia bear to the debt of 
 the twenty-five thousand land owners of the State in the year 1861. 
 
 It is now a quarter of a century since the direct tax was imposed. It is 
 certain that largely more than one half of the people then living are now 
 dead. Nearly one half of the people of Georgia — now citizens — were then 
 mere property. They were not taxpayers, but constituted property on 
 which taxes were paid. If this tax is now enforced, either partially or 
 wholly by set-off or otherwise, against the State as a State, or against the 
 people of the State as an organized political community, the enforcement 
 can only be against the present citizens, the present taxpayers of the State. 
 This would result in making the present population of Georgia, whether 
 owners of land or not, pay the debt of a small portion of her citizens who 
 were land owners a quarter of a century ago. This certainly is not justi- 
 fied by law. 
 
 Whether the United States have any remedy now for the collection of 
 this tax does not come within our province to inquire; nor does the ques- 
 tion whether it would now be just to undertake to collect it. It may be 
 remarked, however, that the tax was levied in 1861, during the civil war; 
 that after the war ended, the collection of the tax was suspended by Act 
 
202 
 
 of Congress till January 1, 1868, and then by another Act of Congress till 
 January, 1869. Since this last date no attempt has been made by the 
 executive department to collect it. Nor has Congress made any complaint 
 of this failure. In a report (No. 592) on this case made by the Senate Com- 
 mittee on Claims, through Mr. Hoar, first session Forty-eighth Congress, it 
 is stated, "We do not think that it was the expectation of Congress that 
 such a set-off" would be required, or that it is intended to enforce against 
 any delinquent State the payment in money of its share of such a tax." 
 
 The committee reach the conclusion that the direct tax levied by the Act 
 of August 5, 1861, is not a legal debt in favor of the United States against 
 any State which has not, by authority of its Legislature, assumed payment 
 of the quota apportioned to it, and hence that the demand of the State of 
 Georgia for payment in lawful money of the sum of $35,555 42, appropri- 
 ated by the Act of March 3, 1883, is not subject to be set off" by any claim 
 which the United States may have against her on account of said direct 
 tax. ^ They therefore recommend the passage of the accompanying bill, 
 providing for the payment in money of the amount appropriated by the 
 Act of March 3, 1883, heretofore referred to. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 34. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. 1. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 19, 1885 — Read twice, 
 referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Hammond introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To require the payment in cash to the State of Georgia of thirty-five thousand 
 five hundred and fifty-five dollars and forty-two cents, appropriated by said 
 State by an Act to refund to the State of Georgia certain money expended 
 by said State for the common defense in seventeen hundred and seventy-seven ^ 
 approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury be and he is hereby directed and required to pay to the State of Georgia, 
 or its lawfully authorized agent, out of any money in the Treasury not 
 otherwise appropriated, the sum of thirty-five thousand five hundred and 
 fifty-five dollars and forty-two cents, in cash, which sum was appropriated 
 for the said State by an Act to refund to the State of Georgia certain 
 money expended by said State for the common defense in seventeen hun- 
 dred and seventy-seven, approved March third, eighteen hundred and 
 eighty-three. 
 
 Sec. 2. That all laws, or parts of laws, and all rulings or decisions of 
 any department of the Government, or of any officer thereof, inconsistent 
 with the foregoing section, be and are hereby repealed and annulled. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 35. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R, 3. Report No. 35. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 19, 1885 — Read twice, re- 
 ferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed. 
 
203 
 
 January 19, 1886 — Referred to the House calendar, and ordered to be 
 printed. 
 
 Mr. Hammond introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To prevent the claim of the war taxes under the Act of August fifth, eighteen 
 hundred and sixty-one, and Acts amendatory thereof, by the United States, 
 as set-off against States having claims against the General Government. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That it shall not be lawful for the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, or other person charged with or concerned in the 
 payment of any sum of money from the United States to any State of the 
 Union, to withhold the same from such State, or its duly authorized agent, 
 by reason of any claim that such State is bound for any part of th"e war 
 tax levied by the Act of August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, or 
 any Act amendatory thereof, or to treat the said tax in any way as a set-off 
 against any claim in favor of any State. 
 
 Sec. 2. That all laws or parts of laws, and all rulings or decisions of 
 any department of the Government, or of any officer thereof, inconsistent 
 with the foregoing section, be and are hereby repealed and annulled. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 36. 
 
 WAR TAXES AS SET-OFF AGAINST STATE CLAIMS. 
 
 Mr. Hammond, by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, called 
 up from the House Calendar for present consideration the bill (H. R. 3) to 
 prevent the claim of the war taxes under the Act of August 5, 1861, and 
 Acts amendatory thereof, by the United States, as set-off against States 
 having claims against the General Government. 
 
 The bill was read as follows: 
 
 Be it enacted, etc., That it shall not be lawful for the Secretary of the Treasury, or other 
 person charged with or concerned in the payment of any sum of money from the United 
 States to any State of the Union, to withhold the same from such State, or its duly author- 
 ized agent, by reason of any claim that such State is bound for any part of the war tax 
 levied by the Act of August 5, 1861, or any Act amendatory thereof, or to treat the said 
 tax in any way as a set-ofF against any claim in favor of any State. 
 
 Sec. 2. That all laws or parts of laws, and all rulings or decisions of any department of 
 the Government or of any officer thereof, inconsistent with the foregoing section, be and 
 are hereby repealed and annulled. 
 
 Mr. Holman. I trust the gentleman from Georgia will allow the report 
 of the committee to be read. 
 
 Mr. Hammond. The gentleman from Indiana suggests the report of the 
 Committee on the Judiciary be read. 
 
 The Speaker. The reading of the report will come out of the gentleman's 
 time. 
 
 Mr. Hammond. I do not desire it to be read in my time; but as this 
 bill will occupy more than this hour, I would suggest, by unanimous con- 
 sent, the report of the committee together with the views of the majority be 
 printed in the Record to-morrow morning, and then every gentleman can 
 have them on his table before discussion is ended, and before we are called 
 upon to vote. 
 
204 
 
 Mr. Holman. I hope that will be done. 
 
 Mr. Hammond. Then I ask, by unanimous consent, that the report of 
 the committee, together with the views of the minority, be printed in the 
 Record. 
 
 There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly. 
 
 The report of the Committee on the Judiciary as well as the views of the 
 minority are as follows: 
 
 Mr. Hammond, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following reports 
 to accompany bill H. R. 3 : 
 
 The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred bill H. R. 3, have considered the 
 same, and submitted the following report : 
 
 By an Act of Congress approved March 3, 1883, the Secretary of the Treasury was required 
 to pay to the State of Georgia $35,555 42 (see 22 U. S. Stat., 485). It was not paid because 
 of a decision of Mr. Lawrence, First Comptroller of the Treasury, placing it to the credit of 
 the State on the books of the Treasury" against a sum charged there against the State as 
 its quota of a direct tax levied during the late war. 
 
 Bill H. R. 4703, first session Forty-eighth Congress, was to compel payment, that decision 
 to the contrary notwithstanding. The Judiciary Committee, by Mr. Hammond, on the 
 eleventh of March, 1884, reported in favor of the passage of that bill. (See Report No. 752, 
 first session Forty-eighth Congress.) 
 
 On the second of May, 1884, Mr. Barksdale of Mississippi, introduced and had referred 
 to said committee a bill (H. R. 6867) to authorize settlements with any State, and directing 
 that "in such settlement and adjustment no charge shall be made, or if made, shall be 
 valid by way of set-off or otherwise against any State on account of the direct war tax laid 
 bj' Congress by an Act approved August 5, 1861." 
 
 On the twentieth of May, 1884, said committee, by Mr. Hammond, reported thereon as 
 follows : 
 
 "The obstacles in the way of paying claims of States against the General Government 
 
 f rowing out of the charge of the direct war tax against the States on the books of the 
 'reasury Department, and the opinions by Treasury officials thereon, as well as the rea- 
 sons why those obstacles should be removed, are set forth in Report No. 752 of this session 
 of Congress in the Georgia case, made on the of March, 1884. 
 
 "Your committee believe that the relief therein recommended for that State should be 
 general as to all the States against which such set-off of war taxes is being or may be 
 claimed, and report accordingly. They, however, report a substitute for bill H. R. 6867, 
 and recommend the passage of the substitute herewith submitted." 
 
 The substitute so reported was this: 
 
 "That it shall not be lawful for the Secretary of the Treasury, or other person charged 
 with or concerned in the payment of any sum of money from the United States to any 
 State of the Union, to withhold the same from such State, or its duly authorized agent, by 
 reason of any claim that such State is bound for any part of the war tax levied by the Act 
 of August 5, 1861, or any Act amendatory thereof, or to treat the said tax in any way as a 
 set-off against any claim in favor of any State. 
 
 " Sec. 2. That all laws or parts of laws, and all rulings or decisions of any department of 
 the Government, or of any officer thereof, inconsistent with the foregoing section be and 
 are hereby repealed and annulled." 
 
 This report was No. 1658, and the substitute bill H. R. 7082, first session, Forty-eighth Con- 
 gress. The substituted bill and Georgia's separate bill both remained on the calendar, but 
 were never reached in the last Congress. The present bill (H. R. 3) is a copy of said 
 substitute. 
 
 This committee adopted the reasoning of the former Judiciarj'- Committee in those 
 reports. 
 
 While the former was on the Georgia case only, it covered all the States in like condi- 
 tion. Omitting, therefore, only the introductory parts already substantially given, your 
 committee adopts the language of that report as follows : 
 
 " A little history will cast much light upon the subject. The Act of August 5, 1861, pro- 
 vided for Collectors and Assessors, and for lists of property 'from all persons owning, and 
 possessing, and having the care or management of any lands,' etc., for the purpose of taxing 
 the same. (Sections 14 to 29, inclusive.) 
 
 " Section 33 enacted that ' the taxes so assessed shall be and remain a lien upon all lands 
 and other real estate of the individuals who may be assessed for the same' for two years. 
 
 "Section 52 provided that as soon as Federal authority could be restored in the Southern 
 States the tax should be collected ' from the persons residing or holding property or stocks 
 therein.' 
 
 " The eighth section enacted — 
 
 " That a direct tax of |20,000,000 be and is hereby annually laid upon the United States, 
 and the same shall be and is hereby apportioned to the S'tates, respectively, in manner 
 following: * * * To the State of Georgia, $584,367 33^.' 
 
 " To the other States according to their populations, respectively. But so far from pro- 
 posing to tax the States as such, by Section 13 it expressly exempted from such taxes 'all 
 property, of whatever kind * * * belonging to the United States or any State,' etc. 
 
205 
 
 "Section 53 enacted 'that any State or Territory and the District of Columbia may law- 
 fullj'' assume, assess, collect, and pay into the Treasury of the United States the direct tax, 
 or its quota thereof, imposed by this Act upon the State, Territory, or the District of 
 Columbia in its own way and manner, by and through its own officers, Assessors, and 
 Collectors,' with deduction of fifteen per cent if paid by the thirtieth of June, and of ten 
 per cent if paid by the last of September, of the tax year. 
 
 "It further provided 'that whenever notice of the' intention to make such payment by 
 the State, Territory, and the District of Columbia shall have been given to the Secretary 
 of the Treasury,' then the United States should cease trying to collect by its officers unless 
 such State should 'be in default.' In that event the Secretary of the Treasury 'was to 
 collect all or any part of said direct tax the same as though said State, Territorj^, or Dis- 
 trict had not given notice nor assumed to levy, collect, and pay said taxes or any part 
 thereof (Section 46). 
 
 " Said Section 53 further provided— 
 
 "'That the amount of direct tax apportioned to any State, Territory, or the District of 
 Columbia, shall be liable to be paid and satisfied in whole or in part by the release of such 
 State, Territory, or District, duly executed to the United States, of 'any liquidated and 
 determined claim of such State, Territory, or District of equal amount against the United 
 States with the same abatement as if it were paid in money.' (See 12 if. S. Statutes, 292- 
 312.) 
 
 "Another law of June 7, 1862, applied only to the States in 'insurrection or rebellion.' 
 It made the tax upon each parcel of land in each State chargeable with the tax due upon 
 that parcel, plus fifty per cent, and made a lien on the lands therefor. It provided that ' the 
 owner or owners of said lots or parcels of lands ' might discharge them by paying within 
 a fixed time. 
 
 " It provided for commissions to collect the tax in those States, to Sell the lands of 
 defaulting owners, etc., but was silent as to any assumption of the tax by those States. 
 (12 U. S. Statutes, 422-426.) 
 
 " From time to time Congress passed other Acts as to direct taxes, but none of them 
 seem to have any bearing upon this question. For instance, that of May 13, 1862, enlarged 
 the release proviso to include certain expenditures of the States in sending troops to the 
 war, etc. (lb. 384); that of July 1, 1862, limited the collection to one year, till April, 1865 
 (lb. 489), and that of February 6, 1863, provided for sales of lands and redemption by their 
 'owners' (7&. 640). 
 
 "All the States, etc., 'formally assumed the payment of the tax except Delaware, the 
 Territory of Colorado, and the eleven insurrectionary States.' (Report Commissioner 
 Internal Revenue, 1870. See Ex. Doc. 24, first session :^orty-sixth Congress, 236.) 
 
 "The collection of them was suspended as to unpaid sums by Congress. 
 
 "In 1868 an account was opened upon the books of the Treasury Department against 
 the State of Georgia for her said quota of the direct tax, though Georgia had in no way 
 assumed to pay the same. We stop not now to discuss why that was done, but proceed 
 with the history. 
 
 " The Western and Atlantic Railroad belongs to Georgia. The State bought for said road 
 some of the rolling stock which had been used by the United States at the South in prose- 
 cuting the late war. This property was paid for in cash, the last payment being on the 
 sixteenth of October, 1867. By an Act approved the third of March, 1877, because of alleged 
 overvaluation of said property when sold. Congress authorized the reopening of said 
 account and adjustment thereof. The Act rec[uired : 
 
 '"That when said claims shall have been adjusted in pursuance of the provisions of this 
 Act the Secretary of War be and he is hereby authorized to issue his warrant on the 
 Treasury of the United States to the Governor of Georgia or his order, for the amount of 
 money it is found ought to be refunded to said railroad on account of said settlement.' (19 
 U. S. Stat., 402-3.) 
 
 "The amount found to be due the State on that account was $199,038 58. (See Q. M. 
 Gen.'s Report, 1887, p. 120.) 
 
 " So far as we are advised no question of set-off was then made. Certainly the money 
 was paid in cash. 
 
 " On the third of March, 1879, Congress enacted in the Sundry Civil Bill— 
 
 "'That the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby directed to pay to the State of 
 Georgia |72,296 94 for advances made to the United States for the suppression of hostilities 
 by the Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee Indians in 1835, 1836, 1837, and 1838, and that said 
 sum be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.' 
 
 " When payment was requested the Third Auditor called attention to this direct tax 
 account, and asked information. Mr. Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury, referred to 
 Hon. A. G. Porter, First Comptroller, ' whether said amount should be set off against the 
 amount of the direct tax under Act August 5, 1861, and Acts amendatory thereto, appor- 
 tioned to the State.' He wrote an opinion. In stating the facts, after giving a synopsis 
 of the Acts of 1861 and of June, 1862, ante, he added: 'The State of Georgia never assumed 
 the amount ajjportioned to that State, or any part of it.' And then, after stating the 
 question, he said: 
 
 "'If the sum apportioned is a debt owing by the State of Georgia, as a political corpora- 
 tion, then it may be assumed that it ought to be so credited. If, however, it is a debt owing 
 by the persons within that State, whose lands have been taxed, and not by the State itself, 
 then payment ought not to be withheld.' 
 
206 
 
 " He then called attention to the decision of Mr. McCulloch, Secretary of the Treasury 
 in 1866, as to Texas, and said : 
 
 " ' Mr. McCulloch treated the apportionment of the direct tax as a debt owing by citizens 
 of Texas belonging to the class whose property was taxed, and not as a debt owing by the 
 State in its political capacity.' 
 
 " Proceedmg, he said : 
 
 " ' The privilege of a State to assume implies that the debt before the assumption was not 
 its own. Before the adoption of the Constitution the person whose property was charged 
 with the tax owed the tax to the State, because the State imposed it and levied it, and 
 collected it. Since the adoption of that instrument the United States has imposed the tax, 
 and has itself levied and collected it. The obligation of the citizens is therefore to the 
 Union and not to the State, and he and not the State is the debtor.' 
 
 " Enforcing his views by various citations, urging that any other would leave the States 
 with power to thwart the collection of taxes, in an emergency, directly from the people, 
 and declaring that this direct tax of 1861 could still be collected when the United States 
 wishes, he concluded: 
 
 " ' It follows, therefore, that it is my duty to direct that the sum appropriated to the 
 State of Greorgia shall not be credited as upon a debt owing by that State to the United 
 States, but shall be paid at once to the State.' 
 
 " In answer to a resolution by the Senate this decision was transmitted, ' with accom- 
 panying papers,' to the Senate by Secretary Sherman on May 24, 1879. (See Senate Ex. 
 Doc. No. 24, first session Forty-sixth Congress.) 
 
 "The 'accompanying papers' show that before this opinion was made attention was 
 called to the fact that Kansas, Missouri, West Virginia, and other States had been credited 
 with various sums there stated. Mr. Porter paid no attention to them, because (as we 
 presume) they had assumed their respective quotas, and thus made them a debt against 
 the States as such. Subsequently, in May, 1881, Mr. Lawrence, the successor of Mr. Porter, 
 decided the Kansas case. His opinion contains thirty-three head-notes and twenty-five 
 sub-headnotes. Those which are material, in our opinion, to the present discussion are as 
 follows : 
 
 " In May, 1879, it was decided by the then First Comptroller that the direct tax apportioned 
 to the State of Georgia by the Acts of August 5, 1861, and of June 7, 1862, was not a debt 
 of the corporate State, which had not by an Act assumed it; and that although the tax 
 had not been paid, yet money due from the United States to the State must be paid to the 
 latter, and could not be used by way of set-off or in discharge of any part of the claim for 
 direct taxes. (See S. Ex. Doc. !No. 24, fir.st session Forty-sixth Congress.) The conclusion is 
 correct in law. The decision of that question was affected somewhat by the Act of June 
 7, 1862, not applicable to the question now presented. But the same result would be reached 
 without reference to it. Under the Constitution Congress can not levy or enforce the 
 collection of a tax or assessment on a corporate State which has not assumed it. The 
 National Government does not operate on States in the collection of revenues, but on per- 
 sons or property, or both.' (2 Lawrence, Compt., Dec, 310.) 
 
 " He further held that his predecessors had decided that Kansas had voluntarily assumed 
 her quota of the tax; that he was bound by that decision, and that therefore a sum appro- 
 priated to Kansas should not be paid, must be placed to her credit against said assumed 
 debt. (76., 324.) 
 
 " The decision of Lawrence, Comptroller, made twelfth May, 1883, refusing to pay this 
 money to Georgia, has thirty headnotes. We do not believe that we need differ with any 
 of them but the sixth, seventh, tenth, and nineteenth. We call attention to them, and the 
 eighth, also. They are: 
 
 " ' 6. The First OomptroUer had jurisdiction and authority in May, 1868, to certify a bal- 
 ance as due from the State of Georgia to the United States, for the quota of direct taxes 
 apportioned to said State by the Direct Tax Act of August 5, 1861. (12 Stat., 294.) 
 
 " ' 7. The Comptroller now in office can not inquire whether the Comptroller in office in 
 May, 1868, who then certified a balance due from the State of Georgia to the United States on 
 account of direct taxes, had before him sufficient evidence to authorize such action, or 
 whether on such evidence as he then had he properly construed the law. The judicial 
 Courts or Congress can furnish the only relief in such case, if the Comptroller erred in 
 charging the State with such liability. 
 
 '"8. Congress may by law require the accounting officers of the Treasury Department 
 to set off a claim of the United States against a State, when such State demands payment 
 of a claim due to it from the United States, although in such case Congress might not 
 under the Constitution charge such corporate State with a liability and enforce its pay- 
 ment in any other mode except by such set-off. 
 
 '' ' 9. The legislation of Congress in relation to the quota of direct taxes apportioned to 
 Missouri and West Virginia seems in principle to recognize the correctness of the judg- 
 ment of the First Comptroller, by which, in May, 1868, he certified a balance as due from the 
 State of Georgia to the United States for its quota of the direct tax apportioned to that 
 State by the Act of August 5, 1861. 
 
 "'The direct tax of August 5, 1861 (12 Stat, 311, Section 53), provides a special statutory 
 mode of paying the quota of tax apportioned to any State by declaring that it ' shall be 
 liable to be paid ' by set-off ' of any liquidated and determined claim of such State * * * 
 against the United States. 
 
 * * * • * * * * 
 
 "'The balance certified by the First Comptroller, May 29, 1868, as due to the United States 
 
207 
 
 from the State of Georgia, for its quota of direct tax, under the Act of August 5, 1861, has 
 not been in anj'- form set aside or rendered inoperative.' 
 
 " First. Did any Comptroller ever, in any fair sense, try to raise a debt against Georgia 
 for this tax? Mr. I^awrence, in this opinion, stated the facts in this language : 
 
 '"May 11, 1868, by Report No. 55448 the Fifth Auditor 'examined and adjusted an 
 account between the United States and the State of Georgia,' and found 'that the sum of 
 $584,367 33 is due from said State to the United States * * * for amount of direct tax 
 imposed and apportioned by the eighth section of ' the Direct Tax Act of August 5, 1861, 
 ' amount to be debited to the State of Georgia on the books of the Register of the Treas- 
 ury.' 
 
 " ' May 29, 1868, the First Comptroller certified to the Begister a balance due and payable 
 as stated in the above report, and it was accordingly charged, on the Register's books, as 
 a debt due from the State of Georgia to the United States. 
 
 " ' September 3, 1874, the Fifth Auditor by Report No. 5 adjusted an account between the 
 United States and T. P. Robb, Samuel A. Pancoast, and John C. Bates, Commissioners of 
 Direct Tax for the State of Georgia, from August 1, 1865, to December 15, 1866, and found 
 them chargeable with ' amount of direct tax laid upon the State of Georgia by Act of 
 Congress approved August 5, 1861, $584,367 33.' The report shows costs chargeable to the 
 State $649 72, and finds the Commissioners entitled to credit for salaries and expenses 
 $9,835 06, amount for taxes remaining uncollected $501,939 86, amount refunded to tax- 
 payers on account of collections improperly made $46 17, and cash deposited $71,407 75, 
 covered into the Treasury by miscellaneous warrants numbered and dated in 1866, respect- 
 ively, 747 March 31, 524 June 25, 697 June 30, 596 September 29, and 726 December 31. 
 
 " ' January 9, 1875, the acting First Comptroller certified a balance of $1,788 22 ' due to the 
 United States from the Commissioners, as stated in above report. The amount of these 
 warrants was placed to the. credit of the State of Georgia in the Register's office on said 
 account for direct taxes.' 
 
 "In May, 1868, the amount fixed by the statue as the quota of Georgia was charged to 
 her, and afterward, in 1874, the same amount was charged by the same office to the United 
 States Commissioners of Direct Tax for the State of Georgia, and they were credited with 
 various sums collected and uncollected, and among others an ' amount refunded to tax- 
 payers on account of collections improperly made, $46 17.' The dealing with ' taxpayers ' 
 showed that the State was not considered the debtor. The 'taxpayers' owed only if 
 Georgia had not assumed the debt. Taking the two accounts together, it seems plain that 
 the account was so stated only for convenience of keeping the books of the department. 
 Any other view makes us to assume that the officer raising the account acted in ignorance 
 of the law. The First Comptroller could have no jurisdiction under the Act of 1861 to state 
 an account against any State which had not assumed the debt. 
 
 " It is true, as stated in the tenth headnote, supra, that said Act provides a special stat- 
 utorv mode of paying the quota of tax apportioned to any State, by declaring that it 
 
 * shall be liable to be paid ' by set-off ' of any liquidated and determined claim of such 
 State * * * against the United States.' But more is true. That ' special statutory mode 
 of paying' is in the words which Mr. Lawrence omitted from the quotation, namely, 'by 
 the release of such State * * * duly executed to the United States.' By such release, 
 with a view to such credit, the State consents to the account against it, and thus assumes 
 the debt. It was by such a release that Missouri was credited (see Act of July 17, 1862, in 
 said Senate Ex. Dec. 24, page 197). The same is true as to West Virginia, under the Act of 
 February 25, 1867 (lb., 207). They assumed the debt and sought to have certain credits 
 allowed. Georgia did not assume it, and therefore nothing in their cases authorizes the 
 raising of such an account against Georgia. 
 
 " Mr. Lawrence admits that this action of his predecessor is the only obstacle, and that 
 it is not in the way of payment if it was 'unauthorized or void.' If no statue authorized 
 it, it was ' unauthorized.' No statute created such a debt except by the consent of the State, 
 and the State did not consent. There is no pretense that the First Comptroller found such 
 fact upon niquiry. It is only stated that he did an act from which it is inferred that he 
 found such fact. But that does not follow ; for he may have raised the account for other 
 reasons. Congress can not make sucha debt against a State without its consent. There 
 was no consent, and therefore the Act raising such account, when considered as to whether 
 that Act.made Georgia the debtor, is 'void.' 
 
 "We admit that 'all claims or demands whatever by the United States * * * shall 
 be settled and adjusted in the Department of the Treasury' (Rev. Stat., §236). But there 
 must be a claim or demand to adjust. The statute declared there could be none against a 
 State till it assented, and Georgia never assented. So, while the Second Comptroller must 
 
 * examine all accounts' settled by the Auditors {Ih., 273), and the First Auditor 'must 
 examine all accounts accruing in the Treasury Department' {lb., 277), there must be a 
 debtor, by law, before an account can exist for examination. 
 
 " It is useless to examine whether Congress ' may so far declare a State indebted to the 
 United States as to secure satisfaction of the debt by withholding from it by set-off, as in 
 this case, money admitted to be due from the United States to such State,'^for Congress 
 has never made such declaration. Nor need we discuss whether Congress had power ' to 
 enforce the collection of tax against the corporate property of the State,' though Mr. Law- 
 rence said ' the power to do so in the time of war seems undoubted.' Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, 
 when he presented the Direct Tax Bill to Congress, in the midst of war and to raise means 
 promptly to prosecute the war, said ' Congress has no constitutional power to assess taxes 
 upon a State. It must assess it upon the individual ' (Sen. Ex. Doc. 24, ante, page 41). And 
 
208 
 
 the Act levying the tax expressly exempted all State property. It sought not to exercise 
 such i^ower if it existed. 
 
 "Suppose we admit that Congress might legislate as the eighth headnote declares; Con- 
 gress has not so legislated in this case. On the contrary, an effort to have it so legislate 
 was defeated. On the sixth of December, 1882, the bill was reached and taken up in the 
 House. 
 
 "Mr. Holman, as soon as the report had been read, said: 
 
 _" ' The question is presented whether or not this sum should be paid by the United States 
 directly to the State of Georgia, or whether it shall be allowed as a credit to that State on 
 the amount of direct tax apportioned against the State under the Act of August 5, 1861.' 
 
 " Mr. Turner replied : 
 
 " ' The direct tax is a tax due by the people of the State, not by the State in its corporate 
 or aggregate capacity,' etc.— Congressional Record, volume 59, page 69. 
 
 "The issue thus made was debated pro and con. Mr. Holman moved to add to the 
 biU- 
 
 ^'^ Provided, however, that the said sum, $35,555 42, shall not be paid by the Secretary of 
 the Treasury until the sum due the United States of direct taxes apportioned to the State 
 of Georgia under the Act entitled 'An Act to provide increased revenue from imports to 
 pay the interest on the public debt, and for other purposes,' approved August 5, 1861, shall 
 have been adjusted.' (76., 65.) 
 
 * " A motion to strike out the enacting clause was lost; the ayes were 52 and the nays 
 were 76, 
 
 " Mr. Holman's proposed amendment was also lost by ayes 53 to nays 90, An efltbrt to 
 adjourn was lost by 80 nays to 50 yeas. Upon the passage of the bill the yeas and nays 
 were demanded, and it was passed by yeas 96 to nays 80. (76., 68.) The report was read 
 in the Senate, and the bill passed without debate.— Congressional Record, volume 62, pasres 
 3660, 3670-3672. ' . > ^ & 
 
 "Again, we think the payments made to the State of Georgia, aforesaid, were at least 
 "waivers of any such claim by the United States as is here asserted, and did set aside and 
 render inoperative said certification of the account in May. 1868, if it ever were operative 
 for the purpose claimed. 
 
 " Mr. Lawrence does not claim that the decision of his predecessor was correct. He 
 seems to admit, in the opinion, that he would reverse it if he thought he could. He really 
 suggests this legislation in his annual report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883. His 
 language was this : 
 
 "'In 1868 the First Comptroller then in oflQce certified balances due to the United States 
 from several States respectively, for direct taxes due and unpaid, under the Direct Tax 
 Act of August 5, 1861 (12 Stat., 292), and such States were accordingly debited on the books 
 in the office of the Register of the Treasury. It may well be doubted whether any cor^ 
 porate State was properly so charged, but as the Comptroller had jurisdiction of the subject- 
 niatter, his action, even if erroneous, can not be treated as void by the Comptroller now 
 in office. The result is that money due, or which may become due, from the United States 
 to any State so charged, to the extent of the amount so charged, can not be paid to the 
 State, but, by usage and law, is to be applied by way of set-offT It may thus happen that 
 some States will in this mode pay the direct tax, while others indebted in the same form 
 will continue so indebted ; and hence there will seem to be inequality, if not injustice, in 
 the dealings between the United States and such States. The money appropriated by the 
 Act of March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 485), 'to refund to the State of Georgia certain money 
 expended by said State for the common defense in 1877,' was withheld and applied by way 
 of set-off on the sum charged against said State for direct taxes. If it be the purpose of 
 Congress that moneys due to such States shall be paid, it is respectfully suggested that 
 provision should be made authorizing payment without reference to the charge against 
 any such States.' 
 
 "Suppose this money can not be paid, and that Mr. Lawrence is right that the judicial 
 Courts or Congress can furnish the only relief in such case, if the Comptroller erred in 
 charging the State with such liability; still this bill should pass, and for that very reason. 
 The United States admits this indebtedness to Georgia ; it admits Georgia is not in debt to 
 the United States, and it has formally \indertaken to pay this debt to Georgia. Why 
 should she be remitted to the Court of Claims. We see no reason therefor, 
 
 " By reason of a real or supposed obstacle, unknown to Congress when the bill for pay- 
 ment was passed, the debt of the United States has not been paid. An officer of the 
 United States erroneously put that obstacle in the way. It should be removed, unless 
 there is some other reason to the contrary, 
 
 " Is there any ? There is none, unless the United States should refuse to pay simply 
 because Georgia did not pay the direct tax. Laying aside the question whether this tax 
 Act was operative within the States with which the United States was then at war, a 
 refusal on that ground seems to be unjust for these -and other reasons : Georgia does not 
 owe the debt to the United States, but, at most, parts of it are due from certain of her 
 citizens respectively. Only those citizens who in 1861 owned the lands taxed owe the 
 taxes, and no property is bound for the tax except those lands. If Secretary McCulloch 
 was right in his Texas decision, ante, and Mr. Porter was right in the Georgia case, ante, 
 Georgia could not, after a fixed day in 1862, assume the debts, if she wished. Georgia can 
 not collect these taxes without such assumption. 
 
 "It does not seem just to collect from Georgia, as a State, any part of a debt she does 
 not owe, nor from her, as representing the land owners of 1861, by withholding money 
 
209 
 
 which belongs to Georgia as a State, and if, as representing any citizens, as representing 
 all her citizens, whether owning lands in 1861 or anything else at any time. 
 
 " It does not seem that the United States will ever collect those direct taxes of 1861. But 
 could it and should it determine to do so, equal collections should be made from all the 
 Southern States simultaneously. To make Georgia pay indirectly by withholding from 
 her admitted dues from the United States has not been the policy of the Government, as 
 appears from the payments already of over a quarter of a million dollars to her in cash 
 since said account was raised in 1868. We do not think it should become the policy of 
 the Government. Therefore, we recommend that the bill do pass." 
 
 The committee therefore recommend the passage of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Hepburn, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following as the 
 views of the minority (to accompany bill H. R. 3): 
 
 The officers of the Treasury are required to, and do, set off sums of money due from 
 the United States to any State against any sums that may be due from the State. 
 
 These officers have for many years regarded the unpaid tax levied upon the United 
 States and apportioned among the States by the eighth section of the Act of Congress 
 approved August 5, 1861, as a debt due from the delinquent State, and have treated the 
 same as a proper set-off against any moneys due to said State. Thus the sum of $35,555 42 
 was appropriated to pay to the State of Georgia, by the Act approved March 3, 1883, but 
 the Secretary of the Treasury declined to make such payment, because he found that on 
 the books of the Treasury there was charged against "the State of Georgia the sum of 
 $512,959 48, that had been for many years, certainly since the year 1868, regarded as a debt 
 due from the State of Georgia to the United States, being the balance of the direct tax 
 apportioned to said State under the Act above referred to and amendments thereto. 
 
 House Bill No. 3 forbids the officers of the Treasury to treat the unpaid portions of such 
 direct tax as a debt or in any way as a set-off against any claim in favor of any State. 
 The majority of the committee have recommended the passage of the bill. The under- 
 signed are of the opinion that it should not pass, at least until it undergoes material 
 modification. 
 
 Accompanying a letter of Hon. Charles J. Folger, late Secretary of the Treasury, 
 addressed to Hon. George F. Edmunds, under date of March 29, 1884, was the following : 
 
 Statement of the condition of the direct tax accounts of the several States and Territories and 
 the District of Columbia, under Acts of August 5, 1861, and June 7, 1862. 
 
 State or Territory. 
 
 Amount 
 Imposed. 
 
 Amount Paid. 
 
 Fifteen per Cent 
 Allowance. 
 
 Balance Due 
 United States. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 California- 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Dakota 
 
 Delaware 
 
 District of Columbia 
 
 Florida .. 
 
 Georgia , 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Maine 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Missouri. 
 
 Nebraska ... 
 
 Nevada ... 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 New Mexico 
 
 New York 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 14 m 
 
 $529,313 33 
 
 261,886 00 
 
 254,538 67 
 
 22,905 33 
 
 308,214 00 
 
 3,241 33 
 
 74,683 33 
 
 49,437 33 
 
 77,522 67 
 
 584,367 33 
 
 1,146,551 33 
 
 904,875 33 
 
 452,088 00 
 
 71,743 33 
 
 713,695 33 
 
 385,886 67 
 
 420,826 00 
 
 436,823 33 
 
 824,581 33 
 
 501,763 33 
 
 108,424 00 
 
 413,084 67 
 
 761,127 33 
 
 19,312 00 
 
 4,592 67 
 
 218,406 67 
 
 450,134 00 
 
 62,648 00 
 
 2,603,918 67 
 
 576,194 67 
 
 1.567,089 33 
 
 35,140 67 
 
 1.946,719 33 
 
 116,963 67 
 
 $8,491 46 
 
 184,082 18 
 
 247,941 13 
 
 1,516 89 
 
 261,987 90 
 
 74,683 33 
 
 49,437 33 
 
 43,529 81 
 
 71,407 75 
 
 974,568 63 
 
 769,144 03 
 
 384,274 80 
 
 71,743 33 
 
 606,641 03 
 
 268,515 12 
 
 357,702 10 
 
 371,299 83 
 
 700,894 14 
 
 426,498 83 
 
 92,245 40 
 
 74,742 57 
 
 646,958 23 
 
 19,312 00 
 
 4,592 67 
 
 185,645 67 
 
 382,614 83 
 
 62,648 00 
 
 2,213,330 86 
 
 386,194. 45 
 
 1,332,025 93 
 
 35,140 67 
 
 1,654,711 43 
 
 99,419 11 
 
 $46,232 10 
 ' *4,350"50' 
 
 171,982 70 
 
 135,731 30 
 
 67,813 20 
 
 107,054 30 
 
 63,123 90 
 65,523 50 
 123,607 19 
 75,264 50 
 16.278 60 
 
 411,869 10 
 (See note.) 
 
 32,761 00 
 67,519 17 
 (See note.) 
 390,587 81 
 
 235,063 40 
 
 292,007 90 
 17,544 56 
 
 $520,821 87 
 
 77,803 82 
 
 6,597 54 
 
 21,388 44 
 
 3,211 33 
 
 33,992 86 
 512,959 58 
 
 117,371 55 
 
 338,342 10 
 
 190,000 22 
 
210 
 
 Statement of the condition of the direct tax accounts of the several States — Continued. 
 
 State oe Territory. 
 
 Amount 
 Imposed. 
 
 Amount Paid. 
 
 Fifteen per Cent 
 Allowance. 
 
 Balance Due 
 
 United States. 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Texas 
 
 Utah 
 
 Vermont . 
 
 Virginia 
 
 West Virginia 
 Washington .. 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 $669,498 00 
 
 355,106 67 
 
 26,982 00 
 
 211,068 00 
 
 1 729,071 02 
 
 t208,479 65 
 
 7,755 33 
 
 519,688 67 
 
 363,570 67 
 
 1387,722 06 
 130,008 06 
 
 179,407 80 
 515,569 72 
 181,306 93 
 4,268 16 
 429,196 68 
 377.961 30 
 
 $31,660 20 
 '2y,i72'72" 
 
 $281,775 94 
 
 225,098 61 
 
 26,982 00 
 
 213,501 30 
 
 39,346 43 
 U4,390 63 
 
 3,487 17 
 51,145 56 
 
 * Included on compromise. 
 
 f Joint resolution Tebruary 25, 1867, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer ^208,479 65 of the 
 amount originally appropriated to Virginia to the State of West Virginia. 
 J Overpaid. 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 Nebraska : 
 
 Amount collected $4,281 60 
 
 Amount allowed by Act of August 7, 1882 (22 Stat, p. 314)... 15,030 40 
 
 $19,312 00 
 
 New Mexico : 
 
 Amount allowed by Act of July 1, 1862 (12 Stat., p., 489) 62,648 00 
 
 Nearly $17,500,000 of the original $20,000,000 levied is shown to have been paid, and some- 
 thing more than $2,500,000 now stknds charged against fourteen States, more than $2,000,000 
 of it being against the States of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, 
 Texas, and Virginia. 
 
 It is more than probable that no part of this sum of $2,500,000 will ever be realized by 
 the Government, except as it may be used as a set-off against claims like that of Georgia, 
 first above referred to, and the effect of this bill (H. R. No. 3) will, in behalf of all the 
 delinquent States, be as effective as payment, or a release. 
 
 The question is a pertinent one: Why should the delinquent States be released? The 
 majority of the committee answer that the claim against Georgia and the other delin- 
 quent States is not a debt due from the State, making a distinction between Georgia as a 
 political corporation, and the whole of the people of Georgia. Indeed, it is claimed that a 
 tax can not be levied upon a State. We do not see why. There might be difficulty in 
 many instances to make collections if the State refused to perform its duty by prompt 
 payment. There are but few of the States that are the owners of real estate beyond that 
 that is used in the performance of the functions of government. The United States is 
 greatly interested in the full performance by each of the States of all the duties imposed 
 upon them, and could not consent to throw any impediment in the way of such perform- 
 ance, as would be the case if the Government should seize the capitol, the prisons, the 
 hospitals, and the colleges belonging to a non-paying State and sell them in order to realize 
 the tax. Hence, in the case of one of the reluctant and non-performing States, the Gov- 
 ernment crosses the State line and lays hold upon the citizen, levies upon his land, and 
 forces him to make the payment that is due from his State and that is owed by him, and 
 payment of which is forced from him, only because his State is not in such condition as 
 to be forced to pay, except at the expense of its usefulness as a governing factor. 
 
 The Federal Government is always forced to deal with the individual when the State 
 refuses the performance of duty. When States were in rebellion they were forced to the 
 resumption of duties through and by the exertions of the Government upon the individual 
 members of the society composing and constituting the State. There is no other medium 
 through which the Government can act. It coerces the State through the individual. 
 Hence the machinery of the law of August 5, 1861, providing for the levy on and sale of 
 the property of individuals and collections from them. If each of the States had been in 
 sympathy and accord with the purposes of the Government, it is more than probable that 
 the sections following the eighth of the Act of 1861 would never have been enacted. The 
 Congress would have contented itself with the imposition of the tax upon the United 
 States and " apportionment among the several States." But it was known that several of 
 the States were hostile to the Government ; that they would not pay the sum apportioned 
 to them, and for this reason, and in our judgment only for this reason, do we find these 
 provisions in the law that look to the coHection of the sums not paid by States from the 
 citizens of the delinquent States. We do not regard these provisions of the Act as do the 
 majority, as evidencing a purpose on the part of the law-makers to exempt the State from 
 indebtedness, and impose indebtedness primarily upon the individual citizens composing 
 the State. The practice of our Courts illustrates this principle. A debt is due from a 
 county as a political corporation. Its officers refuse payment and refuse to levy a tax to 
 meet a judgment rendered. The Court will send the marshal and his deputies to make 
 levies and collections, to lay hold of the individuals composing the political corporation 
 that is derelict in its duty. 
 
 But it is said by the report of the majority that the tax can not be a debt due from the 
 
211 
 
 states to be relieved, because those States had not assumed the debt. We submit that if 
 the power to tax exists it exists independently of consent. In the obligation to pay taxes 
 there are none of the elements of a contract. The power to levy these taxes came from 
 the Constitution. The language is, " The Congress shall have power to lay and collect 
 taxes." " Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States." Not among the 
 people of the several States, but among the States. 
 
 If the United States by a levy and apportionment of a direct tax among the States does 
 not impose an obligation, a debt, upon the States, by what right do the States assume such 
 tax and thus impose a burden on the people ? The power of a State to levy taxes upon 
 the people is limited to the necessities of its present or prospective indebtedness. These 
 needs alone bound the power of taxation, if the States did not owe, or if it was not cer- 
 tain that at a future day the State would owe, various debts, then we submit the act of 
 taking the people's money through the exercise of the taxing power would be the veriest 
 robbery. What right has the State to assume the individual debt of A, B, or C, its citi- 
 zens ? If this tax was a debt from individuals, where did the several States get the power 
 to assume it? Is the payment of the debts of citizens one of the functions of State Gov- 
 ernment ? The property of individuals can only be taken for public uses, but here we find 
 a State seizing the property of one citizen to pay what the ma]ority say is the x'rivate debt 
 of an individual to the Government of the United States. It can not be said that the 
 prospect of a fifteen per cent fee can invest the State with the right to become a collecting 
 agent and force its citizens to a payment of their debts, not by the use of the State Courts, 
 but by the use of the taxing power of the State. 
 
 In bur belief the State had no power to assume the debt of another, but being indebted 
 to the United States, it had the power to assume the duty of the levy and collection of 
 such sums of money as would pay the debt, and by so doing relieve the United States 
 from the expense and responsibiiitj'- of making the collections from many individuals, and 
 by this assumption earn the fifteen or ten per cent promised in the law. 
 
 We are of the opinion that there are many reasons indicating the impolicy of attempts 
 on the part of the United States to collect the sums due from the delinquent States. Yet 
 a large majority of the States have paid their full apportionment. Why should those 
 States which have refused to perform their duty receive rewards that are not bestowed 
 upon those that were faithful to duty. 
 
 We are willing that the provisions of House Bill No. 3 should be enacted into law, but 
 only on the condition that the States are all placed in an equallj^ just position. If Georgia, 
 that has not paid, is to be released, then Illinois, that has paid in full, should be repaid all 
 she has paid of this direct tax, as well as all of her expenses incurred. The duty of prompt 
 payment of the sums apportioned to each of the States rested upon all alike. It was 
 Georgia's duty to pay promptly just as it was the duty of Illinois. The latter did pay and 
 did discharge in full her indebtedness. The other utterly refused to pay, and now demands, 
 through House Bill No. 3, that the United States shall surrender the only means by which 
 it is practicable to force partial and long deferred payment. We do not believe there is 
 justice in this demand; certainly not without all of the States are restored to the position 
 occupied before the levy was made and the debt imposed. 
 
 We favor the restoration of all the States to the status occupied before the imposition of 
 the tax, by the remission of all that part of the $20,000,000 not paid to the States delinquent, 
 and the return of all sums of money paid to the States malcing the payments, together 
 with the percentage of ten or fifteen per cent due to the States making collections. 
 
 And as a measure that would establish proper relations of equality between the States 
 and Territories in regard to said direct taxes levied, we report the following substitute for 
 House Bill No. 3, and recommend its passage. 
 
 W. P. HEPBURN. 
 A. A. RANNEY. 
 A. X. PARKER. 
 L. B. CASWELL. 
 
 Strike out from House Bill No. 3 all after the enacting clause, and insert the following 
 words : 
 
 " That the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby directed to state an account 
 with each of the States and Territories of the United States as they existed on the fifth 
 day of August, 1861, and with the District of Columbia, and in said statement of account 
 he shall place to the credit of each State, Territory, and District all moneys paid by either 
 of them into the Treasury of the United States, or all moneys that were collected by the 
 agents of the United States, from either of them or from their citizens, as direct taxes 
 levied upon the United States, and apportioned among the several States, under the pro- 
 visions of the Act of Congress approved August 5, 1861, and the amendments thereto, and 
 he shall also place to the credit of each State, Territory, and District such sums of money 
 as were earned by any such States, Territories, or District, by reason of collections of said 
 direct taxes made by them and paid into the Treasury of the United States ; and said 
 Secretary is directed to pay to each of said States, Territories, or District the sums under 
 said accountings found to be due, and credited to them, respectively, and the said Secre- 
 tary is further directed to write opposite to any charges of debt that now stands on the 
 books of the Treasury of the United States against any State, Territory, or the District of 
 Columbia, by reason of the direct tax above mentioned, the words 'remitted in full,' and 
 the said unpaid portion of said direct tax is hereby remitted in full to the States, Terri- 
 tories, and District of Columbia, and that they are hereby released from all obligations to 
 pay any of the unpaid portions of said tax." 
 
212 
 
 Mr. Hammond. Mr. Speaker, until that report is in the possession of the 
 House and the views of the minority have been seen by the different mem- 
 bers, discussion upon them will not be so well understood. There are other 
 gentlemen here who desire to speak on the general topic, or incidentally 
 connected with it, who do not desire to discuss the particular views expressed 
 in these papers; and hence I will reserve the time to which I am entitled, 
 and allow those gentlemen to proceed this morning. The gentleman from 
 Mississippi [Mr. Barksdale] wishes to speak upon the subject, as his State 
 is interested in the matter. I will therefore yield the floor to him, reserv- 
 ing the remainder of my time. 
 
 [Mr. Barksdale addressed the House. His remarks will appear here- 
 after.] 
 
 [Mr. Hepburn addressed the committee. His remarks will appear here- 
 after.] 
 
 Mr. Price. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if this bill and its effect upon 
 our revenues and upon the several States were thoroughly understood it 
 would have but little support in this House. I am obliged to go briefly 
 over the history of the matter, and I will do so as rapidly as I can, avoiding 
 as far as possible circumstances already referred to by the gentleman from 
 Iowa [Mr. Hepburn]. 
 
 On the fifth of August, 1861, this Government found it necessary to secure 
 a fund which it did not possess. It adopted the plan of assessing, not upon 
 the individuals of a State, as the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Barks- 
 dale] has said, but upon the United States, a tax of $20,000,000, which was 
 apportioned among the several States of the Union. The President was 
 authorized to divide the various States and Territories and the District of 
 Columbia into convenient collection and assessment districts. All the 
 paraphernalia and machinery of law were provided, and it was further 
 enacted that where a State voluntarily assumed the payment of the debt 
 there should be an allowance of fifteen per cent within a given time and 
 ten per cent within another period, as the Government would thus be saved 
 the necessity of putting the machinery of collection into motion. 
 
 Now, that law stands to-day upon the statute book unrepealed. Its con- 
 stitutionality may have been doubted ; but it has never yet been decided to 
 be unconstitutional. Under it $2,647,000 remain yet unpaid; the balance 
 has been paid into the Treasury of the United States by a portion of the 
 States for the good of the whole. 
 
 The Speaker. The hour devoted to this order of business has expired. 
 
 Mr. Price. Then I shall have the floor when the subject comes up again. 
 
 The Speaker. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Price] will then be 
 entitled to the floor. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. House of Representatives. Report No. 35. 
 
 CLAIM OF THE WAR TAXES. 
 
 January 19, 1886 — Referred to the House Calendar, and ordered to be 
 printed. 
 
 Mr. Hammond, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the fol- 
 lowing 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany bill H. R. 3.] 
 
 The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred bill H. R. 3, 
 have considered the same, and submit the following report: 
 
213 
 
 By an Act of Congress approved March 3, 1883, the Secretary of the 
 Treasury was required to pay to the State of Georgia $35,555 42 (see 22 U. 
 S. Stat., 485). It was not paid because of a decision of Mr. Lawrence, 
 First Comptroller of the Treasury, placing it to the credit of the State on 
 the books of the Treasury against a sum charged there against the State 
 as its quota of a direct tax levied during the late war. 
 
 Bill H. R. 4703, first session, Forty-eighth Congress, was to compel pay- 
 ment, that decision to the contrary notwithstanding. The Judiciary Com- 
 mittee, by Mr. Hammond, on the eleventh of March, 1884, reported in 
 favor of the passage of that bill. (See Report No. 752, first session. Forty- 
 eighth Congress. 
 
 On the second of May, 1884, Mr. Barksdale of Mississippi introduced 
 and had referred to said committee, a bill (H. R. 6867) to authorize settle- 
 ments with any State, and directing that "in such settlement and adjust- 
 ment no charge shall be made, or if made, shall be valid by way of set-off 
 or otherwise against any State oh account of the direct war tax laid by Con- 
 gress by an Act approved August 5, 1861." 
 
 On the twentieth of May, 1884, said committee, by Mr. Hammond, 
 reported thereon as follows: 
 
 The obstacles in the way of paying claims of States against the General Government, 
 
 f rowing out of the chargeof the direct war tax against the States on the books of the 
 'reasury Department, and the opinions by Treasury officials thereon, as well as the rea- 
 sons why those obstacles should be removed, are set forth in Report No. 752 of this session 
 of Congress in the Georgia case, made on the — th of March, 1884. 
 
 Your committee believe that the relief therein recommended for that State should be 
 general as to all the States against which such set-ofl" of war taxes is being or may be 
 claimed, and report accordingly. They, however, report a substitute for bill H. R. 6867, 
 and recommend the passage of the substitute herewith submitted. 
 
 The substitute so reported was this: 
 
 That it shall not be lawful for the Secretary of the Treasury, or other person charged 
 with or concerned in the payment of any sum of money from the United States to any 
 State of the Union, to withhold the same from such State, or its duly authorized agent, 
 by reason of any claim that such State is bound for any part of the war tax levied by the 
 Act of August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, or any Act amendatory thereof, or 
 to treat the said tax in any way as a set-off against any claim in favor of any State. 
 
 Sec. 2. That all laws, or parts of laws, and all rulings or decisions of any department of 
 the Government, or of any officer thereof, inconsistent with the foregoing section, be and 
 are hereby repealed and annulled. 
 
 This report was No. 1658, and the substitute bill H. R.'7082, first session, 
 Forty-eight Congress. The substituted bill and Georgia's separate bill both 
 remained on the calendar, bat were never reached in the last Congress. 
 The present bill (H. R. 3) is a copy of said substitute. 
 
 This committee adopt the reasoning of the former Judiciary Committee 
 in those reports. 
 
 While the former was on the Georgia case only, it covered all the States 
 in like condition. Omitting, therefore, only the introductory parts already 
 substantially given, your committee adopts the language of that report as 
 follows: 
 
 A little history will cast much light upon the subject. The Act of August 5, 1861, pro- 
 vided for collectors and assessors, and for lists of property "from all persons owning, pos- 
 sessing, and having the care or management of any lands," etc., for the purpose of taxing 
 ihe same. (Sections fourteen to twenty-nine, inclusive.) 
 
 Section thirty -three enacted that " the taxes so assessed shall be and remain a lien upon 
 all lands and other real estate of the individuals who maj'^ be assessed for the same " for 
 two years. 
 
 Section fifty-two provided that as soon as Federal authority could be restored in the 
 Southern States, the tax should be collected " from the persons residing or holding property 
 or stocks therein." 
 
214 
 
 The eighth section enacted : 
 
 '' That a direct tax of twenty millions of dollars be and is hereby annually laid upon the 
 United States, and the same shall be and is hereby apportioned to the States, respectively, 
 in manner following: * * * To the State of Georgia, five hundred and eighty -four 
 thousand three hundred and sixty-seven and one third dollars." 
 
 To the other States according to their populations, respectively. But so far from propos- 
 ing to tax the States as such, by section thirteen, it expressly exempted from such taxes 
 "all property, of whatever kind * * * belonging to the "United States or any State," 
 etc. 
 
 Section fifty-three enacted " that any State or Territory and the District of Columbia 
 may lawfully assume, assess, collect, and pay into the Treasury of the United States the 
 direct tax, or its quota thereof, imposed by this Act upon the State, Territory, or the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, in its own way and manner, by and through its own officers, assessors, 
 and collectors," with deduction of fifteen per cent if paid by the thirtieth of June, and of 
 ten per cent if paid by the last of September of the tax year. 
 
 It further provided, " that whenever notice of the intention to make such payment by 
 the State, Territory, and the District of Columbia shall have been given to the Secretary 
 of the Treasury," then the United States shall cease trying to collect by its officers, unless 
 such State should "be in default." In that event the Secretary of the Treasury "was to- 
 collect all or any part of said direct tax the same as though said State, Territory, or Dis- 
 trict had not given notice nor ^assumed to levy, collect, and pay said taxes or any part 
 thereof (section forty-six). 
 
 Said section fifty-three further provided : 
 
 " That the amount of direct tax apportioned to any State, Territory, or the District of 
 Columbia, shall be liable to be paid and satisfied in whole or in part by the release of such 
 State, Territory, or District, duly executed to the United States, of any liquidated and deter- 
 mined claim of such State, Territory, or District, of equal amount against the United 
 States, with the same abatement as if it were paid in money." (See 12 U. S. Stat., 292-312.) 
 
 Another law of June 7, 1862, applied only to the States in " insurrection and rebellion." 
 It made the tax upon each parcel of land in each State chargeable with the tax due upon 
 that parcel, plus fifty per cent, and made a lien on the lands therefor. It provided that 
 " the owner or owners of said lots or parcels of lands " might discharge them by paying^ 
 within a fixed time. 
 
 It provided for commissions to collect the tax in those States, to sell the lands of default- 
 ing owners, etc., but was silent as to any assumption of the tax by those States. (12 U. S. 
 Stat., 422-426.) 
 
 From time to time Congress passed other Acts as to direct taxes, but none of them 
 seem to have any bearing upon this question. For instance, that of May 13, 1862, enlarged 
 the release proviso to include certain expenditures of the States in sending troops to the 
 war, etc. (76., 384) ; that of July 1, 1862, limited the collection to one year, till April, 1865 
 {lb., 489), and that of February 6, 1863, provided for sales of lands and redemption by their 
 "owners" (76., 640). 
 
 All the States, etc., "formally assumed the payment of the tax except Delaware, the 
 Territory of Colorado, and the eleven insurrectionary States." (Report Commissioner 
 Internal' Revenue, 1870. Sen. Ex. Doc. 24, first session' Forty-sixth Congress, 236.) 
 
 The collection of them was suspended as to unpaid sums by Congress. 
 
 In 1868 an account was opened upon the books of the Treasury Department against the 
 State of Georgia for her said quota of the direct tax, though Georgia had in no way assumed 
 to pay the same. We stop not now to discuss why that was done, but proceed with the 
 history. 
 
 The Western and Atlantic Railroad belongs to Georgia. The State bought for said road 
 some of the rolling stock which had been used by the United States at the South in pros- 
 ecuting the late war. This property was paid for in cash, the last payment being on the 
 sixteenth of October, 1867. By an Act approved the third of March, 1877, because of 
 alleged overvaluation of said property when sold. Congress authorized the reopening of 
 said account and adjustment thereof. " The Act required : 
 
 "That when said claims shall have been adjusted in pursuance of the provisions of this- 
 Act, the Secretary of War be and he is hereby authorized to issue his warrant on the 
 Treasury of the United States to the Governor 'of Georgia or his order, for the amount of 
 money i't is found ought to be refunded to said railroad on account of said settlement." 
 (19 U. S. Stat., 402-3.) 
 
 The'amount found to be due the State on that account was $199,038 58. (See Q. M. Gen.'s 
 Report, 1877, p. 120.) 
 
 So far as we are advised, no question of set-off was then made. Certainly the money 
 was paid in cash. 
 
 On the third of March, 1879, Congress enacted in the Sundry Civil Bill: 
 
 " That the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby directed to pay to the State of 
 Georgia seventy-two thousand two hundred and ninety-six dollars and ninety-four cents, 
 for advances made to the United States for the suppression of hostilities by the Creek, 
 Seminole, and Cherokee Indians, in 1835, 1836, 1837, and 1838, and that said sum be paid 
 -out of any monev in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated." 
 
 When payment was requested, the Third Auditor called attention to this direct tax 
 account, and asked information. Mr. Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury, referred to 
 Hon. A. G. Porter, First Comptroller, "whether said amount should be set oft' aganist the 
 amount of the direct tax under Act of August 5, 1861, and Acts amendatory thereto^ 
 
215 
 
 apportioned to the State." He wrote an opinion. In stating the facts, after giving a syn- 
 opsis of the Acts of 1861 and of June, 1862, ante, he added : " The State of Georgia never 
 assumed the amount apportioned to that State, or any part of it." And then, after stating 
 the question, he said : 
 
 " If the sum apportioned is a debt owing by the State of Georgia as a political corpora- 
 tion, then it may be assumed that it ought to be so credited. If, however, it is a debt 
 owing by the persons within that State, whose lands have been taxed, and not by the State 
 itself, then payment ought not to be withheld." 
 
 He then called attention to the decision of Mr. McCulloch, Secretary of the Treasury in 
 1866, as to Texas, and said : 
 
 " Mr, McCulloch treated the apportionment of the direct tax as a debt owing by citizens 
 of Texas belonging to the class whose property was taxed, and not as a debt owing by the 
 State in its political capacity." 
 
 Proceeding, he said: 
 
 "The privilege of a State to assume implies that the debt before the assumption was not 
 its own. Before the adoption of the Constitution, the person whose property was charged 
 with the tax owed the tax to the State, because the State imposed it and levied and col- 
 lected it. Since the adoption of that instrument, the United States has imposed the tax, 
 and has itself levied and collected it. The obligation of the citizen is therefore to the 
 Union, and not to the State, and he and not the State is the debtor." 
 
 Enforcing his view by various citations, urging that any other would leave the States 
 with power to thwart the collection of taxes, in an emergency, directly from the people, 
 and declaring that this direct tax of 1861 could still be collected when the United States 
 wishes, he concluded: 
 
 " It follows, therefore, that it is my duty to direct that the sum appropriated to the State 
 of Georgia shall not be credited as upon a debt owing by that State to the United States, 
 but shall be paid at once to the State." 
 
 In answer to a resolution by the Senate, this decision was transmitted, "with accom- 
 panying papers," to the Senate, by Secretary Sherman, on May 24, 1879. (See Senate Ex. 
 I)oc. INo. 24, first session Forty-sixth Congress.) 
 
 The "accompanying papers" show that, before this opinion was made, attention was 
 called to the fact that Kansas, Missouri, West Virginia, and other States had been cred- 
 ited with various sums there stated. Mr. Porter paid no attention to them, because (as 
 we presume) they had assumed their respective quotas, and thus made them a debt against 
 the States as such. Subsequently, in May, 1881, Mr. Lawrence, the successor of Mr. Por- 
 ter, decided the Kansas case. His opinion contains thirty -three headnotes and twenty- 
 live sub-headnotes. Those which are material, in our opinion, to the present discussion, 
 are as follows : 
 
 " In May, 1879, it was decided )yy the then First Comptroller that the direct tax appor- 
 tioned to the State of Georgia by the Acts of August 5, 1861, and of June 7, 1862, was not a 
 debt of the corporate State, which had not by an Act assumed it ; and that although the 
 tax had not been paid, yet money due from the United States to the State must be paid to 
 the latter, and could not be used by way of set-ofF or in discharge of any part of the claim 
 for direct taxes. (S. Ex. Doc. No. 24, first session Forty-sixth Congress.) That conclu- 
 sion is correct in law. The decision of that question was affected somewhat by the Act of 
 June 7, 1862, not applicable to the question now present. But the same result would be 
 reached without reference to it. Under the Constitution, Congress cannot levy or enforce 
 the collection of a tax or assessment on a corporate State which has not assumed it. The 
 National Government does not operate on States in the collection of revenues, but on 
 persons or property, or both. (2 Lawrence, Compt.- Dec, 310.) 
 
 He further held that his predecessors had decided that Kansas had voluntarily assumed 
 her quota of the tax; that he was bound by that decision, and that therefore a sum appro- 
 priated to Kansas should not be paid, but must be placed to her credit against said 
 assumed debt, (lb. 324,) 
 
 The decision of Lawrence, Comptroller, made twelfth May, 1883, refusing to pay this 
 money to Georgia, has thirty headnotes. We do not believe that we need differ with any 
 of them but the sixth, seventh, tenth, and nineteenth. We call attention to them, and 
 the eighth, also. They are: 
 
 "6. The First Comptroller had jurisdiction and authority in May, 1868, to certify a bal- 
 ance as due from the State of Georgia to the United States, for the quota of direct taxes 
 apportioned to said State by the Direct Tax Act of August 5, 1861. (12 Stat., 294.) 
 
 "7. The Comptroller now in office cannot inquire whether the Comptroller in office in 
 May, 1868, who then certified a balance due from the State of Georgia to the United States 
 on account of direct taxes, had before him sufficient evidence to authorize such action, or 
 whether on such evidence as he then had he jproperly construed the law. The Judicial 
 Courts or Congress can furnish the only relief m such case, if the Comptroller erred in 
 charging the State with such liability. 
 
 " 8. Congress may by law require the accounting officers of the Treasury Department 
 to set off a claim of the United States against a Stal;e, when such State demands payment 
 of a claim due to it from the United States, although in such case Congress might not 
 under the Constitution charge such corporate State with a liability and enforce its pay- 
 ment in any other mode except by such set-off. 
 
 "9. The legislation of Congress in relation to the quota of direct taxes apportioned to 
 Missouri and West Virginia seems in principle to recognize the correctness of the judg- 
 ment of the First Comptroller, by which, in May, 1868, he certified a balance as due from 
 
216 
 
 the State of Georgia to the United States for its quota of the direct tax apportioned to that 
 State bv the Act of August 5, 1861. 
 
 "10. 'The Direct Tax Act of August 5, 1861 (12 Stat., 311, Section 53), provides a special 
 statutory mode of paying the quota of tax apportioned to anj^ State by declaring that it 
 ^ shall he liable to he paid'' by set-off' of any liquidated and determined claim of such State 
 
 * * * against the United States.' 
 
 " 19. The balance certified by the First Comptroller, May 29, 1868, as due to the United 
 States from the State of Georgia, for its quota of direct tax, under the Act of August 5, 
 1861, has not been in any form set aside or rendered inoperative." 
 
 First~T>\di any Comptroller ever, in any fair sense, try to raise a debt against Georgia 
 for this tax? Mr. Lawrence, in this opinion, stated the facts in this language: 
 
 " May 11, 1868, by report No. 55448 the Fifth Auditor ' examined and adjusted an account 
 between the United States and the State of Georgia,' and found ' that the sum of $584,- 
 367 33 is due from said State to the United States * * * for amount of direct tax 
 imposed and apportioned by the eighth section of the Direct Tax Act of August 5, 1861, 
 ' amount to be debited to the State of Georgia on the books of the Register of the Treasury.' 
 
 "May 29, 1868, the First Comptroller certified to the Register a balance due and payable 
 as stated in the above report, and it was accordingly charged, on the Register's books, as 
 a debt due from the State of Georgia to the United States. 
 
 " September 3, 1874, the Fifth Auditor, by Report No. 5, adjusted an account between the 
 United States and T. P. Robb, Samuel A. Pancoast, and John C. Bates, Commissioners of 
 Direct Tax for the State of Georgia, from August 1, 1865, to December 15, 1866, and found 
 them chargeable with 'amount of direct tax laid upon the State of Georgia by Act of 
 Congress approved August 5, 1861, |584,367 33.' The report shows costs chargeable to the 
 State $649 72, and finds the Commissioners entitled to credit for salaries and expenses 
 $9,835 06, amount of taxes remaining uncollected $501,939 86, amount refunded to tax- 
 payers on account of collections improperly made $46 17, and cash deposited $71,407 75 
 covered into the Treasury by miscellaneous warrants numbered and dated in 1866, respect- 
 ively, 747 March 31, 524 June 25, 697 June 30, 598 September 29, and 726 December 31. 
 
 " January 9, 1875, the Acting First Comptroller certified a balance of $1,788 22 ' due to 
 the United States from the Commissioners, as stated in the above report.' The amount of 
 these warrants- was placed to the credit of the State of Georgia in the Register's office on 
 said account for direct taxes." 
 
 In May, 1868, the amount fixed by the statute as the quota of Georgia was charged to 
 her, and afterwards, in 1874, the same amount was charged by the same office to the 
 United States Commissioners of direct tax for the State of Georgia, and they were credited 
 with various sums collected and uncollected, and among others an " amount refunded to 
 taxpayers on account of collections improperly made, $46 17." The dealing with " tax- 
 payers" showed that the State was not considered the debtor. The "taxpayers" owed 
 only if Georgia had not assumed the debt. Taking the two accounts together, it seems 
 plain that the account was so stated only for convenience of keeping the books of the 
 Department. Any other view makes us to assume that the officer raising the account 
 acted in ignorance of the law. The First Comptroller could have no jurisdiction under the 
 Act of 1861 to state an account against any State which had not assumed the debt. 
 
 It is true, as stated in the tenth headnote, supra, that said Act provides a special statutory 
 mode of paying the quota of tax apportioned to any State, by declaring that it " shall be 
 liable to be paid" by set-off" "of any liquidated and 'determined claim of such State * * 
 
 * against the United States." But more is true. That "special statutory mode of pay- 
 ing" is in the words which Mr. Lawrence omitted from the quotation, viz.: "&?/ the release 
 of such State * * * duly executed to the United States.'' By such release, with a view to 
 such credit, the State consents to the account against it, and thus assumes the debt. It 
 was by such a release that Missouri was credited (see Act of July 17, 1862, in said Senate 
 Ex. Doc. 24, p. 197). The same is true as to West Virginia, under the Act of February 25, 
 1867 {lb., 207). They assumed the debt and sought to have certain credits allowed. Geor- 
 gia did not assume It, and therefore nothing in their cases authorizes the raising of such 
 an account against Georgia. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence admits that this action of his predecessor is the only obstacle, and that 
 it is not in the way of payment if it was "unauthorized or void." If no statute author- 
 ized it, it was "unauthorized." No statute created such a debt except by the consent of 
 the State, and the State did not consent. There is no pretense that the First Comptroller 
 found such fact upon inquiry. It is only stated that he did an act from which it is 
 inferred that he found such fact. But that does not follow; for he may have raised the 
 account for other reasons. Congress cannot make such a debt against a State without its 
 consent. There was no consent, and therefore the act raising such account, when consid- 
 ered as to whether that Act made Georgia the debtor, is "void." 
 
 We admit that " all claims or demands whatever bv the United States * * * shall 
 be settled and adjusted in the Department of the Treasury " (Rev. Stat., § 236). But there 
 must be a claim or demand to adjust. The statute declared there could be none against 
 a State till it assented, and Georgia never assented. So, while the Second Comptroller 
 must "examine all accounts" settled by the Auditors {lb., 273), and the First Au- 
 ditor "must examine all accounts accruing in the Treasury Department" {lb., 277); there 
 must be a debtor, by law, before an account can exist for examination. 
 
 It is useless to examine whether Congress " may so far declare a State indebted to the 
 United States as to secure satisfaction of the debt by withholding from it by set-off, as in 
 
217 
 
 this case, money admitted to be due from the United States to such State," for Congress 
 has never made such declaration. Nor need we discuss whether Congress had power "to 
 enforce the collection of tax against the corporate property of the State," though Mr. 
 Lawrence said "the power to do so in time of war seems undoubted." Mr. Thaddeus 
 Stevens, when he presented the direct tax bill ifO Congress, in the midst of war, and to 
 raise means promptly to prosecute the war, said " Congress has no constitutional power 
 to assess taxes upon a State. It must assess it upon the individual" (Sen. Ex. Doc. 24, 
 ante, page 41). And the Act levying the tax expressly exempted all State property. It 
 sought not to exercise such power if it existed. 
 
 Suppose we admit that Congress might legislate as the eighth headnote declares; Con- 
 gress has not so legislated in this case. On the contrary, an effort to have it so legislate 
 was defeated. On the sixth of December, 1882, the bill was reached and taken up m the 
 House. 
 
 Mr. Holman, as soon as the report had been read, said: 
 
 " The question is presented whether or not this sum should be paid by the United 
 States directly to the State of Georgia, or whether it shall be allowed as a credit to that 
 State on the amount of direct tax apportioned against the State under the Act of August 
 5, 1861." 
 
 Mr. Turner replied : 
 
 " The direct tax is a tax due by the people of the State, not by the State in its corporate 
 or aggregate capacity, etc," (Congressional Record, vol. 59, page 59.) 
 
 The issue thus made was debated pro and con. Mr. Holman moved to add to the bill — 
 
 ^'Provided, however, that the said sum, $35,555 42, shall not be paid by the Secretary of 
 the Treasury until the sum due the United States of direct taxes apportioned to the State 
 of Georgia under the Act entitled ' An Act to provide increased revenue from imports to 
 pay the interest on the public debt, and for other purposes,' approved August 5, 1861, shall 
 nave been adjusted. (lb., 65.) 
 
 A motion to strike out the enacting clause was lost; the ayes were fifty -two and the 
 nays were seventy-six. 
 
 Mr. Holman's proposed amendment was also lost by ayes fifty-three to nays ninety. 
 An effort to adjourn was lost by eighty nays to fifty yeas. Upon the passage of the bill 
 the yeas and nays were demanded, and it was passed by j^eas ninety-six to nays eighty. 
 {lb., 68.) The report was read in the Senate, and the bill passed without debate. (Congres- 
 sional Record, vol. 62, pp. 3660, 3670-3672.) 
 
 Again, we think the payments made to the State of Georgia, aforesaid, were at least 
 waivers of any such claim by the United States as is here asserted, and did set aside and 
 render inoperative said certification of the account in May, 1868, if it ever were operative 
 for the purpose claimed. 
 
 Mr. Lawrepce does not claim that the decision of his predecessor was correct. He 
 seems to admit, in the opinion, that he would reverse it if he thought he could. He really 
 suggests this legislation in his annual report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883. His 
 language was this : 
 
 "In 1868 the First Comptroller then in office certified balances due to the United States 
 from several States respectively, for direct taxes due and unpaid, under the direct tax Act 
 of August 5, 1861 (12 Stat., 292), and such States were accordingly debited on the books in 
 the office of the Register of the Treasury. It may well be doubted whether any corporate 
 State was properly so charged, but as the Comptroller has jurisdiction of the suoject- 
 matter, his action, even if erroneous, cannot be treated as void by the Comptroller now in 
 office. The result is, that money due, or which may become due, from the United States 
 to any State so charged, to the extent of the amount so charged, cannot be paid to the 
 State, but, by usage and law is to be applied by way of set-off. It may thus happen that 
 some States will in this mode pay the direct tax, while others indebted in the same form 
 will continue so indebted, and hence there will seem to be inequality, if not injustice, in 
 the dealings between the United States and such States. The money appropriated by the 
 Act of March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 485), "to refund to the State of Georgia certain money 
 expended by said State for the common defense in 1877," was withheld and applied by 
 way of set-off on the sum charged against said State for direct taxes. If it be the purpose 
 of Congress that moneys due to such States shall be paid, it is respectfully suggested that 
 provision should be made authorizing payment without reference to the charge against 
 any such States." 
 
 Suppose this money cannot be paid, and that Mr. Lawrence is right that the judicial 
 Courts or Congress can furnish the only relief in such case, if the Comptroller erred in 
 charging the State with such liability; still this bill should pass, and for that very reason. 
 The United States admits this indebtedness to Georgia ; it admits Georgia is not in debt 
 to the United States, and it has formally undertaken to pay this debt to Georgia. Why 
 should she be remitted to the Court of Claims ? We see no reason therefor. 
 
 By reason of a real or supposed obstacle unknown to Congress when the bill for pay- 
 ment was passed, the debt of the United States has not been paid. An officer of the 
 United States erroneously put that obstacle in the way. It should be removed, unless 
 there is some other reason to the contrary. 
 
 Is there any? There is none, unless the United States should refuse to pay simply 
 because Georgia did not pay the direct tax. Laying aside the question whether this tax 
 Act was operative within the States with which the IJnited States was then at war, a refu- 
 sal on that ground seems to be unjust for these and other reasons: Georgia does not owe 
 the debt to the United States, but, at most, parts of it are due from certain of her citizens 
 
218 
 
 respectively. Only those citizens who in 1861 owned the lands taxed owe the taxes, and 
 no property is bound for the tax except those lands. If Secretary McCulloch was right in 
 his Texas decision, ante, and Mr. Porter was right in the Georgia case, ante, Georgia could 
 not, after a fixed day in 1862, assume the debts, if she wished. Georgia cannot collect 
 these taxes without such assumption. 
 
 It does not seem just to collect from Georgia, as a State, any part of a debt she does not 
 owe, nor from her, as representing the land owners of 1861, by withholding money which 
 belongs to Georgia as a State, and if, as representing any citizens, as representing all her 
 citizens, whether owning lands in 1861, or anything else at any time. 
 
 It does not seem that the United States will ever collect those direct taxes of 1861. But 
 could it and should it determine to do so, equal collections should be made from all the 
 Southern States simultaneously. To make Georgia pay indirectly by withholding from 
 her admitted dues from the United States, has not been the policy of the Government, as 
 appears from the payments already of over a quarter of a million of dollars to her in 
 cash since said account was raised in 1868. We do not think it should become the policy 
 of the Government. Therefore, we recommend that the bill do pass. 
 
 The committee therefore recommend the passage of the bill. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. House of Representatives. Report 35, part 2. 
 
 WAR TAXES OF 1861. 
 
 January 29, 1886 — Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
 printed. 
 
 Mr. Hepburn, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the fol- 
 lowing as the 
 
 VIEWS OF THE MINORITY. 
 [To accompany bill H. R. 3.] 
 
 The officers of the Treasury are required to, and do, set off sums of money 
 due from the United States to any State against any sums that may be due 
 from the State. 
 
 These officers have for many years regarded the unpaid tax levied upon 
 the United States and apportioned among the States by the eighth section 
 of the Act of Congress approved August 5, 1861, as a debt due from the 
 delinquent State, and have treated the same as a proper set-off against any 
 moneys due to said State. Thus the sum of $35,555 42 was appropriated 
 to pay to the State of Georgia, by the Act approved March 3, 1883, but the 
 Secretary of the Treasury declined to make such payment, because he 
 found, that on the books of the Treasury, there was charged against the 
 State of Georgia the sum of $512,959 48, that had been for many years, 
 certainly since the year 1868, regarded as a debt due from the State of 
 Georgia to the United States, being the balance of the direct tax appor- 
 tioned to said State under the Act above referred to, and amendments 
 thereto. 
 
 House Bill No. 3 forbids the officers of the Treasury to treat the unpaid 
 portions of such direct tax as a debt or in any way as a set-off against any 
 claim in favor of any State. The majority of the committee have recom- 
 mended the passage of the bill. The undersigned are of the opinion that 
 it should not pass, at least until it undergoes material modification. 
 
 Accompanying a letter of the Hon. Charles J. Folger, late Secretary of 
 the Treasury, addressed to the Hon. George F. Edmunds, under date of 
 March 29, 1884, was the following: 
 
219 
 
 Statement of the Condition of the Direct Tax Accounts of the several States and Territories and 
 the District of Columbia, under Adts of August 5, 1861, and June 7, 1862. 
 
 State or Territory. 
 
 Amount Im- 
 
 Amount Paid. 
 
 Fifteen per Cent 
 Allowance. 
 
 Balance Due 
 United States. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 California. 
 
 Colorado. 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Dakota 
 
 Delaware 
 
 District of Columbia 
 
 Florida ". 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Illinois ..- 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Maine 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Mississippi _. 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 New Mexico 
 
 New York 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 Tennessee ._ 
 
 Texas. 
 
 Utah. 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Virginia 
 
 West Virginia 
 
 Washington 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 $529,313 33 
 
 261,886 00 
 
 254,538 67 
 
 22,905 33 
 
 308,214 00 
 
 3,241 33 
 
 74,683 33 
 
 49,437 33 
 
 77,522 67 
 
 584,367 33 
 
 1,146,551 33 
 
 904,875 33 
 
 452,088 00 
 
 71,743 33 
 
 713,695 33 
 
 385,886 67 
 
 420,826 00 
 
 436,823 33 
 
 824,581 33 
 
 501,763 33 
 
 108,424 00 
 
 413,084 67 
 
 761,127 33 
 
 19,312 00 
 
 4,592 67 
 
 218,406 67 
 
 450,134 00 
 
 62,648 00 
 
 2,603,918 67 
 
 576,194 67 
 
 1,567,089 33 
 
 35,140 67 
 
 1,946,719 33 
 
 116,963 67 
 
 669,498 00 
 
 355,106 67 
 
 26,982 00 
 
 211,068 00 
 
 +729,071 02 
 
 +208,479 65 
 
 7,755 33 
 
 519.688 67 
 
 363,570 67 
 
 $8,491 
 
 184,082 
 
 247,941 
 
 1,516 
 
 261,987 
 
 74,683 
 
 49,437 
 
 43,529 
 
 71,407 
 
 974,568 
 
 769,144 
 
 384,274 
 
 71,743 
 
 606,641 
 
 268,515 
 
 357,702 
 
 371,299 
 
 700,894 
 
 426,498 
 
 92,245 
 
 74,742 
 
 646,958 
 
 19,312 
 
 4,592 
 
 185,645 
 
 382,614 
 
 62,648 
 
 2,213,330 
 
 386,194 
 
 1,332,025 
 
 35,140 
 
 1,654,711 
 
 99,419 
 
 387,722 
 
 130,008 
 
 $46,232 10 
 "*4350'50' 
 
 171,982 70 
 
 135,731 30 
 
 67,813 20 
 
 107,054 30 
 
 63,123 90 
 65,523 50 
 123,687 19 
 75,264 50 
 16,278 60 
 
 411,869 10 
 (See note.) 
 
 32,761 00 
 
 67,519 17 
 
 (See note.) 
 
 390,587 81 
 
 235,063 40 
 
 292,007 90 
 17,544 56 
 
 179,407 
 515,569 
 181,300 
 4,268 
 429,196 
 377,901 
 
 31,660 20 
 27',i72'72' 
 
 39,346 43 
 $14,390 63 
 
 $520,821 87 
 
 77,803 82 
 
 6,597 54 
 
 21,388 44 
 
 3,241 33 
 
 33,992 86 
 512,959 58 
 
 117,371 55 
 
 338,342 10 
 
 190,000 22 
 
 281,775 94 
 
 225,098 61 
 
 26,982 00 
 
 213,501 30 
 
 3,487 17 
 51,145 56 
 
 * Included on compromise. 
 
 + Joint resolution February 25, 1867, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer $208,479 65 of the 
 amount originally appropriated to Virginia to the State of West Virginia. 
 J Overpaid. 
 
 NOTE. 
 Nebraska : 
 
 Amount collected $4,281 60 
 
 Amount allowed by Act of August 7, 1882 (22 Stat., p. 314) 15,030 40 
 
 $19,312 00 
 
 New Mexico : 
 
 Amount allowed by Act of July 1, 1862 ( 12 Stat., p. 489) 62,648 00 
 
 Nearly $17,500,000 of the original $20,000,000 levied is shown to have 
 been paid, and something more than $2,500,000 now stands charged against 
 fourteen States, more than $2,000,000 of it being against the States of Ala- 
 bama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. 
 
 It is more than probable that no part of this sum of $2,500,000 will ever 
 be realized by the Government, except as it may be used as a set-off against 
 claims like that of Georgia, first above referred to, and the effect of this 
 bill (H. R. No. 3) will, in behalf of all of the delinquent States, be as 
 effective as payment, or a release. 
 
220 
 
 The question is a pertinent one: AVhy should the delinquent States be 
 released? The majority of the committee answer that the claim against 
 Georgia and the other delinquent States is not a debt due from the State, 
 making a distinction between Georgia as a political corporation, and the 
 whole of the people of Georgia. Indeed, it is claimed that a tax cannot 
 be levied upon a State. We do not see why. There might be difficulty in 
 many instances to make collections if the State refused to perform its duty 
 by prompt payment. There are but few of the States that are the owners of 
 real estate beyond that that is used in the performance of the functions of 
 government. The United States is greatly interested in the full perform- 
 ance by each of the States of all the duties imposed upon them, and could 
 not consent to throw any impediment in the way of such performance, as 
 would be the case if the Government should seize the capitol, the prisons, 
 the hospitals, and the colleges belonging to a non-paying State and sell 
 them in order to realize the tax. Hence, in the case of one of the reluctant 
 and non-performing States, the Government crosses the State line and lays 
 hold upon the citizen, levies upon his land, and forces him to make the pay- 
 ment that is due from his State, and that is owed by him, and payment of 
 which is forced from him, only because his State is not in such condition 
 as to be forced to pay, except at the expense of its usefulness as a govern- 
 ing factor. 
 
 The Federal Government is always forced to deal with the individual 
 when the State refuses the performance of duty. When States were in 
 rebellion they were forced to the resumption of duties through and by^the 
 exertions of the Government upon the individual members of the society 
 composing and constituting the State. There is no other medium through 
 which the Government can act. It coerces the State through the indi- 
 vidual. Hence the machinery of the law of August 5, 1861, providing for 
 the levy on and sale of the property of individuals and collections from 
 them. If each of the States had been in sympathy and accord with the 
 purposes of the Government, it is more than probable that the sections 
 following the eighth of the Act of 1861 would never have been enacted. 
 The Congress would have contented itself with the imposition of the tax 
 upon the United States and " apportionment among the several States." 
 But it was known that several of the States were hostile to the Government; 
 that they would not pay the sum apportioned to them, and for this reason, 
 and in our judgment only for this reason, do we find these provisions in the 
 law that look to the collection of the sums not paid by the States from the 
 citizens of the delinquent States. We do not regard these provisions of 
 the Act as do the majority, as evidencing a purpose on the part of the 
 law-makers to exempt the State from indebtedness and impose indebtedness 
 primarily upon the individual citizens composing the State. The practice 
 of our Courts illustrates this principle: A debt is due from a county as a 
 political corporation. Its officers refuse payment and refuse to levy a tax 
 to meet a judgment rendered. The Court will send the Marshal and his 
 deputies to make levies and collections, to lay hold of the individuals 
 composing the political corporation that is derelict in its duty. 
 
 But it is said by the report of the majority that the tax cannot be a debt 
 due from the States to be relieved, because those States had not assumed 
 the debt. We submit that if the power to tax exists, it exists independ- 
 ently of consent. In the obligation to pay taxes there are none of the 
 elements of a contract. The power to levy these taxes came from the 
 Constitution. The language is, " The Congress shall have power to lay 
 and collect taxes." " Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several 
 States." Not among the people of the several States, but among the States. 
 
221 
 
 If the United States by a levy and apportionment of a direct tax among 
 the States does not impose an obhgation, a debt, upon the States, by what 
 right do the States assume such tax and thus impose a burden on the 
 people ? The power of a State to levy taxes upon the people is limited to 
 the necessities of its present or prospective indebtedness. These needs 
 alone bound the power of taxation. If the States did not owe, or if it was 
 not certain that at a future day the State would owe, various debts, then 
 we submit the act of taking the people's money through the exercise of 
 the taxing power would be the veriest robbery. What right has a State to 
 assume the individual debt of A, B, or C, its citizens? If this tax was a 
 debt from individuals, where did the several States get the power to assume 
 it? Is the payment of the debts of citizens one of the functions of State 
 government? The property of individuals can only be taken for public 
 uses, but here we find a State seizing the property of one citizen to pay 
 what the majority say is the private debt of an individual to the Govern- 
 ment of the United States. It cannot be said that the prospect of a fifteen 
 per cent fee can invest the State with the right to become a collecting 
 agent and force its citizens to a payment of their debts, not by the use of 
 the State Courts, but by the use of the taxing power of the State. 
 
 In our belief, the State had no power to assume the debt of another, but 
 being indebted to the United States, it had the power to assume the duty 
 of the levy and collection of such sums of money as would pay the debt, 
 and by so doing relieve the United States from the expense and responsi- 
 bility of making the collections from many individuals, and by this 
 assumption earn the fifteen or ten per cent promised in the law. 
 
 We are of the opinion that there are many reasons indicating the im- 
 policy of attempts on the part of the United States to collect the sums due 
 from the delinquent States. Yet a large majority of the States have paid 
 their full apportionment. Why should those States which have refused to 
 perform their duty receive rewards that are not bestowed upon those that 
 were faithful to duty? 
 
 We are willing that the provisions of House Bill No. 3 should be enacted 
 into law, but only on the condition that the States are all placed in an 
 equally just position. If Georgia, that has not paid, is to be released, then 
 Illinois, that has paid in full, should be repaid all she has paid of this 
 direct tax, as well as all of her expenses incurred. The duty of prompt 
 payment of the sums apportioned to each of the States rested upon all 
 alike. It was Georgia's duty to pay promptly, just as it was the duty of 
 Illinois. The latter did pay, and did discharge in full her indebtedness. 
 The other utterly refused to pay, and now demands, through House Bill 
 No. 3, that the United States shall surrender the only means by which it 
 is practicable to force partial and long deferred payment. We do not 
 believe there is justice in this demand; certainly not without all of the 
 States are restored to the position occupied before the levy was made and 
 the debt imposed. 
 
 We favor the restoration of all of the States to the status occupied before 
 the imposition of the tax by the remission of all that part of the 120,000,000 
 not paid to the States delinquent, and the return of all sums of money paid 
 to the States making the payments, together with the percentage of ten or 
 fifteen per cent due to the States making collections. 
 
 And as a measure that would establish proper relations of equality 
 between the States and Territories, in regard to said direct taxes levied, 
 
222 
 
 we report the following substitute for House Bill No. 3, and recommend its 
 passage. 
 
 W. P. HEPBURN. 
 
 A. A. RANNEY. 
 
 A. X. PARKER. 
 
 L. B. CASWELL. 
 
 Strike out from House Bill No. 3 all after the enacting clause, and insert 
 the following words: 
 
 "That the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby directed to 
 state an account with each of the States and Territories of the United 
 States as they existed on the fifth day of August, 1861, and with the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, and in said statement of account, he shall place to the 
 credit of each State, Territory, and District all moneys paid by either of 
 them into the Treasury of the United States, or all moneys that were col- 
 lected by the agents of the United States, from either of them or from their 
 citizens, as direct taxes levied upon the United States, and apportioned 
 among the several States, under the provisions of the Act of Congress 
 approved August 5, 1861, and the amendments thereto, and he shall also 
 place to the credit of each State, Territory, and District such sums of money 
 as were earned by any such States, Territories, or District, by reason of 
 collections of said direct taxes made by them and paid into the Treasury 
 of the United States; and said Secretary is directed to pay to each of said 
 States, Territories, or District the sums under said accountings found to be 
 due, and credited to them, respectively, and the said Secretary is further 
 directed to write opposite to any charges of debit that now stand on the 
 books of the Treasury of the United States against any State, Territory, or 
 the District of Columbia, by reason of the direct tax above mentioned, the 
 words ' remitted in full,' and the said unpaid portion of said direct tax is 
 hereby remitted in full to the States, Territories, and District of Columbia, 
 and they are each hereby released from all obligation to pay any of the 
 unpaid portions of said tax." 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 37. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. House of Representatives. Report 35, part 2. 
 
 WAR TAXES OF 1861. 
 
 January 29, 1886 — Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
 printed. 
 
 Mr. Hepburn, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the fol- 
 lowing as the 
 
 VIEWS OF THE MINORITY. 
 [To accompany bill H, R. 3.] 
 
 The officers of the Treasury are required to, and do, set off sums of money 
 due from the United States to any State against any sums that may be 
 due from the State. 
 
 These officers have for many years regarded' the unpaid tax levied upon 
 the United States and apportioned among the States by the eighth section 
 of the Act of Congress, approved August 5, 1861, as a debt due from the 
 delinquent State, and have treated the same as a proper set-off against 
 any moneys due to said State. Thus the sum of $35,555 42 was appropri- 
 ated to pay to the State of Georgia, by the Act approved March 3, 1883, 
 but the Secretary of the Treasury declined to make such payment, because 
 
223 
 
 he found that on the books of the Treasury there was charged against the 
 State of Georgia the sum of $512,959 48, that had been for many years, 
 certainly since the year 1868, regarded as a debt due from the State of 
 Georgia to the United States, being the balance of the direct tax appor- 
 tioned to said State under the Act above referred to, and amendments 
 thereto. 
 
 House Bill No. 3 forbids the officers of the Treasury to treat the unpaid 
 portions of such direct tax as a debt or in any way as a set-off against any 
 claim in favor of any State. The majority of the committee have recom- 
 mended the passage of the bill. The undersigned are of the opinion that 
 it should not pass, at least until it undergoes material modification. 
 
 Accompanying a letter of the Hon. Charles J. Folger, late Secretary of 
 the Treasury, addressed to the Hon. George F. Edmunds, under date of 
 March 29, 1884, was the following: 
 
 Statement of the Condition of the Direct Tax Accounts of the several States and Territories and 
 the District of Columbia, under Acts of August 5, 1861, and June 7, 1862. 
 
 State or Territory. 
 
 Amount Im- 
 posed. 
 
 Amount Paid. 
 
 Fifteen per 
 Cent Allowance. 
 
 Balance Due 
 United States. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 California 
 
 Colorado. - 
 
 Connecticut- 
 
 Dakota 
 
 Delaware 
 
 District of Columbia 
 Morida 
 
 Ceorgia 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Kentucky.. 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Maine 
 
 Maryland- 
 
 Massachusetts .. 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 New Mexico 
 
 New York 
 
 North Carolina- . 
 
 Ohio- ---- 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Texas 
 
 Utah 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Virginia 
 
 "West Virginia 
 
 Washington 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 South Carolina . . . 
 
 $529,313 33 
 
 261,886 00 
 
 254,538 67 
 
 22,905 33 
 
 308,214 00 
 
 3,241 33 
 
 74,683 33 
 
 49,537 33 
 
 77,522 67 
 
 584,367 33 
 
 1,146,551 33 
 
 904,875 33 
 
 452,088 00 
 
 71,743 33 
 
 713,695 33 
 
 385,886 67 
 
 420,826 00 
 
 436,823 33 
 
 824,581 33 
 
 501,763 33 
 
 108,524 00 
 
 413,084 67 
 
 764,127 33 
 
 19,312 00 
 
 4,592 67 
 
 218,406 67 
 
 450,134 00 
 
 62,648 00 
 
 2,603,918 67 
 
 576,194 67 
 
 1,567,089 33 
 
 35,140 67 
 
 1,946,719 33 
 
 116,963 67 
 
 , 669,498 00 
 
 355,106 67 
 
 26,982 00 
 
 211,068 00 
 
 •fc 729,071 02 
 
 + 208,479 65 
 
 7,755 33 
 
 519,688 67 
 
 363,570 67 
 
 18,491 46 
 
 184,082 18 
 
 247,941 13 
 
 1,516 89 
 
 261,981 90 
 
 * 74,683 33 
 
 49,437 33 
 
 43,529 81 
 
 71,407 75 
 
 974,568 63 
 
 769,144 03 
 
 384,274 80 
 
 71,743 33 
 
 606,641 03 
 
 268,515 12 
 
 357,702 10 
 
 371,299 83 
 
 700,894 14 
 
 426,498 83 
 
 92,245 40 
 
 74,742 57 
 
 646,958 23 
 
 + 19,312 00 
 
 4,592 67 
 
 185,645 67 
 
 382,614 83 
 
 X 62,648 00 
 
 2,213,330 86 
 
 386,194 45 
 
 1,332,025 93 
 
 35,140 67 
 
 1,654.711 43 
 
 99,419 11 
 
 287,722 06 
 
 130,008 06 
 
 179,407 80 
 515,569 72 
 181,306 93 
 4,268 16 
 429,196 68 
 377,961 30 
 
 $46,232 10 
 '*4,356'50 
 
 171,982 70 
 
 135,731 30 
 
 67,813 20 
 
 107,054 30 
 
 63,123 90 
 65,523 50 
 123,687 19 
 75,264 50 
 16,278 60 
 
 111,869 10 
 (See note.) 
 
 32,761 00 
 
 67,519 17 
 
 (See note.) 
 
 390,587 81 
 
 235,063 40 
 
 292,007 90 
 17,544 56 
 
 31,660 20 
 
 27,172' 72' 
 
 39,346 43 
 X 14,390 63 
 
 $520,821 27 
 
 77,803 82 
 
 6,597 54 
 
 21,388 44 
 
 3,241 33 
 
 33,992 86 
 512,959 58 
 
 117,371 55 
 
 338,342 10 
 
 190,000 22 
 
 281,775 94 
 
 225,098 61 
 
 26,982 00 
 
 213,501 30 
 
 3,487 17 
 51,145 56 
 
 * Included on compromise. 
 
 t Joint resolution, February 25, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer $208,479 65 of the amount 
 originally appropriated to Virginia to the State of West Virginia. 
 X Overpaid. 
 
224 
 
 NOTE. 
 Nebraska : 
 
 Amount collected- _ $4,281 60 
 
 Amount allowed by Act of August 7, 1882 (22 Stat., p. 314) 15,030 40 
 
 $19,312 00 
 
 New Mexico : 
 
 Amount allowed by Act of July 1, 1862 (12 Stat., p. 489) 62,648 00 
 
 Nearly $17,500,000 of the original $20,000,000 levied is shown to have 
 been paid, and something more than $2,500,000 now stands charged against 
 fourteen States, more than $2,000,000 of it being against the States of Ala- 
 bama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. 
 
 It is more than probable that no part of this sum of $2,500,000 will ever 
 be realized by the Government, except as it may be used as a set-off against 
 claims like that of Georgia, first above referred to, and the effect of this 
 bill (H. R. No. 3) will, in behalf of all the delinquent States, be as effective 
 as payment, or a release. 
 
 The question is a pertinent one: Why should the delinquent States be 
 released? The majority of the committee answer that the claim against 
 Georgia and the other delinquent States is not a debt due from the State y 
 making a distinction between Georgia as a political corporation, and the 
 whole of the people of Georgia. Indeed, it is claimed that a tax cannot be 
 levied upon a State. We do not see why. There might be difficulty in 
 many instances to make collections if the State refused to perform its duty 
 by prompt payment. There are but few of the States that are the owners 
 of real estate beyond that that is used in the performance of the functions 
 of government. The United States is greatly interested in the full per- 
 formance by each of the States of all the duties imposed upon them, and 
 could not consent to throw any impediment in the way of such perform- 
 ance, as would be the case if the Government should seize the Capitol, the 
 prisons, the hospitals, and the colleges belonging to a non-paying State and 
 sell them in order to realize the tax. Hence, in the case of one of the 
 reluctant and non-performing States, the Government crosses the State line 
 and lays hold upon the citizen, levies upon his land, and forces him to 
 make the payment that is due from his State and that is owed by him^ 
 and payment of which is forced from him, only because his State is not in 
 such condition as to be forced to pay, except at the expense of its useful- 
 ness as a governing factor. 
 
 The Federal Government is always ft)rced to deal with the individual 
 when the State refuses the performance of duty. When States were in 
 rebellion they were forced to the resumption of duties through and by the 
 exertions of the Government upon the individual members of the society 
 composing and constituting the State. There is no other medium through 
 which the Government can act. It coerces the State through the indi- 
 vidual. Hence the machinery of the law of August 5, 1861, providing for 
 the levy on and sale of the property of individuals and collections from 
 them. If each of the States had been in sympathy and accord with the 
 purposes of the Government, it is more than probable that the sections fol- 
 lowing the eighth of the Act of 1861 would never have been enacted. The 
 Congress would have contented itself with the imposition of the tax upon 
 the United States and "apportionment among the several States." But it 
 was known that several of the States were hostile to the Government; that 
 they would not pay the sum apportioned to them, and for this reason, and 
 in our judgment only for this reason, do we find these provisions in the law 
 that look to the collection of the sums not paid by States from the citizens 
 of the delinquent States. We do not regard these provisions of the Act 
 as do the majority, as evidencing a purpose on the part of the law makers 
 
225 
 
 to exempt the State from indebtedness and impose indebtedness primarily 
 upon the individual citizens composing the State. The practice of our 
 Courts illustrates this principle. A debt is due from a county as a political 
 corporation. Its officers refuse payment and refuse to levy a tax to meet a 
 judgment rendered. The Court will send the Marshal and his deputies to 
 make levies and collections, to lay hold of the individuals composing the 
 political corporation that is derelict in its duty. 
 
 But it is said by the report of the majority that the tax cannot be a debt 
 due from the States to be relieved, because those States had not assumed 
 the debt. We submit that if the power to tax exists, it exists independ- 
 ently of consent. In the obligation to pay taxes there are none of the ele- 
 ments of a contract. The power to levy these taxes came from the Con- 
 stitution. The language is, " The Congress shall have power to lay and 
 collect taxes." "Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several 
 States." Not among the people of the several States, but among the States. 
 
 If the United States by a levy and apportionment of a direct tax among 
 the States does not impose an obligation, a debt, upon the States, by what 
 right do the States assume such tax and thus impose a burden on the peo- 
 ple ? The power of a State to levy taxes upon the people is limited to the 
 necessities of its present or prospective indebtedness. These needs alone 
 bound the power of taxation. If the State did not owe, or if it was not 
 certain that at a future day the State would owe, various debts, then we 
 submit the act of taking the people's money through the exercise of the 
 taxing power would be the veriest robbery. What right has a State to 
 assume the individual debt of A, B, or C, its citizens? If this tax was a 
 debt from individuals, where did the several States get the power to assume 
 it? Is the payment of the debts of citizens one of the functions of State 
 government? The property of individuals can only be taken for public 
 uses, but here we find a State seizing the property of one citizen to pay 
 what the majority say is the private debt of an individual to the Govern- 
 ment of the United States. It cannot be said that the prospect of a fifteen 
 per cent fee can invest the State with the right to become a collecting agent 
 and force its citizens to a payment of their debts, not by the use of the 
 State Courts, but by the use of the taxing power of the State. 
 
 In our belief the State had no power to assume the debt of another, but 
 being indebted to the United States, it had the power to assume the duty 
 of the levy and collection of such sums of money as would pay the debt, 
 and by so doing relieve the United States from the expense and responsi- 
 bility of making the collections from many individuals, and by this assump- 
 tion earn the fifteen or ten per cent promised in the law. 
 
 We are of the opinion that there are many reasons indicating the im- 
 policy of attempts on the part of the United States to collect the sums due 
 from the delinquent States. Yet a large majority of the States have paid 
 their full apportionment. Why should those States which have refused to 
 perform their duty receive rewards that are not bestowed upon those that 
 were faithful to duty? 
 
 We are willing that the provisions of House Bill No. 3 should be enacted 
 into law, but only on the condition that the States are all placed in an 
 equally just position. If Georgia, that has not paid, is to be released, then 
 Illinois, that has paid in full, should be repaid all she has paid of this 
 direct tax, as well as all of her expenses incurred. The duty of prompt 
 payment of the sums apportioned to each of the States rested upon all 
 alike. It was Georgia's duty to pay promptly, just as it was the duty of 
 Illinois. The latter did pay and did discharge in full her indebtedness. 
 15"^ 
 
226 
 
 The other utterly refused to pay, and now demands, through House Bill 
 No. 3, that the United States shall surrender the only means by which it is 
 practicable to force partial and long deferred payment. We do not believe 
 there is justice in this demand; certainly not without all of the States are 
 restored to the position occupied before the levy was made and the debt 
 imposed. 
 
 We favor the restoration of all of the States to the status occupied before 
 the imposition of the tax by the remission of all that part of the $20,000,- 
 000 not paid to the States delinquent, and the return of all sums of money 
 paid to the States making the payments, together with the percentage of 
 ten or fifteen per cent due to the States making collections. 
 
 And as a measure that would establish proper relations of equality be- 
 tween the States and Territories in regard to said direct taxes levied, we 
 report the following substitute for House Bill No. 3, and recommend its 
 passage. 
 
 W. P. HEPBURN. 
 A. A. RANNEY. 
 A. X. PARKER. 
 L. B. CASWELL. 
 
 Strike out from House Bill No. 3 all after the enacting clause, and insert 
 the following words: 
 
 " That the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby directed to 
 state an account with each of the States and Territories of the United 
 States as they existed on the fifth day of August, 1861, and with the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, and in said statement of account he shall place to the 
 credit of each State, Territory, and District, all moneys paid by either of 
 them into the Treasury of the United States, or all moneys that were col- 
 lected by the agents of the United States, from either of them or from their 
 citizens, as direct taxes levied upon the United States, and apportioned 
 among the several States, under the provisions of the Act of Congress 
 approved August 5, 1861, and the amendments thereto; and he shall also 
 place to the credit of each State, Territory, and District, such sums of 
 money as were earned by any such States, Territories, or District, by reason 
 of collections of said direct taxes made by them and paid into the Treas- 
 ury of the United States; and said Secretary is directed to pay to each of 
 said States, Territories, or District, the sums under said accountings found 
 .to be due, and credited to them, respectively; and the said Secretary is 
 further directed to write opposite to any charges of debit that now stands 
 on the books of the Treasury of the United States against any State, Ter- 
 ritory, or the District of Columbia, by reason of the direct tax above men- 
 tioned, the words ' remitted in full,' and the said unpaid portion of said 
 direct tax is hereby remitted in full to the States, Territories, and District 
 of Columbia, and they are each hereby released from all obligation to pay 
 any of the unpaid portions of said tax." 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 38. 
 
 STATEMENT. 
 
 The intention evidently was to substitute the House Bill as introduced 
 in the Forty-ninth Congress by Hon. W. T. Price of Wisconsin, to wit, H. 
 R. 2776, or that introduced by Hon. Barclay Henley of California, to wit, 
 H. R. 164, the same being identical with the bill as favorably recommended 
 
227 
 
 for passage, and as reported upon by the honorable House Committee on " 
 Claims in the Forty-eighth Congress, and which is as follows, to wit : 
 
 That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to credit to each State and 
 Territory of the United States, and the Distriqt of Columbia, a sum equal to all collec- 
 tions made from said States and Territories and the District of Columbia under the Act 
 of Congress approved August tifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, and the amendatory 
 Acts thereto, with an additional sum of fifteen per centum upon all amounts so collected 
 where such States or Territories or the District of Columbia have collected the same with- 
 out cost to the United States. 
 
 Sec. 2. That all moneys still due to the United States on the quota of direct tax appor- 
 tioned by section eight of the Act of Congress approved August fifth, eighteen hundred 
 and sixty-one, are hereby remitted and relinquished. 
 
 Sec. 3. That there is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not other- 
 wise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to reimburse each State, Territory, 
 and the District of Columbia for all money found due to them under the provisions of 
 this Act; and the Treasurer of the United States is hereby directed to pay the same; 
 provided, that where the sums, or any part thereof, credited to any State, Territory, or 
 the District of Columbia, have been collected from the citizens thereof, either directly, or 
 hy sale of property, such sums shall be held in trust by such State, Territory, or the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia for the benefit of those of its citizens from whom they were collected, 
 or their legal representatives. 
 
 The letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, to wit. Senate Ex. Doc. No. 
 142, Forty-eighth Congress, first session, shows that the — 
 
 State of. 
 
 Has Paid. 
 
 And now Owes. 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Mississippi 
 Alabama .. 
 
 $71,407 75 
 
 74,742 57 
 
 8.491 46 
 
 $512,959 58 
 338,342 10 
 520,821 87 
 
 So that the proper substitute of the Minority Report of the Judiciary 
 Committee, to wit, of H. R. 164, or of H. R. 2776, if adopted, would re- 
 lieve these particular States absolutely. But in the States of Virginia, 
 Tennessee, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Florida, lands in each thereof 
 were sacrificed in order to pay these direct taxes, and the United States 
 Supreme Court has heretofore held that the titles so acquired are valid. 
 (98 U. S., page 517.) 
 
 The account between these last named States and the United States 
 now is as follows, to wit: 
 
 The State of. 
 
 Has Paid. 
 
 And now Owes. 
 
 Virginia'- _ 
 
 $515,569 72 
 
 387,722 06 
 
 377,961 30 
 
 184,082 18 
 
 43,529 81 
 
 $213,501 30 
 
 281,775 94 
 * 14,390 63 
 
 77 803 82 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Arkansas . 
 
 Florida 
 
 33,992 86 
 
 
 '■ Overpaid. 
 
 (See Senate Ex. Doc. No. 142, Forty-eighth Congress, first session.) 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 WILLIAM E. EARLE, 
 
 For South Carolina. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 
 For California. 
 
228 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 39. 
 
 ORDER OF BUSINESS. 
 
 The Speaker. The call of the committees for reference of report having 
 been gone through with, the Chair will now, under the rule, call commit- 
 tees for the consideration of bills for one hour. The hour begins at eighteen 
 minutes before one o'clock. The call rests with the Committee on the 
 Judiciary. The gentlemen from Wisconsin [Mr. Price] is entitled to the 
 floor for twelve minutes on the bill (H. R. 3) to prevent the claim of the 
 war taxes under the Act of August 5, 1861, and Acts amendatory thereof, 
 by the United States, as set-off against States having claims against the 
 General Government. 
 
 Mr. Price. Mr. Speaker, by an Act of Congress approved August 5, 
 1861, a tax was levied on "the United States," which was apportioned 
 among the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia as 
 follows: 
 
 Alabama $529,313 33 
 
 Arkansas 261,886 00 
 
 California 254,538 67 
 
 Colorado. 22,905 33 
 
 Connecticut , 308,214 00 
 
 Dakota 3,241 .33 
 
 Delaware 74,683 33 
 
 District of Columbia 49,437 33 
 
 Florida 77,522 67 
 
 Georgia 584,367 33 
 
 Illinois 1,146,551 33 
 
 Indiana 904,875 33 
 
 Iowa 452,088 00 
 
 Kansas 71,743 33 
 
 Kentucky 713,695 33 
 
 Louisiana 385,886 97 
 
 Maine 420,826 00 
 
 Maryland 436,823 33 
 
 Massachusetts 824,581 33 
 
 Michigan.. 501,763 33 
 
 Minnesota 108,424 00 
 
 Mississippi 413,084 67 
 
 Missouri $761,127 33 
 
 Nebraska 19,312 00 
 
 Nevada.... 4,592 67 
 
 New Hampshire 218,406 67 
 
 New Jersey.- 450,134 00 
 
 New Mexico... 62,648 00 
 
 New York 2,603,918 67 
 
 North Carolina 576,194 67 
 
 Ohio 1,567,089 33 
 
 Oregon 35,140 67 
 
 Pennsylvania 1,946,719 33 
 
 Rhode Island 116,963 67 
 
 Tennessee 669,498 67 
 
 Texas. 355,106 00 
 
 Utah 26,982 00 
 
 Vermont 211,068 00 
 
 Virginia-. 729,071 02 
 
 West Virginia 208,479 65 
 
 Washington 7,755 33 
 
 Wisconsin 599,688 67 
 
 South Carolina 363,570 67 
 
 And that Act further provided that the President should divide the 
 States and Territories into convenient collection districts and appoint asses- 
 sors and collectors in each district so formed. Oaths were to be taken and 
 bonds filed by such officers, and they were empowered and required to 
 collect the same, and, when necessary, to seize and sell property- of indi- 
 viduals in either of said districts to an amount equal to the whole tax so 
 levied, and all the necessary machinery created for getting the tax or 
 property to an amount equal thereto. 
 
 Section 53 of said Act provided that any State or Territory might assume, 
 collect, and pay into the Treasury of the United States the tax thus im- 
 posed, and in all cases where the tax should be thus collected without cost 
 to the General Government a credit or allowance of fifteen per cent should be 
 allowed to apply as part of said sum up to a certain date and ten per cent 
 up to a certain other time. That law stands to-day on the statute books 
 of the nation unrepealed and only partially executed. Some of the States 
 have paid the full amount of their quota, some only a part, and some none 
 at all. There remains yet due and unpaid the sum of $2,624,509 59. 
 
 No disposition is manifested by those in arrears to pay it, and no effort 
 is being made to collect it, except by the process of offsetting any sum or 
 
229 
 
 sums that from time to time may become due from the General Govern- 
 ment to such dehnquent States. We were officially informed in 1884, by 
 the then Secretary of the United States Treasury, that the rule up to that 
 time had been invariable, as applied to all the States in arrears, to apply 
 all such sums as from time to time might become due to the States from 
 the United States toward the liquidation of such balances, and we all know 
 that such is still the rule. 
 
 The last official statement of the United States Treasurer shows that the 
 State of Georgia owes the United States $512,959 58. 
 
 In 1883, by an Act of Congress, the sum of $35,555 42 was appropriated 
 to that State in full of a claim which, while it may have been just, was 
 very, very old. The accounting officer of the Treasury, acting in harmony 
 with a rule which was not only just, but was the same that had been, was 
 then, and still is applied to each and every other State, refused to pay over 
 the money to the State of Georgia, but proposed to enter it as a credit in 
 partial liquidation of her long-standing indebtedness to the General Gov- 
 ernment. This last financial transaction has probably led to the intro- 
 duction of the bill under consideration — a bill to prevent the claim of the 
 war taxes under the Act of August 5, 1861, and Acts amendatory thereof, 
 by the United States, as set-off against States having claims against the 
 General Government. 
 
 This is an impartial statement of the case presented to the House for 
 our consideration and approval or disapproval. 
 
 If this bill should pass it takes from the Government its last and only 
 practical or available means of ever collecting a dollar of the $2,624,509 54 
 which is due to it. 
 
 That the assessment or apportionment of the said tax was fair and 
 equitable is not doubted. That it was necessary no one will deny. That 
 it created a debt against each of the States is not disputed. That it was 
 cheerfully paid by some of the States, and forcibly collected from others, 
 in part or in whole, is just as certain. 
 
 Then can we be asked with reason or propriety to say, by the passage of 
 this bill, that the American Congress will punish the States or the people 
 who responded to the call of the country in its hour of peril and dire 
 necessity, by discriminating against them; that the American Congress is 
 willing to change a rule, which has been inflexibly enforced against them, 
 to favor a State or a people who were, at least, dilatory in meeting their 
 just proportion of this measure for the common good? 
 
 Are we willing to say, by the passage of this bill, that Georgia, which 
 has paid only $71,407 75, and owes yet $512,959 58; that Mississippi, that 
 has paid only $74,742 57, and owes $338,342 10; that Alabama, which 
 has paid only $8,491 40, and owes $520,821 87, shall be released from 
 their liability , when Louisiana has paid in money $268,515 12, when North 
 Carolina has "paid in money $386,194 45, when by the sale of lands there 
 has been forcibly collected from Arkansas $184,082 18, from South Caro- 
 lina $377,961 30, from Virginia $515,569 72, from Florida $43,529 80? 
 
 By what process of reasoning can an honest man conclude that there is 
 an element of justice in such a course ? And yet a vote for this bill would 
 be to indorse this glaring wrong. 
 
 I have thus far only adverted to the wrong which would be done to cer- 
 tain of the Southern States by passing this bill, but its injustice becomes 
 still more apparent when it is considered that of this same tax, for the 
 common good of all the States: 
 
230 
 
 California has paid $247,941 13 
 
 Connecticut ..- 308,214 00 
 
 Delaware 74,683 33 
 
 District of Columbia 49,437 33 
 
 Illinois 1,146,551 33 
 
 Indiana 904,875 33 
 
 Iowa 452,088 00 
 
 Kansas - 71,743 33 
 
 Kentucky 713,695 33 
 
 Maine... 420,826 00 
 
 Maryland 436,823 33 
 
 Massachusetts 1 . 824,581 33 
 
 Michigan 501,763 33 
 
 Minnesota .-. $108,424 00 
 
 Missouri 761,127 33 
 
 New Hampshire 218,406 67 
 
 New Jersey 450,134 00 
 
 New Yorl^: 2,603,918 67 
 
 Ohio ....1,567,089 33 
 
 Oregon 35,140 67 
 
 Pennsylvania .1,946,719 33 
 
 Rhode Island 116,963 67 
 
 Vermont 211,068 00 
 
 West Virginia... 208,479 65 
 
 Wisconsin 468,543 11 
 
 In the Forty-eighth Congress I had the honor to introduce a bill which 
 received a favorable recommendation from the Committee on Claims, to 
 which it was referred, the purpose of which was to do just what is con- 
 templated by the bill under consideration, to wit: relieve all of the States 
 and Territories from all balances against them growing out of said tax of 
 1861 and Acts amendatory thereof; but another provision, coupled with 
 the foregoing, wafe one that provided that all sums which had been paid 
 by any of the States and Territories should be credited to them severally 
 on the books of the United States Treasury, and any balance found due 
 after such credit had been entered should be paid to them respectively. 
 
 This bill was never reached and considered by the House, but the Com- 
 mittee on Claims having the same in charge submitted a favorable report, 
 a copy of which I herewith submit and make a part of my argument: 
 
 Mr. Price, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following report to accompany 
 bill H. R. 6047. 
 
 The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 6047) to adjust certain 
 accounts between the United States and the several States and Territories and the District 
 of Columbia, has had the same under consideration, and reports : 
 
 Under the Act of August 5, 1861 (12 Stat, at L., 292), a direct tax of $20,000,000 was laid 
 upon the United States, and was apportioned among the different States and Territories 
 and the District of Columbia, based on population. 
 
 By section fifty-three it was provided that each State might assume the payment of its 
 quota thereof, and if it did so on or before the second Tuesday in February next, after the 
 passage of the Act, it should hav.e a deduction of fifteen per cent on so much of the quota 
 of direct tax apportioned to such State in lieu of the compensation of officers for collect- 
 ing the tax as was actually paid into the Treasury on or before the last day of June, and 
 a deduction of ten per cent upon so much as should be paid into the Treasury thereafter 
 and before the last dav of September of that year. 
 
 Some of the loyal States assumed their quotas, while others did not do so. Of those 
 which assumed the payment some paid prior to the last day of June, others prior to the 
 last day of September, while some of them have only paid in part, and still owe balances. 
 
 Of the loyal States which did not assume their quotas, the amount thereof has been 
 collected from some in full by the First Comptroller stopping in the Treasury sums going 
 to them on account of five per cents from sales of public lands and other allowed claims 
 in their favor against the United States. 
 
 An Act for the collection of direct taxes in insurrectionary districts within the United 
 States was passed June 7, 1862 (12 Stat, at L., 422). This contained no provision for the 
 assumption of its quota by the insurrectionary States. Under this Act a portion of the 
 quota of some of the States was collected directly from the owners of real estate, and 
 other portions were collected by sales of real estate, while from others nothing whatever 
 was collected. 
 
 Since the war, as in the case of loyal States, the First Comptroller has withheld and 
 applied to the quotas of these States such sums as they were entitled to receive on account 
 or five per cents from the sales of public lands or upon other allowed claims in favor of 
 these States respectively against the United States. 
 
 The quota of each State is not a liability upon the State as such, but upon the real estate 
 of the people of the State, and was by the law made a lien upon each piece thereof in the 
 proportion of its value to the aggregate value of the real estate in that State. 
 
 The quota of each State and Territory has been charged to it upon the books of the 
 Treasury, and such sums as have been paid or collected, whether directly or by sale of 
 property, has been credited against this quota, as has also all such sums as were going to 
 said State on account of five per cents from sales of public lands and other allowed 
 accounts. This system of withholding sums due to States and crediting them on account 
 of this tax due by its citizens (or by only a portion of its citizens where some have paid) 
 is a source of constant dissatisfaction and friction, and at the last session of Congress a 
 
231 
 
 bill was passed providing that a claim should be paid directlj'- to a State in money for the 
 purpose of avoiding its being thus credited, and a bill is now pending in the House to pay- 
 in money to a State an amount which has been credited in the Treasury upon its quota of 
 this direct tax. The extreme undesirability of these issues over accounts between the 
 States and the General Government can not be overstated, and is so apparent as not to 
 require to be more than mentioned. The injustice, too, of the utter inequality of the pay- 
 ments is so apparent as to require no argument as to the importance of adopting some mode 
 of adjusting and equalizing them, and if this can not be done absolutely, then at least as far 
 as is practicable and possible. 
 
 To do this is the purpose of the bill under consideration. It provides that the account 
 of each State and Territory be credited with a sum equal to all collections made from 
 each State and Territory, or any citizen thereof, under the Act of Congress approved 
 August 5. 1861, and Acts amendatory thereto, with an additional sum of fifteen per cent 
 on such payments made without cost to the United States, and also to relinquish all 
 claim for all sums remaining unpaid on said direct tax. This will give to those States 
 which assumed and paid their quotas the benefit of the deductions to which they thus 
 entitled themselves. In those cases in which the tax has been collected from individuals, 
 either in money directly or by sale of land, it provides, by an amendment herewith sub- 
 mitted, that the amount thus paid back shall be made to the State in trust for those of her 
 citizens who have paid the same. 
 
 The bill was fully and carefully considered by the late Secretary of the Treasury, Hon. 
 Charles J. Folger. On June fourteenth, ultimo, he wrote a letter, in which he uses the 
 following language: 
 
 "The purpose of the bill is to relieve and discharge from further liability for that tax 
 those States and Territories which have not paid the portion thereof apportioned to them 
 respectively; and to repay, oat of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
 to those States and Territories which have paid any portion, the sums by them respectively 
 paid. Though by the Act above cited this tax was made an annual one, an attempt to 
 collect it for more than one year has never been made. By that attempt there were col- 
 lected about $15,000,000, principally from the States which did not seek to go out of the 
 Union ; and there were left uncollected about $5,000,000, principally in the States which 
 did seek to go out of the Union. The sum uncollected remains a charge against these 
 States, and, for the purposes of this letter, it may be assumed that it is a valid and enforc- 
 able charge. It is plain, however, that no legislator at this day would propose to raise 
 revenue by a tax of that kind. There is no need of resorting to such methods. The 
 revenue of the Government from sources not so extraordinary, and collectible by means 
 and appliances not so objectionable as those involved therein, are ample for its purposes. 
 They are, indeed, superabundant, and the concern of statesmen is rather how they may 
 be reduced than how they may be increased. The Government then needs not the money 
 to be got by enforcing this tax. 
 
 " At the same time, it is plain that to enforce it would put a grievous burden upon the 
 people of the States which are in default in payment. It needs no array of facts to show 
 this. CongrQss in one, if not in both branches,' has this session considered the proposition 
 of large pecuniary aid to these people to help them place and keep up common, schools, 
 and the Senate has passed a bill therefor. 
 
 "If there be need for that succor, there would be harm in enforcing this charge. It is 
 to be considered, too, that while taxes are seldom looked upon with favor, this would be 
 specially objectionable. The purpose for which it was laid can but be remembered with 
 distaste. It can scarcely be expected that there would be cheerful aid from the State 
 authorities in the enforcement of it. It may be doubted whether there would be any. 
 Indeed it would, without further legislation, have to be enforced by the machinery pro- 
 vided by the Act under which it was laid. This would call for the appointment of numer- 
 ous Federal officials, who would go among the people as obnoxious exactors. I think it 
 must be conceded that there is, and ever will be, great reluctance to ever setting about the 
 collection of this tax. That it never had great favor, is shown by that it was never put in 
 force but one year. In practical effect, then, the law for it is obsolete. Why, then, should 
 there remain this unenforced liability, a menace to the people, the enforcement of which 
 is called for by no public need, nor by any public opinion ? 
 
 " In my judgment, the people and the property of the States in default should be relieved 
 and discharged from it. 
 
 " But to give such relief and discharge would be to put an equality of burden upon the 
 States which paid, unless they in turn were in some way relieved. This the bill proposes 
 to do by repaying to them the sums received from thiem. Assuming that the tax was 
 lawful, and the collection, as far as made, was warranted, this, apart from the circum- 
 stances, would be a proposition to donate to the States surplus moneys of the United 
 -States— a proposition which I should not favor. But, as connected with the proposition 
 to discharge from onerous and needless liability one portion of the people, it takes on a 
 different character ; it is presented as an adjustment between different bodies of the people, 
 and is worthy of acceptation. Indeed, it would be unjust to the people of the loyal States 
 to release the people of the once insurrectionary States from their liability without refund- 
 ing to the former the sums paid by them, and there are analogies in the legislation of 
 Congress. Acts have been passed refunding to States moneys raised by them for the 
 raising, arming, and equipping of troops for the Army of the United States in the civil 
 war, and for making other refunds of like character. The purpose of laying this direct 
 tax was to aid in the ultimate payment of the extraordinary expenses of the Government 
 
232 
 
 caused by the civil war. The raising, arming, and equipping of troops by the States served 
 to keep (lown those expenses for the time. It was a voluntary act upon the part of the 
 States. There is no violation of principle or fundamental law in repaying to the States 
 from the funds of the United States the cost thereof. The purpose and effect of this bill is 
 not so unlike in nature to that as not also to be freed from the objections to a bald distribu- 
 tion among the States of what are called the surplus revenues of the United States. 
 
 " Under the peculiar facts of the case, and as it is not likely to become a precedent for 
 other disposals of Federal moneys, my judgment is, that the proposed measure is a good 
 one. It IS true that exactly equal justice can not be done in carrying out the proposition 
 of the bill. Thus, in some of the Southern States the tax was to some extent enforced. 
 Tax sales were made of pieces of real estate in instances for less than the value of them. 
 Only the surplus of purchase money over the tax and charges has been available to the 
 owners, and they have lost the difference between that and the total of the purchase 
 money, and between the purchase money and the real value. 
 
 " On the other hand, in most, if not all, of the Northern States, the payment to the 
 United States of the tax was assumed by the State government, which collected the amount 
 of its own people in its own tax levy. "Of course, in the changes of citizenship and owner- 
 ship of taxable property, while a repayment into the State Treasury will tend to reduce 
 the amount of State tax, it will not iniire to the benefit of some of those who in 1861 were 
 taxpayers. But these failures of full and general compensation in dealing with transac- 
 tions so long past must ensue, and are not to be potentially urged against proposed meas- 
 ures, which in the main do work equal benefit." 
 
 The Comptroller of the Treasury, Hon. William Lawrence, also recommends the passage 
 of this bill in the following terms : 
 
 " The object of these bills is to remit, so far as not collected or paid, the direct taxes laid 
 upon and apportioned to the States, Territories, and District of Columbia under the direct 
 tax Act of August 5, 1861, and to refund to such States, Territories, and District respect- 
 ively the amount of such taxes so fscr as paid in any mode whatever. 
 
 "1 have considered the subject with care, and now have the honor to state that, in my 
 judgment, it is alike just, judicious, and practicable to remit all such taxes not yet collected^ 
 to refund the amounts paid in any form by any State or Territory, and to refund to private 
 persons or their legal representatives all amounts of such tax by them paid or collected 
 by sale of real estate or otherwise." 
 
 "^In view of the status of this tax as exhibited by these facts, your committee fully con- 
 cur in the recommendations herein set out. In those cases in which the money, where- 
 with any State stands credited, was collected from its citizens, the amount to be returned 
 to said State under this bill should be for the use and benefit of those citizens from whom 
 it was collected, or their legal representatives, and your committee recommends that the 
 bill be amended by adding the following at the end thereof: "Provided, that where the 
 sums, or any part thereof, credited to any State or Territory, has been collected from the 
 citizens thereof, either directly or by sale of property, such amount shall be regarded as 
 received by said States in trust for the benefit of those of its citizens from whom it was 
 collected, or their legal representatives." 
 
 Your committee recommends that the bill thus amended do pass. 
 
 At the commencement of the present session I again introduced the same 
 bill as amended by the Committee on Claims, which is now pending and 
 before the Committee on the Judiciary, and I submit that this bill ought 
 not to pass, but that the one referred to, under the provisions of which the 
 States in default should be released and the States which have paid should 
 be reimbursed, should pass. 
 
 But it is argued that this bill, H. R. No. 3, should pass because the law 
 under which the tax was levied was unconstitutional. For the purpose of 
 the argument let us admit that it was unconstitutional, and it would follow 
 that no further collections should be made under or by virtue of it, and bill 
 No. 3, H. R., should become a law, but only side by side with another pro- 
 vision of law under which all sums heretofore collected under that uncon- 
 stitutional law should be refunded to those from whom it was collected. 
 
 Pass this bill to relieve the defaulting States, on the ground of an uncon- 
 stitutional levy, and then we would be told just as gravely that it would be 
 unconstitutional to refund the amounts paid. 
 
 I wish the time might come in my day when the Constitution would not 
 be invoked to justify a wrong, or whenever men desired to avoid doing 
 right. It has been warped and twisted and misconstrued and misinter- 
 preted in support of every job and scheme and unworthy purpose, when the 
 purpose of its framers was to secure equal and exact justice to every citi- 
 zen and every section of the Republic. 
 
233 
 
 But, unfortunately for those who invoke its aid in this case to avoid the 
 payment of a just obligation, the Supreme Court of the United States 
 (volume 98, pages 527 and 528) have declared that the laws under which 
 the levy was made was constitutional, in the following language: 
 
 One other assignment only remains : It is that the Acts of Congress were unconstitu- 
 tional, because the amount of the direct taxes apportioned to the State of South Carolina 
 was increased by the addition thereto of a penalty of fifty per cent, and, therefore, was 
 not in proportion to the census or enumeration directed to be taken by the second section 
 of the first article of the Constitution. 
 
 The assignment rests upon a mistaken construction of the Acts of Congress. 
 
 It is true that direct taxes must be apportioned among the several States according to 
 the population. 
 
 The Acts of August 5, 1861, June 7, 1862, and February 6, 1863, did so apportion the tax. 
 
 The fifty per cent penalty was no part of it. 
 
 The Act of Congress of 1861, which levied the tax, provided for no penalty, except for 
 failure to pay it when it was due; and the penalty charged by the Act of 1862 and 1863 
 was also for default of voluntary payment in due time. 
 
 A careful reading of the Acts makes this very plain. 
 
 Throughout a distinction is made between the tax and the added penalty. 
 
 It is recognized in the first section of the Act of 1862 ; in the second, and in the third, 
 as well as elsewhere. 
 
 By the third section the owner of lots or parcels of land was allowed to pay the tax 
 charged thereon (not the tax and penalty) and take a certificate of payment, by virtue 
 whereof the lands would be discharged. It can not, therefore, be maintained that the tax 
 was in conflict with the Constitution. 
 
 So far as this bill is concerned it should be defeated by a vote so clear 
 and emphatic as to discourage future attempts to secure legislation so 
 repugnant to justice and fair dealing. 
 
 If the Supreme Court are correct in their interpretation, then the tax 
 was legal and therefore the States in default are legally indebted, and this 
 bill releases them, practically, from that indebtedness. 
 
 If the assessment was illegal, it was at least necessary for the good of all 
 the States, and was cheerfully paid by some of the parties in interest; from 
 others collections were enforced, and all had the benefits, and no part of 
 the Union was more directly or materially benefited than these States now 
 in arrears. 
 
 The whole tax should be treated as a loan, and as it was paid, so far as 
 paid at all, by the people, and added that amount to their taxes, it should, 
 now that the conflict is past and the white dove of peace is hovering over a 
 reunited, happy, and prosperous country, be restored to the Treasuries of 
 the several States that contributed it, to lessen the amount of taxes in the 
 future. 
 
 The State of Ohio on January 14, 1885, memorialized this Congress to 
 pass a bill to remit the balance due from States in arrears, and to reim- 
 burse the States for amounts paid by them. 
 
 Mr. Culberson. I will yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Taylor] as 
 much of my time as he wishes to occupy. 
 
 Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. Mr. Speaker, in the time allotted to me in this 
 discussion I can do no more than state the position I occupy upon the bill 
 before the House. 
 
 By enactment of Congress, approved in March, I believe, 1883, the Sec- 
 retary of the Treasury of the United States was authorized to pay to the 
 State of Georgia $35,500. When the State of Georgia applied for that 
 money the United States Treasury officials refused to pay it, but proposed 
 to apply it to a claim said to be due from the State of Georgia to the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States. This bill is one intended to prevent that 
 adjustment, and any other like it, if any other exists. 
 
 There may be two questions in this case, one of law and the other of 
 policy. I desire first to state the question of law involved. It is a cold, 
 
234 
 
 clear question of law. There is no place for any political or other antag- 
 onism or sympathy. 
 
 The Government of the United States owes Georgia $35,500. It is 
 claimed that Georgia owes the Government of the United States a greater 
 sum. Is this a fact? If it is not a fact, then no one can deny this measure 
 ought to pass, so far as Georgia is concerned. I say unhesitatingly — I say 
 from examination — I say from what I believe to be my knowledge of the 
 law as connected with this case, that Georgia owes the Government of the 
 United States nothing by virtue of the legislation referred to as the legisla- 
 tion of 1861. Nor do other States, as States, that come within the category 
 of this bill. If there is no debt then from Georgia due by it to the United 
 States, there should be ho set-off. I propose only to state that proposition. 
 
 Now, there is nothing claimed of such State but that which arises under 
 the law of 1861, by which it was attempted to raise an annual direct tax of 
 $20,000,000 per year. That law provided not for assessments for one year, 
 but it was a continuous law providing a direct tax of $20,000,000, appor- 
 tioned among the States in proportion to population, without limit as to 
 time. But this part of the law was repealed at a subsequent session of 
 Congress. I will not inquire whether Congress, under the Constitution, had 
 power to make a State its debtor; I will only answer Congress did not 
 attempt to make a State its debtor in this Act of 1861. It was a law pro- 
 viding for a direct tax among the States. It is a very long law, comprising 
 more than sixty sections. As was said by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
 Hepburn] the other day, the law provided the whole machinery for the 
 collection of that money, and did not provide State machinery. It pro- 
 vided United States machinery. It was solely a law to be operated by 
 agents of the United States. It was a direct tax upon the people of the 
 United States apportioned among the States according to the ratio of popu- 
 lation. The assessor, the collector, the provision of liens, the sale of real 
 estate and personal property, all were to be done through the agency of the 
 United States, and not through the agency of any State. 
 
 It was not called a debt of the State ; it did not progress as though it 
 was a debt of the State, but simply this power of direct taxation was 
 applied in this way, or sought to be applied. 
 
 Now, it may be — I have heard it argued here — that the course which 
 Congress took was outside of its power under the Constitution. Admitting 
 that, if you please, the admission amounts to this only, that then there is 
 no indebtedness of any kind even from the people of Georgia. One other 
 fact, Mr. Speaker. A provision was included in this law by which an 
 inducement was held out to the different States to make it a State debt or 
 State obligation, and not an individual burden. It was provided in this 
 law itself that such States as would assume the amount of the indebted- 
 ness and make it a State obligation within a limited time should have a 
 credit of fifteen per cent upon the whole amount of the tax assessed against 
 the State. It was also provided that those States who would assume it as 
 the debt of the State within a certain other limited time should receive a 
 credit of ten per cent on the total amount. Neither the States nor the 
 Congress understood it then to be a State indebtedness. But, says the 
 gentleman from Iowa, tell me under what authority of the Constitution 
 could this be assumed if it was not a debt? Perhaps none. But it still 
 goes to this point, that the Congress did not understand it to be a State 
 debt, did not regard it as an obligation of the State, nor was it so under- 
 stood by the States themselves. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, I have stated simply this plain legal proposition, and 
 have stated the facts in regard to that enactment. It did not seek, it did 
 
235 
 
 not intend, nor did it impose a State obligation; and while it has been sug- 
 gested that it is difficult to see the difference between the obligation of 
 the people of the State and the obligation of the State itself, there is no 
 such difficulty, in my mind, any more than there is a difference between 
 a corporation and the stockholders of that corporation. The interest of 
 these parties are not identical — the interests of the individual and of the 
 State — unless it should be that the precise manner of taxation, the precise 
 thing taxed, should be in the same ratio, on the same basis, under the law 
 of 1861 and under the State law, which was not true. So I say that, as 
 a matter of law, there cannot be, and never ought to have been, in any 
 case, any legal offset; and I say that believing I speak the exact truth in 
 regard to what the law is. 
 
 I do not deny that the imposition of the tax was legal under the decision 
 of the Supreme Court, or without it under the authority of the Constitution. 
 
 Now a second proposition, and that is, that this tax ought not, in my 
 judgment, to be collected in this way anyhow. It can not be collected in 
 this way if this legal proposition be correct. An attempt to collect it might 
 succeed in confiscating the debt we owe to the State of Georgia; but it 
 never would be in the mind of a lawyer a collection of a debt, but the con- 
 fiscation of credits, and that is all there is of it. There has never been 
 anything else in it so far as it has been enforced heretofore; and it makes 
 no difference what political feeling might induce me to do. I am not so 
 made that, standing here as a legislator, I can trample by my vote under 
 foot the law and the Constitution of my country. 
 
 But this law was found in less than a year to have been a mistake. 
 Many of the States, for the purpose of getting the advantage of the induce- 
 ment held out to them of a deduction as provided in the law, assumed the 
 indebtedness as a State obligation, and paid the tax with those deductions. 
 The law was repealed so far as subsequent action was concerned; and no 
 administration up to this day has attempted to collect any of these debts 
 since. Nay, more, sir; the machinery provided by that law for its enforce- 
 ment was never appointed. No one existing in this House or in this coun- 
 try expects to collect the balance of the millions that are now due under 
 that enactment. There should be no trap set by which, when States 
 become creditors of the General Government, that credit may be wiped out 
 by springing the trap set by it, while at the same time there is no intention 
 to enforce the law honestly and squarely by the collection of this debt. It 
 may, sir, be collected to-day. Every dollar the State of Georgia owes may 
 be collected. Our President may appoint his assessors and collectors, and 
 he may force by distress and by sale of real estate in Georgia, the collec- 
 tion of the amount of this tax. Does anybody ask it? Have the Repub- 
 lican administration gone forward in that direction ? I say no. The fact 
 is, that as we do not intend to collect it, nobody desires the collection. 
 What then? There is but one way in justice out of this matter. Not one 
 dollar of it should be collected forcibly from the State of Georgia, from 
 Ohio, or Colorado, or any other State. But I do claim, sir, that this tax 
 should be wholly repaid or wholly collected; and, as it cannot and will not 
 be collected, I am intending, if possible, to say to-day that the tax already 
 paid by the States shall be repaid to them, as it honestly should be. 
 
 Mr. Cannon. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him right there? 
 
 Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Cannon. If that be the gentleman's position, why not vote for the 
 amendment of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Hepburn], which does exactly 
 that thing ? 
 
 Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. I have not said whether I will vote for that amend- 
 
236 
 
 ment. I do not know what it is. But I say, behind that, what is sufficient 
 for nie to control my vote in this case, there is no place for offset; there is 
 no offset to have this applied to. There is no legal obligation on the part 
 of Georgia to pay the Government of the United States one single dollar 
 growing out of the legislation of 1861. Any man that will go into that 
 library and take up the Statutes at Large of 1861, I do not care whether 
 he is a lawyer or not, I will venture my reputation as a man on the asser- 
 tion that he will say when he is through that there never was an intention 
 of making that a debt against the State of Georgia, nor was there ever 
 such an effect marked out by that statute. And so, standing right there, 
 I am fully able to say I will support this bill; and when another comes for 
 that other purpose, just and fair and honest as it is, then I will give it my 
 most enthusiastic support. 
 
 Mr. Cutcheon. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question? 
 
 Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Cutcheon. When that direct tax of 1861 was laid upon the States 
 
 Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. It never was. 
 
 Mr. Cutcheon. Well, it was apportioned to the States, was it not? 
 
 Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. It was apportioned among the people of the States. 
 
 Mr. Cutcheon. Was the entire tax apportioned against the States which 
 were then in their normal relations to the Federal Government? 
 
 Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. It was apportioned among the people of the States 
 and Territories regardless of any internal commotion. 
 
 Mr. Cutcheon. And then the proper proportion of it was made an obliga- 
 tion against the State or people of Georgia ? 
 
 Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. Against the people of Georgia in their individual 
 capacity; a provision was made for liens on their lands, not liens on the 
 property of Georgia. 
 
 Mr. Cutcheon. In other words, was it not a tax on the people of Georgia 
 as much as on the people of Ohio ? 
 
 Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. Yes. But what does all this mean? What is be- 
 hind it? 
 
 Mr. Cutcheon. Have not those States, which were in normal relations 
 to the Federal Government, paid their proportions? 
 
 Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. That is not true as to all of them. Colorado has 
 not paid. But, if so, it simply comes to the other point that you ought to 
 pay it back as you do not collect the balance. But it does not go to this 
 point that you shall make a legal obligation where you know one never 
 existed, because it may be your people at home are making a clamor about it. 
 
 Mr. Price. Will the gentleman permit me to make an inquiry? 
 
 Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. I am occupying another gentleman's time. 
 
 Mr. Price. I desire to say 
 
 Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. I decline to yield. A " desire to say " is different 
 from a "desire to agk." 
 
 Mr. Culberson. How much time have I remaining? 
 
 The Speaker pro tempore [Mr. Mills.] The gentleman from Texas has 
 forty minutes of his time remaining. 
 
 [Mr. Culberson addressed the House. His remarks will appear here- 
 after.] 
 
 Mr. Warner of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this issue hinges upon one single 
 question, and that is, whether the tax levied under the Act of 1861, was 
 chargeable to the State or not. If that tax, as levied under the Act of 1861, 
 was chargeable to a State, then, of course, any debt owed by the United 
 States to a State might be set off against the charge, under that law, against 
 
237 
 
 a State. But if it were Dot chargeable against a State, then, of course, it 
 can not be set off. 
 
 Was it chargeable against a State? That question has been so well 
 stated and argued by my colleague [Mr. Taylor] this morning that it is not 
 necessary for me to go over the ground again. 
 
 That the direct tax of 1861, levied under the apportionment clause of the 
 Constitution, was a tax levied upon real estate, upon lands and buildings, 
 is perfectly clear from the Act itself, and from the discussions which took 
 place in reference to it in both Houses on the passage of the Act. It was 
 said at the time, by Mr. Stevens and by Mr. Bingham and others, that it 
 was a tax on land, and that a direct tax could only be levied upon land. 
 
 In the very nature of things it could not be levied upon the State itself, 
 for the State has little or no property upon which to levy a tax. It is true 
 you may levy it upon the Statehouse and other State property, but what 
 would it amount to? In fact, the law of 1861, as did all other laws impos- 
 ing direct taxes, provided that all State property should be exempt from 
 taxation. 
 
 The Government provided the machinery to collect the tax directly from 
 the individual, and I maintain if the United States Government were now 
 to proceed to collect that tax it would proceed to collect it from the owners 
 of the land, those who now hold the land, which was a subject of taxation 
 when the tax was levied. The whole question, I say again, hinges on that 
 one fact, whether it was a charge or could be a charge against the State, 
 under the Constitution, or against the individual. 
 
 I do not care, Mr. Speaker, to argue the question further, as it would be 
 only traveling over the same ground which has been so thoroughly gone 
 over by other gentlemen who have preceded me in this discussion. 
 
 [Mr. Ranney addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter.] 
 
 Mr. Hammond. Mr. Speaker, the time when, according to an under- 
 standing with the gentlemen from Illinois [Mr. Morrison], the considera- 
 tion of this subject was to be suspended for to-day, has now arrived. But 
 if the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Ranney] wants only a few min- 
 utes to conclude, perhaps an agreement may be made with the gentleman 
 from Illinois to that effect. 
 
 The Speaker. The time assigned for the consideration of this subject to- 
 day by order of the House has now expired. 
 
 Mr. Ranney. How much of my time remains ? 
 
 The Speaker. One half hour. The gentlemen will be entitled to occupy 
 the floor for that time when the subject is resumed. 
 
 Mr. Ranney. It is not very material to me whether I go on now or at 
 another time, although I would prefer to finish to-day. 
 
 Mr. Hammond. The gentleman from Illinois consents that if the gentle- 
 man from Massachusetts wants only a few minutes more, he may go on and 
 finish now. 
 
 Mr. Ranney. I do not wish to give up any part of my time; but I may 
 finish in half the time I am entitled to. 
 
 The Speaker. The gentlemen will be entitled to the floor when the sub- 
 ject is resumed. 
 
238 
 EXHIBIT No. 39>^. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R, 3. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. February 8, 1886. 
 Mr. Little proposed an amendment to bill 
 
 TO PREVENT THE CLAIM OF THE WAR TAXES 
 
 Under the Act of August 5, 1861, and Acts amendatory thereof, by the 
 United States, as set-off against States having claims against the Gen- 
 eral Government, as follows, to wit: 
 
 Proposed amendment to H. R. 3. Add to section one the following: 
 '^Provided, that the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and 
 directed to enter a credit, as of money advanced to the United States for 
 account, to any State or Territory or the District of Columbia for any sum 
 or sums received therefrom, or from lands or land owners thereof on any 
 account whatsoever, under said Act of August 5, 1861, or any Act amenda- 
 tory thereof, and to pay to the same any balance found due on account, 
 after entering such credit, out of the money in the Treasury not otherwise 
 appropriated; one half of such balance to be paid within one year, and 
 the other half within two years after the passage of this Act; provided, 
 the President may defer either or both such payments for a definite period, 
 and continue so to do if, and as long as, in his own judgment the public 
 interests so require, not, however, beyond five years; and the payment first 
 referred to in this section shall be made at the time of paying the first 
 installment of said balance as aforesaid. The provisions of said Act of 
 August fifth, and any Act amendatory thereof, in so far as they relate to the 
 levy, apportionment, and collection of said war tax, are hereby repealed, 
 and all liabilities and obligations to the United States created thereby or 
 assumed on account thereof are hereby remitted and canceled." 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 40. 
 
 21 April, 1886. 
 Hon. J. R. Eden, House of Representatives : 
 
 Dear Sir : Referring to the interview last night by Mr. Earle and myself, 
 we forgot to call your attention to the fact that on Wednesday, March 17, 
 1886, the House had under consideration the claim of the State of Florida 
 as reported from the committee by Mr. Dougherty, to wit: House Report 
 No. 303, to accompany House Bill 3877. The inquiry was made by Mr. 
 Burrows of Michigan, whether in the calculations allowing said claim any 
 deduction was made on account of Florida's direct tax; whereupon Mr. 
 Davidson replied "that an amendment would be offered to meet that;" 
 and thereupon followed various suggestions by Mr. Long, Mr. Buchanan, 
 Mr. Price, Mr. Warner, and others, and all of which finally resulted in an 
 amendment by Mr. Buchanan, from the Committee on Claims, as follows, 
 to wit: 
 
 ^'Provided, that the balance remaining due of the direct tax apportioned 
 to the State of Florida by the direct tax Act of August 5, 1861, be held 
 and treated as a proper set-off against the claims of the State of Florida 
 in the adjustment herein required, unless Congress shall otherwise provide 
 
239 
 
 by general law, releasing all claims for said direct tax, or refunding all 'pay- 
 ments of such tax heretofore madeJ^ 
 
 This amendment was agreed to, and as the same appears of record on 
 page 2455 of the Congressional Record of March 18, 1886, which I inclose 
 you herewith. From this affirmative action by Congress you will readily 
 see that the House has had before it the subject-matter of the direct tax 
 and making off-sets, etc., and by its action it has practically voted down 
 the provisions contained in Mr. Hammond's hill, and acted in anticipation 
 of some remedial measure touching the subject of direct tax; and all of 
 which I recommend to your careful consideration. 
 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 JOHN MULLAN. 
 
 N. B. — You will perceive that the action of the House on the Florida 
 case was in harmony with the recommendation of the Committee on Claims 
 when reporting (through Mr. Trigg) upon H. R. 2498. February 28, 1886, 
 in House Report No. 519, page 4; copy herewith. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 JOHN MULLAN. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 41. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. S. 2457. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. May 24, 1886 — Ordered to be 
 printed. 
 
 AMENDMENT 
 
 Intended to he proposed hy Mr. Hampton to the hill (S. 2457) for the relief of 
 the State of Georgia, viz.: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert 
 the following: 
 
 That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to credit to 
 each State and Territory of the United States and the District of Columbia 
 a sum equal to all collections made from said States and Territories and 
 the District of Columbia, under the Act of Congress approved August fifth, 
 eighteen hundred and sixty-one, and the amendatory Acts thereto, with 
 such additional credits as under said Act they are entitled to have in con- 
 sequence of having paid any portion thereof without expense of collection 
 to the United States; and such sums also as have been collected from lands 
 or owners thereof under supplemental Acts on any account whatever. 
 
 Sec. 2. That all moneys still due to the United States on the quota of 
 direct tax apportioned by section eight of the Act of Congress approved 
 August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, are hereby repealed and 
 annulled. 
 
 Sec. 3. That there is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the 
 Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to 
 reimburse each State, Territory, and the District of Columbia for all money 
 found due to them under the provisions of this Act, and the Treasurer of 
 the United States is hereby directed to pay the same ; provided, that when 
 the sums, or any part thereof, credited to any State, Territory, or the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, have been collected from any citizen thereof, either 
 directly or by sale, resale, or lease of property, such sums shall be held in 
 trust by such State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, for the benefit of 
 
240 
 
 those of its citizens from whom it was collected, or their legal representa- 
 tives. 
 
 Amend the title so as to read: "A bill to credit and pay the several 
 States and Territories and the District of Columbia all moneys collected 
 under the direct tax levied by the Act of Congress approved August fifth, 
 eighteen hundred and sixty-one." 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 42. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE PUBLIC LAWS OF THE STATE OF 
 
 GEORGIA. 
 
 An Act to authorize his Excellency the Governor of this State [Georgia] 
 to issue and negotiate the bonds of this State [Georgia] whereby to raise 
 money to meet appropriations made and to be made by the General 
 Assembly * * * and to relieve the people of this State [Georgia] from 
 the U. S. Land [or Direct] Tax, etc. (Public laws of Georgia, 1865-6, page 
 19 * * *). 
 
 Section 7. That his Excellency the Governor is hereby authorized to 
 issue and negotiate bonds, to the amount of six hundred thousand dollars, 
 at such time and rate of interest, not exceeding seven per cent, as he may 
 find necessary and proper, for the purpose of paying to the Government of 
 the United States the Land [or Direct] Tax about to be levied on the people 
 of the State [Georgia,] in behalf of the Government of the United States, 
 said tax amounting to five hundred and eighty-four thousand three hundred 
 and sixty-seven dollars and thirty-three cents, and interest which may be due 
 thereon. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 43. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE PUBLIC LAWS OF THE STATE OF 
 
 TEXAS. 
 
 Approved November 13, 1866 (chapter 23, page 257). 
 
 An Act to assess and collect the Direct Tax due United States Govern- 
 ment for the year 1861, under the provisions of "An Act for the collection 
 of direct taxes in insurrectionary districts within the United States, and 
 for other purposes," approved June 7, 1862, and to make provisions for the 
 payment thereof to the United States Government. 
 
 Section 1. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas, that 
 the Governor is hereby authorized to have assessed and collected upon all 
 the real property within this State, except such as may have already been 
 assessed and the tax thereon collected by the officers of the United States 
 Government, a tax of twenty-eight cents on each one hundred dollars of 
 value of such property for the year 1861, to enable this State to pay its pro- 
 portion of said tax, and for which purpose he is hereby authorized to take 
 such steps as may be necessary to accomplish that purpose within the time 
 specified in said Act. 
 
 Sec. 2. That in the event said tax shall be insufficient to meet the 
 demands of the United States Government on the first day of January, 1868, 
 upon this State, the Governor is hereby authorized, if practicable, to make 
 up any deficiency which may be found to exist on that date, from any 
 
241 
 
 moneys belonging to the State revenue account not otherwise appropri- 
 ated, and shall continue such assessment and collection until the sanae is 
 completed. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 44. 
 
 STATE OF GEORGIA— DIRECT TAX ACT. 
 
 Mr. Hampton. Yesterday I asked that Order of Business No. 1310, 
 being the bill (S. 2457) for the relief of the State of Georgia, should be 
 passed over informally, as I had some facts that I meant to submit. I ask 
 to call it up now, and crave the indulgence of the Senate to let me offer an 
 amendment, and state some facts that I wish to present, and then the bill 
 may go over for future consideration. 
 
 The President 'pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina asks the 
 Senate to proceed to the consideration of the bill referred to with a view to 
 submitting some remarks, and then have it go over. Is there objection? 
 The Chair hears none. 
 
 The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the 
 bill (S. 2457), for the relief of the State of Georgia. 
 
 Mr. Hampton. I offer an amendment to the bill, which I ask to have 
 read. 
 
 The Chief Clerk. It is proposed to strike out all after the enacting clause 
 and to insert the following: 
 
 That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to credit to each State and 
 Territory of the United States and the District of Columbia a sum equal to all collections 
 made from said States and Territories and the District of Columbia, under the Act of 
 Congress approved August 5, 1861, and the amendatory Acts thereto, with such additional 
 credits as under said Act they are entitled to have in consequence of having paid any 
 portion thereof without expense of collection to the United States; and such sums also 
 as have been collected from lands or owners thereof under supplemental Acts on any 
 account whatever. 
 
 S£C. 2. That all moneys still due to the United States on the quota of direct tax appor- 
 tioned by section eight of the Act of Congress approved August 5, 1861, are hereby 
 remitted and relinquished. 
 
 Sec. 3. That there is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not other- 
 wise appropriated, such sums' as may be necessary to reimburse each State,*Territory, and 
 the District of Columbia for all money found due to them underthe provisions of this 
 Act; and the Treasurer of the United States is hereby directed to pay the same; provided, 
 that when the sums, or any part thereof, credited to any State, Territory, or the District 
 of Columbia have been collected from any citizen thereof, either directly or by sale, resale, 
 or lease of property, such sums shall be held in trust by such State, Territory, or the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia for the benefit of those of its citizens from whom it was collected, or 
 their legal representatives. 
 
 Mr. Hampton. I ask the indulgence of the Senate for a few minutes that 
 I may present some facts in support of the substitute for the bill reported 
 from the Judiciary Committee by the senior Senator from Mississippi. 
 
 The status of the direct tax under the Act of August 5, 1861, and the 
 amendatory Acts are in very great confusion. Some of the States have 
 paid that tax in full, having assumed its payment under the provisions of 
 the law and received a discount which was offered to such States as would 
 assume it, and thus avoid the expense to the General Government of col- 
 lecting it by its own machinery. From other States a large portion of it 
 has been collected, either directly from the citizens or from the sale of 
 property; and under an utterly erroneous ruling of a former Comptroller 
 of the Treasury, it has been treated as a debt against the States in cases 
 in which they did not assume it; and amounts due. to said States by the 
 16°^ 
 
242 
 
 General Government have been set off against it. It is perfectly clear that 
 the tax was not a debt against the States unless under the provisions of the 
 law they assumed its payment; and, consequently, as there could be no set- 
 off except of claims held in " mutual right," these set-offs were in viola- 
 tion of law and without authority. 
 
 The bill introduced and favorably reported by the honorable Senator 
 from Mississippi deals with this simple question of set-off, and with that 
 alone ; and while it is unquestionably proper that it should be introduced 
 into the bill, it is manifestly unjust that it should be dealt with singly and 
 that other cases of still greater hardship should remain undisposed of 
 
 Three different and conflicting reports as to the status of these accounts 
 have been furnished to the Senate from the Treasury Department, one by 
 the present Secretary, made up by a commission in the department under 
 his direction, one by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and one by 
 the late Secretary of the Treasury, Judge Folger. These very discrepan- 
 cies stated in these statements is a very conclusive reason for dealing with 
 the whole question and making a final disposition of it at one time; and 
 the amendment which I have offered provides for this by refunding to the 
 States the amounts which have been heretofore collected from them and 
 remit those which remain unpaid. This will accomplish the purpose 
 of the bill of the Senator from Mississippi and will at the same time equal- 
 ize to some extent, and so far as can now be done, the hardships which 
 have been inflicted upon other States by the mode of enforcing this tax; 
 and a reference to the Journals of the Senate will show that the Legisla- 
 tures of several States have heretofore instructed their Senators and re- 
 quested their Representatives to support such a measure as that embodied 
 in the amendment which I have offered. 
 
 Each of the three statements to which I have referred gives approxi- 
 mately the same sums as having been paid by the States of Georgia and 
 Mississippi. Mississippi's quota was $413,084 67, upon which has been 
 paid either by collection or by credits from amounts as due the State, as 
 arising from the five per cents due on the sales of the public lands, $74,- 
 742 57, leaving a balance of $338,342 10 as a debt due by the State of 
 Mississippi to the United States, upon which, under the ruling of the Treas- 
 ury Departijient, there will be credited from year to year whatever sums 
 may arise from the sale of the public lands and the swamp land interests 
 of that State. The quota of the State of Georgia was $584,367 33, upon 
 which was credited, on account of recognized demands due the State of 
 Georgia by the United States, the sum of $74,407 75, leaving a balance as 
 a debt due by that State, under the ruling of the Comptroller of the Treas- 
 ury, of $512,959 58. These figures are taken from the statement of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury in answer to the Senate resolution of March 28, 
 1884, and are no doubt approximately correct. By the same statement it 
 appears that the quota of South Carolina was $363,570 67, and on account 
 of which there has been collected from citizens as taxes, either directly 
 from the citizens in money or by sale of their real estate, the sum of $377,- 
 962 30, showing that as taxes the sum of $14,390 63 has been collected 
 from the State in excess of its entire quota. 
 
 Not only, therefore, has there been an excess of $14,390 63 collected as 
 taxes according to this statement over and above the entire quota of the 
 State, in addition to a large sum paid directly to the Direct Tax Commis- 
 sioners in money, but there were sold in the County of Beaufort the entire 
 Town of Beaufort, and fifty-two thousand acres of agricultural land, which 
 produced the long-staple sea-island cotton, were sold to realize the balance 
 of this excessive suni. In the case of De Treville vs. Smalls (98 United 
 
243 
 
 States, 517) the Supreme Court held that under a special and peculiar pro- 
 Yision of the law an absolute and incontestible title passed at these sales. 
 This is to be taken as an accepted result. The Court of Claims has decided, 
 in the case of Simons vs. United States (19 Court of Claims, 601), that a 
 large amount of the interest thus collected was illegal and "without war- 
 rant of law;" and in two recent decisions by the same Court, which will 
 appear in the twenty-first volume of its reports, the cases of SeabrooJc vs. 
 United States and Lawton vs. United States, the Court has held that a large 
 amount of the taxes for which this land was sold was excessive and ille- 
 gally collected. 
 
 In this last case the " Hill Place," valued at $4,400 ''in proportion to the 
 w^hole valuation of the State," was sold to pay the tax and bought by the 
 United States for $1,100 for a tax of $170 50, whereof the Court holds that 
 $79 11 " was illegally collected of the claimant without warrant of law." 
 Lawton's other place, known as the " Lawton Place," valued at $7,200, was 
 bought by the United States for $3,000, and in order to redeem the same he 
 was required to pay the sum of $600 47; and of this collection the Court 
 says that " a mathematical calculation shows that he should have paid 
 only $326 91," and that there was illegally collected of him without war- 
 rant of law the sum of $273 91. So that this enormous amount of real 
 estate was sold for the collection of the tax, and which was sold at so great 
 a sacrifice, was also sold, as decided by the Court of Claims, for a tax 
 greatly in excess of the amount with which it was legally chargeable. 
 
 What I have said showing the peculiar hardships of this matter in rela- 
 tion to South Carolina is equally applicable to several other States, though 
 not in the same degree, and especially to Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, 
 Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. On the other hand, it is said with great 
 justice that the Northern and Western States, which have assumed and 
 paid these taxes, should not be lost sight of in the adjustment of the ques- 
 tion which releases the seceding States of the balances which were charged 
 against them. In the right and justice of this claim I fully concur, and 
 the amendments which I have offered fully provide for their cases, as it 
 does for that of South Carolina and the other Southern States I have just 
 mentioned. The statute making the original levy of $20,000,000 to be 
 raised by direct taxation was for the purpose of meeting a great emergency 
 in the inception of the war between the States. 
 
 It was a mode of taxation which was not favorably received in this 
 country, and, as I have said, was resorted to in an imminent emergency. 
 The original Act provided for the raising of this sum annually; but it was 
 discontinued after the first year; and on the second of February, 1867, a 
 concurrent resolution was adopted by Congress suspending its operation for 
 the first year, and leaving balances uncollected such as now stand against 
 the States of Mississippi and Georgia. 
 
 In this connection I send to the desk, to be-incorporated in my remarks, 
 an extract from the letter of Hon. Charles J. Folger, late Secretary of the 
 Treasury, upon this subject, dated June 14, 1884, in which he earnestly 
 recommends the passage of a bill in all material respects identical in its 
 provisions with the amendment which I have presented. 
 
 The extract referred to is as follows: 
 
 The purpose of the bill is to relieve and discharge from further liability for that tax 
 those States and Territories which have not paid the portion thereof apportioned to them 
 respectively; and to repay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
 to those States and Territories which have paid any portion, the sums by them respect- 
 ively paid. Though, by the Act above cited, this tax was made an annual one, an attempt 
 to collect it for more than one year has never been made. By that attempt there were 
 
244 
 
 collected about $15,000,000, principally from the States which did not seek to go out of the 
 Union ; and there were left uncollected about $5,000,000, principally in the States which 
 did seek to go out of the Union. The sum uncollected remains a charge against these 
 States, and, for the purposes of this letter, it may be assumed that it is a valid and enforci- 
 ble charge. It is plain, however, that no legislator at this day would propose to raise 
 revenue by a tax of that kind. There is no need of resorting to such methods. The rev- 
 enue of the Government from sources not so extraordinary and collectible by means and 
 appliances not so objectionable as those involved therein, are ample for its purposes. 
 They are, indeed, superabundant, and the concern of statesmen is rather how they may 
 be reduced than how they maybe increased. The Government then needs not the money 
 to be got by enforcing this tax. 
 
 At the same time, it is plain that to enforce it would put a grievous burden upon the 
 
 Seople of the States which are in default in payment. It needs no array of facts to show, 
 ongress in one if not both branches has this session considered the proposition of large 
 pecuniary aid to these people to help them place and keep up common schools, and the 
 Senate has passed a bill therefor. 
 
 If there be need for that succor, there would be harm in enforcing this charge. It is to 
 be considered, too, that while taxes are seldom looked upon with favor, this would be 
 specially objectionable. The purpose for which it was laid can but be remembered with 
 distaste. It can scarcely be expected that there would be cheerful aid from the State 
 authorities in the enforcement of it. It may be doubted whether there would be any. 
 Indeed it would, without further legislation, have to be enforced by the machinery pro- 
 vided by the Act under which it was laid. This would call for the appointment of numer- 
 ous Federal officials, who would go among the people as obnoxious exactors. I think it 
 must be conceded that there is, and ever will be, great reluctance to ever setting about the 
 collection of this tax. That it never had great favor is shown by that it was never put in 
 force but one year. In practical effect, then, the law for it is obsolete. Whj^ then, should 
 there remain this unenforced liability, a menace to the people, the enforcement of which 
 is called for by no public need, nor by any public opinion ? 
 
 In my judgment the people and the property of the States in default should be relieved 
 and discharged from it. 
 
 But to give such relief and discharge would be to put an inequality of burden upon the 
 States which paid, unless they, in turn, were in some way relieved. This the bill proposes 
 to do by repaying to them the sums received from them. Assuming that the tax was 
 lawful and the collection, as far as made, was warranted, this, apart from the circum- 
 stances, would be a proposition to donate to the States surplus moneys of the United 
 States— a proposition which I should not favor. But, as connected with the proposition 
 to discharge from onerous and needless liability one portion of the people, it takes on a 
 different character; it is presented as an adjustment between different bodies of the people, 
 and is worthy of acceptation. Indeed, it would be unjust to the people of the loyal States 
 to release the people of the once insurrectionary States from their liability, without 
 refunding to the former the sums paid by them, and there are analogies in the legislation 
 of Congress. 
 
 Acts have been passed refunding to States moneys raised by them for the raising, arm- 
 ing, and equipping of troops for the army of the United States in the civil war, and for 
 making other refunds of like character. The purpose of laying this direct tax was to aid 
 in the ultimate payment of the extraordinary expenses of the Government caused by the 
 civil war. The raising, arming, and equipping of troops by the States served to^ keep 
 down those expenses for the time. It was a voluntary act "upon the part of the States. 
 There is no violation of principle or fundamental law in repaying to the States from the 
 funds of the United States the cost thereof. The purpose and effect fo this bill is not so 
 unlike in nature to that as not also to be freed from the objections to a bald distribution 
 among the States of what are called the surplus revenues of the United States. 
 
 Under the peculiar facts of the case, and as it is not likely to become a precedent for 
 other disposals of Federal moneys, my judgment is, that the proposed measure is a good 
 one. It is true that exactly equal justice can not be done in carrying out the proposition 
 of the bill. Thus, in some of the Southern States, the tax was to some extent enforced. 
 Tax sales were made of pieces of real estate in instances for less than the value of them. 
 Only the surplus of purchase money over the tax and charges has been available to the 
 owners, and they have lost the difference between that and the total of the purchase money, 
 and between the purchase money and the real value. 
 
 On the other hand, in most, if not all, of the Northern States the payment to the United 
 States of the tax was assumed by the State government, which collected the amount of 
 its own people in its own tax levy. Of course, in the changes of citizenship and ownership 
 of taxable property, while a repayment into the State Treasury will tend to reduce the 
 amount of State tax, it will not inure to the benefit of some of those who in 1861 were tax- 
 payers. But these failures of full and general compensation in dealing with transactions 
 so "long past must ensue, and are not to be potentially urged against proposed measures, 
 which in the main do work equal benefit. 
 
 Mr. Hampton. I also request the insertion in my remarks of the extract 
 from the letter of the Hon. William Lawrence, late Comptroller of the 
 Treasury, to the Secretary, in regard to the same bill. 
 
 The extract is as follows: 
 
245 
 
 The object of these bills is to remit so far as not collected or paid, the direct taxes laid 
 upon and apportioned to the States, Territories, and District of Columbia, under the Direct 
 Tax Act of August 5, 1861, and to refund to such States, Territories, and District, respect- 
 ively, the amount of such taxes, so far as paid in any mode whatever. 
 
 I "have considered the subject with care, and now have the honor to state that, in my 
 judgment, it is alike just, judicious, and practicable to remit all such taxes not yet col- 
 lected, to refund the amounts paid in any form by any State or Territory, and to refund 
 to private persons or their legal representatives all amounts of such tax by them paid, or 
 ■collected by sale of real estate, or otherwise. 
 
 Mr. Hampton. I call attention to the additional fact, that besides the 
 sum already mentioned in excess of the quota of South Carolina the Gov- 
 ernment has realized from profits on purchase and resales of land the sum 
 of $315,677 86, and still holds upward of four thousand acres of valuable 
 sea-island cotton lands as military reservations. 
 
 The President pro tempore. The bill will go over under the rule, and 
 the next case will be stated. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 45. 
 
 DIRECT TAX OF 1861. 
 
 Mr. Henley also submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
 to the Committee on Ways and Means: 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be and is hereby requested to furnish the 
 House of Representatives with a tabulated statement showing as follows, to wit: The 
 amount of money apportioned to and assessed upon the several States and Territories 
 and District of Columbia under the Act of Congress approved August 5, 1861, and Acts 
 supplemental thereto and amendatory thereof; the amount paid by and allowed to each 
 thereof, with dates of each respective payment and allowance; the amount of the credits 
 on account of the ten and fifteen per cent deduction named in said Acts, and dates of each 
 of such credits; the amount of credits allowed each thereof from other sources, stating the 
 source and nature and authority of such credits and dates thereof, respectively; the total 
 amount after deducting all such credits, allowances, and deductions; the total amount 
 paid by and the total amount due by each and all thereof, respectively, and now remain- 
 ing unpaid, including all taxes, collected and uncollected, proceeds from sales for non- 
 payment of taxes, including amounts bid in excess of taxes, purchase money refunded, 
 and balance of proceeds from sales, as shown by the records of his department at this 
 date. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 46. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. House of Representatives. Ex. Doc. No. 158. 
 
 DIRECT TAX APPORTIOxNiMENT— STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT 
 BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES A.ND STATES AND TER- 
 RITORIES. 
 
 Letter from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury transmitting, in response to 
 a resolution of the House, a statement of account showing the apportion- 
 ment of the direct tax, under the Act of August S, 1861, among, and assess- 
 ments upon and collections from the respective States and Territories ; also 
 showing claims o.nd set-offs applied on such tax, with other information 
 respecting said, account. 
 
 April 1, 1886 — Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered 
 to be printed. 
 
 Treasury Department, March 31, 1886. 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a resolution passed 
 I>y the House of Representatives on the seventeenth instant, as follows: 
 
246 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby requested to furnish to the 
 House a statement of the account, as it appears from the books of the Treasury, between 
 the United States and the several States and Territories, of the direct tax levied and 
 apportioned to the States and Territories by the Act of Congress approved August 5, 1861^ 
 with the balances due from or unpaid by any State or Territory to the United States, and 
 a detailed statement of the assessment and collection of any portion of said tax in any 
 State or Territory; also a statement of any set-off of claims due to the States and Terri- 
 tories, and applied on such tax, together with such information as will show the condition 
 of the account. 
 
 In response thereto I have the honor to inclose a statement of the Assist- 
 ant Register of the Treasury, of the twenty-second instant, showing the 
 condition of the accounts as they appear from the books of the Register 
 of the Treasury to date. 
 
 From this statement it appears that no distinction has been made in 
 the sums of money charged and collected as tax, as penalty, costs, and 
 interest, or as surplus proceeds of direct tax sales, which are now being 
 refunded to original owners, but that the Register's books show the gross 
 receipts under these several heads additional to the respective quotas to 
 have been credited to the tax quotas alone, as the same have been received 
 and covered into the Treasury. On the other hand, amounts covered in 
 as received from the direct tax commissioners are credited to them and 
 not credited to the States they represent. It is, therefore, manifest that 
 many of the amounts set forth as balances due to the United States from 
 the States and Territories are not the amounts really due therefrom, some 
 being much too small and others too large. 
 
 The First Comptroller having reported adjusted balances in many cases 
 differing largely from those of the Register's Office, the Secretary of the 
 Treasury on December 10, 1885, appointed J. H. Lichliter, V. N. Stiles, 
 and F. Werber, Jr., as a commission to examine into, and report upon, 
 direct tax accounts, with a view to an early readjustment thereof This 
 commission proceeded to investigate all of the books and papers relating 
 to the direct tax accounts, and on the twentieth ultimo made a report to 
 the Department suggesting changes in many of the adjustments heretofore 
 made. 
 
 A copy of this report, which has not yet been adopted by the Depart- 
 ment, is herewith transmitted, together with copies of letters of the Acting 
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue upon the same subject. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. 
 
 The Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
 
 Statement of the Condition of the Direct Tax Accounts of the several States and Territories and 
 the District of Columbia, under Acts of August 5, 1861, and June 7, 1862, as appears from the 
 books of the Register of the Treasury to date. 
 
 15 per Cent 
 Allowance. 
 
 State or Territory. 
 
 Amount 
 Imposed. 
 
 Amount 
 
 Collected. 
 
 Balance Due 
 United States. 
 
 
 Alabama .. 
 
 $529,313 33 
 
 261,886 00 
 
 254,538 67 
 
 22,905 33 
 
 308,214 00 
 
 3,241 33 
 
 74,683 33 
 
 49,437 33 
 
 77,522 67 
 
 584,367 33 
 
 1,146,551 33 
 
 904,875 33 
 
 $18,285 03 
 
 184,082 18 
 
 254,538 67 
 
 22,189 96 
 
 261,981 90 
 
 3,241 33 
 
 70,332 83 
 
 49,437 33 
 
 43,529 81 
 
 106,963 17 
 
 974,568 63 
 
 769,144 03 
 
 $511,028 30 
 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 77,803 82 
 
 * 
 
 California 
 
 
 
 
 715 37 
 
 $46,232 10 
 
 Clnn n Pft.i pn t, 
 
 
 Dakota --- 
 
 
 f4",350 50 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Florida 
 
 33,992 86 
 
 
 Georgia 
 
 477,404 IG 
 
 171,982 70 
 135,731 30 
 
 
 
 Indiana 
 
 
247 
 
 Statement of the Condition of the Direct Tax Accounts — Continued. 
 
 15 per Cent 
 Allowance. 
 
 State or Territory. 
 
 Amount 
 Imposed. 
 
 Amount 
 Collected. 
 
 Balance Due 
 United States. 
 
 $67,813 20 
 Y07",054'30" 
 
 63,123 90 
 65,523 50 
 123,687 19 
 75,264 50 
 16,278 60 
 
 114,169 10 
 
 * 
 
 32,761 00 
 67,519 17 
 
 390,587 81 
 
 235,073 40 
 
 292,007 90 
 17,544 56 
 
 
 
 31,660 20 
 
 27,172 72 
 
 39,346 43 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Maine 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Massachusetts . . 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Mississippi. 
 
 Missouri. 
 
 Nebraska J 
 
 Nevada .-. 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 New Mexico§ — 
 
 New York 
 
 North Carolina. . 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Pennsylvania — 
 Rhode Island — 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Texas 
 
 Utah. 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Virginia! 
 
 West Virginia ||.. 
 
 Washington 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 South Carolina. - 
 
 $452,088 00 
 
 71,743 33 
 713,695 33 
 385,886 67 
 420,826 00 
 436,823 33 
 824,581 33 
 501,763 33 
 108,524 00 
 413,084 67 
 761,127 33 
 
 19,312 00 
 
 4,592 67 
 
 218,406 67 
 
 450,134 00 
 
 62,648 00 
 
 2,603,918 67 
 
 576,194 67 
 
 1,567,089 33 
 
 35,140 67 
 
 1,946,719 33 
 
 116,963 67 
 
 669,498 00 
 
 355,106 67 
 
 26,982 00 
 211,068 00 
 729,071 02 
 208,479 65 
 7,755 33 
 519,688 67 
 363,570 67 
 
 $384,274 80 
 
 71,743 33 
 
 606,641 03 
 
 268,515 12 
 
 357,702 10 
 
 371,299 83 
 
 700,894 14 
 
 426,498 83 
 
 92,245 40 
 
 101,717 04 
 
 646,958 23 
 
 39,312 00 
 
 4,592 67 
 
 185,645 67 
 
 382,614 83 
 
 62,648 00 
 
 2,213,330 86 
 
 386,194 45 
 
 1,332,025 93 
 
 35,140 67 
 
 1,654,711 43 
 
 99,419 11 
 
 387,734 31 
 
 130,008 06 
 
 "l79,407"80' 
 515,569 72 
 181,306 93 
 4,268 16 
 454,944 84 
 377,961 30 
 
 $117,371 55 
 
 311,367 63 
 
 190,000 22 
 
 281,763 69 
 
 225,098 61 
 
 26,982 00 
 
 213,501 30 
 
 3,487 17 
 25,397 40 
 
 * Payments made on account, fifteen per cent allowance for cost of assuming collection, viz.: 
 
 To California, September 10, 1884, deficiency Act July 7, 1884 $31,583 26 
 
 To Kansas, August 23, 1882, deficiency Act August 5, 1882 10,761 50 
 
 To Nevada, September 3, 1884, deficiency Act July 7, 1884 688 90 
 
 To Oregon, September 16, 1884, deficiency Act July 7, 1884 5,271 10 
 
 t In part on compromise. 
 
 X Nebraska : 
 
 Amount collected 4,281 60 
 
 Amount allowed by First Comptroller of Treasury March 27, 1884, under Act August 7, 1882 15,030 40 
 
 $19,312 00 
 § New Mexico : 
 
 Amount allowed by First Comptroller of Treasury March 27, 1884, under Act July 1, 1862 62,648 00 
 
 II Section 1 J. R. February 25, 1867, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer $208,479 65 of the 
 amount originally imposed on Virginia to the State of West Virginia. 
 ^ Balance due State. 
 
 EOS. A. FISH, Assistant Register. 
 Treasury Department, Register's Office, March 22, 1886. 
 
 Treasury Department, Office of Internal Revenue, 
 Washington, March 11, 1886. 
 
 Sir : Your letter of the third instant, transmitting a report of J. H. Lich- 
 liter, V. N. Stiles, and F. Werber, Jr., appointed as a commission to exam- 
 ine into and report upon the direct tax accounts, has been received. The 
 report is herewith returned. 
 
 The amount of direct taxes which has been paid is not stated in any 
 summary, but I have collected from the report the amount of taxes paid 
 and the amount of credits allowed, or to be allowed, and the amount now 
 due, which may be summarized as follows: 
 
248 
 
 Quota Charged. 
 
 Amount Credited. 
 
 Amount Due. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 California 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Conn ecticut 
 
 Dakota 
 
 Delaware 
 
 District of Columbia 
 
 Florida 
 
 Georgia .- 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Indiana. 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Kansas - 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Maine 
 
 Marj'land -- 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Mississippi _-. 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 New Jersey -. 
 
 New Mexico .-- 
 
 New York... 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Hhode Island 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Tennessee- 
 
 Texas 
 
 Utah 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Virginia 
 
 West Virginia 
 
 Washington .-. 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Totals. 
 
 $529,313 33 
 261,886 00 
 254,538 67 
 
 22,905 33 
 
 308,214 00 
 
 3,241 33 
 
 74,683 33 
 
 49,437 33 
 
 77,522 67 
 
 584,367 33 
 
 1,146,551 33 
 
 904,875 33 
 
 452,088 00 
 
 71,743 33 
 713,695 33 
 385,886 67 
 420,826 00 
 436,823 33 
 824,581 33 
 501,763 33 
 108,524 00 
 413,084 67 
 761,127 33 
 
 19,312 00 
 
 4,592 67 
 
 218,406 67 
 
 450,134 00 
 
 62,648 00 
 
 2,603.918 67 
 
 576,194 67 
 
 1,567,089 33 
 
 35,140 67 
 1,946,719 33 
 116,963 67 
 363,570 67 
 669,498 00 
 355,106 67 
 
 26,982 00 
 211,068 00 
 729,071 02 
 208,479 65 
 7,755 33 
 519,688 67 
 
 $18,285 
 154,701 
 254,538 
 
 22,189 
 
 308,214 
 
 3,241 
 
 74,683 
 
 49,437 
 
 4,760 
 
 117,982 
 
 1,146,551 
 
 904,875 
 
 452,088 
 
 71,743 
 713,695 
 314,500 
 420,826 
 436,823 
 824,581 
 501,763 
 108,524 
 111,038 
 761,127 
 
 19,312 
 
 4,592 
 
 218,406 
 
 450,134 
 
 62,{M8 
 
 2,603,918 
 
 377,452 
 
 1,567,089 
 
 35,140 
 1,946,719 
 116,963 
 222,396 
 392,004 
 180,841 
 
 211,068 
 442,408 
 208,479 
 4,268 
 519,688 
 
 $511,028 30 
 107,184 82 
 
 715 3^ 
 
 72,762 37 
 466,384 44 
 
 71,385 83 
 
 302,046 21 
 
 198,742 06 
 
 141,174 31 
 
 277,493 52 
 
 174,265 16 
 
 26,982 00 
 
 286,662 93 
 ""'3",487'i7 
 
 $20,000,000 00 
 
 $17,359,685 51 
 
 $2,640,314 49 
 
 Quota- - $20,000,000 00 
 
 Paid or credited :..- - 17,359,685 51 
 
 Amount due $2,640,314 49 
 
 The second column includes taxes collected, amount of fifteen per cent 
 deduction, and credits allowed. 
 
 I substitute this account in place of the statement transmitted to you in 
 letter of November 17, 1885. 
 
 I recommend that the report of the commission be referred to the Fifth 
 Auditor for a readjustment of the direct tax accounts on the basis of the 
 figures furnished in the report, and that the books of the Department be 
 kept so that official statements of the amounts of tax collected and the 
 amount due may hereafter agree, whether taken from the books of the 
 First Comptroller, or of any other officer authorized to keep such accounts. 
 
 As to the accounts of the Direct Tax Commissioners, I recommend that 
 the First Comptroller be requested, after the accounts are readjusted, to 
 institute suits on the bonds of the delinquent Commissioners for recovery 
 
249 
 
 of amounts collected by them and not accounted for, unless, in your opin- 
 ion, such action is deemed for any reason unadvisable. 
 
 The report, page 17, speaks of the sum of $1,752 52, charged in the 
 adjusted account with the Commissioners for the State of Florida as "tax, 
 penalty, interest, and costs, not divisible." 
 
 This office has no information which will enable it to state how much of 
 this is tax. 
 
 As to the sum of $4,126 to which the Commission call attention in con- 
 nection with the Florida accounts, page 21, paid for redemption of certain 
 property, I suggest that the Fifth Auditor take that into consideration- in 
 his examination, and ascertain the amount of tax included in the amount 
 from the books on file in the department, as near as can be ascertained, 
 giving proper credit therefor. 
 
 The views of a majority of the Commissioners as to what items are proper 
 credits to the States (page 59) are concurred in. 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, 
 
 H. C. ROGERS, 
 
 Acting Commissioner. 
 Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Treasury Department, Office of Internal Revenue, 
 Washington, March 20, 1886. 
 
 Sir: I have received your letter of the sixteenth instant, in regard to the 
 recent decision in the Court of Claims, in the case of Cato A. Seabrook, 
 Administrator, etc., vs. The United States, as affecting the amount of direct 
 tax due from the State of South Carolina, according to the report of the 
 Commission which has recently been investigating the direct tax accounts. 
 
 In reply, I have the honor to state that in my opinion it is feasible to 
 obtain from the direct tax books relating to the assessment and collection 
 of direct tax in South Carolina, which are on file in this office, and other 
 offices in the Treasury Department, a statement of the direct tax held to 
 have been illegally collected by the decision above referred to, at least 
 approximately. 
 
 The Direct Tax Commissioners assessed a tax upon city, town, village, 
 and borough lots of 80 cents ad valorem on each $100 of valuation, and on 
 other property $2 ad valorem on each $100 of valuation. 
 
 This was decided by the Court to have been an erroneous method of 
 assessment. 
 
 The assessment should have been uniform throughout the State. 
 
 In my opinion this decision should be allowed to stand as final instead 
 of being carried to the Supreme Court. 
 
 I would suggest that in the readjustment of the accounts, as proposed, 
 the Fifth Auditor be requested to take into consideration this decision in 
 determining the balance of direct tax due from the State ; and I would also 
 suggest that the Commission which has been occupied for several weeks on 
 this matter of direct tax accounts, and are familiar with the books and 
 papers relating to the subject, would be suitable persons to obtain the data 
 desired. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 H. C. ROGERS, 
 
 Acting Commissioner. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
250 
 
 REPORT OF COMMISSION ON DIRECT TAX ACCOUNTS. 
 
 Treasury Department, ) 
 Washington, D. C, February 20, 1886. j 
 
 Sir: The undersigned, designated by your letter of the tenth of December, 1885, "to 
 make an investigation into the direct tax accounts for the purpose of obtaining an early 
 adjustment thereof, with instructions to examine into the entire matter of the direct tax 
 accounts as between the Direct Tax Commissioners and the States for which they acted, 
 also between the United States and all the States and Territories concerned, and to report 
 the result of the investigation, with such suggestions as you [they] may see proper to 
 make," have the honor to submit the following report: 
 
 ^ One of the first questions presented was as to the scope of the investigation. After discus- 
 sion and conference upon the subject it was decided, from what seemed to have been the 
 object in requesting the appointment of this Commission, that it was not intended to go 
 back 01 settlements of accounts heretofore certified .by the Honorable First Comptroller of 
 the Treasury, unless clerical errors should be discovered in the accounts, or there should 
 be found some new matter to act upon which would change or correct items in these 
 accounts, and that the province of the Commission was simply to receive this new matter, 
 if any, from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, consider and report any additional 
 credits to which the States and Territories, or Direct Tax Commissioners, have become 
 entitled since the several adjustments of accounts were made, and to report how maj^ be 
 reconciled the difference between the several offices of the department as they appear in 
 statements prepared from the books of the offices. 
 
 Proceeding upon this view, it was found that the quota of the direct tax apportioned to 
 each of the following States has been paid: California, Connecticut, Dakota Territory, 
 Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mary- 
 land, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, 
 New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, 
 West Virginia, and Wisconsin, if the recommendations herein made in relation thereto 
 be approved. 
 
 The account with the State of California has been balanced since March 29, 1884, the 
 date of the letter of the Honorable Secretary of the Treasury hereinafter referred to. 
 
 Hereto appended as part of this report are presented condensed statements of the 
 accounts with the several States and the Direct Tax Commissioners for the " insurrec- 
 tionary districts" as they have been adjusted and certified by the Honorable First 
 Comptroller of the Treasury, and with several of them statements of the accounts as this 
 Commission, from examination of the books and papers accompanying the accounts, 
 consider that they should have been adjusted; and it is recommended that the accounts 
 be readjusted according to these figures. 
 
 Where no remarks upon the accounts are made they should be considered as approved 
 by this Commission. 
 
 In connection with the statements of the accounts suggested by the Commission, which, 
 if adopted, would make certain corrections in the accounts as adjusted, the following 
 remarks under the name of each State are to be taken as furnishing explanations of the 
 changes made, and also of the difference between the balances due from some of the States 
 as found by the Commission and hereinafter stated, and the balances due from these States 
 as given in the statement accompanying the letter of the honorable Secretary of the 
 Treasury, dated March 29, 1884, addressed to Hon. George F. Edmunds, President pro 
 tempore of the United States Senate, printed in Senate Ex. Doc. No. 142, first session Forty- 
 eighth Congress. 
 
 This statement of the honorable Secretary, showing the balances due at that date from 
 the several States, it is learned was based upon the accounts as shown by the books of the 
 office of the Register of the Treasury. These balances appear in some instances to be the 
 difference between the quota apportioned to each State and the amount of cash deposited 
 in the Treasury by the Commissioners for the State, regardless of the source from which 
 this money was derived, of the items of expense in collecting the same, and of the balances 
 due from the Commissioners for several of the States; while in other instances they ar^ 
 the difference between the quota of the State and the amount of cash deposited and for- 
 mally covered into the Treasury by warrants in the name of the State, without regard to 
 the cash deposited and covered in by warrants in the names of the Commissioners. Thus, 
 the balances reported as due in some cases are too large, and in others they are too small. 
 These facts should be borne in mind when comparing the balances due from the States 
 as herein found with the balances given in the honorable Secretary's statement. 
 
 ALABAMA, 
 
 From the records it appears that no collections on account of the direct tax were made 
 in the State of Alabama, for the reason that only two Commissioners were appointed and 
 qualified, and they were instructed from the Internal Revenue Office that until a third 
 Commissioner should be appointed they could only perform such work as was of a pre- 
 liminary character, as the collection of data for the assessment of the tax. 
 
 Therefore no account appears with the Commissioners for this State. 
 
 Upon examination of the books of the Department it has been found that the amounts 
 of $8,491 46 and |9,793 57, making the total sum of $18,285 03, due to the State of Ala- 
 bama on account of two per cent and three per cent on net proceeds of certain sales of 
 
251 
 
 public lands within its limits, under Acts of March 2, 1819, and September 4, 1841, have 
 been carried to the credit of the State on account of the direct tax, though accounts have 
 not yet been adjusted formally taking up these amounts. 
 
 The second of these amounts has become due to the State since the date of the letter 
 of the honorable Secretary of the Treasury, above referred to, and will reduce the balance 
 due from the State as reported by him to the amount hereinafter stated as due. 
 
 • ARKANSAS. 
 
 The account of the Commissioners for the State of Arkansas is stated with only two of 
 them. The record of " Decisions of Commissioners, Arkansas," from November 9, 1865, 
 to May 25, 1866, shows that a third Commissioner was acting and took part in the meet- 
 ings of the Board during that time, and other papers and records with the account and 
 in the Internal Revenue Office indicate that he entered upon the duties of his office about 
 May 15, 1865. It does not appear why this third Commissioner was not also charged in 
 the account adjusted, and it is recommended that this question be considered in connec- 
 tion with the readjustment of the account. 
 
 In the statement of the account with these Commissioners as made by this Commission, 
 the amount found for the item "tax uncollected" differs from the amount found in the 
 account as adjusted by the sum of $501 90, which difference is thus explained : 
 
 Tax on land sold and not considered in account adjusted.. $566 86 
 
 Less tax on land sold and redeemed, and which was credited in the adjustment. .. 64 96 
 
 $501 90 
 
 In the account adjusted the amount of tax upon the lands sold, except the amount of 
 $64 96 as above stated, was not deducted in order to find the balance of tax remaining 
 uncollected, but was charged to the Commissioners as part of the gross amount of " pro- 
 ceeds of sales of land," and thus was practically twice charged to them, having been first 
 charged in the quota apportioned to the State. 
 
 An error similar to that appearing in this adjustment occurs in each of the accounts as 
 adjusted with the Commissioners for the States in which there were sales of land for 
 taxes, and comes from the failure to consider that the amount of tax assessed upon the 
 lands sold for non-payment thereof within the time prescribed by law was properly to 
 be deducted from the quota apportioned to the State, and in so far treated separately 
 and distinct from the other items constituting the charges covered by the proceeds of 
 sales. These errors in the accounts will be pointed out in the remarks made in connec- 
 tion with each State, but this brief general explanation as to the origin of the errors is 
 intended to apply to all of the accounts. 
 
 In the adjustment of this account, among the items suspended for which the Commis- 
 sioners claimed cf edit were the following : 
 
 Amount of property sold and redeemed before purchase money was paid $4,845 00 
 
 Amount of property sold and redeemed after purchase money*^was paid 3,949 17 
 
 Amount of interest paid to purchasers of property after purchase money had 
 been paid ._ 48 31 
 
 $8,842 48 
 These items were suspended because, in the first two cases, copies of the certificates of 
 redemption were not furnished, and, in the last, "satisfactory evidence of payment" was 
 not furnished. When it is considered, however, that allowance was made to the Commis- 
 sioners for a sum of $18,600 upon their statement that sales to this amount were not 
 completed by the payment of the bids, it is thought that the above items could be allowed 
 upon the same evidence, and this evidence is regarded by the Commission as sufficient 
 now to allow Credit therefor in view of the impracticability of securing better evidence 
 after such a long lapse of time, and the probability that if the property had not been re- 
 deemed and the purchase money repaid, with interest thereon, claims would have been 
 presented to the Department for surplus and purchase money. 
 
 Therefore allowance of credit to the amount of $8,842 48 is recommended upon read- 
 justment of the account ; and if this credit be allowed, the balance due from the Commis- 
 sioners to the United States will be reduced to $7,884 28. 
 
 A comparison of the Register's books with the adjustment of the account of the Com- 
 missioners for Arkansas shows that deposits of the sums of $2,400 and $254 26, made by 
 the Commissioners, were covered into the Treasury by Internal ' Revenue warrants No. 
 363, third quarter 1865, and No. 241, second quarter 1866, respectively, which have not been 
 credited on the Register's books for the apparent reason that the warrants were not issued 
 in the name of the State. 
 
 COLORADO. 
 
 The amount of $20,673 07 has been found due to the State of Colorado for taking the 
 "interdecennial census," under Act of March 3, 1879, and has been ordered to be carried 
 to the credit of the State on account of the direct tax, which will reduce the balance due 
 from the State to the sum hereinafter stated. 
 
252 
 
 The sum of $35,506 89 has been found due to Dakota Territory for taking the " inter- 
 decennial census," under Act of March 3, 1879, and the amount of $3,241 33 from this 
 sum has been ordered to be carried by adjustment to the credit of the Territory in full 
 payment of the direct tax apportioned to it. 
 
 In the adjustment of the account with the Commissioners for the State of Florida an 
 error of $1,(J45 57 appears on the credit side and in the balance stated as due from them 
 to the United States, which arises from the fact that the Commissioners were charged 
 with this amount in the proceeds of sales. The tax assessed upon the property sold to 
 private parties should have been deducted from the proceeds of sales, and the amount of 
 tax upon the property bid in for the United States should also have been credited. The 
 statement of the account presented by this Commission, which is based upon the figures 
 found in the adjustment of the account (except the several items of tax upon lands sold), 
 shows the changes w^hich it is thought should be made in readjusting the account. 
 
 The item of $1,752 52 charged in the adjusted account as "tax, penalty, interest, and 
 costs not divisible," is made up of several sums of money which the records of the Com- 
 missioners show they received, but the entries in the records do not indicate what 
 proportion of this amount was paid for each of those charges separately, and it is possi- 
 ble that the whole amount may have been paid as tax. 
 
 The charge against the Commissioners of the sum of $4,126, and the credit of the 
 same sum deposited by them, appears to be for money paid by the trustees of the Florida 
 Railroad Company in redemption of certain lots of land claimed to be owned by the 
 company in Fernandina, Florida, and which had been sold for taxes unpaid. From the 
 papers and facts in the case it cannot be determined how this money has been regarded 
 by the officers of the Department, whether as a payment of the tax, penalty, interest, 
 and costs charged upon the land, or as made in redemption of the lands after sale, or as 
 an amount erroneously received and deposited by the Commissioners and subject to 
 claim for refund thereof. The best information obtainable is that the lots claimed by the 
 Florida Railroad Company were sold for taxes unpaid, some of the lots being purchased 
 by private parties and others bid in for the United States ; that subsequently— but after 
 a lapse of more than sixty days from the date of sale— the trustees of the company paid 
 the sum mentioned to secure the redemption of the lots, and the same was received by 
 one of the Commissioners, subject to the approval of his associates and the Department; 
 that the Department decided, after taking the opinion of the Attorney-General of the 
 United States, that under the facts and the law, the lots could not be redeemed as pro- 
 posed by the trustees acting for the company; that the trustees refused to receive back 
 the money at the request of the Commissioners, and it was therefore 'forwarded to the 
 Department for deposit; and that the lots have been, since about that time, and are now, 
 in the possession of the company. 
 
 It appears from a certificate of the Commissioner who received th6 money that $3,125 80 
 was paid to cover the tax, penalty, interest, and costs due upon the lots, and, in the lan- 
 guage of the certificate, " an additional sum of $1,000, out of which is to be paid whatever 
 additional amount may be found due for costs in the redemption of said lots, which costs 
 may have been omitted in the within account, if there should be any, and also to pay 
 any deficiency that may be discovered in making up the account, the remainder, if any, 
 to be restored to the said John McRae, trustee." 
 
 It is recommended that the question of the proper application of this money be consid- 
 ered and determined, and if legislation be necessary for this purpose, that it be requested. 
 
 Special attention is called to these two sums of |l,752 52 and $4,126 for the reason that 
 the amount of tax included and paid therein has not been credited upon the quota appor- 
 tioned to the State of Florida, and it is believed that upon readjustment o*f the account 
 credit should be given for this amount, and, if from the records the actual sum of the tax 
 cannot be found, that it should be determined by some equitable method of proportion. 
 
 The amount of " tax uncollected," as shown in the statement of the account by this 
 Commission, will be reduced by whatever sum may be allowed as tax in these two items. 
 
 An examination shows that the sum of $905, deposited by the Commissioners for Flor- 
 ida, and covered into the Treasury by warrant K o. 2, second quarter, 1864, has not been 
 credited to the State on the Register's books for the apparent reason that the warrant was 
 not issued in the name of the State. 
 
 GEORGIA. 
 
 On May 12, 1883, the honorable First Comptroller decided that the sum of $35,555 42, 
 appropriated by the Act of March 3, 1883, to " refund to the State of Georgia certain money 
 expended by said State for the common defense in 1777," should "be paid to the Treasurer 
 of the United States, to be by him deposited to the credit of the State of Georgia on account 
 of direct taxes charged against the State." This amount has not yet been formally carried 
 by adjustment to the credit of the State in accordance with his decision, but when this 
 shall have been done the amount of "tax uncollected," as shown bj' the account adjusted 
 with the Commissioners, will be reduced to $466,384 44. 
 
253 
 
 LOUISIANA, 
 
 Attention is called to the fact that the State of Louisiana has a claim against the United 
 States for five per cent on net proceeds of sales of public lands within its limits, and the 
 amount due thereon has been ascertained to be $21,769 25 upon an account now held in 
 the office of the First Comptroller awaiting an appropriation by Congress for payment of 
 the same. This amount will be subject to a deduction on account of an unascertained 
 sum (about $2,000) due from the State for interest upon certain bonds held by the United 
 States. The balance will probably be carried, under decisions of the honorable First 
 Comptroller, to the credit of the State on account of the direct tax apportioned to the 
 State and remaining unpaid. 
 
 MISSISSIPPI. 
 
 The sum of $41,453 91 has been found due to the State of Mississippi for two per cent and 
 three per cent on net proceeds of sales of public lands within its limits, which has not yet 
 been formally carried by adjustment to the credit of the State on account of the direct tax. 
 
 NORTH CAROLINA. 
 
 No change is recommended in the accounts adjusted with the Commissioners for the 
 State of North Carolina. 
 
 SOUTH CAROLINA. 
 
 In the adjustment of the account with the Commissioners for the State of South Caro- 
 lina, they were charged with the gross amount of the proceeds of sales of land, which 
 included the amount of the tax assessed upon the lands sold. In order to ascertain the 
 true amount of the tax remaining uncollected the tax upon the lands sold should have 
 been deducted from the quota apportioned to the State. This amount is found to be 
 $1,973 29. As the bidding in of property at the sale for the United States worked an extin- 
 guishment of the charges against the property sold, the amount of the tax assessed upon 
 this property should also have been deducted from the quota. This amount is $9,881 75. 
 
 Upon the examination of this adjustment it is found that the Commissioners have been 
 twice charged with the sum of $248 as the tax collected upon three plantations in Saint 
 Luke's Parish. These three items were entered in two books, and the accountants charged 
 them without observing that the entries were duplicated. 
 
 In the statement of the account presented by this Commission, these errors are cor- 
 rected, and the item of " tax uncollected " is reduced from $152,781 35 to $141,174 31. 
 
 In the statement accompanying the honorable Secretary's letter of March 29, 1884, it is 
 represented that the State of South Carolina has paid the sum of $14,390 63 in excess of 
 the quota apportioned. The amount paid as shown by the statement is $377,961 30. At- 
 tention is called to the remarks hereinbefore made as to the source from which his state- 
 ment was compiled. The account with the Commissioners for this State shows more 
 clearly, perhaps, than any other the differences which may arise from different methods 
 of bookkeeping. The account, as adjusted, shows a much larger sum, to wit, $471,378 59, 
 as cash deposited and transferred, than even that given in the statement, but some of the 
 deposits appear to have been made in the name of the State and others in the name of the 
 Commissioners, and these were carried to different accounts upon the Register's books. 
 
 The amount paid as given in the statement of the honorable Secretary is the sum of 
 these deposits made in the name of the State. The deposits, however, shown by the 
 account, and also those carried upon the Register's books, represent collections made by 
 the Commissioners from all sources, and embrace amounts received, in addition to tax, 
 as penalties, interest, costs, proceeds of sales and redemptions, and resales of property 
 originally bid in for the United States, rents, etc. 
 
 The amount collected as tax can be determined only by the proper adjustment of the 
 account, and this amount deducted from the quota apportioned to the State will give the 
 balance of tax uncollected. Therefore an account which shows the deposits from all 
 sources without distinguishing them will not show the amounts of tax paid and remaining 
 unpaid. 
 
 The Court of Claims in the case (No. 14189) of Cato A. Seabrook, Administrator of James 
 B. Seabrook, vs. The United States, recently decided that certain amounts collected as tax, 
 penalty, interests, and costs had been erroneously collected by reason of the adoption by 
 the Commissioners for the State of South Carolina of two rates of assessment, one rate 
 for town lots and a different and higher rate for the other lands. Whatever sums collected 
 as tax- may be refunded to taxpayers of South Carolina in pursuance of this decision, or 
 for any other reason as erroneously or illegally collected, will change the balance of tax 
 yet due from the State as herein reported. 
 
 TENNESSEE. 
 
 In the account adjusted with the Commissioners for the State of Tennessee they were 
 charged with the gross proceeds of sales of property to individuals, including the tax 
 assessed upon the lands sold. From statements of the Commissioners accompanying the 
 account it is learned that the amount of the tax upon lands sold to private parties was 
 $8,728 93, and the tax upon the lands bid in for the United States was $1,728 73. In the 
 adjustment the Commissioners should have been charged with the proceeds of the sales 
 of lands exclusive of the amount of the tax upon the lands sold, and they should have 
 
254 
 
 been credited with the sum of the tax assessed upon the lands bid in for the United States, 
 and these two items of tax should have been added to the amount of tax found to have 
 been collected before sale, "and the whole sum deducted from the quota in order to deter- 
 mine the balance of tax uncollected. 
 
 This Commission presents, in connection with the adjusted account, a statement of the 
 account as it should be readjusted to correct these errors. By warrant bearing date of 
 September 30, 1885, the sum of $12 25 was covered into the Treasury as received by one 
 of the collectors of internal revenue in Tennessee on account of the direct tax. This 
 amount will be carried by formal adjustment to the credit of the State, and it has been 
 considered in finding the balance due, as stated by this Commission. 
 
 From correspondence filed with the account adjusted, with the Commissioners for the 
 State of Texas it appears that immediately after the assessment of the tax upon the lands 
 within the State, and notice that the same was due and payable, the Commissioners began 
 to collect not only the tax, but also penalty, interest, and costs, without allowing to the 
 land owners the sixty days provided m Section 3, of Act of June 7, 1862, for the payment 
 of the tax without penalty, interest, and costs. This practice of the Commissioners was 
 called to the attention of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue by parties interested in 
 the subject. That officer, in a letter dated May 17, 1866, to one of the Commissioners for 
 Texas, and in a letter in response to the complaint of a land owner, indicates that the 
 erroneous construction of the law by the Commissioners, which was evidenced by their 
 practice in making collections, was due to the fact that from inadvertence these Commis- 
 sioners had not been furnished with a copy of the general instructions which had been 
 prepared by the Internal Revenue Office, in the first instance, for the guidance of the 
 Commissioners for the State of Virginia, and copies of which had been transmitted to the 
 Commissioners for the other States. These general instructions were as follows : 
 
 Treasury Department, Office of Internal Revenue, ) 
 
 May 2, 1863. / 
 
 Gentlemen : Your letter of the twenty-eighth ultimo, to the Hon. S. P. Chase, Secretary 
 of the Treasury, submitting several- questions in regard to the true construction of cer- 
 tain sections in the Act of June 7, 1862, and the Act of February 6, amendatory thereto, 
 has been referred to me for an answer. Having considered the subject I give my answer 
 in the following terms, to the several questions propounded. 
 
 First— The last assessment of the lands under the authority of the State or Territory 
 previous to the first of January, 1861, is to be taken as the' basis for ascertaining the 
 direct tax, under the Act of June 7, 1862. When the proportion of the tax to be charged 
 upon a tract of land is ascertained, then fifty per centum of said tax is to be added and 
 charged upon the land. This tax with the addition of fifty per cent remains as a lien 
 upon the land until it is sold or the lien otherwise discharged. 
 
 The third section provides that the owner may, within sixty days after the tax com- 
 missioners shall have fixed the amount of the tax, pay the tax charged upon the land, 
 and take a certificate of such payment, and provides that the land shall thereupon be 
 discharged from said tax. 
 
 The word " tax " in this section does not, in my opinion, include the fifty per cent. The 
 owner, upon paying the amount of the tax without the fifty per cent additional within 
 sixty days after the tax shall have been laid, is entitled to have his land free from the 
 lien of the tax, and also free from the lien of the fifty per cent to be added thereto pur- 
 suant to the first section. 
 
 Secondly— The ten per cent interest mentioned in the seventh section is to be calculated 
 from the day of the elate of the laying of the tax. 
 
 Thirdly — The ten per cent interest mentioned in the seventh section as amended, is to be 
 chargedj not on the amount of the tax and penalty, but on the amount of the tax only. 
 The owner who pays on or before the day of sale under the clause in the amendatory 
 Act is required to pay the amount of the tax without the addition of fifty per cent, but 
 with the addition of ten per cent interest on the amount of the tax with the cost of adver- 
 tising in order to redeem his land. If the owner, being a loyal person of the United 
 States, or taking oath to support the Constitution, shall pay the amount of the tax and 
 penalty with interest at the rate of fifteen per cent from the date of the President's procla- 
 mation, together with the expenses of the sale and subsequent proceedings, he is entitled 
 to redeem his land from sale; but such redemption will not be complete without the full 
 payment of the whole tax and penalty with interest and expenses as aforesaid. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the Act provides for three distinct states of circumstances. If 
 the owner appears within sixty days after the tax has been laid by the Commissioners 
 and pays the amount of the tax only, he is entitled to redeem. If he delays to come for- 
 ward until the period of sixty days has elapsed, but still offers to pay the tax with ten per 
 cent addition, and the costs of advertising, on or before the day of sale, he is entitled to 
 redeem. If, however, he delays to come forward until the propertj^ shall have been 
 actually sold, he cannot redeem without paying the tax, penalty, all costs, and fifteen per 
 cent interest from the date of the President's proclamation. In this latter case the 
 interest is to be reckoned upon the tax and penalty added together. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 JOSEPH J. LEWIS, Commissioner. 
 
255 
 
 Messrs. W. J. Boreman and John Hawkhurst, Esqs., Direct Tax Commissioners for Vir- 
 ginia, "Washington, D. C. 
 
 A copy of these instructions was forwarded May 9, 1866, to the Commissioners for 
 Texas. 
 The record of the Commissioners shows that collections were commenced November 6, 
 
 1865, and that the copy of the instructions quoted above was received by them May 28, 
 
 1866, and that they at once began to comply with the same. No attempt has been made 
 to determine what part of the penalty, interest, and costs charged to the Commissioners 
 in their account was collected by them within sixty days after the tax was fixed and 
 assessed. It is believed, however, that this amount can be ascertained if necessarj'- from 
 the land books showing the dates of payment of the several assessments. 
 
 On September 24, 1870, upon the application of a land owner in Texas to have refunded 
 certain amounts paid by him in addition to tax as penalty, interest, and costs, the hon- 
 orable First Comptroller of the Treasury decided that the amount paid as penalty could 
 not be refunded, saying: " Under these provisions of law [Sections 1 and 3, Act of June 7, 
 1862], my opinion is that the fifty per cent was a fixed addition to the tax, to be paid in any 
 event, whether payment was made within the sixty days or subsequently to their expi- 
 ration." 
 
 It is understood that under this decision a considerable number of claims has been 
 presented by taxpayers of Texas and allowed for interest and costs erroneously collected 
 by the Commissioners, but no allowance has been made on account of penalty collected. 
 
 In the case of De Treville vs. Smalls, 98 U. S., 527, October Term, 1878. the question whether 
 by the Act Of June 7, 1862, the penalty of fifty per centum of the tax was made an original 
 charge upon the lands, and to be collected in all cases, irrespective of allowance of any 
 time for the payment of the tax, seems to have been directly before the Supreme Court 
 of the United States, and it was decided in this language: 
 
 "One other assignment only remains. It is that the Acts of Congress were unconstitu- 
 tional, because the amount of the direct taxes apportioned to the State of South Carolina 
 Was increased by the addition thereto of a penalty of fifty per cent, and therefore was not 
 in proportion to the census or enumeration directed to be taken by the second section of 
 the first article of the Constitution. 
 
 " The assignment rests upon a mistaken construction of the Acts of Congress. It is 
 true that direct taxes must be apportioned among the several States according to the 
 population. 
 
 "The Acts of August 5, 1861, June 7, 1862, and February 6, 1863, did so apportion the 
 tax. The fifty per cent penalty was no part of it. The Act of Congress of 1861, which levied 
 the tax, provided for no penalty, except for failure to pay it when it was due ; and the 
 penalty charged by the Acts of 1862 and 1863 was also for "default of voluntary payment 
 in due time. A careful reading of the Acts makes this very plain. Throughout a dis- 
 tinction is made between the tax and the added penalty ; it is recognized in the first sec- 
 tion of the Act of 1862, in the second, and in the third, as well as elsewhere. By the third 
 section the owner of the lots or parcels of land was allowed to pay the tax charged theroon 
 {not the tax and penalty), and take a certificate of payment, by virtue whereof the lands 
 Would be discharged. It cannot, therefore, be maintained that the tax was in conflict 
 With the Constitution." 
 
 Attention is called especially to this subject, because nothing similar has been found 
 in connection with any other State, and it is clear that if any part of the penalty, as well 
 as interest and costs, has been erroneously collected, it should be refunded upon claims 
 properly presented. 
 
 UTAH TERRITORY. 
 
 The whole amount of the tax apportioned to the Territory of Utah remains unpaid. 
 
 VIRGINIA. 
 
 In the adjustment of the accounts with the Commissioners for the State of Virginia 
 the correct principle was adopted of deducting the amount of tax upon the lands sold 
 from the proceeds of sales and crediting the Commissioners with the amount of the tax 
 upon lands bid in favor of the United States. In the first account, however, this principle 
 Was not carried out so as to deduct the amount of tax on sales to private parties from the 
 tax apportioned to the State in order to find the balance of tax uncollected and trans- 
 ferred to the new Board of Commissioners. Land Books Nos. 1, 2, and 3 for Alexandria 
 City and County show the collections of tax without sale; and the amount of tax ($171 03) 
 on lands sold to private parties is in addition to these collections. 
 
 The proper readjustment of this account will therefore show a balance due from the 
 Commissioners to the United States of the sum of $171 03. 
 
 The error in this account affects also the account adjusted with the second Board of 
 Commissioners, as it will diminish the amount of uncollected tax transferred to them. 
 In the adjustment of the account with this Board the gross amount of the tax upon the 
 lands sold by these Commissioners was deducted from the proceeds of the sales to private 
 parties without noting that part of this amount was tax upon lands bid in for the United 
 States, and part of it the tax upon lands the sales of which were never completed. 
 
 These two sums are found to be respectively $155 96 and $51 27. The Commissioners 
 have been credited with the sum of $112 56 " as amount of taxes on lands sold and bid in 
 for the United States." 
 
256 
 
 The several errors appearing in these two accounts it is believed will be corrected upon 
 readjustment of the accounts in accordance with the statements of the same as made by 
 this Commission. 
 
 WASHINGTON TEKRITORY. 
 
 No change is recommended in the account with Washington Territory. 
 
 WISCONSIN. 
 
 In the adjustment of the account with the State of Wisconsin (Report No. 10, 817) it 
 appears that the sum of $262,309 55 was allowed as cash deposited, and fifteen per cent on 
 this sum, to wit, $39,346 43, was credited as commissions. This allowance as " commis- 
 sions " was made under Section 53 of the Act of August 5, 1861. It is submitted, however, 
 that the law contemplates the fifteen per cent "deduction," as it is therein called, in the 
 nature of discout rather than of percentage on the payment made, and that the credit to 
 which a State is entitled upon making a given partial pavment within the proper period, 
 is a sum which, were it reduced by fifteen per cent, would leave as a remainder the amount 
 paid. This " deduction " was to be allowed, under the law, upon the payment of the whole 
 or a part only of the quota apportioned to the State, or upon the formal and proper release 
 of any liquidated and determined claim of such State against the United States. An 
 examination of the accounts adjusted with all of the other States entitled to receive the 
 fifteen i)er cent deduction upon payments made on account of the tax, shows that the 
 method of adjustment here pointed out in relation to this deduction was pursued, and 
 there is no apparent reason why that method was not observed in adjusting the account 
 with the State of Wisconsin. 
 
 It is recommended that the further sum of $6,943 49 be credited as commissions upon 
 this account for the reasons above stated. 
 
 In the adjustments of the following accounts, all of which, with the exception of the 
 first, which is a war claim, are for swamp land indemnity, these amounts have been found 
 due to the State of Wisconsin : 
 
 No. 7,908, Third Auditor, 1875 $10,347 53 
 
 No. 36.484, Land Office, miscellaneous 8,489 57 
 
 No. 36,557, Land Office, miscellaneous $16,907 52 
 
 No. 36,558, Land Office, miscellaneous .-. _ 2,044 82 
 
 No. 36,615, Land Office, miscellaneous 7,490 03 
 
 26,442 37 
 
 No. 36,667. Land Office, miscellaneous _ 53,408 93 
 
 No. 37,837, Land Office, miscellaneous 53,537 18 
 
 Total-. $152,225 58 
 
 This sum together with other items was carried to the credit of the State of Wis- 
 consin on account of the direct tax by account No. 34,698. This amount was due to the 
 State prior to the last day of June, 1862. As no fifteen per cent deduction has heretofore 
 been allowed thereupon, it is recommended that the further sum of $26,863 34 be credited 
 to the State. 
 
 Under adjustment No. 35,468^ the additional sum of $25,748 16 has been found due to 
 the State of Wisconsin for five per cent on net proceeds of sales of public lands, and 
 ordered by the honorable First Comptroller to be carried to the credit of the State on 
 account of the direct tax. 
 
 Should the credits herein suggested be allowed, in addition to the amount last afore- 
 said, the balance of $51,145 56 due from the State on account of the direct tax, as shown 
 by the last account adjusted, would be fully paid and a difference be found to the credit 
 of the State. 
 
 The following statement shows the balance due to the United States from the Direct 
 Tax Commissioners for the insurrectionary districts, and from the United States to the 
 Commissioners : 
 
257 
 
 ' 
 
 Balance due United States. 
 
 Balance due Commissioners. 
 
 COMMISSIONEKS FOR — 
 
 As shown by 
 
 Adjustments 
 
 Heretofore 
 
 Made. 
 
 As shown by 
 Statements of 
 the Accounts 
 Suggested by 
 this Commis- 
 sion. 
 
 As shown by 
 
 Adjustments 
 
 Heretofore 
 
 Made. 
 
 As shown by 
 Statements of 
 the Accounts 
 Suggested by 
 this Commis- 
 sion. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 (*) 
 
 $16,726 76 
 
 4,907 73 
 
 344 66 
 
 14,025 58 
 
 (X) 
 
 iX) 
 
 t$ 16,726 76 
 
 3,262 16 
 
 344 66 
 
 14,025 58 
 
 iX) 
 iX) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Georgia 
 
 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 
 
 Mississippi - - 
 
 
 
 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 
 $248 00 
 255 18 
 
 W. R. Cloutman, Collector Internal Rev- 
 enue, successor to Commissioners 
 
 
 
 §$255 18 
 
 A. J. Ransier, Collector Internal Rev- 
 enue successor to Commissioners 
 
 35 00 
 
 iX) 
 
 50,464 83 
 
 C) 
 
 iX) 
 
 35 00 
 
 iX) 
 
 50,464 83 
 
 171 03 
 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 
 
 Texas. -_1 
 
 
 
 Virginia : 
 First Board 
 
 . 
 
 
 Second Board 
 
 
 171 03 
 
 
 
 
 
 * No collections. 
 
 f Allowance is recommended by the Commission of §8,842 48 of this amount. 
 
 T Balanced. 
 
 I Suspended. 
 
 The following statement exhibits the amounts of the direct tax which are uncollected 
 at this date in the several States and Territories : 
 
 States and Territories. 
 
 Amount Due, 
 as found by 
 this Commis- 
 sion. 
 
 Amount Due, 
 Secretary's 
 Statement. 
 
 Amount Due, 
 
 Statement of 
 
 Commissioner 
 
 of Internal 
 
 Revenue. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 California 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Dakota 
 
 Morida 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 North Carolina 
 South Carolina 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Texas 
 
 Utah.. 
 
 Virginia 
 
 "Washington --. 
 Wisconsin 
 
 $511,028 30 
 
 107,184 82 
 
 (*) 
 715 37 
 
 (*) 
 
 72,762 37 
 
 466,384 44 
 
 71,385 83 
 
 302,046 21 
 
 198,742 06 
 
 141,174 31 
 
 277,493 52 
 
 174,265 16 
 
 26,982 00 
 
 286,662 93 
 
 3,487 17 
 
 (*) 
 
 $520,821 87 
 
 77,803 82 
 
 6.597 54 
 
 21,388 44 
 
 3,241 33 
 
 33,992 86 
 
 512,959 58 
 
 117,371 55 
 
 338,342 10 
 
 190,000 22 
 
 (X) 
 
 281,775 94 
 
 225,098 61 
 
 26,982 00 
 
 213,501 30 
 
 3,487 17 
 
 51,145 56 
 
 $529,313 33 
 
 107,686 72 
 
 {*) 
 
 21,388 44 
 3,241 33 
 
 72,756 26 
 501,939 86 
 
 71,385 83 
 343,500 12 
 198,742 06 
 152,781 35 
 287,963 43 
 174,265 16 
 
 26,982 00 
 
 286,499 37 
 
 3,487 17 
 
 51,145 56 
 
 * Balanced. 
 
 t See statement with regard to Louisiana, ante. 
 
 X Overpaid by $14,390 63. 
 
 The following remarks are to be taken in connection with this statement : 
 The " amount due, as found by this Commission," is based upon the statements of the 
 accounts of the Commissioners for the several States as herein presented for readjust- 
 ment and upon the allowances to be made of the several sums recommended. Should 
 any of the accounts not be readjusted as suggested, or any of the credits recommended 
 not be allowed, the balances found due by the Commission will be in so far changed. 
 
258 
 
 They would likewise be affected by anv amounts which have been, or may hereafter be, 
 refunded as tax overpaid or erroneously paid. 
 
 The "amounts due. Secretary's statement," is taken from the statement of the honora- 
 ble Secretary of the Treasurj^, accompanying his letter of March 29, 1884, and printed in 
 Senate Ex. Doc. No. 142, first session, Forty-eighth Congress. In a previous part of this 
 report the source of this statement is mentioned, and the cause of certain inaccuracies 
 therein is pointed out. 
 
 The " amount due, statement of Commissioner of Internal Kevenue," is taken from the 
 annual report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885. This statement appears to have 
 been compiled from the books of the office of the First Comptroller, showing the accounts 
 as adjusted with the States and the several Boards of Commissioners. The amounts of 
 tax uncollected in the "insurrectionary districts'' are taken from the accounts with the 
 Commissioners for those districts, as accounts with the districts or States have not yet 
 been adjusted, except to charge them with the quotas of the direct tax apportioned by the 
 Act of August 5, 1861. 
 
 The records of the office of the First Comptroller of the Treasury show that accounts 
 were certified May 29, 1868, with all of the States (except West Virginia, which was subse- 
 quently stated), charging them with the quotas of the direct tax apportioned to them, 
 respectively, binder the Act of August 5, 1861. It is regarded as probable that at that time 
 a formal decision was rendered by the honorable First Comptroller as to the legal liability 
 of the States for this tax, but, if so, no record of this decision can now be found. At the 
 present time there seems to be great conflict of opinion upon this subject among those 
 who have been called upon to consider the question; and a reference to the debates in 
 both branches of Congress when the original Act of 1861 was under consideration, does; 
 not serve to clear away the doubt. It is also found that the decisions of the incumbents 
 of the office of First Comptroller have not been uniform. The States having been charged 
 by Comptroller Tayler (in 1868), Comptroller Lawrence (in 1883), and Durham (in 1885), in 
 decisions applying moneys due to several of the States as offsets upon the amounts of the 
 direct tax apportioned to these States, recognized the charges as at least binding upon 
 them as precedents ; while Comptroller Porter (in 1879) decided that the States were not 
 liable for the direct tax, but that the same was due from the land owners in the several 
 States, and, therefore, that a sum appropriated to one of the States (Georgia) should not 
 be credited upon the direct tax " as upon a debt owing by that State to the United States." 
 This decision, however, does not appear to have been followed, as the practice of the office 
 of the First Comptroller has been to credit sums due to the States upon unpaid balances 
 of the direct tax charged to the States. 
 
 This question of the liability of the States for the direct tax, it is believed, has never 
 directly come before any of the United States Courts. 
 
 The unanimous opinion of this Commission is that the States are not liable in their cor- 
 porate capacities for the amounts of the direct tax apportioned to them, respectively. In 
 view of the fact, however, that the States have been charged upon the books of the Treas- 
 ury Department with these amounts, and that the decision making the charge governs 
 the action of the accounting officers of the Department until reversed by proper authority, 
 it is considered by a majority of this Commission that the accounts adjusted, and to be 
 adjusted, as herein recommended, exhibit the balances now due from the States. 
 
 These balances, given in a preceding table, are for convenience here repeated: 
 
 States and Territories. 
 
 Amounts Due. 
 
 States and Territories. 
 
 Amounts Due. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 $511,028 30 
 
 107,184 82 
 
 715 37 
 
 72,762 37 
 
 466,384 44 
 
 71,385 83 
 
 302,046 21 
 
 
 $198,742 06 
 141,174 31 
 
 Arkansas . . _. . _ 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 277,493 52 
 174,265 16 
 
 Florida 
 
 Texas 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Utah Territory 
 
 26,982 00 
 286,662 93 
 
 Louisiana. 
 
 Virginia . 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Washington Territory 
 
 3,487 17 
 
 
 
 In the case of the "insurrectionary districts," the amounts reported as due are the dif- 
 ferences between the quotas and the tax collected, as shown by the several accounts 
 adjusted and recommended to be readjusted with the Commissioners for the States, 
 diminished by any sums due the States that have been, or are yet to be, offset against the 
 tax apportioned to the States resx^ectively. 
 
 The records of the office of the First Comptroller show that each of the States com- 
 posing the "insurrectionary districts " was charged with the amount of the direct tax 
 apportioned to it, and that the same amount was charged to the direct tax Commissioners 
 for that State. Thus the anomaly is presented of two persons, as it were, being charged 
 with the same debt. It is considered, however, that the two accounts are to be taken 
 together also upon their credit sides. When the amounts are once fixed which are to con- 
 stitute the entries in the account against the State it is believed that the ordinary princi- 
 ples of bookkeeping in the department will indicate how these entries are to be made. 
 
 If it be assumed that the decision charging each of the States with its proportion of the 
 
259 
 
 tax was correct, then the account of the Commissioners for that State, when correctly 
 adjusted, will form the proijer basis for the credit to be given in the account with the State. 
 
 The question is then presented what item or items fixed by the Commissioners' account 
 is or are proper credits to the State ? 
 
 This Commission is divided upon this question. It is contended by one member, who 
 submits his views in a separate report, that each State is entitled to credit upon the quota 
 of the tax apportioned to it not only for the amount of the tax collected, but also for the 
 sums collected as penal tj'^, interest, costs, and excess. Two of the members are of opinion 
 that each State is entitled to credit, by transfer from the correctly adjusted account of the 
 Commissioners for the State, for the amount which is shown to have been collected as tax 
 and for that only, this amount to be deducted from the tax apportioned to the State in 
 order to determine the balance due ; and they submit that the proper credit upon lax 
 charged is tax collected, and that the items of penalty, interest, and costs, are expenses 
 incurred by reason of default in the payment of the tax within the time prescribed by 
 law, and are in addition to the tax imposed by the law. 
 
 In the accounts adjusted with the Commissioners for several of the States, more than 
 three Commissioners have been charged. Under the law only three Commissioners could 
 lawfully be acting at one time, and when the accounts were adjusted they should have 
 been divided at the points of time when the Boards of Commissioners were changed, 
 either by death, resignation, or removal of one or more members. It seems that in these 
 cases the Commissioners, upon the retirement of one of their number and the appoint- 
 ment of his successor, did not make a pause in their collections and accounts so as to 
 show where one Board of Commissioners ceased and the other began operations, and 
 therefore the accounts have been stated with more than three Commissioners. This fact 
 may stand in the way of determining the legal liability of the respective Commissioners 
 for balances found due to the United States, but it is recommended that the propriety of 
 instituting suits upon the bonds of the Commissioners to recover the balances due be con- 
 sidered. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 J. H. LICHLITER. 
 V. N. STILES. 
 
 I concur in the above report, except in so far as the same may conflict with my separate 
 opinion herewith filed. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 F. WERBER, Jr. 
 Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Treasury Department, Washington, D. C, ) 
 February 20, 1886. j 
 
 Sir: I am unable to concur in the method of adjustment of the uncollected tax in 
 the insurrectionary districts as set forth by the majorit;^ of the Commission heretofore 
 appointed by your letter of December 10, 1885, " to make investigation into the direct tax 
 accounts," etc. ; and I respectfully suggest as a substitute therefor the following proposi- 
 tion: 
 
 The tax uncollected and due by the State is the quota as originally apportioned under 
 Section 8 of Act of August 5, 1861, reduced by the amount of all collections in such State 
 of tax, penalty, interest, costs, and excess, whether collected before sale and shown by the 
 adjustment of the accounts with the Commissioners, or collected by sale and shown by 
 the records in this Department. 
 
 It must be observed that in the majority report the balance due by each of the States 
 lately in insurrection has been ascertained by deducting from the original quota appor- 
 tioned to such State the amount of tax alone collected therein, without considering in any 
 manner the collection of penalty, interests, costs, or excesses, and that all the tables accom- 
 panying that report are made up on that basis. 
 
 It is respectfully suggested that the province of this Commission is to examine into the 
 matters connected with the direct tax, not as statesmen to suggest what might be best, 
 nor as judges to expound the various laws on this subject, but rather as accountants of 
 the Executive Department, whose duty it is to apply to the mathematical problems sub- 
 mitted the law as it has been held to be by those whose duty it is to construe it, and with 
 all the limitations and restrictions which may legitimately follow such rulings. 
 
 The various decisions of the honorable First Comptroller upon the laws applicable 
 hereto furnish a guide which cannot be ignored by the accountants of this Department. 
 
 The Hon. R. W. Tayler, then First Comptroller of the Treasury, on May 29, 1868, held 
 that the direct tax was a debt due by the several States as bodies corporate, and accord- 
 ingly charged them therewith ; the records of this Department all announce the direct 
 tax as a State's debt; the Secretary of the Treasury tacitly acknowledges it when in his 
 instructions he directs that this Commission " examine into * * * the accounts * * * 
 between the United States and all the States and Territories concerned." 
 
 The direct tax is, therefore, so far as the investigation of this commission can go, a debt 
 due by the several States as corporations. 
 
 It musit be acknowledged that this construction of the law appears not to conform to 
 the intention of the acts upon this subject; but the decision fixing it as a State debt has 
 such force in the Treasury Department as to preclude any other view of the direct tax 
 
260 
 
 than that of a debt due by the State ; and accepting this doctrine the conclusions herein 
 set forth are believed to be those which logically follow. 
 
 If the State owes the debt, the land owner does not owe it. He can then be held respon- 
 sible directly to the General Government for no part of it. His obligation is to his State, 
 and he can be reached in no other manner than indirectly through his State, and under 
 State laws. 
 
 The rules of construction require that all laws imposing fines, forfeitures, or penalties 
 shall be construed strictly and most strongly against the power making it. There is in 
 the Act in question a specific amount set forth which shall constitute the debt of each 
 State ; but there is no further provision in the law for penalty, cost, interest, or excess 
 against the State. None can then be exacted or required, nor can " the State be substituted 
 for the land owner," nor " subjected to any penalties in terms imposed on him for failure to 
 pay" a debt which is not his. The provisons of the Act authorizing penalty, interest, cost, 
 and forfeiture against the individual land owner must be regarded rather as an attempt 
 upon the part of the Government to collect this tax expeditiously, and with the least 
 expense possible, collecting more than his proportion from one and less than his from 
 another land owner, leaving him who has contributed too much to his recourse upon his 
 State or upon his neighboring land owner who has contributed too little. 
 
 The position taken that the charges against the several States, as entered upon the books 
 of this Department, indicate only that so much money is to come from the State, in a 
 geographical or territorial sense, cannot be maintained in the Treasury Department, because 
 (1) the very fact of charging the State indicates that the State owes the debt, which it can 
 do only in its corporate capacity; and (2) this very question has been decided, first by 
 Comptroller Tayler, and afterwards reviewed by Comptroller William Lawrence in the 
 Georgia case. (See 4 Law. Dec, p. 354, et seq.) 
 
 The Commission is now estopped from treating the direct tax in any other light than as 
 a debt due from the State in its corporate capacity; and the amount of the State's obliga- 
 tion is adjudicated under the decision of the honorable First Comptroller of May 29, 1868, 
 as the quota alone, as set forth in Section 8, Act of August 5, 1861. 
 
 With what shall the State be now credited ? 
 
 The Government has received no payment directly from the State; but whatever sum 
 has been received has been paid by the land owners of such State, through the Commis- 
 sioners, or has been realized from the sale of lands belonging, not to the State, but to the 
 citizen. But the citizen owed no debt. 
 
 Two views may be here presented. First, that the United States has compelled the land 
 owner to pay a debt which he does not owe. The Government would then have acted in 
 tort and could apply no part of the proceeds to the liquidation of the State's debt. 
 
 The other, and perhaps the proper view, is that the land owner has simply contributed 
 from his individual means to pay, jfwo tanto, the State's debt. 
 
 The sum which he has paid, or which has been derived from the sale of property, may 
 be considered as composed of two parts : 
 
 (1) That portion which the United States recognizes as erroneously^ exacted of him by 
 the Tax Commissioners, and including the surplus over tax, penalties, interest, costs, etc., 
 in cases of sales, and which the Government has refunded, or is now ready to repay to 
 the land owners from whom it was received; and, 
 
 (2) That part, including tax, penalty, interest, cost, etc., which the Government does not 
 propose to refund to him, but for the repayment of which he must look to his State, the 
 debtor for whom he made the payment. 
 
 All sums of this second class, which the United States has received, must be applied to 
 the extinguishment, pro tanto, of the State's debt. To what other account can it be applied ? 
 What right has the United States to it except for that purpose ? It becomes now simply 
 so much money had and received bj^ the United States for the use of the State, and must 
 be applied as a whole to the credit of the State, against which there are penalties, interest, 
 or cost, regardless of whether it was denominated as against the land owner as a tax, pen- 
 alty, interest, cost, excess, or by any name whatsoever. 
 
 It has been suggested, first, that the State may be regarded as having committed the 
 payment of this tax to its citizens as its agents ; and second, that the citizens are only the 
 sureties for the payment of this debt. • In either of these cases the debtor, the State, must 
 have credit on its account, and it owes nothing but the quota, for all that has been paid 
 by its agents or its sureties; and as between creditor and surety, it must be remembered 
 that the creditor has the right to require all or any portion of the debt from any surety, 
 leaving him to his remedies against his principal debtor or his co-sureties for equity and 
 equality. 
 
 Again, it has been suggested to charge the State with all the items which are properly 
 charged against the Commissioners, and the result reached by the majority of this Com- 
 mission would be obtained. Of course, if the same account is stated with two different 
 persons in the same language, in the same figures, and in the same manner, the same 
 result must follow. 
 
 But this involves the idea that the liability of the two persons are identical. 
 
 The Commissioners have been properly charged with the monej^s they received from all 
 sources. How can the fact of their having sold a tract of land, or a lot of office furniture, 
 the property of the United States, increase the State's liability ? Yet this would be the 
 result were this plan of bookkeeping adopted. 
 
 The State can be charged with the quota apportioned under the Act alone. 
 
 The provisions of the Act of June 7, 1862, in so far as they prescribe different sums for 
 
261 
 
 penalties, interest, and cost for a portion of the United States from those prescribed under 
 the previous Act for the remainder of the States, would, under any other views than the 
 plan herein suggested, be rendered unconstitutional, null, and void under Sections 2 and 
 8, Article 1, Constitution. Because, should one State assume and pay the tax, as provided 
 under the law, and another State not so assume and pay it, should penalties, interest, 
 costs, and excess be exacted of the latter and not of the former State, then that propor- 
 tion which the Constitution requires between the States' taxes would no longer exist, and 
 the provisions of the Constitution would be defeated. 
 
 The Government did not expect to recover the full sum named in the Act. This is 
 evident, when it is remembered that $20,000,000 was levied and apportioned to the several 
 States and Territories, out of, and not in addition to, which should come the costs. 
 
 Of the original sum, the tJnited States expected to recover no more than eighty-five per 
 cent, or $17,000,000 net ; yet, were costs, penalties, interest, and forfeitures, as provided, 
 against the citizen allowed to increase the quota of the State, a sum greatly exceeding 
 even $30,000,000 might be required to pay a debt of only $20,000,000. 
 
 No figures are herein set forth showing the amounts of the several items for which it is 
 suggested that the States have further credit, for the reason that no such investigation 
 has been undertaken by the Commission ; and any figures which might be herein suggested, 
 being ex parte, might liot be accepted as correct. 
 
 Should this method of adjustment be accepted, however, the records in this Department 
 furnish ready access to all such sums as may be required for this purpose. 
 
 It appears that, in perhaps all the States in which the direct tax was collected through 
 Commissioners, very great irregularities have been committed in assessing, collecting, and 
 in accounting for the proceeds of this direct tax by the Direct Tax Commissioners. 
 
 The majority of this Commission has chosen not to make a report upon this matter. I 
 desire, however, to call to the attention of the Department the existence of these irregular- 
 ities ; and, in order to do so, I will use the records of the Commissioners of South Caro- 
 lina, not because any greater irregularities are thought to exist there than elsewhere, but 
 because that record' is, perhaps, more complete than any other, and because I am more 
 familiar with the laws of taxation of that State than with those of the other States. 
 
 The Direct Tax Commissioners of South Carolina, in their records, admit having 
 received substantially the information which was necessary in order to fix the tax cor- 
 rectly under the law. (See report of the Commissioners, dated January 1, 1863, as recorded 
 in Book of Records, at pages 50, et seq.) 
 
 It appears from the laws of this State, as well as from the annual report of the Comp- 
 troller-General of South Carolina for I860, that at the time of the collection of the direct 
 tax there was in force here a system of taxation brought down from the eighteenth 
 century, as slightly modified under the Act of 1815, whereby all lands were divided into 
 ten different classes, and assessed for taxation at sums fixed for each class, but varying 
 with the different classes at from twenty cents to $26 per acre. 
 
 These classes were arranged with reference to the character of the timber growing upon 
 the lands half a century prior to the collection of the direct tax, and the assessed value 
 thereupon represented neither the actual cash value nor the relative values of the 
 lands of this State at that time. 
 
 For taxation the State was divided under State laws into the " upper division '' and the 
 "lower division," in the latter of which alone was the direct tax attempted to be levied 
 and collected. 
 
 In this lower division there were, under State assessment, lands in each of the ten 
 classes, and assessed at each of the ten different valuations, yet the Direct Tax Commis- 
 sioners, in assessing the lands here, adopted only two of the ten valuations it seems, viz.: 
 20 cents on one class and $4 6n all other classes of lands, a few lots only being assessed at 
 the former valuation, while by far the greater portion of the lands were assessed at $4 
 per acre. Nor was regard had' apparently to the improvements upon or the proximity to 
 or remoteness from markets, or the actual cash value of the lands. 
 
 The Commissioners fixed the entire taxable property of the State at $30,833,322 lOj*^, and 
 still imposed upon the several parishes and districts constituting the "lower division" 
 of the State for taxation an aggregate assessed valuation of $33,750,000, or nearly $3,000,000 
 more than the entire estimate for the State, leaving unassessed the upper division, which, 
 under State law, constituted more than one fourth the taxable value or lands in the State, 
 and about three fourths the State's area. 
 
 The Commissioners imposed upon farming lands — all property not in towns, etc. — a tax 
 of "$2 ad valorem for each $100 valuation," and '-upon the city, town, village, and borough 
 lots the sum of 80 cents ad valorem on each $100 of valuation." This has very recently 
 been the subject of judicial inquirj' before the Court of Claims, where it has been held 
 that the assessment should have been the same for all classes of property, and that any 
 assessment in excess of such a levy is erroneous, and the amounts collected thereunder 
 in excess of the proper sums should be refunded to the land owners paying the same. 
 It will be readily seen that inasmuch as the item "tax uncollected" has been deduced 
 from the amount of tax collected from the land owner, all amounts erroneously collected 
 and which must be refunded under this or similar decisions, will affect the "liability of 
 the State to whatever extent the items applicable to the payment of the State's debt may 
 be refunded. 
 
 The report of the Comptroller General of South Carolina for I860, adding thereto the 
 assessment for Union County for the next fiscal year, which is substantially correct, as no 
 return for this county seems to have been received or incorporated in the first of the said 
 
262 
 
 reports, shows as taxable real estate in the entire State $41,924,074, of which $30,090,507 was 
 in the " lower division." Then if $41,924,074 should pay $363,570 07, the quota of the State, 
 $30,090,507 should pay $260,948 53. But upon this lower division the Commissioners levied 
 $348,283 34, or $87,334 81 more than its proportion. Should the rate of taxation have been 
 uniform, each land owner has been compelled to pay 33.8 per cent more than could be 
 imposed under the law. 
 
 Ihe same figures will show that the assessment for this State should have been 86 cents 
 (about) on each $100 valuation. Town proi)erty has then paid 6 cents too little, and 
 country property $1 14 too much on each $100 valuation. 
 
 It is probable that there will yet be presented numerous claims for refunding amounts 
 erroneously collected, both here and in other States. Each sum refunded, and which was 
 heretofore credited to the State on account of tax will necessarily affect the amount due 
 from the State. And hence the necessity of the observations upon this point. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 F. WERBER, Jr. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 APPENDIX SHOWING ACCOUNTS AS ADJUSTED 
 
 BY THIS COMMISSION. 
 
 AND AS RECOMMENDED 
 
 
 Dr. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 State of Alabama— 
 
 To direct tax, per report No. 55,622.. 
 
 $529,313 33 
 
 
 State of Arkansas— 
 
 To direct tax, per report No. 55,627 -.. -.. 
 
 $261,886 00 
 
 
 State of California— 
 
 To direct tax as per report No 55 633 
 
 $254,538 67 
 
 
 To cash, per report No. 10,813 ..'- 
 
 $247,445 41 
 
 By cash, per report No 39 283 
 
 
 495 72 
 
 By amount credited under Deficiency Act of July 7, 1884.. 
 
 
 38,180 80 
 
 To cash paid the Governor. 
 
 31,583 26 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 $286,121 93 
 
 $286,121 93 
 
 Territory of Colorado— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,624.. 
 
 $22,905 33 
 
 
 By cash deposited, report No. 34,699 
 
 $1,516 89 
 
 By balance due United States 
 
 
 21,388 44 
 
 
 
 
 To balance 
 
 $22,905 33 
 21,388 44 
 
 $22,905 33 
 
 State of Connecticut — 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55 488 
 
 $308,214 00 
 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,725 
 
 $261,981 90 
 
 By fifteen per cent commissions 
 
 
 46,232 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 $308,214 00 
 
 $308,214 00 
 
 Territory of Dakota— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,625... 
 
 $3,241 33 
 
 
 State of Delaware— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55 490 
 
 $74,683 33 
 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,861 
 
 $68,136 35 
 
 Bv cash deposited, as per report No. 34,695 
 
 
 2,635 67 
 
 By amount released under compromise 
 
 
 3,911 31 
 
 
 
 
 
 $74,683 33 
 
 74,683 33 
 
 District of Columbia— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,636 
 
 $49,437 33 
 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,799 
 
 $49,437 33 
 
 
 
 
 
 $49,437 33 
 
 $49,437 33 
 
 State of Florida— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,628 
 
 $77,522 67 
 
 
 State of Georgia— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,448 
 
 $584,367 33 
 
 . _ 
 
 State of Illinois— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,567 
 
 $1,146,551 33 
 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,742 .. . 
 
 $974,568 03 
 
 B V fifteen per cent commissions 
 
 
 171,982 70 
 
 
 
 
 
 $1,146,551 33 
 
 $1,146,551 33 
 
 
 
 
263 
 
 Appendix showing Accounts as Adjusted^ etc. — Continued. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 State of Indiana— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,556 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 11,006. 
 B3^ fifteen per cent commissions _ 
 
 $904,875 33 
 
 $769,144 03 
 135,731 30 
 
 State of Iowa — 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,629 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,754. 
 By fifteen per cent commissions 
 
 $904,875 33 
 
 $904,875 33 
 
 $452,088 00 
 
 $384,274 80 
 67,813 20 
 
 State of Kansas — 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,626 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,864 
 
 By cash, per report No. 32,388 
 
 Bv reimbursement of 15 per cent commissions under Act 
 
 of Augusts, 1882... 
 
 To cash paid State 
 
 State of Kentucky— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,562 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,798. 
 By 15 per cent commissions 
 
 State of Louisiana— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,565 
 
 State of Maine 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,484 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,710. 
 
 By 15 per cent commissions _ 
 
 State of Maryland 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,450 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,741. 
 By 15 per cent commissions 
 
 State of Massachusetts — 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,442 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,723. 
 By 15 per cent commissions 
 
 State of Michigan — 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,634. .. 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,1 
 
 By 15 per cent commissions 
 
 State of Minnesota— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,611 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 11,013. 
 By 15 per cent commissions 
 
 State of Mississippi— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,630 
 
 State of Missouri— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,635 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,771. 
 
 By 15 per cent commissions 
 
 $452,088 00 
 
 $452,088 00 
 
 $71,743 33 
 
 $9,360 82 
 62,382 51 
 
 10,761 50 
 
 10,761 50 
 
 $82,504 83 
 
 $82,504 83 
 
 $713,695 33 
 
 $606,641 03 
 107,054 30 
 
 $713,695 33 
 
 $713,695 33 
 
 $385,886 67 
 
 $420,826 00 
 
 $357,702 10 
 63,123 90 
 
 $420,826 00 
 
 $420,826 00 
 
 $436,823 33 
 
 $371,299 83 
 65,523 50 
 
 $436,823 33 
 
 $436,823 33 
 
 $824,581 33 
 
 $700,894 14 
 123,687 19 
 
 $824,581 33 
 
 $824,581 33 
 
 $501,763 33 
 
 $426,498 83 
 75,264 50 
 
 $501,763 33 
 
 $501,763 33 
 
 ;,524 00 
 
 $92,245 40 
 16,278 60 
 
 $108,524 00 
 
 $108,524 00 
 
 $413,084 67 
 
 $761,127 33 
 
 $646,958 23 
 114,169 10 
 
 $761,127 33 
 
 $761,127 33 
 
264 
 
 Appendix showing Accounts as Adjusted, etc. — Continued. 
 
 Dr, 
 
 Cr. 
 
 Territory of Nebraska — 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,609 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 By amount credited under Act of August 7, 1882. 
 
 $19,312 00 
 
 Territory of Nevada— , 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,623 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,773 
 
 By cash, as per report No. 34,701 
 
 By reimbursement of 15 per cent under Act of July 
 To cash paid State .-. 
 
 119,312 00 
 
 $4,592 67 
 
 1884. 
 
 State of New Hampshire — 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,485 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,711. 
 By 15 per cent commissions 
 
 State of New Jersey — 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,491. 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 By 15 per cent commissions 
 
 Territory of New Mexico — 
 
 To d'irect tax, as per report No. 55,612 
 
 By amount credited under Act of July 1, 1862 
 
 State of New York— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,489 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,814. 
 
 By commissions- 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 18,225. 
 B}^ balance of commissions 
 
 State of North Carolina — 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,446 
 
 State of Ohio — 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,563 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,770. 
 
 By 15 per cent commissions 
 
 State of Oregon — 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,610 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 34,697. 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 39,284. 
 By amount credited by Act of July 7, 1884. 
 To cash paid State 
 
 State of Pennsylvania— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,487. 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,740. 
 By commissions 
 
 State of Rhode Island — 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,451 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,724. 
 By 15 per cent commissions . 
 
 90 
 
 $5,281 57 
 
 $218,406 67 
 
 $218,406 67 
 
 $450,134 00 
 
 $450,134 00 
 
 $62,648 00 
 
 $62,648 00 
 
 $2,603,918 67 
 
 $2,603,918 67 
 
 $576,194 67 
 
 $4,281 60 
 15,030 40 
 
 $19,312 00 
 
 $4,592 33 
 34 
 
 688 90 
 
 $5,281 57 
 
 $185,645 67 
 32,761 00 
 
 $218,406 67 
 
 *$382,614 83 
 t67,519 17 
 
 $450,134 00 
 
 $62,648 00 
 
 }2,648 00 
 
 $2,132,100 61 
 
 319,815 09 
 
 81,230 25 
 
 70,772 72 
 
 $2,603,918 61 
 
 $1,567,194 67 
 
 $1,332,025 93 
 235,063 40 
 
 $1,567,194 67 
 
 $1,567,194 67 
 
 $35,140 67 
 
 $5,271 10 
 
 $40,411 77 
 
 $1,946,719 33 
 
 $1,946,719 33 
 
 $116,963 67 
 
 $116,963 67 
 
 $1,891 60 
 
 33,249 07 
 
 5,271 10 
 
 $40,411 77 
 
 $1,654,711 43 
 292,007 90 
 
 $1,946,719 33 
 
 $99,419 11 
 17,544 56 
 
 $.116,983 67 
 
 ■Deposit, 93 cents too much. 
 
 f Commissions, 93 cents too small. 
 
265 
 
 Appendix showing Accounts as Adjusted, etc. — Continued. 
 
 
 Dr. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 State of South Carolina— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,447 
 
 $363,570 67 
 
 
 State of Tennessee— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,564 
 
 $669,498 00 
 
 
 State of Texas— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,632 
 
 $355,106 67 
 
 
 
 
 Territory of Utah— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,613 
 
 $26,982 00 
 
 « 
 
 State of Vermont— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55 453 
 
 
 $211,068 00 
 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,712 
 
 $179,407 80 
 31 66'0 20 
 
 By 15 per cent commissions 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $211,068 00 
 
 $211,068 00 
 
 State of Virginia— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,449 
 
 $937,550 67 
 
 
 By amount apportioned to West Virginia 
 
 $208,479 65 
 
 Balance due 
 
 
 729,071 02 
 
 
 
 
 To balance 
 
 $937,550 67 
 729,071 02 
 
 $937,550 67 
 
 Washington Territory — 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,614. . . 
 
 $7,755 33 
 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 $4,268 16 
 
 By balance 
 
 
 3,487 17 
 
 
 
 
 To balance 
 
 $7,755 33 
 3,487 17 
 
 $7,755 33 
 
 State of West Virginia— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 10,872 
 
 $208,479 65 
 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,872 
 
 $153,978 75 
 
 By 15 per cent commissions 
 
 
 27,172 72 
 
 By credit under letter of Secretary of Treasury 
 
 
 27,328 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 $208,479 65 
 
 $208,479 65 
 
 State of Wisconsin— 
 
 To direct tax, as per report No. 55,031 
 
 $519,688 67 
 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 10,817 
 
 $262,309 55 
 39,346 43 
 
 By 15 per cent commissions 
 
 
 Bv balance 
 
 
 218,032 69 
 
 
 
 
 $519,688 67 
 
 $519,688 67 
 
 To balance 
 
 $218,032 69 
 
 
 By cash deposited, as per report No. 34,698 
 
 $166,887 13 
 51 145 56 
 
 By balance 
 
 
 
 
 
 To balance 
 
 $218,032 69 
 51,145 56 
 
 $218,032 69 
 
 
 
266 
 
 H%din(]s Cowperthwait and Enoch H. Vance, as Direct Tax Commissioners for the State of 
 
 Arkansas. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 (Report 6.) 
 
 To amount of direct tax 
 
 To amount of penalties collected 
 To amount of interest collected .. 
 
 To amount of costs collected 
 
 To amount of excess collected ... 
 
 To proceeds sales of land _ _ 
 
 By casli deposited 
 
 By taxes uncollected 
 
 By taxes refunded 
 
 (Report 25.) 
 
 By rent, salaries, etc., paid 
 
 By balance due United States 
 
 Total.... 
 Tobalance. 
 
 $261,886 00 
 
 3,848 35 
 
 2,006 87 
 
 470 06 
 
 1,571 47 
 
 56,865 00 
 
 $326,647 75 
 16,726 76 
 
 $186,736 44 
 
 107,686 72 
 
 14 93 
 
 15,482 90 
 16,726 76 
 
 $326,647 75 
 
 Statement of the account with the Commissioners for the State of Arkansas, as recommended by 
 
 this ComTTiission. 
 
 To direct tax 
 
 To penalties collected $3,848 35 
 
 Less amount charged in redemptions 27 67 
 
 To interest collected. $2,006 87 
 
 Less amount charged in redemptions 39 14 
 
 To costs collected 
 
 Less amount charged in redemptions. 
 
 $470 06 
 83 90 
 
 To excess collected 
 
 To proceeds sales of land to individuals $56,865 00 
 
 Less tax on sales of land to individuals 
 
 566 86 
 
 To proceeds of redemption ... 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 By tax uncollected 
 
 By tax refunded 
 
 By rent, salaries, etc., paid^... 
 By balance due United States 
 
 Total 
 
 To balance due United States. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 $261,886 00 
 3,820 68 
 1,967 73 
 
 386 16 
 1,571 47 
 
 56,298 14 
 215 67 
 
 $326,145 85 
 *16,726 76 
 
 Cr. 
 
 $186,736 44 
 
 107,184 82 
 
 14 93 
 
 15,482 90 
 
 16,726 76 
 
 $326,145 85 
 
 *This commission recommend the allowance of the further sum of $8,842 48, which, if allowed, would reduce 
 the balance due the United States to $7,884 28. 
 
267 
 
 Harrison Reed, L. D. Stickney, John S. Sammis, William Alsop, Austin Smith, Daniel Richards, 
 Buckingham Smith, and John Friend, as Direct Tax Commissioners for the State of Florida. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 (Report 27.) 
 
 To amount of direct tax .-. 
 
 To amount of penalties collected 
 
 To proceeds sales of land - _. 
 
 To proceeds redemptions 
 
 To tax, penalty, interest, and costs (not divisible) 
 
 To amount received for rent 
 
 To amount received of Florida Railroad Company. 
 
 To amount received sales of office furniture 
 
 To amount received tax on salaries 
 
 By cash deposited - 
 
 Bj^ miscellaneous expenses _ 
 
 By refunded to purchasers after redemption 
 
 By amount returned to purchasers after first sale. 
 
 By amount sales not perfected 
 
 By amount deposited on account Florida Railroad Company. 
 
 By amount fees paid Commissioners 
 
 By amount taxes uncollected 
 
 By balance due United States 
 
 Total 
 
 To balance 
 
 $77,522 67 
 
 1,994 60 
 
 63,353 78 
 
 3,237 77 
 
 1,752 52 
 
 1,530 38 
 
 4,126 00 
 
 320 00 
 
 98 03 
 
 $153,935 75 
 4,907 73 
 
 $44,434 81 
 
 16,419 76 
 
 1,399 45 
 
 8,903 04 
 
 726 70 
 
 4,126 00 
 
 262 00 
 
 72,756 26 
 
 4,907 73 
 
 $153,935 75 
 
 ■Statement of the account with the Commissioners for the State of Florida, as recommended by 
 
 this Commission. 
 
 To direct tax 
 
 To penalties collected 
 
 To proceeds sales $63,353 78 
 
 To less tax on sales 1,496 99 
 
 To proceeds redemptions 
 
 To tax, penalties, and interest collected, not divisible . 
 
 To rents -_ _ 
 
 To amount from Florida Railroad Company 
 
 To sales furniture 
 
 To tax on salaries 
 
 By cash deposited -.. 
 
 By miscellaneous expenses 
 
 By amount refunded on redemption -.. 
 
 By amount refunded after first sale 
 
 By sales not perfected 
 
 By deposit on account Florida Railroad Company 
 
 By fees paid to Commissioners 
 
 By tax uncollected _. 
 
 By tax on lands bid in for United States 
 
 By balance due United States 
 
 Total- 
 
 To balance due United States. 
 
 $77,522 67 
 1,994 60 
 
 61,856 79 
 3,237 77 
 1,752 52 
 1,530 38 
 4,126 00 
 320 00 
 98 03 
 
 $152,438 76 
 3,262 16 
 
 $44,434 81 
 
 16,419 76 
 
 1,399 45 
 
 8,903 04 
 
 726 70 
 
 4,126 00 
 
 262 00 
 
 72,762 37 
 
 142 47 
 
 3,262 16 
 
 $152,438 76 
 
268 
 
 T. P. Robb, Samuel A. Fancoast, and John C. Bates, as Direct Tax Commissioners for the State 
 
 of Georgia. 
 
 (Report 5.) 
 
 To amount of district tax 
 
 To excess of collections 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 By cash paid for salaries _ 
 
 By cash paid stationer5^ postage, etc 
 
 By advertising and printing 
 
 By rent of oflfice 
 
 By traveling expenses 
 
 By miscellaneous expenses 
 
 By amount refunded as tax improperly collected. 
 By taxes uncollected 
 
 (Report 23.) 
 
 By miscellaneous items 
 
 By balance 
 
 Total 
 
 To balance 
 
 $584,367 34 
 649 72 
 
 171,407 75 
 
 6,265 35 
 
 260 04 
 
 362 60 
 
 1,404 59 
 
 378 80 
 
 1,163 68 
 
 46 17 
 
 501,939 86 
 
 1,443 56 
 344 66 
 
 $585,017 06 
 344 66 
 
 $585,017 06 
 
 E. M. Randall, George W. Ames, and M. F. Bonzano, as Direct Tax Commissioners for the State 
 
 of Louisiana. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 (Report 10.) 
 
 To direct tax 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 By salaries paid 
 
 By stationery and postage... 
 
 By advertising and printing 
 
 By miscellaneous expenses 
 
 By taxes transferred to successors . 
 By cash transferred to successors.. 
 
 Total 
 
 $385,886 67 
 
 ),886 67 
 
 $88,203 72 
 
 1,429 95 
 
 416 25 
 
 2,250 OO 
 
 20 75 
 
 280,452 65 
 
 13,113 37 
 
 $385,886 67 
 
 E. M. Randall, George W. Ames, and D. Urban, as Direct Tax Commissio7iers for the State of 
 
 Louisiana. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 (Report 11.) 
 To taxes received from predecessor. 
 To cash received from predecessors. 
 
 By cashdeposited 
 
 By salaries paid 
 
 By stationery and postage.. 
 
 By advertising and printing 
 
 By rent of office". 
 
 By traveling expenses 
 
 By miscellaneoiis expenses 
 
 By taxes uncollected 
 
 (Report 26.) 
 
 By miscellaneous credits 
 
 By balance 
 
 $280,452 65 
 13,113 37 
 
 Total 
 
 To balance due United JStates. 
 
 $293,566 02 
 14,025 58 
 
 $180,308 92 
 
 10,498 23 
 
 471 50 
 
 57 50 
 
 730 00 
 
 1,234 80 
 
 467 92 
 
 71,385 83 
 
 14,385 74 
 14,025 58 
 
 $293,566 02 
 
269 
 
 Albert Alderson, Pennock Huey, and George A. Sykes, as Direct Tax Commissioners for the State 
 
 of Mississippi. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 (Report 8.) 
 To direct tax 
 
 To interest collected 
 
 To proceeds sales furniture. . 
 
 By cash deposited - . 
 
 By salaries paid 
 
 By stationery and postage. .. 
 By advertising and printing. 
 
 By taxes uncollected _. 
 
 By miscellaneous credits 
 
 (Report 18.) 
 By salaries paid 
 
 "(Report 22.) 
 
 By cash deposited --. 
 
 By miscellaneous expenses.. 
 
 $413,084 67 
 
 416 45 
 
 19 60 
 
 
 
 $60,232 28 
 
 2,636 71 
 
 265 11 
 
 15 00 
 
 343,500 12 
 
 83 66 
 
 6,359 66 
 
 30 85 
 397 33 
 
 Total 
 
 $413,520 72 
 
 $413,520 72 
 
 Joh7i R. French, Hiram Potter, Jr., and Charles C. Sholes, as Direct Tax Commissioners for the 
 
 State of North Carolina. 
 
 
 Dr. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 (Report 3.) 
 To direct tax 
 
 $576,194 67 
 
 
 By taxes transferred to successors 
 
 $573,747 58 
 2,447 09 
 
 By cash to successors . ._ 
 
 
 
 
 Total --. 
 
 $576,194 67 
 
 $576,194 67 
 
 
 John R. French, Hiram Potter, Jr., and E. H Sears, as Direct Tax Commissioners for the State 
 
 of North Carolina. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 (Report 4.) 
 
 To cash from predecessors. 
 
 To taxes from predecessors 
 
 To penalties collected 
 
 To interest collected. 
 
 To excess collected 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 By salaries paid 
 
 By stationery and postage 
 
 By advertising and printing 
 
 By rent of office 
 
 By traveling expenses 
 
 By miscellaneous expenses 
 
 By taxes uncollected 
 
 (Report 19.) 
 
 By salaries paid 
 
 By excess of stubs over land books . . . 
 By Silver Hill Mining Company's tax 
 
 Total 
 
 $2,447 09 
 
 573,747 58 
 
 26,217 78 
 
 589 51 
 
 383 82 
 
 $386,194 45 
 
 12,857 65 
 
 344 56 
 
 285 40 
 
 1,019 88 
 
 517 85 
 
 916 48 
 
 198,742 06 
 
 1,323 63 
 
 383 82 
 800 00 
 
 $603,385 78 
 
 $603,385 
 
270 
 
 W. H. Brisbane, W. E. Wording, W. Drummond, A. D. Smith, D. N. Cooley, and J. D. Martiny 
 as Direct Tax Commissioners for the State of South Carolina. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 (Keport 12.) 
 
 To direct tax 
 
 To penalties collected 
 
 To interest collected 
 
 To proceeds of sales of land 
 
 To proceeds redemption 
 
 To sales to the army and navy 
 
 To sales to heads of families 
 
 To special rents on lands -. 
 
 To rents on lands 
 
 To school fund under President's instructions. 
 
 To school fund under Act July 16, 1866 
 
 To sales of maps 
 
 To certificate fees _ 
 
 To rents on certificates 
 
 To forfeitures 
 
 To sales to loyal citizens ._. 
 
 To interest on deferred payments 
 
 To Sherman warrants sales - 
 
 To costs advertising lands not paid for 
 
 To costs exacted before sale 
 
 To miscellaneous collections 
 
 (Report 16.) 
 To error in report 12 
 
 (Report 12.) 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 By taxes uncollected .-. 
 
 By cash transferred to Bureau of R. F. and A. Lands. 
 
 By cash paid William R. Cloutman .-. 
 
 By cash disbursed on account of schools. 
 
 By cash disbursed on account of fees, etc 
 
 By certificate fees 
 
 (Report 16.) 
 
 By cash transferred to William R. Cloutman ._. 
 
 By cash disbursed 
 
 Total. 
 
 1363,570 67 
 
 132 76 
 
 27,284 99 
 
 28,232 29 
 
 954 82 
 
 137,018 68 
 
 31,833 46 
 
 21,845 42 
 
 21,899 70 
 
 26,797 12 
 
 56,515 35 
 
 24 00 
 
 4,465 50 
 
 2,763 90 
 
 50 00 
 
 41,768 00 
 
 982 50 
 
 54 75 
 
 50 52 
 
 52 98 
 
 365 15 
 
 2,514 71 
 
 1471,378 59 
 
 152,781 35 
 
 55,040 12 
 
 3,444 45 
 
 22,396 16 
 
 55;814 12 
 
 4,465 50 
 
 2,514 71 
 1,342 27 
 
 $769,177 27 
 
 $769,177 27 
 
271 
 
 Statement of the Account with the Commissioners for the State of South Carolina as recom- 
 mended by this Commission. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 To direct tax - 
 
 To penalties collected _ 
 
 To interest collected 
 
 To sales of land $28,232 29 
 
 Less tax on land 1,973 29 
 
 To proceeds of redemption 
 
 To sales to army and navy 
 
 To sales to heads of families 
 
 To special rents 
 
 To rents on land _ 
 
 To school fund, President's instructions _ 
 
 To school fund, Act July 16, 1866 
 
 To sales of maps 
 
 To certificate fees 
 
 To rents on certificates 
 
 To forfeitures 
 
 To sales to loyal citizens 
 
 To interest on deferred payments 
 
 To Sherman warrants sales — 
 
 To costs, advertising land, etc 
 
 To costs exacted before sale.. 
 
 To miscellaneous collections. 
 
 To balance 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 By tax uncollected 
 
 By tax on lands bid in for United States 
 
 By cash to Bureau Refugees, Freedmen, and abandoned lands. 
 
 By cash to William R. Cloutman 
 
 By cash disbursed, account schools 
 
 By cashed disbursed, account fees, etc 
 
 By cash disbursed, account certificate fees _ 
 
 Total.... 
 By balance 
 
 $363,570 67 
 132 76 
 
 27,284 99 
 
 26,259 00 
 
 954 82 
 
 137,018 68 
 
 31,833 46 
 
 21,845 42 
 
 21,899 70 
 
 26,797 12 
 
 56,515 35 
 
 24 00 
 
 4,465 50 
 
 2,763 90 
 
 50 00 
 
 41,768 00 
 
 982 50 
 
 54 75 
 
 50 52 
 
 52 98 
 
 365 15 
 
 248 00 
 
 $468,863 88 
 
 141,174 31 
 
 9,881 75 
 
 55,040 12 
 
 5,959 16 
 
 22,396 16 
 
 57,156 39 
 
 4,465 50 
 
 $7&4,937 27 
 
 $764,937 27 
 248 00 
 
272 
 
 William R. Cloutman, as successor to Direct Tax Commissioners, for South Carolina. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 (Report 15.) 
 
 To cash received from predecessor 
 
 To cash from sales of land.. 
 
 To cash from redemptions 
 
 To cash from miscellaneous sales 
 
 To cash from rents of school farms 
 
 To cash from special rents 
 
 To cash from other rents 
 
 To cash from deferred payments 
 
 ' (Report 17.) 
 
 To cash from predecessors 
 
 (Report 29.) 
 To cash from collections, W. E. Wording 
 
 To cash from redemptions 
 
 To cash from miscellaneous collections. . 
 To amount due collector and suspended. 
 
 ( Report 15.) 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 By cash deposited, account school fund.. 
 
 By salaries paid 
 
 B}^ stationery, postage, etc. 
 
 By advertising, printing, etc. 
 
 By traveling expenses 
 
 By miscellaneous expenses 
 
 '(Report 29.) 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 By overcharge sales, H. F 
 
 By overcharge miscellaneous sales 
 
 By overcharge rents school farms 
 
 By overcharge special rents 
 
 By overcharge other rents 
 
 By overcharge deferred payments 
 
 By rents returned to owners . 
 
 By amount refunded on redemption! 
 
 Total 
 
 By amount due collector and suspended. 
 
 $3,444 45 
 
 1,542 00 
 
 5,279 80 
 
 604 30 
 
 2,969 10 
 
 18,952 39 
 8,002 16 
 7,442 08 
 
 2,514 71 
 
 2,329 06 
 
 123 85 
 
 52 25 
 
 255 18 
 
 $18,898 52 
 
 5,071 27 
 
 215 99 
 
 75 13 
 
 63 00 
 
 291 45 
 
 1,183 16 
 
 9,260 18 
 
 778 25 
 
 436 55 
 
 1,121 40 
 
 7,312 27 
 
 4,432 70 
 
 127 50 
 
 192 61 
 
 4,051 35 
 
 $53,511 33 
 
 $53,511 33 
 255 18 
 
273 
 
 A. J. Ransier, as successor of the Direct Tax Commissioners for the State of South Carolina. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 (Report 28.) 
 
 To proceeds of redemption 
 
 To proceeds of deferred payments ... 
 
 To proceeds of rents 
 
 To proceeds of- miscellaneous sales... 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 By amount refunded on redemption 
 Bv balance due United States 
 
 $1,735 03 
 
 824 01 
 
 369 25 
 
 6 00 
 
 Totals 
 
 To balance due United States . 
 
 $2,934 29 
 35 00 
 
 $2,744 24 
 
 155 05 
 
 35 00 
 
 $2,934 29, 
 
 Delano T. Smith, Elisha P. Ferry, Absalom A. Kyle, John B. Rogers, and Edward P. Cone, as 
 Direct Tax Commissioners for the State of Tennessee. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 (Report 9.) 
 ' To direct tax 
 
 To penalties collected 
 
 To interest collected 
 
 To costs collected.. 
 
 To excess collected 
 
 To proceeds sale of land... 
 
 To proceeds redemptions 
 
 To collections Adams Express Company 
 To proceeds sale of furniture 
 
 (Report 14.) 
 To error in Report 13...'. 
 
 (Report 9.) 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 By salaries paid 
 
 By stationery, postage, etc 
 
 By advertising, printing, etc 
 
 By rent of office 
 
 By miscellaneous expenses 
 
 By taxes uncollected 
 
 '(Report 13.) 
 By amount refunded on redemption 
 
 (Report 14.) 
 
 By amount refunded on redemption 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 By miscellaneous credits 
 
 Totals 
 
 $669,498 00 
 
 12,382 94 
 
 909 54 
 
 967 36 
 
 7 59 
 
 123,097 00 
 
 8,732 50 
 
 27 50 
 
 154 16 
 
 5 00 
 
 $467,700 00 
 
 5,463 25 
 
 240 25 
 
 2,387 50 
 
 250 00 
 
 446 60 
 
 287,963 43 
 
 31,090 61 
 
 3,319 85 
 
 22 06 
 
 16.898 04 
 
 $815,781 59 
 
 $815,781 59 
 
 18 
 
274 
 
 Statement of the Account with the Commissioners for the State of Tennessee, as recommended 
 
 this Commission. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 To direct tax 
 
 To penalties collected 
 
 To interest collected 
 
 To costs collected _. 
 
 To excess collected .-. 
 
 To sales of land $123,097 00 
 
 .Less tax on land -- 8,728 93 
 
 rTo proceeds of redemption 
 
 To collections of Adams Express Company. 
 
 To sale of furniture 
 
 By cash deposited -.. 
 
 By salaries paid 
 
 By stationery, postage, etc 
 
 By advertising, printing, etc. 
 
 By rent of office 
 
 By miscellaneous expenses 
 
 By amount refunded on redemption 
 
 By tax uncollected 
 
 By tax on property bid in for United States 
 
 Totals - 
 
 1669,498 00 
 
 12,382 94 
 
 909 54 
 
 967 36 
 
 7 59 
 
 114,368 07 
 
 8,732 50 
 
 27 50 
 
 154 16 
 
 $467,722 06 
 
 5,463 25 
 
 240 25 
 
 2,387 50 
 
 250 00 
 
 17,344 64 
 
 34,405 46 
 
 277,505 77 
 
 1,728 73 
 
 $807,047 66 
 
 $807,047 66 
 
 Robert K. Smith, A. J. Coleman, and A. H. Latimer, as Direct Tax Commissioners for the State 
 
 of Texas. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 (Report 7.) 
 To direct tax 
 
 To penalties collected 
 
 To interest collected^ 
 
 To costs collected 
 
 To excess collected 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 By salaries paid 
 
 By stationery and postage 
 
 By advertising and printing . . 
 
 By rent of office 
 
 By traveling expenses 
 
 By miscellaneous expenses __. 
 
 By taxes uncollected .-. 
 
 '(Report 24.) 
 
 By miscellaneous credits 
 
 By balance due United States. 
 
 $355,106 67 
 
 14,578 28 
 
 12,955 00 
 
 5,679 18 
 
 45 21 
 
 $130,008 06 
 3,463 36 
 384 50 
 212 50 
 150 00 
 271 00 
 266 24 
 174,265 16 
 
 .28,878 69 
 50,464 83 
 
 Totals... 
 To balance 
 
 $388,364 34 
 50.464 83 
 
 ^,364 34 
 
275 
 
 John Hawxhurst, W. J. Boreman, and Gillet F. Watson, as Direct Tax Commissioners for the 
 
 State of Virginia. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 (Report 1.) 
 
 To direct tax ... 
 
 To penalties collected -. - 
 
 To interest collected 
 
 To costs collected 
 
 To excess collected 
 
 To proceeds sales of land 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 By tax on land bid in by United States 
 
 By tax transferred to successors 
 
 By cash transferred to successors 
 
 $937,550 67 
 
 51 24 
 
 46 24 
 
 219 62 
 
 30 49 
 
 28,228 97 
 
 Totals 
 
 $966,127 23 
 
 $45,575 61 
 
 92 07 
 
 919,985 95 
 
 473 60 
 
 $966,127 23 
 
 Statement of the Account with the First Board of Commissioners for the State of Virginia, as 
 recommended by this Commission. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 To direct tax 
 
 To penalties collected -. 
 
 To interest collected _ _. 
 
 To costs collected _ _. 
 
 To excess collected .-. 
 
 To sales of land $28,400 00 
 
 Less tax on land 171 03 
 
 By balance due United States 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 By tax on land bid in for United States. 
 
 By tax transferred to successors 
 
 By cash transferred to successors 
 
 $937,550 67 
 
 51 24 
 
 46 24 
 
 219 62 
 
 30 49 
 
 28,228 97 
 
 Totals 
 
 To balance due United States. 
 
 $966,127 23 
 171 03 
 
 $171 03 
 
 45,575 61 
 
 92 07 
 
 919,814 92 
 
 473 60 
 
 $966,127 23 
 
276 
 
 John HaivxMirst, Gillet F. Watson, and A. Lawrence Foster, as Direct Tax Commissioners for 
 
 the State of Virginia. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 (Report 2.) 
 
 To taxes received from predecessors -.., 
 
 To cash received from predecessors 
 
 To penalties collected .-- 
 
 To interest collected 
 
 To costs collected 
 
 To excess collected 
 
 To proceeds sales of land-. 
 
 To proceeds redemptions 
 
 To collections in territory assigned to West Virginia 
 
 By cash deposited 
 
 By tax on salaries deposited 
 
 By salaries paid : 
 
 By stationery, etc., 1463 72; advertising, etc., $5,191 49.-. 
 
 By rent of ofhce 
 
 By traveling expenses, $2,510 78; miscellaneous expenses, $722 16 
 
 By tax on land bid in for the United States. 
 
 By amount refunded on redemption 
 
 By tax uncollected 
 
 By tax apportioned to West Virginia 
 
 (Report 21.) 
 
 By salaries paid 
 
 By advertising and printing 
 
 By miscellaneous expenses ^ 
 
 $919,985 95 
 473 60 
 329 71 
 
 2,787 90 
 
 3,332 45 
 
 264 19 
 
 84,897 70 
 
 528 35 
 
 27,728 40 
 
 $497,322 29 
 
 914 87 
 
 31,652 64 
 
 5,655 21 
 
 525 50 
 
 3,232 94 
 
 112 56 
 
 4,484 37 
 
 286,499 37 
 
 208,479 65 
 
 35 25 
 472 60 
 941 00 
 
 Totals 
 
 $1,040,328 25 
 
 L,040,328 25 
 
 Statement of the account with the second Board of Commissioners for the State of Virginia, 
 as recommended by this Commission. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 To taxes from predecessors 
 
 To cash from predecessors 
 
 To penalties collected 
 
 To interest collected 
 
 To costs collected 
 
 To excess collected 
 
 To proceeds sales $85,455 57 
 
 Less tax on sales 350 91 
 
 To proceeds redemptions 
 
 To collections in West Virginia 
 
 To balance 
 
 By cash deposited . 
 
 By salaries paid 
 
 By stationery and postage 
 
 By advertising and printing 
 
 By rent of office 
 
 By traveling expenses, $2,510 78; miscellaneous expenses, 
 
 $1,663 16.... 
 
 By tax on land bid in for United States 
 
 By amount refunded on redemptions 
 
 By tax uncollected ^ 
 
 By tax apportioned to West Virginia 
 
 $919,814 92 
 
 473 60 
 
 329 71 
 
 2,787 90 
 
 3,332 45 
 
 264 19 
 
 85,104 66 
 528 35 
 
 27,728 40 
 171 03 
 
 Totals 
 By balance . 
 
 $1,940,535 21 
 
 $498,237 16 
 
 31,687 89 
 
 463 72 
 
 5,664 09 
 
 525 50 
 
 4,173 94 
 155 96 
 
 4,484 37 
 286,662 93 
 208,479 65 
 
 $1,040,535 21 
 171 03 
 
277 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 47. 
 
 Hon. J. N. DoLPH, United States Senate: 
 
 July 20, 1886. 
 
 Dear Senator: In support of some of the propositions by me submitted 
 to you in relation to the direct tax matter, I have gone to the pains of 
 examining the census reports of the population of the several States and 
 Territories for 1860 and 1880, a table of which I have prepared, and a copy 
 whereof I now inclose you herewith. 
 
 An examination thereof, which shows the difference in population in 
 Oregon between 1860 and 1880, will be a guide to determine the difference 
 thereof in 1864 and 1886. But a similar difference in population will, I 
 think, apply equally, or as near as may be, to each of the other States. 
 Yours truly, 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 State Agent and Counsel for California, Oregon, and Nevada. 
 
 Table showing the population of the several States and Territories in 1860 and 1880, as taken 
 from the Official Census Reports. 
 
 Name of State ok 
 Territory. 
 
 Population 
 in 1860. 
 
 Population 
 in 1880. 
 
 Name of State or 
 Territory. 
 
 Population 
 in 1860. 
 
 Population 
 in 1880. 
 
 Alabama. 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 California 
 
 Colorado.. 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Delaware 
 
 Florida 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Iowa... 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Kentuckj?^.. 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Maine... 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Massachusetts .. 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada 
 
 New Hampshire 
 New Jersey 
 
 529,121 
 324,335 
 379,994 
 34,277 
 460,147 
 110,418 
 78,679 
 595,088 
 
 1,711,951 
 
 1,350,428 
 674,913 
 107,204 
 930,201 
 376,276 
 628,279 
 599,860 
 
 1,231,066 
 749,113 
 172,123 
 354,674 
 
 1,067,081 
 
 28,826 
 
 6,857 
 
 326.073 
 
 672,017 
 
 1,262,505 
 
 802,525 
 
 864,694 
 
 194,327 
 
 622,700 
 
 146,608 
 
 269,493 
 
 1,542,180 
 
 3,077,871 
 
 1,978,301 
 
 1,624,615 
 
 996,096 
 
 1,648,690 
 
 939,946 
 
 648,936 
 
 934,943 
 
 1,783.085 
 
 1,636,937 
 
 780,773 
 
 1,131,597 
 
 2,168,380 
 
 452,402 
 
 62,266 
 
 346,991 
 
 1,131,116 
 
 New York 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Oregon... 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Texas 
 
 Vermont. -- 
 
 Virginia 
 
 West Virginia 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Arizona- 
 
 Dakota 
 
 Dist. of Columbia . 
 
 Idaho..-. 
 
 Montana 
 
 New Mexico 
 
 Utah..-. 
 
 Washington 
 
 Wyoming 
 
 3,880,735 
 661,563 
 
 2,239,511 
 52,465 
 
 2,906,215 
 174,020 
 301,302 
 834,082 
 429,649 
 315,098 
 
 1,105,453 
 
 775,881 
 
 Total population. 
 
 4,837 
 71,895 
 
 93,516 
 40,244 
 11,594 
 
 5,082,871 
 
 1,399,750 
 
 3,198,062 
 
 174,768 
 
 4,282,891 
 
 276,531 
 
 995,577 
 
 1,542,359 
 
 1,591,749 
 
 332,286 
 
 1,512,565 
 
 618,457 
 
 1,315,497 
 
 40,440 
 
 135,177 
 
 177,624 
 
 32,610 
 
 39,159 
 
 119,565 
 
 143,963 
 
 75,116 
 
 20,789 
 
 31,443,321 
 
 50,155,783 
 
 Total population in 1870 38,558,371 
 
 Total population in 1850 23,191.876 
 
 Total population in 1840 17,0691453 
 
 Total population in 1830. 12,866,020 
 
 Total population in 1820 9,633,822 
 
 Total population in 1810 .... 7,239,881 
 
 Total population in 1800 5,308,483 
 
 Total population in 1790..... 3,929,214 
 
 Hon. J. N. DoLPH, United States Senate: 
 
 July 18, 1886. 
 
 Dear Senator: I have maturely considered the suggestion you make in 
 connection with the provisions of the Direct Tax Bill, as contained in the 
 amendment of Senator Hampton to the Georgia Bill in this, to wit: " That 
 
278 
 
 the State of Oregon might possibly be called upon to pay into the Federal 
 Treasury an amount greater than that which she would receive from the 
 refund as provided for by Senator Hampton's amendment." 
 
 I cannot for the life of me see how said suggestion can possibly rest on 
 any solid foundation, and because in the first place Oregon as a State does 
 not either directly or indirectly pay any money into the Federal Treasury, 
 nor do her people pay any money into their State Treasury in order to pay 
 the same or with any expectation of its being paid into the Federal Treas- 
 ury, and because whatever sums are by the people of Oregon paid into their 
 own State Treasury are for purposes exclusively State or local, and not for 
 purposes that are in any wise Federal; nor are any taxes that are levied 
 upon or collected from the people of the State of Oregon, either by virtue of 
 any State or Federal laws, expended for any purposes that are exclusively 
 Federal. It is true that the people of the State of Oregon contribute con- 
 stantly towards the General Fund in the Federal Treasury, but even 
 their contribution is based exclusively and limited solely by their own 
 consumption of articles imported, and which bear or pay a Federal tariff^ 
 or the character of their local manufacturing enterprises which pay a 
 Federal internal revenue tax into the Federal Treasury; and these are 
 increased or diminished by causes entirely foreign to and immaterial of the 
 fact whether the wants of the General Government are few or many, and 
 irrespective of the sums of money in the Federal Treasury, or the specific 
 purposes for which they are appropriated. 
 
 These two factors, be they constant or be they variable quantities, are not 
 in anywise measured or affected by the amount of money that might be 
 taken from the Federal Treasury with which to refund this direct tax. 
 
 The disproportion between the population of the State of Oregon, as 
 game exists now, and as it existed in 1864, when Oregon assumed the pay- 
 ment of this direct tax, would, and I think does, equally (or very nearly 
 so) apply to each and all the other States. 
 
 So that Oregon certainly would not have any valid grounds of complaint 
 as against the other States, or against any of them, and because Oregon, 
 like the other States, would have refunded to her — as would be refunded 
 to each of them respectively — just the exact amount of money that she 
 had contributed to the Federal Treasury on account of said direct tax, 
 and in the same manner as contributed by any other States, and not 
 otherwise. 
 
 The proposition of Senator Hampton's bill goes to this extent only, to 
 wit: that if a State has put into the Federal Treasury any sum consti- 
 tuting the said Direct Tax Fund, then she draws out just that identical 
 sum, and no more and no less. Surely no public proposition could be 
 more fair or more equitable (in view of all the circumstances that now 
 surround the situation of said tax, and as the same appears upon the records 
 of the Treasury Department) ; and because if a State has not contributed 
 anything towards said Direct Tax Fund in the Federal Treasury, she then 
 draws nothing out; and if she draws anything out, it is simply and only 
 that identical sum that she put in, and not otherwise. 
 
 It might possibly be Oregon's misfortune when the refund takes place 
 (should it fortunately take place) that Oregon had not heretofore con- 
 tributed to this fund a sum larger than she actually has; but when Oregon 
 remembers that she, like any other State, would draw out — like them — 
 just what she put in, I can't see where lays her ground for valid objection, 
 and especially, too, when it is remembered that whatever sum is refunded 
 comes out of a surplus now in the Treasury, and is not paid out of a sum 
 to be raised by direct taxation either upon the several States or upon the 
 
279 
 
 people of any thereof, and the sum which any State would receive would 
 practically be so much made by such State ; and I respectfully submit that 
 that which any one State would receive would not be paid at the expense 
 of any other State. 
 
 You are aware, Senator, of course, that as a general proposition the 
 amounts of money frequently paid out of the Federal Treasury for the bene- 
 fit of matters and things in any particular State, are not in proportion to 
 the amounts of money that the people of such States pay into the Federal 
 Treasury. On the contrary, they are sometimes just the reverse, and even 
 at times the sums that some States draw out of the Federal Treasury are 
 inversely proportional to the sums that the people of such States put into 
 the Federal Treasury; a condition of things depending upon so many factors, 
 constant and variable, that it is often difficult, even if it be at all possible, 
 to ascertain or determine just how such things do occur; but that they do 
 occur all careful students of current events, I think, do and must admit. 
 
 Whereas, so far as I know, this amendment of Senator Hampton is one 
 of the very few propositions ever submitted to Congress wherein and under 
 and by which the amounts of money sought to be appropriated toward any 
 State (and to each and all alike) was and is to be the exact amount that 
 such State had paid into the Federal Treasury in some way or another on 
 account of the direct tax, and not otherwise. 
 
 To practically illustrate some of the foregoing propositions, take for 
 instance the present River and Harbor Bill as it has just passed the Senate, 
 and as the same appears reported on pages 7464 to 7469 of yesterday's 
 Congressional Record, and wherein sundry sums, aggregating in all between 
 half a million and one million of dollars, are appropriated for the rivers 
 and harbors in the State of Oregon. 
 
 Now, surely, these appropriations are not based upon the theory that the 
 people of the State of Oregon had paid into the Federal Treasury these 
 identical sums; nor, on the other hand, would a valid objection lie to making 
 these appropriations because of the allegation that Oregon had not so paid 
 any such sums into the Federal Treasury; or, because in default thereof, 
 some other State would be taxed in any sum with which to pay said appro- 
 priation; (for instance, the States of Colorado and Nevada, neither of which 
 have rivers or harbors to improve for commercial purposes, or be defended 
 for the general welfare). Nor would a valid objection lie thereto because 
 or by virtue of making such appropriations any particular State would 
 thereby lose more than she would make, or because any State might be 
 called upon to pay out more than she would get back in such premises. 
 
 But, on the contrary, I take it for granted that the valid and public 
 reason why all such appropriations are made is that it is just and fair and 
 equitable to make them. So too I submit, with every proper respect for the 
 opinions and views of others, that Senator Hampton's amendment should 
 pass because it is just and fair and equitable to pass it. 
 
 In my opinion, it seldom falls to the lot of the Senate to consider a public 
 question so free from valid objections as this of Senator Hampton, or one 
 so just and fair, because it does full equity (as near as may be), to every 
 State, by including all, and excluding none. 
 
 In the foregoing I make no reference to views which all statesmen are 
 supposed to always take in all matters of conflict, whenever the same arise, 
 between the several States and the United States, and wherein, as in this 
 case, considerable friction has heretofore quite frequently arisen, and is 
 now constantly arising; and wherein I submit a pacific adjustment of all 
 thereof is of more vital importance to the general welfare than any consid- 
 eration that can possibly be given as to the exact number of dollars and 
 
280 
 
 cents it might possibly cost any one State, even if it should cost a State 
 anything at all in dollars and cents, which I respectfully submit in this 
 case it does not, and because it cannot. 
 
 I believe a majority of all Senators, who have given this subject any ma- 
 ture consideration, are in favor of passing Senator Hampton's amendment, 
 and I also believe that if this amendment should pass the Senate that it 
 will pass the House, under even a suspension of the rules. 
 
 Very many Republicans in the House, men like Messrs. Ramsey, Hep- 
 burn, Price, Burrows, Little, and others, not only favor Senator Hampton's 
 proposition, but even favor it strongly ; and the difficulty, all along, has 
 seemed to be that a few Democrats in the House have been so weak-kneed 
 that an adoption of these views might possibly in some way affect their 
 reelection to the next Congress; and I am further of the opinion, if the 
 Senate should pass Senator Hampton's amendment, that even this objec- 
 tion on the part of such Democrats would not only be removed, but that 
 many of them now on the fence would try even to make political capital 
 out of their vote in favor of it. 
 
 I hope, therefore. Senator, when you come to further and more ma- 
 turely reflect over this matter and of this suggestion, as it has occurred to 
 you in regard thereto, that you will not permit the same to ripen into a 
 valid objection, either to the favorable consideration or the ultimate pas- 
 sage of Senator Hampton's amendment, which to me, view it as I may, 
 seems to be in all respects one of the most equitable and fair propositions 
 that was ever submitted to Congress in order to amicably terminate a con- 
 flict now existing between the United States and many of the several 
 States, and which has got to be settled, sooner or later, and in a manner 
 that will be satisfactory to the great majorit}^ of all the States. 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 State Agent and Counsel for California, Oregon, and Nevada. 
 
EXHIBITS 
 
 MODOC CLAIM 
 
EXHIBIT No. 1. 
 
 [Copy.] 
 
 State of California, Executive Department, 
 Sacramento, Cal., March 7, 1882. 
 
 John Mullan, Esq.^ Washington^ D. C: 
 
 Sir: In reply to your favor of the seventh instant, relative to prosecuting 
 the claim of this State against the United States for money expended by it 
 during the Modoc Indian War, I herewith authorize you, on behalf of the 
 State of California, to represent the same in endeavoring to recover such 
 amount as may be found due and owing by the United States Government 
 and [to] the State of California, on the express conditions and stipulations 
 stated in your communication of the date above cited. 
 Verv respectfully, 
 
 GEO. C. PERKINS, 
 Governor of California. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 2. 
 
 Forty-seventh Congress, first session. S. 1502. Report No. 306. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. March 17, 1882— Mr. Miller of Cali- 
 fornia asked and by unanimous consent obtained leave to bring in the 
 following bill, which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on 
 Military Affairs. 
 
 March 22, 1882 — Reported by Mr. Harrison with an amendment, viz.: 
 Insert the part printed in italics. 
 
 A BILL 
 
 For the relief of the State of California and the citizens thereof 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby authorized «,nd required to pay to the State of Califor- 
 nia, and to the citizens thereof, or to their heirs, legal representatives, or 
 assignees, the sum of four thousand four hundred and forty-one dollars and 
 thirty-three cents, for arms, ammunition, supplies, transportation, and ser- 
 vices of the volunteer forces in the suppression of Indian hostilities in said 
 State in the years eighteen hundred and seventy-two and eighteen hundred 
 and seventy- three, and as the same were specifically reported to Congress 
 by the Secretary of War December fifteenth, eighteen hundred and seventy- 
 four, in his report transmitted to the House of Representatives on the 
 Modoc war claims of California and Oregon, and as found due and reported 
 to said Secretary by General James A. Hardie, United States Army, 
 November twentieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-four; and said sum is 
 hereby appropriated for the purpose aforesaid, out of any money in the Treas- 
 ury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
284 
 
 Forty-seventh Congress, first session. Senate. Report No. 306. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. March 22 — Ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Harrison, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the 
 following 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany bill S. 1502.] 
 
 The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred " a bill for the 
 relief of the State of California and the citizens thereof" (S. 1502) respect- 
 fully report: 
 
 That by an Act of Congress, passed June 18, 1874, the Secretary of War 
 was required "to ascertain the amount of expenses claimed to be neces- 
 sarily incurred by the States of Oregon and California, or the citizens 
 thereof, for arms, ammunition, supplies, transportation, and services of the 
 volunteer forces in the suppression of Indian hostilities in said States in the 
 years eighteen hundred and seventy-two and eighteen hundred and seventy- 
 three, and report the same to Congress at the next session, together with 
 the names of persons who claim to be entitled to relief, together with a 
 statement of the facts and sums upon which such report may be based." 
 
 In obedience to the requirements of this Act the Secretary of War, on 
 the twentieth June, 1874, issued an order detailing Inspector-General James 
 A. Hardie to make the examination and report called for by the Act. On 
 the twentieth November, 1874, General Hardie submitted his report to the 
 Secretary of War, who on the fifteenth December following transmitted it 
 to Congress, and the same was published as Ex. Doc. 45, House of Repre- 
 sentatives, second session, Forty-third Congress. From this report it ap- 
 pears that a thorough examination was made on the ground of all the 
 claims presented. The necessity for calling out the State troops to aid the 
 troops of the United States in protecting the settlers and suppressing the 
 Indian outbreak cannot, the committee think, be questioned. These State 
 troops reported to and in the main acted under the orders of the officers of 
 the United States, and the committee think that the reasonable expenses 
 incident to the service of these troops should be paid. 
 
 The rules adopted by General Hardie in arriving at the proper amount 
 to be paid are thus stated by him in his report: 
 
 In this condition of things it would seem fair that the United States should pay into 
 the State Treasury the amount of the obligations of the State for the purchase of arms 
 and munitions, cavalry and quartermaster horses and military supplies; for transporta- 
 tion, forage, medical attendance, and the necessary citizens' labor employed, at such rates 
 as the United States was paying on the spot at the time. On account of pay of troops 
 the reimbursement can only reasonably extend to* such an amount as the United States 
 would have paid the same officers and the same men had they been mustered into the 
 service. For the hire of the cavalry horses, upon which the troops were mounted, the 
 United States' scale of commutation should be allowed. For subsistence the number of 
 rations which the troops would have consumed had they been regularly mustered into 
 the service, commuted at the cost price of the ration where they served, fixes the rate of 
 reimbursement. For the clothing, an amount should be reimbursed the State equal to 
 the usual commutation allowance of clothing to volunteers when called into service. 
 
 We think this basis of adjustment right. After carefully examining 
 each claim and rejecting such as did not come within the rules we have 
 stated, and such as were not sufficiently proved. General Hardie reports 
 that the amount due to the State of California, and to the citizens thereof, 
 on account of the service of the State troops in the years 1872 and 1873, 
 in connection with what is known as the Modoc War, and including all 
 expenses incident to such service, is the sum of . 
 
285 
 
 The committee believe that the sum of four thousand four hundred and 
 forty-one dollars and thirty-three cents ($4,441 33) is fairly due to the State 
 of California, and to the citizens thereof, in the several sums allowed to 
 each in the report of General Hardie before referred to. We therefore 
 recommend the passage of this bill with an amendment, which is shown 
 at the foot thereof. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 3. 
 
 Forty-seventh Congress, first session. H. R. 4244. Printer's No., 4624. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. February 13, 1882 — Read twice, re- 
 ferred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Berry introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 For the relief of the State of California^ and the citizens thereof. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury be and he is hereby authorized and required to pay to the State of Cali- 
 fornia, and to the citizens thereof, or to their heirs, legal representatives, or 
 assigns, the sum of four thousand four hundred and forty-one dollars and 
 thirty-three cents, for arms, ammunition, supplies, transportation, and ser- 
 vice of the volunteer forces in the suppression of Indian hostilities in said 
 State in the years eighteen hundred and seventy-two and eighteen hundred 
 and seventy-three, and as specially reported to Congress by the Secretary 
 of War December fifteenth, eighteen hundred and seventy-four, in his 
 report transmitted to the House of Representatives on the Modoc war 
 claims of California and Oregon, and as found due and reported to said 
 Secretary by General James A. Hardie November twentieth, eighteen hun- 
 dred and seventy-four. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 4. 
 
 Forty-seventh Congress, first session. S. 145. Report No. 114. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. December 6, 1881 — Mr. Grover asked 
 and by unanimous consent obtained leave to bring in the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. 
 
 February 2, 1882 — Reported by Mr. Harrison with amendments, viz.: 
 Omit the parts struck through and insert the parts printed in italics. 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To reimburse the State of Oregon for moneys paid by said State in the sup- 
 pression of Indian hostilities during the Modoc war, in the years eighteen 
 hundred and seventy-two and eighteen hundred and seventy-three. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of Oregon 
 the sum of seventy thousand two hundred and sixty-eight dollars and eight 
 
286 
 
 cents, in full for moneys paid by said State in suppressing Modoc Indian 
 hostilities during the Modoc war, and in defending the State from invasion 
 by said Indians, during the years eighteen hundred and seventy-two and 
 eighteen hundred and seventy-three; the said sum of seventy thousand two 
 hundred and sixty-eight dollars and eight cents is hereby appropriated for 
 such purpose out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Forty-seventh Congress, first session. Senate. Report No. 114. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. February 2, 1882 — Ordered to be 
 printed. 
 
 Mr. Harrison, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the 
 following 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany bill S. 145.] 
 
 The Military Committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. 145) to reim- 
 burse the State of Oregon for moneys paid by said State in the suppression 
 of Indian hostilities during the Modoc war in the years 1872 and 1873, 
 respectfully report : 
 
 That by an Act of Congress passed June 18, 1874, the Secretary of 
 War was required "to ascertain the amount of expenses claimed to be 
 necessarily incurred by the States of Oregon and California, or the citizens 
 thereof for arms, ammunition, supplies, transportation, and services of the 
 volunteer forces in the suppression of Indian hostilities in said States in the 
 years 1872 and 1873, and report the same to Congress at the next session, 
 together with the names of persons who claim to be entitled to relief, together 
 with a statement of the facts and sums upon which such report may be 
 based." 
 
 In obedience to the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of War on the 
 twentieth June, 1874, issued an order detailing Inspector-General James 
 A. Hardie to make the examination and report called for by the Act. On 
 the twentieth November, 1874, General Hardie submitted his report to the 
 Secretary of War, who on the fifteenth December following transmitted it 
 to Congress, and the same was published as Ex. Doc. 45, House of Repre- 
 sentatives, second session Forty-third Congress. From this report it appears 
 that a thorough examination was made on the ground of all the claims pre- 
 sented. The necessity for calling out the State troops of Oregon to aid the 
 troops of the United States in protecting the settlers and in suppressing the 
 Indian outbreak cannot, the committee think, be questioned. These State 
 troops reported to and in the main acted under the orders of the officers of 
 the United States, and the committee think that the State should be paid 
 the reasonable expenses incident to the service of these troops. 
 
 The rules adopted by General Hardie in arriving at the proper amount 
 to be paid to the State of Oregon are thus stated by him in his report : 
 
 In this condition of things it would seem fair that the United States should pay into the 
 State Treasury the amount of the obligations of the State for the purchase of arms and 
 munitions, cavalry and quartermaster horses, and military supplies;. for transportation, 
 forage, medical attendance, and the necessary citizens' labor employed, at such rates as 
 the United States was paying on the spot at the time. On account of jjay of troops the 
 reimbursement can only reasonably extend to such an amount as the United States would 
 have paid the same officers and the same men had they been mustered into the service. 
 For the hire of the cavalry horses upon which the troops were mounted the United States' 
 scale of commutation should be allowed. For subsistence the number of rations which 
 the troops would have consumed had they been regularly mustered into the service, com- 
 
287 
 
 muted at the cost price of the ration where they served, fixes the rate of reimbursement. 
 For the clothing an amount should be reimbursed the State equal to the usual commuta- 
 tion allowance of clothing to volunteers when called into service. 
 
 We think this basis of adjustment right. The law of the State of Ore- 
 gon in force at the time expressly provided that the militia when called 
 into service should receive the compensation allowed by law to the troops 
 of the United States. After carefully examining each claim and rejecting 
 such as did not come within the rules we have stated, and such as were not 
 sufficiently proved, General Hardie reports that the amount due to the State 
 of Oregon on account of the service of the State troops in the years 1872 
 and 1873 in connection with what is known as the Modoc war, and includ- 
 ing all expenses incident to such service, is the sum of $70,268 08. The 
 committee believe this sum to be fairly due to the State of Oregon and rec- 
 ommend that the bill be amended by striking out the words " one hundred 
 and thirty-one thousand dollars," wherever they appear in the bill, and 
 inserting in lieu thereof the words *' seventy thousand two hundred and 
 sixty-eight dollars and eight cents," and as thus amended we recommend 
 the passage of the bill. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 5. 
 
 AN ACT 
 
 To reimburse the State of Oregon and State of California, and the citizens 
 thereof for moneys 'paid by said States in the suppression of Indian hostil- 
 ities during the Modoc war, in the years eighteen hundred and seventy-two 
 and eighteen hundred and seventy-three. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of Oregon 
 the sum of seventy thousand two hundred and sixty-eight dollars and eight 
 cents, in full for moneys paid by said State in suppressing Modoc Indian 
 hostilities during the Modoc war, and in defending the State from invasion 
 by said Indians, during the years eighteen hundred and seventy-two and 
 eighteen hundred and seventy-three; the said sum of seventy thousand 
 two hundred and sixty-eight dollars and eight cents is hereby appropriated 
 for such purpose out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
 priated. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby 
 authorized and required to pay to the State of California, and to the 
 citizens thereof, or to their heirs, legal representatives, or assignees, the sum 
 of four thousand four hundred and forty-one dollars and thirty-three cents, 
 for arms, ammunition, supplies, transportation, and services of the volun- 
 teer forces in the suppression of Indian hostilities in said State in the years 
 eighteen hundred and seventy -two and eighteen hundred and seventy-three, 
 and as the same were specifically reported to Congress by the Secretary of 
 War December fifteenth, eighteen hundred and seventy-four, in his report 
 transmitted to the House of Representatives on the Modoc war claims of 
 California and Oregon, and as found due and reported to said Secretary by 
 General James A. Hardie, United States Army, November twentieth, 
 eighteen hundred and seventy-four; and said sum is hereby appropriated 
 
288 
 
 for the purpose aforesaid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
 appropriated. 
 
 Approved January 6, 1883. 
 
 United States Statutes at Large, page 399, chap. 12. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 6. 
 
 Treasury Department, Third Auditor's Office, ) 
 Washington, D. C, June 23, 1886. | 
 
 Sir: As requested in your letter of the seventeenth instant, I inclose 
 herewith statement of the account of the State of California, for expenses 
 incurred by said State during the " Modoc Indian War." 
 
 The amount was credited the State under Act of Congress, approved 
 January 6, 1883, and applied to the sum of $7,588 98*, delinquent and due 
 on account of direct tax. 
 
 Very respectfully, etc., 
 
 JNO. S. WILLIARD, Auditor. 
 
 Jno. S. Mullan, Esq., No. 1310 Conn. Ave., Washington, D. C. 
 
 * Should be $7,093 26. 
 
 Memorand^im of Ainounts paid by the State of California for Transportation of Arms, etc.y 
 during the years 1873 and 187 If. Expenses occasioned by the " Modoc War.^^ 
 
 Wells, Fargo & Co. January 10, 1873. Transportation of four cases arms and four 
 boxes ammunition from Sacramento to Reno. 1,460 pounds, at three-quarters 
 cents per pound— $47 45; also amount paid Thos. Skadden on the above from 
 Reno to Dorris Bridge— $87 84. Total.... $135 29 
 
 Wells, Fargo & Co. March 3, 1873. Transportation of arms to Siskiyou.. 186 75 
 
 Wells, Fargo & Co. May 21, 1873. Transportation of eight cases of arms to Red- 
 ding ..: 45 10 
 
 Johnson & Hearn (Redding). June 6, 1873. Transportation of arms from Sacra- 
 mento to Scott's Bar 66 00 
 
 Central Pacific R. R. Co. June 20, 1874. Transportation of arms, etc., from Scott's 
 Bar to Sacramento 62 58 
 
 Total $495 72 
 
 Treasury Department, Third Auditor's Office, June 23, 1886. 
 
 LEE W. FUNK. 
 
EXIHIBITS 
 
 INDIAN WAE CLAIM. 
 
 19 
 
EXHIBIT No. 1. 
 
 [Copy.] 
 
 State of California, Executive Department, 
 Sacramento, Cal., July 12, 1882. 
 
 Captain John Mullan, Washington, D. C. : 
 
 Dear Sir : In reply to your favor of the twenty-second ultimo, relative to 
 certain claims of this State against the United States, for money expended 
 and indebtedness assumed in repelling invasions, suppressing insurrec- 
 tions and Indian hostilities, I hereby authorize you, on behalf of the State 
 of California, to represent the same in endeavoring to recover such amount 
 as may be found due and owing by the United States Government to the 
 State of California, on the express condition stated in your communication 
 of the twenty-second ultimo. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 GEORGE C. PERKINS, 
 
 Governor of California. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 2. 
 
 REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND 
 ASSEMBLY ON THE INDIAN WAR INDEBTEDNESS. 
 
 Sacramento, February 21, 1872. 
 Mr. President: The Committee on Claims of both Houses, to whom was 
 referred the matter of the Indian war indebtedness of the State, beg leave 
 to submit the following report: 
 
 HISTORY OF THE INDEBTEDNESS. 
 
 Being impressed with the belief that a complete history of the matter is 
 necessary to its perfect comprehension, we have deemed it proper to com- 
 mence at the beginning and trace its various fortunes up to the present 
 time. 
 
 The war bonds of 1851 were issued in pursuance of the Act of February 
 15, 1851 (Statutes of 1851, page 520), the first section of which reads as 
 follows: 
 
 Section 1. By virtue of the power given to the Legislature by the Constitution of this 
 State, Article VIII— in case of war to repel invasion or suppress insurrection— a loan not 
 exceeding $500,000 is hereby authorized to be negotiated upon the faith and credit of the 
 State, payable in ten years, and at any period after five years at the pleasure of the State; 
 said loan to bear a rate of interest not exceeding twelve per cent per annum, payable 
 annually or semi-annually, at such place as the contracting parties may agree; provided, 
 however, that the interest of the first year may be paid in advance out of the loan thus 
 made. 
 
 The interest was made payable semi-annually, and fell due in March and 
 September of each year. 
 
292 
 
 The bonds of 1852 were issued in pursuance of the Act of May 3, 1852 
 (Statutes 1852, page 59), the first section of which reads as follows: 
 
 Section 1. A sum not exceeding $600,000 is hereby appropriated and set aside as an 
 additional War Fund, payable in ten years out of any moneys which may be appropriated 
 by Congress to defray the expenses incurred by the State of California, and interest 
 thereon at the rate of seven (7) per cent per annum, in the suppression of Indian hostili- 
 ties, or out of the proceeds of the sale of any public lands which may be donated or set 
 aside by Congress for that purpose; and should no such appropriation or donation be 
 made, or if an amount sufficient should not be appropriated or donated within the said 
 ten years, then the bonds authorized to be issued by this Act shall be good and valid 
 claims against the State, and shall be paid out of any moneys in the Treasury not other- 
 wise appropriated, to pay the expenses of the expeditions mentioned in this Act. 
 
 The interest was made payable in annual installments, and fell due in 
 January of each year. 
 
 Under this Act further appropriations were made in 1853, as follows: 
 
 By Act of 16th April $23,000 
 
 By Act of 16th April 2,500 
 
 By Act of 18th May 23,000 
 
 It is thus seen that by the Act of 1851 the bonds were issued upon 
 the same terms as other bonds, and that by the Act of 1852 the State 
 expressly bound herself to pay them, if the General Government did not. 
 
 The bonds of 1857 were issued on far different terms, as the following 
 section from the Act authorizing their issue will show (Statutes 1857, page 
 262): 
 
 Section 1. A sum not exceeding $410,000 is hereby appropriated and set apart as a 
 "War Fund," payable out of any moneys that may be appropriated by Congress to this 
 State, to defray the expenses incurred in the suppression of Indian hostilities, as specified 
 in this Act. 
 
 The bondholders therefore took these bonds with the express understand- 
 ing that they must look to the General Government for their redemption'. 
 It is sufficient to say that an appropriation was made by Act of Congress, 
 March 2, 1861 (Statutes at Large, Vol. XII, page 199), for this purpose. 
 The money was paid into the State Treasury, and the matter is at an end. 
 
 We have only, then, to deal with the issue of 1851 and 1852. An appro- 
 priation to pay these bonds with interest was made by Congress, August 5, 
 1854, in the following terms (Statutes at Large, Vol. X, page 583): 
 
 Section 1. And he it further enacted, that the Secretary of War be and he is hereby 
 authorized and directed to examine into and ascertain the amount of expenses incurred 
 by the State of California in the suppression of Indian hostilities within the said State 
 prior to 'the first day of January, Anno Domini 1854, and that the amount of such 
 expenses, when so ascertained, be paid into the Treasury, of said State ; provided, that the 
 sum so paid shall not exceed in amount the sum of $924,259 65, which amount is hereby 
 appropriated out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 On May 4, 1855 (Statutes 1855, page 241), the Legislature passed an Act 
 for the purpose of utilizing this appropriation, the Act in substance pro- 
 viding for the surrender of the war bonds of 1851 and 1852, it being thought 
 at that time that the whole amount appropriated by Congress would be 
 paid into the State Treasury. In this the State and bondholders were mis- 
 taken, as the following extracts from the message of Governor Bigler will 
 show (Senate Journal, seventh session, page 27): 
 
 By reference to pages 582 and 583 of the United States "Statutes at Large" of 1854, it 
 will be seen that the section numbered three [9] of the Act making appropriations for the 
 support of the army, directs the Secretary of War " to examine into and ascertain the 
 
293 
 
 amount of expenses incurred and now actually 'paid by the State of California in the sup- 
 pression of Indian hostilities within the said iState prior to the first day of January, A. D. 
 1854, and that the amount of such expenses, when so ascertained, be paid into the Treas- 
 ury of the said State." 
 
 tn compliance with the provision of law above c[uoted, the Act of last session was 
 passed, and statements certified by the proper constitutional officers, duly forwarded by 
 me to Washington City, under the impression that nothing further w^as necessary or 
 requisite under the law of Congress, to authorize the prompt and immediate payment into 
 the State Treasury of the sum appropriated by Congress. 
 
 This impression, however, it seems w^as incorrect, and the Secretary of War positively 
 refused to pay to the State the amount due and appropriated until he shall have examined 
 the accounts and vouchers on which the original warrants or bonds were issued. 
 
 These accounts and vouchers, it is projjer here to remark, are a part of the archives of 
 the State, and as such are required to be kept at the seat of government, as constituting 
 not only a complete history and expose of the several Indian wars, but as a basis of the 
 action of the Controller and Board of Commissioners of the War Debt, and as such their 
 proper place is among the records of the State. 
 
 Under the law no officer of the Government has the right, if he so desired, to remove 
 them without express legislative authority, either for the satisfaction or information of an 
 officer of the Federal Government, or for any other purpose whatever. 
 
 The law of Congress which was intended to govern the action of the Secretary of War, 
 in my opinion, does not require his examination into the propriety or necessity of any or 
 all of the expenditures of the State in the suppression of Indian hostilities; taut directs 
 him to " examine into and ascertain the amount of expenses incurred and actually paid,''^ and 
 upon such ascertainment to pay the same into the Treasury of the State of California; 
 provided such amount should not exceed the sum of $924,259 65. 
 
 The Secretary of War, however, has deemed it his duty to require the original vouchers 
 and papers, and to refuse payment of the amount appropriated until they shall have been 
 furnished. 
 
 Although fixed in the belief that so far as the State of California is concerned the 
 requirements of the law of Congress on the subject have been, on her part, fully complied 
 with, and that the Secretary of War, having from statements authenticated by' the proper 
 State officers ''ascertained the amount actually paid,^^ should without further question or 
 delay, in accordance with the law of Congress, have paid the amount appropriated " into 
 the Treasury of the State of California," it is neither my intention nor desire in this com- 
 munication to call in question or advert to the propriety of justice of the action of the 
 Secretary of War in the premises, further than to dissent from the correctness of his 
 decision, as being, in my opinion, unwarranted by the language of the Act of Congress 
 making the appropriation, and also to express sincere regret that months of delay in pay- 
 ment must, under the circumstances, necessarily ensue, burdening the State with a large 
 sum in the shape of interest on the outstanding war bonds and warrants. 
 
 Without further comment, the whole subject is commended to your careful consideration, 
 for such action in the premises as, under all the circumstances, may by you be deemed 
 proj)er and necessary to secure to California the prompt payment of the amount long 
 since ordered by Act of Congress into the Treasury of the State. 
 
 In accordance with resolutions of both branches of the Legislature, 
 requesting from the Governor such information as was in his hands regarding 
 the condition of the war debt, and its payment by the General Government, 
 Governor Johnson transmitted a message to the Legislature on the thirty- 
 first of January, 1856, an extract from which is given as follows (Senate 
 Journal, seventh session, page 226): 
 
 It is needless to inquire whether the Secretary of War has misapprehended the spirit 
 and intent of the Act of Congress making the appropriation, in rejecting the certified 
 copies of vouchers forwarded him, as satisfactory evidence of the payments made by the 
 State; neither at this time can any beneficial results attend the discussion of an issue 
 seemingly foreshadowed by the Secretary's letter, involving a construction of the law 
 which would invest him with discretionary power to allow or reject at j^leasure specific 
 items of expenditure which have been assumed by the State. I must confess, however, 
 that an assumption of authority so unwarranted as I believe this to be is quite manifest, 
 and I am apprehensive that the aid of further Congressional legislation will have to be 
 invoked ere our State will derive the benefits of the entire sum appropriated. 
 
 If the Secretary of War shall, by virtue of the authority given him to examine into 
 these claims, assert the right to go behind the act of the Board of Examiners, and inquire 
 whether the demands were such as ought to have been allowed, and the evidence on which 
 the payments were predicated, as appears of record, sufficient to sustain their decision, I 
 doubt not that the exacting requirements of the Secretary and his auditing officers would 
 find abundant pretexts to reduce the sum materially. 
 
 In the various military expeditions which California, in defense of her citizens, was 
 compelled to undertake, either from inability or neglect of the General Government to 
 provide such defense — owing to the condition of the country at those periods — with our 
 
294 
 
 state credit most ruinously depreciated, prices were paid for supplies, and many expenses 
 incurred, which to us even now would appear enormous. 
 
 Furthermore, in the settlement of accounts by the Board of Examiners, and in some 
 few instances before committees of the Legislature, the introduction of oral testimony on 
 behalf of claimants was permitted, which, no doubt, to them was conclusive; but, unfor- 
 tunately, the evidence was not perpetuated. 
 
 From these and other causes we may be much embarrassed if the exercise of such dis- 
 cretionary power shall be persisted in. Whilst, therefore, hoping our fears may prove 
 groundless, still these misgivings should suggest to our minds the necessity of extreme 
 caution and deliberation regarding the measures now to be adopted. 
 
 Let us so fortify ourselves against all possible contingencies that further delay in securing 
 the payment of this money may not be the fruits of our own inefficient legislation. 
 
 In the first place authorit}' should be given to transmit to the Secretary of War the 
 original vouchers, and at a reasonable expenditure secure the services of such person or 
 persons as may be necessary in the prosecution of these claims before that officer. One 
 of our present members of Congress, General J. W. Denver, and of him I speak particu- 
 larly, on account of his former position as one of the Board of Examiners, will, no doubt, 
 lend his cooperation without compensation by the State. Such assistance will be all 
 important, as a very large portion of these claims were examined before him and allowed, 
 and he is, consequently, possessed of an intimate knowledge of all matters connected with 
 this indebtedness. There is another gentleman, however, A. J. F. Phelan, whose services 
 are indispensably necessary to the successful prosecution of these claims. In this I speak 
 partially from my own personal knowledge as well as from the testimony of the late 
 Board of Examiners, to whose efficiency and understanding of the whole subject they 
 voluntarily bear witness. 
 
 Mr. Phelan was the Clerk of that Board for nearly, if not quite, the entire period during 
 which the seven per cent bonds were being issued, and from his position necessarily 
 became familiar with all the vouchers and testimony adduced in support of the claims 
 
 8 resented; and his usefulness to the State in connection with these claims against the 
 overnment can be readily foreseen; and I would, therefore, suggest that his services be 
 secured, which I am advised by him can be effected on terms quite reasonable to the State. 
 
 From the foregoing it is plain that additional legislation was absolutely 
 necessary, and thereupon followed the Act of April 19, 1856 (Statutes 1856, 
 page 206), which created the "Board of War Debt Commissioners," and 
 defined their powers and duties. By the terms of this Act Samuel B. 
 Smith and J. W. Denver were appointed a Board of Commissioners to 
 prosecute before the Secretary of War the claims of the State subject to be 
 paid out of the appropriation above set forth. The Act then proceeds to 
 define their duties in the matter of advertising for bids for surrender of the 
 bonds of 1851 and 1852 — the former to have the preference. This was done 
 to secure the payment of those bonds in full in case the appropriation 
 should be deficient, which it might well have been had payments been 
 made up to the time of presentation. It was expected by the Legislature 
 that payment would be so made, for Section 5 provides that the Commis- 
 sioners shall " examine and compute the amount of principal and interest 
 due up to time of presentation for redemption, if before the period indicated 
 when they shall cease to bear interest; otherwise at the period so indicated." 
 This Act of the Legislature was followed by the following Congressional 
 enactment (Statutes at Large XI, page 91): 
 
 Section 8. And he it further enacted, that the Secretary of War is hereby authorized 
 and directed to pay to the holders of the war bonds of the State of California the amount 
 of money appropriated by Act of Congress approved May [August] 5. 1854, in payment of 
 expenses incurred and now actually paid by the State of California for the suppression of 
 Indian hostilities within the said State prior to the first day of January, A. D. 1854, under 
 the following restrictions and regulations: before any bonds shall be redeemed by the 
 Secretary of War they shall be presented to the Board of Commissioners appointed by 
 the Legislature of said State, by an Act approved April 19, 185B, and the amount due and 
 payable upon each bond be indorsed thereon by said Commissioners. Upon presentation 
 to the Secretary of War of any bond or bonds thus indorsed it shall be his duty to draw 
 his warrant in favor of the holder or holders thereof for the amount certified to be due 
 upon the same by the said Commissioners upon the Secretary of the Treasury, who is 
 hereby directed to pay the same; j^fovided, that said amount in the aggregate "shall not 
 exceed the amount of money appropriated by Act of Congress approved August 5, 1854; 
 said bonds, after redemption, and after taking off the coupons that may remain unpaid, 
 shall be delivered to the Secretary of War to be canceled. 
 
295 
 
 The Commissioners were met at the threshold by an unforeseen com- 
 phcation, which rendered it impossible for them to comply strictly with 
 the terms of the Act of the Legislature; for by that Act they were com- 
 pelled, as has been seen, to allow interest up to the time of presentation of 
 the bonds, while by the ruling of the Third Auditor, which ruling was 
 affirmed by the Secretary of War, interest could only be allowed up to the 
 first of January, 1854. Thus it happened that no provision was made for 
 the interest between that time and September 1, 1856, when the Commis- 
 sioners advertised for surrender of bonds. The ruling of the Third Audi- 
 tor rendered it unnecessary, as the Commissioners truly say, to give prefer- 
 ence to the bonds of 1851, for by only paying interest up to January 1, 
 1854, the Congressional appropriation would be more than sufficient for the 
 purpose. In order to present this matter in its clearest light, we give 
 below the decision of the Third Auditor, with that of the Secretary of 
 War, in affirmation (Report of Committee on Finance, in Appendix to 
 Senate and Assembly Journal, fourteenth session) : 
 
 Treasuky Department, Third Auditor's Office, 
 
 September 3, 1856. 
 
 } 
 
 Hon. Jefferson Davis, Secretary of War 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to submit herewith for your consideration and decision a commu- 
 nication addressed to me to-da^ by J. W. Denver and Samuel B. Smith, Esqs., Cahfornia 
 War Debt Commissioners, inclosing a copy of a letter from them to you of the thirtieth 
 ultimo. 
 
 In these communications the Commissioners raise two points relative to the payment 
 of the war bonds issued by the State of California, the redemption of which is provided 
 for by the Acts of the fifth of August, 1854, and eighteenth of August, 1856, to wit: 
 
 First — Whether interest upon the bonds will be allowed for any time beyond the first 
 day of January, 1854, to which it is calculated. 
 
 Second — Whether any war bonds will be redeemed (upon Commissioners certifying 
 them to be genuine, due, and payable) that were issued by the State of California in the 
 years i854 and 1855, in payment of expenses incurred in the suppression of Indian hostil- 
 ities in said State; or, m other words, whether the money appropriated by the Act of 
 Congress of the fifth of August. 1854, can be applied to the payment of indebtedness 
 accruing against the State of California, either as principal or interest, since the first day 
 of January, 1854, the same not having been included in the estimate on which the appropriation 
 was madef 
 
 In submitting these points, I take the liberty of expressing the following opinion : 
 
 First — If the result of the investigation now going on in this office shall show that the 
 sum appropriated by the Act of 1854 will be sufficient to pay the principal of the seven 
 and twelve per cent war bonds and interest beyond the first day of January, 1854, then, 
 in my judgment, such interest can be paid to the extent of the appropriation, up to and 
 not beyond the fifth of August, 1854, the day the law was approved by the President ; 
 otherwise, not. But if the appropriation shall turn out to be insufficient for the satisfac- 
 tion of the bonds, with interest, to the first day of January, 1854, then, in my opinion,, 
 they be paid pro rata to the extent of the appropriation. 
 
 Second — The admission of the Commissioners, that the war bonds issued in 1854 and 
 1855, either principal or interest, were not included in the estimate upon which the appro- 
 priation was made in the Act of the fifth of August, 1854, is, in my judgment, conclusive 
 on this point. 
 
 I cannot see how the amount thus appropriated can be applied to any object outside 
 the estimate upon which it was based, unless expressly directed by the supplemental 
 Act of the eighteenth of August, 1856. 
 
 The latter Act contains no such special direction, and the bonds issued in 1854 and 
 1855, are therefore clearly excluded from all the benefits of the original appropriation. 
 
 1 am, with great respect, your obedient servant, 
 
 W. H. S. TAYLOR, Acting Auditor. 
 
 The following is the decision of the honorable Secretary of War upon 
 the foregoing report: 
 
 I concur in the view of the Third Auditor, as to the date to which interest may be 
 calculated, and entertain no doubt as to the inapplicability of the appropriation to bonds 
 issued after the date of the Appropriation Act of August 5, 1854. as it provided only for 
 expenses which had been incurred prior to the first of January, 1854, in the suppression 
 of Indian hostilities within the State of California. Should the appropriation be inade- 
 
296 
 
 quate to meet the obligation for which it was provided, then it will, of coiirse, be necessary 
 to pay pro rata. 
 
 JEFFERSON DAVIS, Secretary of War. 
 War Department, September 4, 1856. 
 
 It is thus seen that the Commissioners were precluded from complying 
 with the strict terms of the law under which they were authorized to act, 
 and that they were thus reduced to the alternative of carrying out their 
 instructions as nearly as possible or of throwing up their trust, and thus 
 saddling the State with a burden of constantly accruing interest. That 
 they did wisely in accepting the former alternative your committee have 
 little doubt. 
 
 In order, however, to make the action of the Commissioners perfectly 
 clear, we have deemed it best to give their two reports in full, with the 
 exception of the tables annexed to them. Their first report can be found 
 on page six hundred and eighteen of Senate Journal, thirteenth session, 
 where it is incorporated in report of Senate Finance Committee. Their 
 second report is in Appendix to Senate Journal, eleventh session: 
 
 REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS OF CALIFORNIA WAR DEBT. 
 
 To his Excellency J. Neely Johnson, Governor of the State of California: 
 
 Sir: The Commissioners appointed by the Act of Aptil 19, 1856, to liquidate the war 
 debt of the State, beg leave to report: 
 
 That in accordance with the provisions of said Act, so soon after the same as practica- 
 ble they opened an office in the City of Washington and made application to the Secre- 
 tary of War, as by said Act directed, for payment of the sum of money appropriated by 
 Congress in payment of expenses incurred " by the State in suppression of Indian hostil- 
 ities." As evidence of said indebtedness the Commissioners submitted a certified copy of 
 the War Bond Register of said State, the various Acts of the Legislature authorizing the 
 issuance of said bonds, and the Journals of the Legislature exhibiting the action of that 
 body in relation to the same; proposing, further, to deliver him the bonds issued by the 
 State before making requisition for said money. In reply, the Secretary of War stated in 
 substance that the proofs submitted were insufficient; that he could not recognize the 
 bonds as evidence of the indebtedness, but that the Act of Congress of August 5, 1854, 
 under which Act the appropriation was made, would require him" to go into an examina- 
 tion of the original vouchers. As this course of procedure would have involved great 
 delay and difficulty, and being satisfied from the condition of the original vouchers, 
 which were in very "many instances informal, that a large portion of them would be dis- 
 allowed, we applied to Congress for relief, and a bill was introduced at our instance 
 directing the Secretary of War to pay over the full amount of the appropriation as 
 directed by the Legislature of the State of California. The bill meeting with violent 
 opposition influenced to a great extent by the holders of the seven per cent bonds, who 
 felt aggrieved at the manner of distributing the appropriation directed by said Act, and 
 being unwilling to give our sanction to any Congressional action which might clash with 
 the Act of the State of California, we finally submitted to the Secretary of War all the 
 books and original papers in our possession, offering to make all necessary explanation, 
 etc. As we had anticipated, the examination was delayed, and after several interviews 
 with the accounting officers to whom the vouchers had been referred by the Secretary of 
 War, and being convinced that the interest of the State would greatly suffer should a 
 settlement be made upon such a basis, we finally agreed with the bondholders to a bill 
 providing a pro rata distribution of the appropriation, viz. : the payment of the principal 
 of all the bonds issued prior to January 1, 1854, and interest on the same up to that date. 
 This bill passed. Immediately upon its passage the Commissioners advertised for the 
 redemption of said bonds in various daily papers, a list of which will be found in the 
 minutes of the Commissioners accompanying this report, which advertisement directed 
 that all bonds should be presented to the 'Commissioners before the first day of Septem- 
 ber, after which date they would cease to bear interest. Upon an examination of the Act 
 we found a mistake had occurred which apparently left to the Commissioners the power 
 of carrying out the direction of the State m the disbursement of the appropriation. We 
 immediately applied to the Secretary of War, asking his construction of the Act. It 
 will be seen by reference to the correspondence which accompanies this report that the 
 Secretary of War would not permit any'portion of the appropriation to be applied to the 
 redemption of bonds issued since the first of January, 1854. nor for the payment of 
 interest accumulating since that date on bonds previously issued. This construction 
 rendered it unnecessary to make any distinction between the seven and twelve per cent 
 bonds, and superseded* the necessity of advertising for bids as directed by the Act of 
 California. 
 
 Under the instruction of the Secretary of War the Commissioners, as bonds were pre- 
 
297 
 
 sented, certified to the genuineness of each bond, and the amount, principal and interest, 
 due thereon up to the first day of January, 1854. The full amount certified to by the Com- 
 missioners is as follows : 
 
 Of twelve per cent bonds, principal, $177,000; interest on the same, $55,683 97. Of seven 
 per cent bonds, principal, $559,750; interest on the same, $48,214 68. Amounting in all to 
 $846,048 65 — a full statement of which accompanies this. 
 
 The full amount paid by the United States Government up to the fifteenth day of No- 
 vember, 1856, is $814,456 84,"^as appears per statement of the Third Auditor, which accompa- 
 nies this, leaving unpaid of the bonds at that time certified, $26,191 81; of which, $15,220 20 
 had been presented to the Secretary of War, the balance, $10,971 61, still being in the hands 
 of the holders. This amount has no doubt been paid in full. The interest coupons 
 belonging to all the bonds presented to the Commissioners were detached from the bonds 
 and distributed as follows: 
 
 Of seven per cent bonds, coupons one and two, up to January 1, 1854, were attached to 
 the bonds and have been paid; coupons three and four, up to January 1, 1856, have been 
 returned to the holders, stamped as follows: "California War Bond Coupon." Coupon 
 number five, from January 1, 1856, to January 1. 1857, similarly stamped, with the amount 
 of interest due on the sanie up to September 1, 1856, also stamped upon it, has also been 
 returned to the holders. Coupons six, seven, eight, nine, and ten, representing the interest 
 from January 1, 1857, to the maturing of the bonds, are returned to the State. Of twelve 
 per cent bonds, coupons one, two, three, four, and five, representing the interest up to 
 March 1, 1854, were attached to the bonds, but were paid only up to January 1, 1854, leav- 
 ing on every bond a balance of $20, interest from January 1^ to March 1, 1854, due to the 
 bondholder — for which amount the Commissioners gave their certificate, a copy of which 
 accompanies this. Coupons six, seven, eight, nine, and ten, representing the interest due 
 up to September 1, 1856, have been returned to the owners; and the remaining coupons, 
 numbers eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, and nine- 
 teen, are returned to the State. 
 
 It will be seen that there are remaining unpaid of bonds issued prior to January 1, 1854, 
 of principal, $59,600 ; of interest to that date, about $14,000; total, $73,600. There isVemain- 
 ing of the appropriation, $83,611; leaving a balance on hand, over and above the bonds 
 and interest, up to January 1, 1854, of not less than $10,000. 
 
 The entire amount of coupons and certificates returned to holders of redeemed bonds, 
 and now outstanding, is $161,120 91. The entire amount of coupons returned to the State 
 is $317,727 10. The bonds redeemed have been canceled, and are now on file in the Treas- 
 ury Department. The General Government, by recognizing the bonds, and by the pay- 
 ment of interest up to January 1, 1854, have virtuallj'^ assumed the entire debt, and there 
 is but little doubt of the speedy passage of an Act making an additional appropriation to 
 cover the unpaid coupons now outstanding, as well as the amount of bonds issued subse- 
 quent to January 1, 1854, a statement of which will be found accompanying this. 
 
 We cannot conclude our report without expressing our high appreciation of the services 
 of Mr. A. J. F. Phelan, the Clerk of the Commission. His thorough knowledge of all the 
 details connected with the origin of the war debt, and his faithfulness and ability in dis- 
 charging the onerous duties imposed upon him by the State, has very materially aided us 
 in accomplishing all that has been effected toward the extinguishment of the debt. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 SAM. B. SMITH, 
 J. W. DENVER, 
 Commissioners California War Debt. 
 
 Sacramento City, January 5, 1857. 
 
 T^INAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CALIFORNIA WAR DEBT. 
 
 To his Excellency John G. Downey, Governor of California: 
 
 Sir: The undersigned. Commissioners appointed by the Act of April 19, 1856, to liqui- 
 date the war debt of the State, beg leave to state: 
 
 That since their last report, which was dated January 5, 1857, they have certified for 
 redemption bonds and coupons amounting in all to $57,633 14, which, added to the amount 
 then reported— $840,648 65— makes up a total of $898,281 79 redeemed, leaving a balance 
 outstanding of $10,950 in bonds, which last sum, together with the interest thereon to the 
 first day of January, 1854, is fully provided for by the appropriation made by Congress. 
 After these outstanding bonds and coupons shall have been redeemed there will still remain 
 a balance of the appropriation unexpended amounting to about $10,000, but which will not 
 be available to the State, as will hereafter be made to appear. This excess was caused by 
 taking into the estimate on which the appropriation was made warrants or certificates 
 issued before the first day of January, 1854, and not funded prior to that date. 
 
 By reference to our former report you will ascertain the difficulties we had to encounter 
 at Washington when attempting to discharge the duties imposed upon us by the Act under 
 which we were a,pponited. That Act provides first for the payment of the whole twelve 
 per cent bonds, with accruing interest up to the date of redemption, and to advertise for 
 cjids and give the preference to the lowest bidders among the hoMers of the seven per 
 cent bonds ; but under the construction given by the Secretary of War to the Acts of 
 Congress referring to the appropriation, it was found impossible to carry out these pro- 
 Visions literally. None of the money appropriated could, under the construction referred 
 
298 
 
 to, be applied to the redemption of bonds issued after the first day of January, 1854, nor 
 to the payment of interest accruing since that date. We had, therefore, to abandon the 
 business altogether, or by conforming to the opinion of the Secretary of War, pay the 
 principal and thereby stop the accruing interest. 
 
 As before shown, the sum appropriated by Congress was sufficient to pay all the princi- 
 pal and interest due on the first day of January, 1854. Having obtained the decision of 
 the Secretary, we advertised and gave notice to the bondholders that we were ready to 
 redeem the bonds and coupons due at that date (January 1, 1854), and that all bonds 
 would cease to bear interest after the first day of September, 1856. Accordingly the bond- 
 holders came forward and in good faith gave up their bonds on our certificates, and 
 received payment thereon. The coupons falling due between the first of January, 1854, 
 and the first of September, 1856, which were unprovided for at the time the bonds were 
 redeemed, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $172,828 54, were retained by the 
 bondholders, but the coupons which would have become due after the first day of Septem- 
 ber, 1856, amounting to the sum of $344,669 17, were given up, and are now in our posses- 
 sion, less those attached to the few bonds not yet redeemed. By the course thus pursued, 
 we were enabled to relieve the State from this accruing interest, which would, as shown, 
 had the bonds been allowed to come to maturity, have increased the debt $344,669 17, and 
 for the payment of which the faith and honor of the State is pledged. 
 
 No provision has as yet been made for the payment of the coupons yet outstanding, 
 amounting to the sum of $172,828 54. The Act of February 15, 1851, under which the 
 twelve per cent bonds were issued, provided that the interest should be "payable annually 
 or semi-annually,"' and the bonds were issued wath semi-annual coupons attached. The 
 Act of May 3, 1852, under which the seven per cent bonds were issued, provided that the 
 interest should be paid annually, and the bonds were issued with annual coupons attached. 
 The Legislature has never made provision for the payment of any of this interest, although 
 the whole amount has now been due more than three years. 
 
 Good faith on the part of the State requires that these coupons should be redeemed, 
 either by issuing to the holders, as many of them have requested, bonds bearing interest, 
 or by payment in cash. The latter course is preferable if the condition of the Treasury 
 will permit, as the amount is long overdue; and under the provisions of the laws author- 
 izing the issuance of the bonds, and by the terms of the bonds themselves, the State was 
 bound for the payment long since. Indeed, it is always better for the State to pay such 
 indebtedness in cash, if possible, and then to call on the General Government for remu- 
 neration, for by so doing officers will be held to a more strict accountability, accounts and 
 vouchers will be subjected to a closer scrutiny, and, in consequence, Indian wars will not 
 be too lightly engaged in. 
 
 The coupons heretofore referred to, which would have become due after the first day of 
 September, 1856, are as stated, now in our possession. The law at present does not author- 
 ize us to make any disposition of them. We therefore ask for permission to turn them 
 over to the State Treasurer, to be by him destroyed, or to make such other disposition of 
 them as the Legislature may direct. 
 
 We also request that we may be relieved from all further duties under the Act by which 
 we were appointed. There are only twenty-nine bonds of all descriptions now outstand- 
 ing with which we would have anything to do, and the duty of certifying to them can 
 very well be devolved on some of the State officers, to whom we might be authorized to 
 deliver the books and papers of the Commission. 
 
 Herewith we submit for your inspection a tabular statement, prepared by the very 
 efficient Clerk of the Board, A. J. F. Phelan, Esq., which will be found full arid compre- 
 hensive. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 J. W. DENVER, 
 SAM. B. SMITH, 
 Commissioners California War Debt. 
 
 Sacramento City, January 30, 1860. 
 
 It may be well to supplement the final report of the Commissioners by 
 saying that Congress authorized the using up of the surplus of the original 
 appropriation in the redemption of bonds issued subsequent to January 
 1, 1854 (Statutes at Large, Volume XII, page 104), and that this was 
 done to the extent of $7,650 of principal (see official list in appendix), 
 with interest up to the time of presentation, leaving a surplus still of about 
 $10,000. This could not be utilized, because the estimate on which the 
 appropriation was based included that amount of claims which had not 
 been funded by the State prior to January 1, 1854. 
 
 To state in a few words the action of the Commissioners, .they indorsed 
 as correct the bonds, with interest up to January 1, 1854; and to the hold- 
 ers of the bonds of 1851, the coupons of which fell due in September and 
 March, they gave a certificate of indebtedness for the interest from Janu- 
 
299 
 
 ary 1, 1854, to March 1, 1854, they detaching and keeping this March 
 coupon. Instead of giving certificates to the holders of the bonds of 1852 
 for the interest from January 1, 1856, to September 1, 1856, they stamped 
 the amount of this interest on the coupon that fell due January 1, 1857. 
 The coupons of the bonds of 1851, from March 1, 1854, to September 1, 
 
 1856, inclusive, and those of the bonds of 1852, from January 1, 1854, to 
 January 1, 1857, inclusive (the latter having stamped on them the interest 
 of September 1, 1856), were detached and surrendered to the bondholders, 
 and it is these coupons so detached, and those certificates of indebted- 
 ness, which are urged by their holders as being valid obligations of the 
 State. 
 
 The coupons of the bonds of 1851, representing the interest from Sep- 
 tember 1, 1856, to maturity, and the coupons of the bonds of 1852, repre- 
 senting the interest from January 1, 1857, to maturity, were detached and 
 retained by the Commissioners, and amounted, according to their final 
 report, to $344,669 17. These were destroyed by the Military Committee 
 of both Houses, in accordance with concurrent resolution (Senate Journal, 
 12th session, page 779). It will be seen, on referring to the report of the 
 committee, that the coupons destroyed amounted to the sum of $327,207 98. 
 The seeming discrepancy between these figures and those of the Commis- 
 sioners is easily reconciled, when we call to mind the fact of the January, 
 
 1857, coupons being surrendered to the bondholders, with the interest 
 stamped on it from January 1, 1856, to September 1, 1856. It is plain, 
 therefore, that the coupons destroyed by the committee would not be as 
 great as the amount returned by the Commissioners, by so much interest 
 on the bonds of 1852 as had accrued between September 1, 1856, and 
 January 1, 1857. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE CLAIMS. 
 
 None of the bonds of 1851 have ever been presented to the Legislature 
 for redemption until the present session, there being a bill now pending for 
 the payment of bond No. 34, issued April 1, 1851. It seems that a dupli- 
 cate was issued for this bond to John C. Johnson, by Act of April 30, 1853 
 (Statutes 1853, page 130), and it is certain that the duplicate has been 
 paid. The claim is accompanied by a number of papers, among them 
 being an affidavit on the part of the holder of the bond, who claims him- 
 self to be an innocent purchaser for value, and a letter from the Board of 
 War Debt Commissioners in support of their action in refusing to certify 
 to the correctness of the bond. As the recommendation of this report ren- 
 ders it unnecessary for us to pass upon the validity of this claim, we have 
 not devoted to it any special study. 
 
 As to the bonds of 1852, the Legislature have made appropriations for 
 their payment as follows: 
 
 In 1865 and 1866 (page 516 of Statutes), ijrincipal and interest in full. 132,500 00 
 
 In 1867 and 1868 (page 468 of Statutes), principal and interest in full. 1,765 00 
 
 In 1869 and 1870 (page 698 of Statutes), principal and interest in full 2,380 00 
 
 When the bonds alone were first presented to the Legislature in 1865 and 
 1866, the question of their constitutionality being raised, the matter was 
 submitted to the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly, who decided them, 
 with but one dissenting voice, to be constitutional and valid. (See report 
 in third volume of Appendix to Senate and Assembly Journals, sixteenth 
 session.) A minority report was made by Mr. Luttrell, the present repre- 
 sentative in part of the County of Siskiyou on the floor of the Assembly. 
 This gentleman, however, recommended that a Commission be appointed 
 
300 
 
 to investigate the amount and character of the Indian war indebtedness of 
 the State, and report the result to the ensuing Legislature. (See report in 
 Appendix, as above.) This recommendation was so far concurred in as 
 that a committee was appointed, of which Mr. Luttrell was made Chair- 
 man. The committee, however, renewed the recommendation previously 
 made by their Chairman, and so the matter came to naught. (See report 
 in Assembly Journal, sixteenth session, page 630.) 
 
 No provision has ever been made for the payment of the coupons and 
 certificates, though strenuous efi:brts have been made to induce such action. 
 This seems singular, as the various committees to whom the matter was 
 from time to time referred reported in favor of their payment. 
 
 The first time these claims were presented to the Legislature was in 1860. 
 In that year, Governor Weller called the attention of the Legislature to the 
 matter, and recommended that "prompt provision be made for the pay- 
 ment of these just demands." (See his message in Senate Journal, eleventh 
 session. ) A bill was introduced in the Senate in accordance with this recom- 
 mendation, and referred to the Committee on Claims, who reported unani- 
 mously in favor of the payment of the coupons. They conclude their report 
 as follows: 
 
 The laws authorizing the issuance of the bonds provided that the interest should be paid 
 on the twelve per cents, semi-annually, on the tirst daj^s of March and September of each 
 year, and on the seven per cents, annually, on the tirst day of January of each year, from 
 and after their issuance. The bonds carried this pledge upon their face; the coupons 
 attached promised the same. The bonds were transferable by delivery, and no doubt 
 passed through many different hands. Parties purchasing had a right to expect that the 
 interest would be paid by the State as set forth on the face of the bonds. They were 
 signed by the Controller and Treasurer of State, indorsed by the Governor, stamped with 
 the seal of State, and it is strange that the solemn pledge of the State should not ere this 
 have been fulfilled. 
 
 A majority of the holders of this indebtedness have, however, as your committee are 
 informed, expressed a willingness to surrender their evidences of indebtedness, that is to 
 say, their unpaid coupons and certificates, and receive in lieu thereof bonds of the State 
 payable at some future date. Certainly the State cannot refuse to do this. In response to 
 this your committee have prepared a bill, which is herewith reported, authorizing the fund- 
 ing of this debt and the issuance of bonds payable in the year 1870, bearing interest at the 
 rate of seven per cent per annum, containing a provision that if the General Government 
 shall make provision for the payment of the same at an earlier date, the State shall have 
 the privilege of calling them in by giving sixty days notice, from and after which time 
 they shall cease to bear interest. 
 
 In recommending the passage of this bill, your committee have only to add that they 
 feel that at best the State has been strangely tardy in providing for the payment of this 
 indebtedness, and they hope that the same may be favorably and at once considered by the 
 Senate. 
 
 These claims were not before the Legislature of 1861, so far as we can 
 ascertain; but in 1862 Governor Downey drew attention to them in his 
 annual message of that year, as follows (Senate Journal, thirteenth session, 
 page thirty-four:) 
 
 There is still due and unpaid the sum of $218,468 54, on account of the Indian war debt, 
 incurred prior to 1854, and for which an appropriation was made by Congress of $924,259 65 
 (more than ample at the time to meet the whole war debt). This balance against the 
 State on this account is mainly owing to the ruling of the Secretary of War, who refused 
 to transfer the amount thus appropriated, declining to recognize tlie bonds as evidence of 
 this debt, but requiring proof of the indebtedness by the production of the original 
 accounts and vouchers, which in many instances had become quite impossible. Under 
 this ruling of the Secretary interest of two years was suffered to accumulate, and the 
 result has been this unpaid balance— consisting of interest on coupons— the sum of $172,- 
 868 54; bonds remaining unpaid, $.38,100; interest due on the latter, $7,500; total, $218,- 
 468 54. These bonds mature in 1862. The faith of the State is pledged to their payment; 
 and if Congress will not assume this debt, as it properly should, the State ought to make 
 provisions for its liquidation. 
 
 This portion of the Governor's message was referred by the Assembly to 
 a special committee, who reported as follows: 
 
301 
 
 Mr. Speaker: Your committee to whom was referred that part of Governor Downey's 
 message relating to the balance due on account of Indian war debt, report: 
 
 That they find that there is now outstanding about $220,000 of the old Indian war debt, 
 consisting of war bonds, coupons, etc., for the payment of which the faith and credit of 
 the State has been pledged, as will appear by an Act passed May 2, 1852, and other Acts 
 supplementary thereto, under which said bonds were issued. 
 
 That said bonds become due and payable on the second day of May, 1862, and no pro- 
 vision has been made for the payment thereof. 
 
 That they have conferred with some of the holders of the aforesaid indebtedness, who 
 claim thej^ are entitled to the money when the same becomes due; but knowing that, from 
 the present condition of State finances, it is impossible to meet this indebtedness with 
 cash, they are willing to accept bonds of the State therefor. 
 
 That your committee recommend, as the best mode of settling the aforesaid indebted- 
 ness, that bonds of the State be issued, drawing interest at the rate of seven per centum 
 per annum, payable in ten or twenty years, or out of any appropriation that may be made 
 by the Federal Government before the lapse of said term, and respectfully submit the 
 accompanying Act for that purpose for your consideration. 
 
 This report is signed by the whole committee of five (5), one of the num- 
 ber being Mr. McCullough, who subsequently became Attorney-General, 
 and another, Mr. Machin, who subsequently became Lieutenant-Governor. 
 A bill was introduced in the Senate providing for the funding of the coupons, 
 as recommended by the Assembly committee, which bill was referred to the 
 Committee on Finance, who reported unanimously in favor of the bill. 
 Their report concludes as follows (Senate Journal, thirteenth session, page 
 623): 
 
 The Assemblj'^ bill provides for issuing bonds for the bonds and interest due thereon, 
 issued subsequent to the first day of January, 1854, and would leave the bonds and interest 
 due on those issued prior to that date unprovided for. This would be manifest in justice to 
 the holders of the coupons on the old bonds. The State has pledged her faith and credit 
 to pay them if the General Government did not jjrovide for their payment before they fell 
 due. This the General Government has failed to do, and the holders of the coupons look 
 to the State to comply with her obligation. Your committee think the State should not, 
 in the first place, have taken the course she did, in making herself liable for these debts ; 
 but having done so, her honor and credit require that she should immediately provide for 
 meeting her obligations. 
 
 Some fault has been found with the Commissioners by some parties for returning the 
 unpaid coupons to the bondholders. These coupons could not be paid by the terms of 
 the Act of Congress, and the amount thereof being due to the holders, and no provision 
 having been made to pay them, they certainly were entitled to have what belonged to 
 them. And had it not been for the second Act of Congress providing for the manner of 
 settlement, a very large portion of these bonds and interest thereon would not have been 
 paid by the Congressional appropriation ; but the holders would have a just and legal 
 claim against the State, which she could not have avoided paying. Therefore, instead of 
 any injury arising from such action to the State, she was saved several hundred thousand 
 dollars. These coupons were long since due. They, of course, draw no interest; but 
 the bonds to which they were attached falling due on the second day of May next, they 
 should be settled. Congress may at some future day provide for their payment; but the 
 holders look first to the State. "^We therefore recommend the passage of the Assembly 
 Bill, with several amendments herewith presented. 
 
 The Adjutant General of the State was called on for information by 
 resolution of the Assembly at this same session of the Legislature, and his 
 report can be found in Appendix to Senate and Assembly Journals of the 
 thirteenth session. He gave an opinion adverse to the payment of the 
 coupons by the State, for the reason that the General Government had 
 assumed their payment, and for the further reason that the Commissioners 
 should have calculated the interest up to the time of presentation, and 
 then made a final settlement with the holders by dividing the appropriation 
 pro rata. As answer to these objections, it can very well be replied that 
 whether the Government assumed the debt or not, it certainly has not paid 
 it; and as to the action of the Commissioners, it seems clear from what has 
 gone before that they could not do what General Kibbe says they ought to 
 have done. But suppose they had done so, would there not have still resulted 
 a balance in favor of the bondholders, for which the State would have been 
 
302 
 
 liable? The Legislature, however, rejected the recommendation of their 
 committees, and the bill to fund the coupons failed to become a law. 
 
 In 1863 these claims were again presented (the Governor — Stanford — 
 including them in his annual message, as, indeed, he did the following 
 year, as being a part of the State debt) , and were referred to the Senate 
 Committee on Finance. This committee divided, the Chairman — Mr. Per- 
 kins — together with Mr. Doll, presenting the most elaborate report that had 
 yet been made upon the subject, and Mr. Birdseye and Mr. Gaskill report- 
 ing adversely. These reports can be found in Appendix to Senate and 
 Assembly Journals of the fourteenth session. In the report of Senators 
 Birdseye and Gaskill the following paragraph occurs, which we deem well 
 to quote: 
 
 When these Commissioners arrived in "Washington, by the consent and through the 
 influence of the bondholders, they obtained the passage of an Act of Congress, which 
 took the matter entirely out of the control of the State, diverted the money from the State 
 Treasury directly to the bondholders, deprived the State of the right to call in her bonds 
 under.sale to the lowest bidders, ignored the State in the premises, set aside her trust, and 
 destroyed her agency. 
 
 The reply to this, as your committee think, can be found in the extracts 
 which we have made from the messages of Governors Bigler and Johnson, 
 and from the reports that have been quoted. 
 
 If the decision of the Secretary of War in construction of the Act of 1854 
 had been acted on, and the money had been paid directly into the State 
 Treasury, the State would, very likely, have failed to realize from it the 
 face of her bonds, and for the balance she would have been liable to the 
 bondholders; so that the Congressional Act of 1856 was directly in her 
 interests. Her bonds had been regularly issued upon her faith and credit, 
 and she was in honor bound to pay them to the last farthing. 
 
 The Commissioners could not have been deemed to act in bad faith or 
 to the prejudice of the interests of the State, for these same Commissioners 
 were authorized by the Legislature, in 1861 (page 298 of Statutes), to adjust 
 with the General Government the war debt of 1857. Indeed, Governor 
 Johnson, in his annual message, dated January 1, 1857, speaks as follows: 
 
 The Commissioners of the War Debt * * * have discharged their duties with fidelity 
 to the interests of the people they represented, and with most agreeable results in the 
 adjustment of this indetstedness. 
 
 This indorsement, together with the fact that these same Commissioners 
 were again detailed for a similar duty, and with the further fact that there 
 is nothing in any of the reports that tends to prove that they acted any 
 otherwise than honestly, demonstrate satisfactorily to your committee that 
 they did what they deemed best for the interests of the State. 
 
 Your committee would further state that they have failed to find any 
 evidence of the Commissioners having colluded with the bondholders, as is 
 charged in the extract from the report which has been given above. 
 
 In this same year (1863) the Treasurer brought the matter of these 
 unpaid coupons and certificates to the attention of the Governor in his 
 annual report, and after treating the subject at some length, concludes by 
 saying that " the State is in honor bound to pay those detached coupons, 
 and whatever of the bonds that remain unpaid " (see Treasurer's Report 
 in Appendix to Senate Journal, fourteenth session) . 
 
 At the next session of the Legislature (that of 1863-64) the project was 
 again brought forward to fund this indebtedness, a bill being introduced in 
 the Senate for this purpose, and referred to the Committee on Claims, a 
 
303 
 
 majority of whom made the following report. (See report of committee in 
 Appendix to Senate Journal, fifteenth session). The minority report can 
 be found in the same place: 
 
 Mr. President: The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred Senate Bill No. 59» 
 "An Act entitled an Act to provide for paying certain demands issued on the faith and 
 credit of the State, which became due and paj'^able on the second day of May, A. D. 1862, 
 and to contract a funded debt for that purpose," have had the same under consideration, 
 and ask leave to report : 
 
 That they find there is now outstanding about |220,000 of the old Indian war debt, evi- 
 denced by and consisting of war bonds and coupons, for the payment of which the faith 
 and credit of the State have been pledged, as will fully appear hv an Act passed May 2, 
 1852, and other Acts supplemental thereto, under which said bonds were issued. 
 
 That said bonds, by the terms of said Acts, became due and payable on the second day 
 of May, 1862, and no provision has been made for the payment thereof. The holders of 
 said bonds and coupons have applied to former Legislatures to provide some way for the 
 settlement of the aforesaid indebtedness, and your committee have carefully examined 
 the proceedings of the various committees to whom the matter has been heretofore 
 referred, and have been unable to discover any well founded objection to any part of this 
 claim ; on the contrarj^, all the arguments which have been adduced, based upon facts, 
 militate strength in favor of the justice thereof. 
 
 In 1862 the subject was discussed by Governor Downey in his annual message, in' which 
 he says, after summing up the total amount of this indebtedness— making it $218,468 54 : 
 " These bonds mature in 1862 ; the faith of the State is pledged to their payment, and if 
 Congress will not assume this debt, as it properly should, the State should make pro- 
 visions for its liquidation" — which part of the Governor's message was referred to a select 
 committee of the Assembly, who, after a thorough examination of the subject, reported a 
 bill similar to the one which your committee have considered and recommended its pas- 
 sage. Said special committee consisted of the present Lieutenant-Governor of the State, 
 the present Attorney-General, and Messrs. Hillyer, Morrison, and Worthington. 
 
 The holders of these bonds and coupons claim that they were entitled to the money 
 therefor when the same became due, out, owing to the embarrassed condition of the 
 finances of the State, they have been and now are willing to accept bonds of the State 
 therefor, as provided in the bill referred to your committee. 
 
 Your committee is of the opinion that the settlement of these claims with the holders 
 cannot longer be delayed without great injury to the credit and a serious violation of the 
 faith of the State, which has been unconditionally and unqualifiedly pledged for their 
 redemption. 
 
 Therefore they report back the bill and recommend its passage. . 
 
 This report is signed by John P. Jones, W. E. Lovett, and George S. 
 Evans — the latter gentleman being an honored Senator of the now sitting 
 Legislature. 
 
 A minority report was also submitted, which recommended the payment 
 of the bonds, but disagreed with the majority report as to the payment of 
 the coupons. 
 
 This report speaks of " notorious frauds committed in the issue of these 
 bonds," and yet the gentlemen who sign it recommend the payment of the 
 bonds, but would refuse payment of the coupons. 
 
 It seems to your committee that to be consistent they should have 
 reported against the bonds, as they did against the coupons. But really, 
 this question of fraud could only be considered when the bonds were in 
 process of issue, and not after they had been put into circulation and had 
 passed through many hands. Under such circumstances, a negotiable 
 instrument is conclusively presumed to have passed for a valuable consid- 
 eration and to be free from fraud. But if any fraud was ever perpetrated, 
 your committee have failed to find evidence of it in the official reports. 
 
 As this minority report speaks of the failure of the Congressional appro- 
 priation to pay the detached coupons, your committee deem it well to give 
 the true history of this matter, as it is given by Adjutant-General Kibbe, 
 who was himself an actor in the scene. The following extract is taken 
 from his report, attention to which report has already been directed: 
 
 I had the honor of presenting this whole matter to the Committee on Military Affairs of 
 the United States Senate, while in Washington last year, explaining the same to them ; in 
 
304 
 
 which explanation I satisfied the committee that Congress had virtually assumed this 
 portion of the debt (the interest), by Act of August, 1856, and that committee reported, as 
 an amendment to the Army Appropriation Bill, the following, viz.: 
 
 " For the payment of the coupons outstanding and now unpaid accruing between the 
 first day of January, 1854, and the sixteenth day of August, 1856, upon the bonds of the 
 State of California, issued for the payment of expenses incurred in the suppression of 
 Indian hostilities prior to the first day of January, 1854, the redemption of which bonds 
 was authorized by Acts of Congress of August 5,' 1854, August 18, 1856, and June 23, 1860, 
 $177,196 23 ; said coupons to be certified by the Third Auditor of the Treasury to be those 
 designated by this section to be paid by the Secretary of War to the holders thereof." 
 
 But it being asserted by Senators that many of these coupons had been purchased for a 
 nominal sum, and were mainly held by a banking house in Washington, the amendment 
 did not prevail. 
 
 Whether this assertion of Senators was true or not, and your committee 
 doubt if it was, the fact remains that these detached coupons successfully 
 withstood the scrutiny of a Congressional committee, and were defeated 
 because of statements very probably made at random. But admitting the 
 statement to have been true, it does not relieve the State, as your commit- 
 tee think, from her obligation to pay. It would certainly be a new doc- 
 trine to hold that a debtor should be relieved from his indebtedness 
 because his obligations went begging in the market. Under such circum- 
 stances your committee think that the debtor should make all the more 
 effort to satisfy the demands of his creditors. 
 
 The bill again failed, and the coupons and certificates were not presented 
 again until the year 1871, when they were laid before the Board of Exam- 
 iners, under the provisions of the Act which provided for their considera- 
 tion of claims not otherwise provided for by law. The Board of Examiners 
 recommended that some competent person be appointed whose business it 
 should be to investigate the whole matter of Indian war bonds and coupons 
 and report to the Governor within ninety days, the Board to use the report 
 as a basis of audit. This recommendation, however, was not concurred in 
 by the Legislature. 
 
 The amount of coupons and certificates laid before the Board is as follows: 
 
 Coupons and certificates, by voucher -.. $42,706 88 
 
 Coupons and certificates, by schedule 34,708 55 
 
 Total $77,415 43 
 
 REASONS FOR PAYING THE CLAIMS. 
 
 » 
 
 The claimants give the following reasons, among others, for urging the 
 payment of these claims, and taken in connection with what has gone 
 before, your committee deem them conclusive: 
 
 That the bondholders had good reason to believe when they surrendered 
 their bonds that Congress would make an appropriation to pay the coupons, 
 and not having done so, the State is bound by virtue of her contract with 
 those who took her bonds. 
 
 That the principal not having been paid until September 1, 1856, the 
 bondholders were clearly entitled to interest up to that time; instead of 
 that they were only paid up to January 1, 1854, and this not by virtue of 
 any composition on their part, but because of the rigid rule laid down by 
 the War Department in its construction of the Acts of Congress of 1854 and 
 1856. 
 
 That the bonds of 1851 and 1852 were as valid and as negotiable as any 
 bonds could be, for they were issued upon the faith and credit of the State. 
 
 That there was no fraudulent collusion of the bondholders and Com- 
 missioners, for the State authorities recognized the conduct of the latter as 
 having been wise and honest. 
 
305 
 
 That had the bondholders not surrendered their bonds the State would 
 have been bound to pay not only the interest between January, 1854, and 
 September, 1856, but the whole interest to maturity, which latter was saved, 
 and amounted to more than $300,000. 
 
 That the bondholders did not waive nor have they ever waived the 
 interest between January, 1854, and September, 1856; nor did they yield 
 up this interest in the way of satisfaction; that is, they did not agree to 
 take nor had they any intention of taking the principal of their debt with 
 interest up to January 1, 1854, in satisfaction of their whole debt; that the 
 fact of their coupons having been surrendered to them proves this beyond 
 the possibility of a doubt. 
 
 That the last Legislature paid some of the old issue of the bonds of 1852, 
 with interest in full, and that this, as a precedent, should have great weight, 
 from the fact, that by the surrender in 1856, over $300,000 in interest was 
 saved the State; and that it would be gross injustice to pay those parties 
 in full whose refusal to surrender their bonds in 1856 cost the State in- 
 creased interest, while depriving others of the interest which their princi- 
 pal indubitably earned, and by whose course the State was saved a very 
 large amount. 
 
 That it is idle to say the bonds were fraudulently or improvidently issued, 
 as such instruments after having been put in circulation cannot be affected 
 by such considerations; that granting that the coupons have passed from 
 hand to hand for insufficient consideration (of which there is no proof) ; 
 this is not to be wondered at when the State has so persistently postponed 
 their liquidation; and that if such is the case, it would not be the only 
 instance in life in which necessity or deferred hope has caused the owner to 
 part with a thing of value for an insufficient consideration; but that some 
 of the bondholders have not parted with their coupons, and still retain 
 them. 
 
 That the agent always binds his principal when acting within the scope 
 of his authority; that the Commissioners, acting within the scope of their 
 authority, returned to the bondholders these detached coupons stamped 
 with their stamp, and for others gave certificates of indebtedness; that by 
 so doing they acknowledged these instruments as being an unliquidated 
 and valid demand against the State, and that by such acknowledgment the 
 State (their principal) is bound. 
 
 That the State authorities knew of the course the Commissioners were 
 pursuing, and could have repudiated their action; instead of that, they not 
 only assented to it at the time, but applauded the conduct of the Commis- 
 sioners afterwards; that this is conclusive of the objection that the Com- 
 missioners did not adhere to the very letter of their instructions, for it is 
 well settled that when the principal assents to or subsequently confirms the 
 action of his agent the principal is bound. 
 
 ^ That the Commissioners deviated from the strict letter of their instruc- 
 tions in but two particulars; first, in not paying interest up to the time of 
 presentation of the bonds; and secondly, in not advertising for bids for 
 surrender of bonds. That as to the first, they were precluded from allow- 
 ing interest up to the time of presentation, on account of the ruling of the 
 War Department; and that as to the second, it would have been a useless 
 expense to advertise for bids, for as the appropriation was more than suffi- 
 cient to pay the bonds, with interest, up to January 1, 1854, every holder 
 would have put in a bid at par. It follows, therefore, that the agent was 
 forced to deviate somewhat from the letter, in order that he might preserve 
 20 "^ 
 
306 
 
 the spirit of his instructions, and that he did so with the knowledge and 
 consent of his principal. 
 
 That the Governor is bound to see the laws faithfully executed, and if 
 he saw the Commissioners acting in derogation of the statute defining their 
 duties he could have repudiated their action or removed them, but that the 
 Commissioners were not only sustained by the Governor, but applauded by 
 him (see Governor Johnson's message of 1857, above referred to). 
 
 That the acts of the Commissioners were not only ratified by the Gov- 
 ernor, but by the Legislature, as will be seen by the statute empowering 
 the Board of War Debt Commissioners to adjust with the General Govern- 
 ment the war indebtedness of 1857 (Statutes of 1861, page 298); that it 
 will be seen on referring to the first section of this Act that the Legisla- 
 ture acted upon the assumption that the Board were still in existence, and 
 that it is plain that by laying upon the Commissioners further duties of the 
 same kind previously performed, with full knowledge of the manner in 
 which the trust was executed, that the Legislature thereby ratify the pre- 
 vious action of the agent of the State in the execution of such trust. 
 
 That the bonds and coupons were issued by the State with the express 
 promise on her part to pay them if the United States Government did not, 
 and that the later having made default the former is bound. 
 
 That every Governor who has spoken officially, and every committee to 
 whom the claims have been referred (most of them unanimously, and only 
 one in one instance evenly dividing), have urged their liquidation. 
 
 That the justice and validity of these claims have been acknowledged 
 by the Legislature of this State, as will be seen by the following concur- 
 rent resolution (Statutes of 1859, page 381): 
 
 Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That our Senators at Washington be 
 instructed and our Representatives in Congress be requested to urge upon Congress the 
 immediate payment ot the Indian war debt due to citizens of this State. 
 
 Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded by his Excellency, the Governor, 
 to each of our Senators and Representatives, with as little delay as possible. 
 
 That it follows, as an irresistible conclusion, that to refuse payment of 
 these claims is to repudiate a portion of the State debt. 
 
 AMOUNT OF INDEBTEDNESS OUTSTANDING. 
 
 As to the amount of indebtedness outstanding, your committee are ena- 
 bled to give exact official information. From an examination of the bond 
 register of the bonds of 1851 and 1852, in the office of the Treasurer of 
 State, it appears that bonds were issued as follows: 
 
 Bonds of 1851 |200,000 00 
 
 Bonds of 1852. 636,350 00 
 
 By the officially certified lists from the office of the Third Auditor at 
 Washington, received within the past few weeks, it appears that the Gen- 
 eral Government has paid the principal of bonds as follows: 
 
 Bonds of 1851 ...$197,000 
 
 Bonds of 1852 .• 598,450 
 
 We are enabled, therefore, to construct the following tables: 
 
 Issue of 1851 .1200,000 
 
 Paid by General Government of principal. 197,000 
 
 Outstanding of principal $3,000 
 
307 
 
 Issue of 1852 .' - ....$G36,350 
 
 Paid by General Government of principal.. $598,450 
 
 Paid by State, 1865-66, of principal 20,950 
 
 Paid by State, 1867-68, of principal... 900 
 
 Paid by State, 1869-70, of principal... 1,350 
 
 $621,650 
 
 Outstanding of principal $14,700 
 
 The following is an exhibit of the bonds that were laid before the Board 
 of Examiners. We have tabulated them so that they can be easily under- 
 stood and readily referred to: 
 
 No. of 
 Bond. 
 
 Name of Claimant. 
 
 When Issued. 
 
 Princi- 
 pal. 
 
 Interest to 
 May 2, 1862. 
 
 Total Princi- 
 pal and 
 Interest. 
 
 305 
 
 306 
 
 113 
 
 347 
 
 348 
 
 349 
 
 340 
 
 396 
 
 374 
 
 373 
 
 372 
 
 141 
 
 143 
 
 142 
 
 146 
 
 416 
 
 145 
 
 128 
 
 129 
 
 130 
 
 134* 
 
 135 
 
 136 
 
 151 
 
 329 
 
 331 
 
 332 
 
 333 
 
 340 
 
 341 
 
 353 
 
 354 
 
 355 
 
 371 
 
 383 
 
 384 
 
 386 
 
 390 
 
 391 
 
 394 
 
 420 
 
 433 
 
 E. W. Morse 
 
 E. W.Morse --- 
 
 Samuel Scott -.. 
 
 I. Wormser 
 
 I. Wormser 
 
 I. "Wormser 
 
 M. S. Latham. -. 
 M.S. Latham... 
 M. S. Latham. -- 
 M. S. Latham. -- 
 M. S. Latham... 
 M, S. Latham... 
 M. S. Latham... 
 M. S. Latham... 
 M, S. Latham. .. 
 M. S. Latham... 
 M. S. Latham . . . 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke (fe Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 Jay Cooke & Co. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Aug. 
 
 May 
 
 May 
 
 May 
 
 Aug. 
 
 Aug. 
 
 Aug. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 May 
 
 Sept. 
 
 July 
 
 July 
 
 July 
 
 July 
 
 July 
 
 July 
 
 Oct. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 May 
 
 June 
 
 July 
 
 July 
 
 Aug. 
 
 Aug. 
 
 Aug. 
 
 July 
 
 June 
 
 19, 1854 
 
 19, 1854 
 3, 1854 
 
 15, 1854 
 17, 1854 
 
 17, 1854 
 
 20, 1854 
 26, 1854 
 13, 1854 
 13, 1854 
 
 13, 1854 
 26, 1854 
 26, 1854 
 26, 1854 
 
 14, 1854 
 
 13, 1854 
 
 14, 1854 
 
 15, 1854 
 
 21, 1854 
 21, 1854 
 21, 1854 
 21, 1854 
 21, 1854 
 
 18, 1854 
 29, 1854 
 31, 1854 
 31, 1854 
 31, 1854 
 12, 1854 
 12, 1854 
 25, 1854 
 25, 1854 
 25, 1854 
 
 8, 1854 
 
 6, 1854 
 15, 1854 
 21, 1854 
 
 7, 1854 
 11, 1854 
 
 19, 1854 
 15, 1854 
 21, 1856 
 
 $100 
 100 
 250 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 250 
 250 
 250 
 250 
 500 
 250 
 250 
 250 
 250 
 250 
 250 
 250 
 250 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 500 
 100 
 
 $57 96 
 57 96 
 
 143 18 
 56 30 
 56 30 
 56 30 
 53 29i 
 
 53 7()| 
 55 76| 
 55 li'i 
 
 55 7(;^ 
 134 401 
 134 40| 
 134 40j 
 133 531 
 278 82} 
 133 53| 
 136 40 
 136 10 
 136 10 
 
 93 38 
 136 10 
 136 10 
 131 38 
 
 56 63 
 56 60 
 56 60 
 56 60 
 56 36 
 56 36 
 56 11 
 56 11 
 56 11 
 55 86 
 55 31 
 
 54 55 
 54 44 
 54 13 
 54 05 
 53 91 
 
 272 80 
 41 02 
 
 $315 92 
 393 18 
 
 468 90 
 
 3.473 43 
 
 6,059 11 
 
 Total principal and interest up to May 2, 1862, when bonds matured $10,710 54 
 
 * Some coupons lost from this bond. 
 
 The total principal is thus seen to be $6,950, and the total interest up to 
 May 2, 1862 (the date of the maturity of the bonds), $3,760 54. We have 
 made a careful comparison of these bonds with the numbers of those paid 
 at Washington and by the State, and are satisfied that none of them have 
 ever been paid, with the exception of Bond No. 347, issued April 15, 1854. 
 
308 
 
 By reference to the official list in Appendix, it will be seen that the General 
 Government has redeemed a bond of that number and denomination. We 
 do not know of any duplicate having been authorized by statute for this 
 bond, nor does the register give more than the one number. In fact, the 
 bond here corresponds exactly with that set out in the bond register. Both 
 are for the same number and denomination, and both purport to have been 
 issued to D. B. Kurtz, on the fifteenth of April, 1854. The question arises, 
 how did this bond get here? Setting aside the improbability of any one 
 counterfeiting the bond and all of its indorsements, including that of Kurtz, 
 and the fact of its never having been in the office of the Third Auditor — 
 for it lacks the indorsement of the War Debt Commissioners — we are driven 
 to the supposition that the number three hundred and forty-seven in the 
 official list is a clerical error. At all events the bond is here, and bears 
 every evidence of genuineness. 
 
 Our examination of Bond No. 433, for $100, disclosed the following singu- 
 lar state of facts: It appears that two bonds of $100 each, numbered 432 
 and 433, were issued to A. W. Bee by Act of the Legislature approved 
 May 14, 1862 (page 554 of Statutes), in lieu of Bonds Nos. 344 and 345 
 that had been issued November 24, 1854, and that there is no record of 
 any bond for $100 numbered 433 having been issued on June 21, 1856. Of 
 course, this bond could not be one of those issued to Bee, because his bonds 
 were issued in 1862, and were to bear the same date, by the terms of the 
 statute, as those bonds which he was to surrender, viz. : November 24, 1854. 
 The suspicion attached to this bond is not relieved by the fact of its lack- 
 ing the seal of the Treasurer, which its fellows exhibit; but as the genuine- 
 ness of the bond will have to be passed upon in the process of funding, we 
 deem it unnecessary to discuss the matter further. 
 
 If payment were made of the bonds above tabulated, there would still be 
 outstanding of the bonds of 1851, $3,000, being three bonds numbered 107, 
 108, and 142, and of the bonds of 1852, $7,750. As one half of these latter 
 ($3,800) belong to the old issue of 1852, and were not presented to the War 
 Debt Commissioners, and as but $1,350 of these have ever been presented 
 to the Legislature, and none of them were laid before the Board of Ex- 
 aminers, it is but fair to presume that nearly half of the bonds of 1852, 
 still outstanding, will never be brought forward for payment. 
 
 Deeming the following table may be of some service, we have taken the 
 pains to construct it, premising that the " old issue " of 1852, comprises 
 those bonds that were issued prior to January 1, 1854, and the " new issue," 
 the bonds that were issued after that time: 
 
 Old issue of 1852 $595,950 00 
 
 Paid by Government of principal $590,800 00 
 
 Paid by State, 1868-70, of principal 1,350 00 
 
 $592,150 00 
 
 Outstanding $3,800 00 
 
 New issue of 1852 $40,400 00 
 
 Paid bv Government of principal $7,650 00 
 
 Paid by State. 1865-66, of principal 20,950 00 
 
 Paid by State, 1867-68, of principal 900 00 
 
 $29,500 00 
 
 Outstanding .-- $10,900 00 
 
 The amount of the detached coupons is given by the Commissioners at 
 $172,828 54, and by Adjutant-General Kibbe at $127,196 23. How General 
 Kibbe arrives at these latter figures he does not tell us, nor do we deem it 
 material to ascertain, even if we could do so. The Commissioners' figures 
 
809 
 
 are adhered to in all of the official reports; and hesides, as many years 
 have elapsed since the coupons were detached, your committee doubt if 
 more than three fourths of them could be presented in shape for payment. 
 The whole indebtedness may be tabulated as follows: 
 
 Bonds of 1851, of principal $3,000 00 
 
 Bonds of 1852 (new issue), of principal-.. 10,900 00 
 
 Bonds of 1852 (old issue), of principal.. 3,800 00 
 
 Detached coupons and certificates of indebtedness 172,828 54 
 
 Total - --. $190,528 54 
 
 This amount will, of course, be somewhat greater when there is added to 
 it the interest on the bonds to their maturity, but for reasons heretofore 
 given we are convinced that many of the evidences of indebtedness will 
 never be presented, and that the sum of $190,000 is considerably more than 
 the State will ever be called upon to pay. 
 
 The Redemption Registers in the Treasurer's office we found to be as 
 incomplete as they are stated to be by the Board of Examiners, but it will 
 be an easy matter, by means of the official lists above referred to, to correct 
 and complete them. The want of that information which these lists furnish 
 seems to have been the motive that determined the conclusion of the Board 
 of Examiners, it being deemed that this information could only be procured 
 on the personal application of an agent of the State. After this determina- 
 tion, however, some of the claimants succeeded, after a delay of some 
 months, in obtaining those official lists of which we have made such good 
 use, and which we beg leave to append to this report as an appendix. 
 
 RECOMMENDATION. 
 
 The committee would therefore recommend in conclusion that the whole 
 indebtedness be funded, the Funding Act to provide for the issue of bonds 
 of the State to the amount of $190,000, with interest at the rate of seven per 
 cent per annum. A tax of three fourths of a cent on each $100 will be amply 
 sufficient for the purpose; indeed, this rate will doubtless prove to be too 
 high in the course of a few years. 
 
 Thus, for an insignificant tax, would the State be finally relieved of an 
 obligatory indebtedness that has vexed her for years, and her people receive 
 yet another illustration of that nice sense of right which is no less necessary 
 to the honor of a commonwealth than it is to that of an individual. 
 
 GEORGE C. PERKINS, 
 JOHN McMURRY, 
 WILLIAM MINIS, 
 HENRY LARKIN, 
 STEPHEN WING, 
 
 Senate Committee. 
 
 E. B. MOTT, Jr., 
 JACOB WELTY, 
 W. N. DE HAVEN, 
 ROBERT BELL, 
 J. H. COOPER, 
 P. B. BACON, 
 W. A. ALDRICH, 
 
 Assembly Committee. 
 
310 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 LIST 
 
 Of the Calif ornia' twelve per cent War Bonds paid by the United States under the Smith and 
 Denver Commission, said Bonds being for the amount of One Thousand Dollars {^1,00U) eachy 
 and with interest upon the Coupo7is up to the first day of January, 1S54- 
 
 Number and Date of Bond. 
 
 Number and Date of Bond. 
 
 Number and Date of Bond. 
 
 Number and Date of Bond. 
 
 1 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 51 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 122 
 
 April 21, 1851. 
 
 172 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 2 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 1 
 
 52 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 123 
 
 April 21, 1851. 
 
 173 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 3 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 53 
 
 April 1. 1851. 
 
 124 
 
 April 21, 1851. 
 
 174 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 4 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 54 
 
 April i; 1851. 
 
 125 
 
 April 21, 1851. 
 
 175 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 6 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 55 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 126 
 
 April 21, 1851. 
 
 176 
 
 July 25. 1851. 
 
 6 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 56 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 127 
 
 April 21, 1851. 
 
 177 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 7 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 57 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 128 
 
 April 21, 1851. 
 
 178 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 8 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 58 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 129 
 
 April 21, 1851. 
 
 179 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 9 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 59 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 130 
 
 April 21, 1851. 
 
 180 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 10 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 60 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 131 
 
 May 24, 1851. 
 
 181 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 11 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 61 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 132 
 
 May 24, 1851. 
 
 182 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 12 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 62 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 133 
 
 May 24, 1851. 
 
 183 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 13 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 63 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 134 
 
 Ma'y 24, 1851. 
 
 184 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 14 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 64 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 135 
 
 May 24, 1851. 
 
 185 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 15 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 65 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 136 
 
 May 24, 1851. 
 
 186 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 16 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 66 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 137 
 
 May 24, 1851. 
 
 187 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 17 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 *67 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 138 
 
 May 24,1851. 
 
 188 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 18 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 68 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 139 
 
 May 24, 1851. 
 
 189 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 19 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 69 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 140 
 
 May 24, 1851. 
 
 190 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 20 
 
 April 1, 
 
 1851. 
 
 70 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 141 
 
 May 24, 1851. 
 
 191 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 21 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 71 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 143 
 
 May 21, 1851. 
 
 192 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 22 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 72 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 144 
 
 May 24, 1851. 
 
 193 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 23 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 73 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 145 
 
 May 24, 1851. 
 
 194 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 24 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 *74 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 14() 
 
 May 24, 1851. 
 
 195 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 25 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 75 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 147 
 
 May 24, 1851. 
 
 193 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 26 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 76 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 148 
 
 May 24, 1851. 
 
 197 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 27 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 77 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 149 
 
 May 24, 1851. 
 
 198 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 28 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 78 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 150 
 
 May 24, 1851. 
 
 199 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 29 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 79 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 151 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 22() 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 30 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 80 
 
 April 1, 1851. 
 
 152 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 227 
 
 JulV 25, 1851. 
 
 31 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 101 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 
 153 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 228 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 32 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 102 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 
 154 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 229 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 33 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 103 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 
 155 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 230 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 *34 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 104 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 
 156 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 231 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 35 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 105 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 
 157 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 232 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 3B 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 lOJ 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 
 158 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 233 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 37 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 109 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 
 159 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 234 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 38 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 110 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 
 160 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 235 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 39 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 111 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 
 161 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 236 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 40 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 112 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 
 162 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 237 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 41 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 113 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 
 163 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 238 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 *42 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 114 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 
 164 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 239 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 43 
 
 Apr'il 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 115 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 
 165 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 240 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 44 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 116 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 
 166 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 241 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 45 
 
 April 1 
 
 , 1851. 
 
 117 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 
 167 
 
 June 10, 1851- 
 
 242 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 46 
 
 April 1 
 
 1851. 
 
 118 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 
 168 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 June 10, 1^51. 
 
 243 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 47 
 
 April 1 
 
 , 1851. 
 
 119 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 
 169 
 
 244 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 48 
 
 April 1 
 
 , 1851. 
 
 120 
 
 April 11, 1851. 
 
 170 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 245 
 
 July 25, 1851. 
 
 49 
 
 April 1 
 
 , 1851. 
 
 121 
 
 April 21, 1851 
 
 171 
 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 268 
 
 April 8, 1852. 
 
 50 
 
 April 1 
 
 , 1851. 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 * These so noted were paid as duplicates in lieu of the original bonds. 
 
 Third Auditor's Office, December 21, 1871. 
 A true list. 
 
 VANDOREN, Clerk. 
 
311 
 
 LIST OF SEVEN PER CENT CALIFORNIA WAR BONDS PAID BY 
 THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 First — Bonds with interest upon the coupons up to the first of January, 
 1854: 
 
 One thousand dollar bonds, numbers one to three hundred and forty-one, 
 inclusive. 
 
 Five hundred dollar bonds, numbers one to ninety, inclusive. 
 
 Five hundred dollar bonds, numbers ninety-two to one hundred and 
 eighty-five, inclusive. 
 
 Five hundred dollar bonds, numbers one hundred and eighty-seven to 
 three hundred and six, inclusive. 
 
 Five hundred dollar bonds, numbers three hundred and eight to three 
 hundred and ninety-nine, inclusive. 
 
 Two hundred and fifty dollar bonds, numbers one to sixty-eight, inclusive. 
 
 Two hundred and fifty dollar bonds, numbers seventy to one hundred 
 and five, inclusive. 
 
 One hundred dollar bonds, numbers one to one hundred and fourteen, 
 inclusive. 
 
 One hundred dollar bonds, numbers one hundred and sixteen to one 
 hundred and thirty-one, inclusive. 
 
 One hundred dollar bonds, numbers one hundred and sixty-four to two 
 hundred and eighteen, inclusive. 
 
 One hundred dollar bonds, numbers two hundred and twenty to two hun- 
 dred and sixty-seven, inclusive. 
 
 One hundred dollar bonds, numbers two hundred and seventy-two to two 
 hundred and ninety-six, inclusive. 
 
 Second — Bonds bearing date subsequent to the first day of January, 1854, 
 with coupons paid to the first day of July, 1860. 
 
 Five hundred dollar bonds, numbers four hundred and three, four hun- 
 dred and nine, four hundred and ten, four hundred and eleven, and four 
 hundred and thirteen. 
 
 Two hundred and fifty dollar bonds, numbers one hundred and eight, 
 one hundred and nine, one hundred and ten, one hundred and twenty-one, 
 and one hundred and twenty-two. 
 
 Two hundred and fifty dollar bonds, numbers one hundred and twenty- 
 three, one hundred and twenty-four, one hundred and twenty-five, one 
 hundred and twenty-six, one hundred and forty, and one hundred and 
 forty-nine. 
 
 One hundred dollar bonds, numbers three hundred and two, three hun- 
 dred and twenty-four, three hundred and twenty-five, three hundred and 
 twenty-six, three hundred and thirty-four, three hundred and thirty-five, 
 three hundred and thirty-six, three hundred and thirty-seven, three hun- 
 dred and thirty-eight, three hundred and thirty-nine, three hundred and 
 forty-two, three hundred and forty-three, three hundred and forty-four, 
 three hundred and forty-five, three hundred and forty-six, three hundred 
 and forty-seven, three hundred and fifty, three hundred and fifty-seven, 
 three hundred and fifty-eight, three hundred and fifty-nine, three hundred 
 and sixty-six, three hundred and seventy, three hundred and seventy-five, 
 and three hundred and seventy-six. 
 
 WM. THEO. VANDOREN, Clerk. 
 Third Auditor's Office, January 10, 1872. 
 
312 
 
 [Extract from Report of Adjutant-General Geo. B. Cosby.] 
 
 I desire to invite your attention to the fact that much time and labor 
 has been devoted in this office during the last two years to hunting up the 
 various reports, vouchers, etc., pertaining to war claims of California, against 
 the United States, arising from the various Indian wars within, and upon 
 the borders of this State, also during the late civil war. The papers relat- 
 ing especially to the Indian wars have been laying in the State offices 
 for more than thirty years. There can be no doubt that the money 
 actually expended by California in these wars constitutes a just claim 
 against the United States, yet for many years all efforts and hope seemed 
 to have been abandoned, and the documents referred to regarded as 
 scarcely more valuable than waste paper. A large amount of time and 
 arduous labor has been devoted to preparing these claims for presentation 
 to the proper authorities at Washington City by Captain John Mullan, 
 State Agent and Counsel, acting therein under his contract with the State. 
 There now seems to be a favorable prospect of securing from the United States 
 for the State of California, a recognition and payment of these several claims. 
 The details concerning their character and amounts, and the steps taken 
 to secure payment are set forth in an elaborate report thereon, made by 
 him to your Excellency on the first of November, 1886, and to which I ask 
 especial attention. In view of the matter therein contained, I now respect- 
 fully recommend that the proceeds arising from these claims, after pay- 
 ment shall have been made of all outstanding valid indebtedness for which 
 such proceeds have been heretofore dedicated by law, may be reserved as 
 a special military fund, and to be used exclusively for such legitimate 
 wants as pertain to the permanent and efficient maintenance of the National 
 Guard and of the soldiers' home for the disabled veterans of the volunteers 
 from this State. The persistent labor and intelligent efforts of Captain 
 Mullan in behalf of these claims deserve great consideration. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 3. 
 
 JOINT RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO THE WAR DEBT. 
 
 [Approved March 1, 1853.] 
 
 Resolved by the Senate and Assembly, ^ That the Board of Examiners of 
 the accounts and vouchers for expenses incurred by this State for the sup- 
 pression of Indian hostilities, are hereby directed to make out and present 
 to the Legislature a statement of said accounts, together with all the cor- 
 respondence and circumstances relating to the origin, prosecution, and con- 
 clusion of the Indian wars in this State, prosecuted by authority of the 
 same; and generally such information as may be proper to be submitted 
 to the Congress of the United States, in order that the debt thus assumed 
 by this State, and the bonds issued thereupon, may be provided for by the 
 General Government, in such manner and with such promptitude as is 
 demanded by the merits of the claim and the right of protection in such 
 cases. 
 
 (Laws of California 1853, page 310.) 
 
313 
 
 14. RESOLUTION RELATIVE TO BALANCE OF WAR DEBT. 
 
 Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That our Senators in 
 Congress are hereby instructed, and our Representatives be requested, to 
 use their exertions to obtain from the Government of the United States an 
 appropriation of two hundred thousand six hundred and seventy-five dol- 
 lars and eighty-eight cents, the surplus of our war indebtedness, over and 
 above the amount heretofore appropriated by Congress for that purpose, to 
 be applied toward the liquidation of the balance of the war debt of this 
 State, incurred in the suppression of Indian hostilities within our borders. 
 
 Resolved, That his Excellency the Governor be and he is hereby required 
 to transmit a copy of this resolution to our Senators and Representatives 
 in Congress at an early day. 
 
 (Statutes of California 1856, page 243.) 
 
 NO. XXV. 
 
 Concurrent resolution relative to the passage of a law, by Congress, maJcing 
 appropriation for the payment of bonds authorized to be issued for the pay- 
 ment of Indian hostilities. 
 
 [Passed April 17, 1858.] 
 
 Resolved l)y the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate concurring, 
 That our Senators be instructed, and our Representatives in Congress 
 requested, to use their influence to procure the passage of a law making an 
 appropriation sufficient for the payment of the bonds authorized to be issued, 
 by this State, for the suppression of Indian hostilities within her bounds, 
 for the payment of which no provision has been made, and of the expenses 
 incident thereto. 
 
 Resolved, That the Governor of this State be and he is hereby requested 
 to furnish our Senators and Representatives in Congress with a statement 
 of the amount of such bonds authorized to be issued under any law of this 
 State, and the incidental expenses connected therewith, and, also, copies of 
 these resolutions. 
 
 (Statutes of California 1858, page 358.) 
 
 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1. 
 
 [Passed January 11, 1859.] 
 
 Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring. That our Senators at 
 Washington be instructed, and our Representatives in Congress be re- 
 quested, to urge upon Congress the immediate payment of the Indian war 
 debt due to citizens of this State. 
 
 Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded by his Excellency, 
 the Governor, to each of our Senators and Representatives, with as little 
 delay as possible. 
 
 (Statutes of California 1859, page 381.) 
 
 State of California, Department of State. 
 
 I, Thomas L. Thompson, Secretary of State of the State of California, 
 do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the annexed copy of Con- 
 
314 
 
 current Resolution No. 1, passed by the Legislature of the State of Califor- 
 nia on January 11, 1859, with the original now on file in my office, and 
 that the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof. 
 Also, that this authentication is in due form and by the proper officer. 
 
 Witness my hand and the Great Seal of State, at office in Sacramento, 
 California, the third day of January, A. D. 1885. 
 
 [SEAL.] * THOMAS L. THOMPSON, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 By A. E. Shattuck, Deputy. 
 
 NO. XXX— CONCURRENT RESOLUTION. 
 
 [Passed April 18, 1859.] 
 
 Resolved by the Assembly^ the Senate concurring^ That the Quartermaster 
 and Adjutant-General of this State be and he is hereby requested to for- 
 ward to the War Department at Washington, and to the Congress of the 
 United States, on or before the first day of January next, all the original 
 vouchers for claims for expenses incurred by the various wars and expedi- 
 tions against the Indians of this State (now unpaid) up to the present date, 
 whether held by the State of California or any citizen thereof, with a view 
 of inducing immediate assumption of the same by the General Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 (Statutes of California 1859, page 395.) 
 
 NO. XXXIV.— CONCURRENT RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO 
 
 THE WAR DEBT. 
 
 [Passed April 10, I860.] 
 
 Resolved hy the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That his Excellency,, 
 the Governor, is hereby directed to have made out, in duplicate, a complete 
 statement of the expenses incurred by citizens of this State in the suppres- 
 sion of Indian hostilities, which have been recognized by legislative action, 
 and which have not been assumed and paid by the General Government; 
 together with such of the correspondence and information relating to the 
 origin, prosecution, and termination, of the several Indian wars, waged by 
 authority of this State, as may be proper to submit to the Congress of 
 the United States, in asking payment therefor; which statement, corre- 
 spondence, and information, shall be presented to the next Legislature of 
 this State, which is to meet on the first Monday in January, one thousand 
 eight hundred and sixty-one. 
 
 (Statutes of California 1860, page 422.) 
 
 NO. XXXVL— CONCURRENT RESOLUTION. 
 
 [Passed April 18, I860.] 
 
 Whereas, A bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives, 
 providing for the assumption of the Indian war debt of the State of Cali- 
 fornia by the General Government; therefore, be it 
 
315 
 
 Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That his Excellency, the 
 Governor of California, be requested to transmit at his earliest convenience, 
 to our Members in Congress, the original vouchers upon which this debt is 
 predicated, together with the record of the action thereon by the Board of 
 Examiners of War Claims, whether the said claims are held by the State 
 of California, or by citizens thereof. 
 
 (Statutes of CaHfornia 1860, page 423.) 
 
 NO. XXXIV.— CONCURRENT RESOLUTION. 
 
 [Adopted May 3, 18G1.] 
 
 Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That our Senators in 
 Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested, to procure, at 
 as early a day as practicable, an appropriation to meet the expenses of the 
 Volunteers under the command of Colonel John C. Hays, for services, and 
 all claims justly chargeable to the Federal Government, in the late Indian 
 war in- Utah Territory. 
 
 (Statutes of California 1861, page 680.) 
 
 NO. XXXIX.— CONCURRENT RESOLUTION. 
 
 [Adopted February 8, 1862.] 
 
 Whereas, The citizens of this State, upon the Indian frontier, have been 
 exposed to the depredations of hostile Indians since the settlement of 
 California by the whites, and have suffered severe losses of property by 
 tribes under the control of the Federal Government (and with whom 
 treaties of peace have been made), such as the destruction of horses, build- 
 ings, bridges, ferries, and other property, and in having stock and other 
 property of various descriptions stolen; therefore, 
 
 Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring. That our Senators in 
 Congress be instructed, and our Representatives be requested, to use their 
 exertions to secure the passage of an Act by Congress directing the appoint- 
 ment, by the President of the United States, of a Commissioner, whose 
 session shall be held at some convenient point or points in this State, and 
 who shall be authorized and required to collect proof relative to the losses 
 sustained by our citizens, as aforesaid, and report the same to the Secre- 
 tary of the Interior, to be by him submitted to Congress. 
 
 Resolved, That his Excellency, the Governor, be requested, at an early 
 day, to forward copies of the foregoing preamble and resolutions to our 
 Senators and Representatives in Congress. 
 
 (Statutes of California 1862, page 611.) 
 
 NO. XIV— CONCURRENT RESOLUTION. 
 
 [Adopted April 12, 1862.] 
 
 Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly co7icurring, That the Adjutant- 
 General of this State is hereby instructed to forward to the Third Auditor 
 of the Treasury Department of the United States, for settlement, all addi- 
 tional vouchers (original) representing claims for supplies furnished any of 
 
316 
 
 the expeditions against the Indians of this State, for the payment of which 
 Congress made an appropriation by Act of March second, eighteen hundred 
 and sixty-one. 
 
 (Statutes of California 1862, page 604.) 
 
 NO. XIV— CONCURRENT RESOLUTION. 
 
 [Adopted March 5, 1863.] 
 
 Whereas, Many citizens of this State, in the years eighteen hundred and 
 fifty-nine and eighteen hundred and sixty, were employed in the service of 
 the United States by the agents of the Indian Department, and others 
 furnished the agents of Government with supplies for the several Indian 
 reservations in California, upon the assurance and belief that the accounts 
 therefor would be speedily paid, which has not to the present time been 
 done; and, whereas, there is now an unexpended balance in the Treasury 
 of the United States of the appropriation for defraying the expenses of the 
 Indian service in this State, and which is applicable to the accounts men- 
 tioned, and which has been withheld from the objects intended by the 
 Congress making said appropriation; therefore, be it — 
 
 Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That our Senators be 
 instructed and our Representatives requested to urge on the proper author- 
 ities in Washington a prompt examination and settlement of the accounts 
 aforesaid. 
 
 Resolved, That the Governor be requested to transmit a copy of the fore- 
 going to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, to the 
 Secretary of the Interior, and to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 
 
 (Statutes of California 1863, page 783.) 
 
 NO. XII— CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS. 
 
 [Adopted February 6, 1864.] 
 
 Whereas, A devastating and relentless Indian war has been and is still 
 being waged in certain counties in the northern portion of this State, the 
 extent of which has never been fully known to the people in other portions 
 of the State, nor properly considered by those whose duty it was to afford 
 us protection at a time when a small force, judiciously managed, could have 
 so disposed of those Indians as to have effectually prevented the present 
 lamentable condition of the counties of Humboldt, Klamath, and Trinity; 
 and, whereas, in the counties above named there are no less than fifteen 
 hundred Indian warriors, many of whom are well armed with rifles, shot- 
 guns, and revolvers, and as they are almost daily adding to their stock of 
 arms and ammunition, by murdering defenseless miners, farmers, and 
 traders, and are successfully encouraging a general uprising of Indians 
 which the whites had hoped would remain quiet for the present, and as the 
 people of the entire counties of Humboldt, Klamath, and Trinity are, to a 
 great extent, at the mercy of the savages, the military force at present in 
 that district being entirely inadequate for the protection of the citizens, and 
 owing to the peculiar natural advantages which the Indians in that district 
 possess over the whites, in the adaptation of that mountainous region for 
 the prosecution of their cowardly mode of warfare, it becomes necessary to 
 operate against them in the Winter season; and as they have already des- 
 
317 
 
 troyed about one eighth of the taxable property of Humboldt County, and 
 entirely depopulated large portions of Trinity and Klamath Counties, hav- 
 ing murdered no less than seventy-five valuable citizens, and in some cases 
 women and children in so doing; and, whereas, it is well known that the 
 Indians are preparing for a war of extermination and extended operations 
 in the Spring, which they will be able to carry on to a frightful extent if 
 they are not checked immediately; therefore. 
 
 Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That his Excellency, the 
 Governor, be requested to use his best endeavors to have a sufficient num- 
 ber of troops sent to the scene of hostilities immediately as will give secu- 
 rity to what few lives and little property that may be left, and if possible 
 avert a more extended field of blood and rapine, which the savages are 
 preparing for, and prevent, if possible, other counties, which are now con- 
 sidered out of danger, from being overrun by hostile savages. 
 
 And be it further resolved, That if the military commander of this divis- 
 ion cannot furnish the requisite number of troops to restore this valuable 
 portion of our State to the peaceable possession of the whites, and throw a 
 proper safeguard around them for the future, then his Excellency is hereby 
 requested to lay our grievances before the Secretary of War, through our 
 Representatives in Congress, to the end that our now deplorable and immi- 
 nently dangerous future may be properly cared for. 
 
 (Statutes of California, page 544.) 
 
 NO. XVIII— MEMORIAL CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF 
 DAMAGES BY THE UNITED STATES DONE BY INDIANS 
 IN 1861, 1862, AND 1863, IN THE COUNTIES OF HUMBOLDT, 
 TRINITY, KLAMATH, DEL NORTE, ETC. 
 
 [Adopted March 27, 1868.] 
 
 The Memorial of the Legislature of the State of California to the Congress 
 of the United States of America respectfully represents: 
 
 That the United States Government has failed, in the years of our Lord 
 eighteen hundred and sixty-one, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, eighteen 
 hundred and sixty-three, and eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to protect 
 the citizens of Humboldt, Klamath, Del Norte, and Trinity from the violence 
 of the Indians of that quarter of the State, and that many lives were lost 
 during the period named of some of the best citizens of the State, for which 
 recompense is not possible. 
 
 It is further represented that during the time named a large amount of 
 property was destroyed by these Indians. It is believed that the property so 
 lost was of the value of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. 
 
 This memorial respectfully asks that steps be authorized and taken by 
 the General Government to ascertain the amount of property so destroyed 
 in the period named, with the names of owners, date of destruction, and 
 other proper information relative thereto, to the end that the parties in 
 interest may be reimbursed. 
 
 The direct proof of what is here alleged can be easily afforded, but a 
 difficulty is felt in having no tribunal or authority to take such proof. 
 
 (Statutes of CaHfornia 1867-68, page 739.) 
 
318 
 CHAP. LIV— ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION No. -73. 
 
 [Adopted March 30, 1878.] 
 
 Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate concurring, 
 First, that our Senators be instructed, and our Representatives requested, to 
 urge upon Congress the immediate payment of all bonds, coupons, and 
 certificates of coupons, issued by the State of California for expenses in- 
 curred in the Indian wars, which have not been paid by the General Gov- 
 ernment; Second, that his Excellency, the Governor, be requested to cause 
 a statement of all such bonds, certificates, and coupons, and of the circum- 
 stances connected therewith, to be prepared by the Controller, and upon 
 such statement being prepared, to cause an application to be made to Con- 
 gress, in the name of the State of California, for the payment of said bonds, 
 coupons, and certificates; Third, and that he forward a copy of these resolu- 
 tions to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress. 
 
 (Statutes of California 1877-8, page 1083.) 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 Mr. President: The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred Sen- 
 ate Bill No. 59, "An Act entitled an Act to provide for paying certain 
 demands issued on the faith and credit of the State, which became due 
 and payable on the second day of May, A. D. 1862, and to contract a funded 
 debt for that purpose," have had the same under consideration, and ask 
 leave to report: 
 
 That they find there is now outstanding about $220,000 of the old Indian 
 war debt, evidenced by and consisting of war bonds and coupons, for the 
 payment of which the faith and credit of the State has been pledged, as 
 will fully appear by an Act passed May 2, 1852, and other Acts supple- 
 mental thereto, under which said bonds were issued. 
 
 That said bonds, by the terms of said Acts, became due and payable on 
 the second day of May, 1862, and no provision has been made for the pay- 
 ment thereof. The holders of said bonds and coupons have applied to 
 former Legislatures to provide some way for the settlement of the aforesaid 
 indebtedness, and your committee have carefully examined the proceedings 
 of the various committees to whom the matter has heretofore been referred, 
 and have been unable to discover any well founded objection to any part 
 of this claim; on the contrary, all the arguments which have been adduced, 
 based upon facts, militate strength in favor of the justice thereof. 
 
 In 1862 the subject was discussed by Governor Downey in his annual 
 message, in which he says, after summing up the total amount of this 
 indebtedness — making it $218,468 54: 'These bonds mature in 1862; the 
 faith of the State is pledged to their payment, and if Congress will not 
 assume this debt, as it properly should, the State ought to make provisions 
 for its liquidation" — which part of the Governor's message was referred to a 
 select committee of the Assembly, who, after a thorough examination of 
 the subject, reported a bill similar to the one which your committee have 
 considered, and recommended its passage. 
 
 Said special committee consisted of the present Lieutenant-Governor of 
 the State, the present Attorney-General, and Messrs. Hillyer, Morrison, and 
 Worthington. 
 
 The holders of these bonds and coupons claim that they were entitled to 
 
319 
 
 the money therefor when the same become due, but owing to the embar- 
 rassed condition of the finances of the State, they have been and now are 
 wilUng to accept bonds of the State therefor, as provided in the bill 
 referred to your committee. 
 
 Your committee is of the opinion that the settlement of these claims with 
 the holders cannot longer be delayed without great injury to the credit and 
 a serious violation of the faith of the State, which has been uncondition- 
 ally and unqualifiedly pledged for their redemption. 
 
 Therefore they report back the bill and recommend its passage. 
 
 JOHN P. JONES, Chairman. 
 GEORGE S. EVANS, 
 W. E. LOVETT, 
 
 Of the Committee. 
 
 INDIAN WAR CLAIMS. 
 
 The Treasurer last year reported the amount allowed by the United 
 States, and to be paid this State upon Indian war claims, to be two hun- 
 dred and twenty-nine thousand nine hundred and eighty-seven dollars and 
 sixty-seven cents ($229,987 67) ; and the Treasurer, at the same time, 
 reported the contract with Wells, Fargo & Co. for bringing that sum of 
 money to California, and he advised the Governor and the Legislature, that 
 in case the United States should pay in legal tender notes, insurance 
 upon the same during their transmission from New York would be neces- 
 sary. 
 
 The United States having paid in notes, it was agreed that Wells, Fargo 
 & Co. should have and might make a claim against the State for such 
 amount as they paid for insurance. 
 
 Wells, Fargo & Co, have received $229,987 67 
 
 And charged for services $2,299 87 
 
 For insurance, four per cent.. 9.198 51 
 
 — $11,498 38 
 
 Leaving a balanceof $218,489 29 
 
 This amount was paid to the State in notes, while Wells, Fargo & Co. 
 retain the amount of their charge, eleven thousand four hundred and ninety- 
 eight dollars and thirty-eight cents ($11,498 38), subject to final settlement 
 with the State. 
 
 War bonds and certificates have been presented for payment, to date, to 
 the amount of one hundred and ninety-two thousand ibwo hundred and 
 eighty-eight dollars and fifty cents ($192,288 50), which have been surren- 
 dered for the sum of one hundred and two thousand one hundred and sixty- 
 six dollars and sixty-two cents ($102,166 62), being the amount allowed by 
 the United States thereon, less the five per cent deducted under the Act of 
 the Legislature of April ninth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two. 
 
 Paid to claimants ..$102,166 62 
 
 Five per cent retained 5,377 54 
 
 Balance in fund for redemption of bonds and certificates, exclusive of said five 
 percent 45,905 26 
 
 Against the retaining said five per cent many of the claimants have pro- 
 tested on the ground that the State had no right to reduce the amount 
 allowed them by the United States, or to subject any portion of it to the use 
 of the State. The validity of this reason seems hardly open to question, 
 but the law has been complied with, and the five per cent retained. 
 
320 
 
 The smallness of the exaction from each of the claimants may induce 
 them in the main to avoid the expenses of prosecuting the matter; still the 
 subject should receive the attention of the Legislature, as it hardly befits 
 the State to exact the five per cent, when the bond guarantees to the holder 
 whatever may be allowed by the United States. 
 
 The war debt of the State may now be summed up as follows: 
 
 Old war debt, as per statement included in report (see Exhibit O) $218,468 54 
 
 Amount of bonds issued under the Act of 1857 354,475 19 
 
 Certificates and audited accounts not bonded 75,000 GO 
 
 Cash paid by California 156,207 85 
 
 $804,151 58 
 The net amount received into the State Treasury from the United States Gov- 
 ernment, $218,149 67 will extinguish 426,866 89 
 
 Making the total Indian war debt $377,284 69 
 
 Of this amount only two hundred and eighteen thousand four hundred 
 and sixty-eight dollars and fifty-four cents ($218,468 54), is properly 
 chargeable as State debt. 
 
 There have been so many references, by the Governor and other State 
 officers of California in the various State papers, to the various phases of 
 these California war claims, that I can only refer to them generally, and 
 hence among other record refer to them as follows, to wit: 
 
 Page 12, et seq., Senate Journal (fourth session), 1853. 
 
 Pages 13, 39, and 459, Senate Journal (fifth session), 1854. 
 
 Pages 62 to 69, 331 to 333, and 371, Senate Journal (sixth session), 1855.. 
 
 Pages 25, 361, 407, and 597, Assembly Journal (sixth session), 1855. 
 
 Pages 27, and 226 to 232, Senate Journal (seventh session), 1856. 
 
 Page 384, Assemby Journal (seventh session), 1856. 
 
 Pages 29, 36, and 37, Senate Journal (eighth session), 1857. 
 
 Pages 63, 69, 302, 303, 314, and 467, Senate Journal (ninth session), 1858. 
 
 Page 43, Assembly Journal (tenth session), 1859. 
 
 Pages 35 and 665, Senate Journal (tenth session), 1859. 
 
 Page 406, Senate Journal (eleventh session), 1860. 
 
 Page 594, Senate Journal (twelfth session), 1861. 
 
 Pages 23 to 27, and 34, Senate Journal (thirteenth session), 1862. 
 
 Page 32, Senate Journal (fourteenth session), 1863. 
 
 Page 37, Assembly Journal (seventeenth session), 1867-1868. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 4. 
 
 Forty-seventh Congress, first session. S. R. 10. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. December 12, 1881. 
 
 Mr. Grover asked and by unanimous consent obtained leave to bring in 
 the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
 Committee on Military Affairs: 
 
 JOINT RESOLUTION 
 
 To authorize the Secretary of War to ascertain and report to Congress the 
 amount of money expended and indebtedness assumed by the State of 
 Oregon in repelling invasions^ suppressing insurrection and Indian hos- 
 tilities, enforcing the laws, and protecting the public property. 
 
 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
 of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War be and he 
 
321 
 
 is hereby authorized and directed to cause to be examined and adjusted 
 all the accounts of the State of Oregon against the United States for money 
 expended and indebtedness assumed in organizing, arming, equipping, 
 supplying clothing, subsisting, transporting, and paying either the volun- 
 teer or militia forces, or both, of said State called into active service by the 
 Governor thereof after the fifteenth day of April, eighteen hundred and 
 sixty-one, to aid in repelling invasions, suppressing insurrections and Indian 
 hostilities, enforcing the laws, and protecting the public property in said 
 State and upon its borders, except during the Modoc war. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the Secretary of War shall also examine and adjust the 
 accounts of the State of Oregon for all other expenses necessarily incurred 
 on account of said forces having been called into active service as herein 
 mentioned, including the claims assumed or paid by said State to encour- 
 age enlistments, and for horses and any other property lost or destroyed 
 while in the line of duty by said forces; provided, that in order to enable 
 the Secretary of War to fully comply with the provisions of this Act, there 
 shall be filed in the War Department, by the Governor of said State or a 
 duly authorized agent, an abstract, accompanied with proper certified copies 
 of vouchers or such other proof as may be required by said Secretary, 
 showing the amount of all such expenditures and indebtedness, and the 
 purposes for which the same were made. 
 
 Sec. 3. That the Secretary of War shall report in writing to Congress, 
 at the earliest practicable date, for final action, the results of such examin- 
 ation and adjustment, together with the amounts which he may find to 
 have been properly expended for the purposes aforesaid. 
 
 Forty-seventh Congress, first session. S. R. 13. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. December 13, 1881. 
 
 Mr. Fair asked and by unanimous consent obtained leave to bring in the 
 following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Military Affairs: 
 
 JOINT RESOLUTION 
 
 To authorize the Secretary of War to ascertain and report to Congress the 
 amount of money expended and indebtedness assumed by the State of 
 Nevada in repelling invasions, suppressing insurrection and Indian hos- 
 tilities, enforcing the lavjs, and protecting the public property. 
 
 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
 of America, in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of War be and he is 
 hereby authorized and directed to cause to be examined and adjusted all 
 the accounts of the State of Nevada against the United States for money 
 expended and indebtedness assumed in organizing, arming, equipping, 
 supplying, clothing, subsisting, transporting, and paying either the volun- 
 teers or militia, or both, of the late Territory of Nevada and of the State of 
 Nevada, called into active service by the Governor of either thereof after 
 the fifteenth day of April, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, to aid in repel- 
 ling invasions, suppressing insurrections and Indian hostilities, enforcing 
 the laws, and protecting the public property in said Territory and said 
 State, and upon the borders of the same. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the Secretary of War shall also examine and adjust the 
 21"^ 
 
322 
 
 accounts of the late Territory of Nevada and of the State of Nevada for all 
 other expenses necessarily incurred on account of said forces having been 
 called into active service as herein mentioned, including the claims assumed 
 or paid by said Territory and said State to encourage enlistments, and for 
 horses and other property lost or destroyed while in the line of duty of said 
 forces; provided, that in order to enable the Secretary of War to fully 
 comply with the provisions of this Act, there shall be filed in the War 
 Department, by the Governor of Nevada or a duly authorized agent, an 
 abstract, accompanied with proper certified copies of vouchers or such other 
 proof as may be required by said Secretary, showing the amount of all such 
 expenditures and indebtedness, and the purposes for which the same were 
 made. 
 
 Sec. 3. That the Secretary of War shall report in writing to Congress, 
 at the earliest practicable date, for final action, the results of such examin- 
 ation and adjustment, together with the amounts which he may find to 
 have been properly expended for the purposes aforesaid. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 5. 
 
 Forty-seventh Congress, first session. S. 1673. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. April 11, 1882. 
 Mr. Grover, from the Committee on Military Aff'airs, reported the follow- 
 ing bill, which was read the first and second times by unanimous consent: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to examine and report to Congress 
 the amount of all claims of the States of Texas, Oregon, and Nevada, and 
 the Territories of Washington and Idaho, for money expended and indebt- 
 edness assumed by said States and Territories in repelling invasions and 
 suppressing Indian hostilities.. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury is hereby authorized and directed, with the aid and assistance of the 
 Secretary of War, to cause to be examined and investigated all the claims 
 of the States of Texas, Oregon, and Nevada, and the Territories of Wash- 
 ington and Idaho, against the United States of America, for moneys 
 alleged to have been expended and for indebtedness alleged to have been 
 assumed by said States and Territories in organizing, arming, equipping, 
 supplying, clothing, subsisting, transporting, and paying the volunteer and 
 military forces of said States and Territories called into active service by 
 the proper authorities thereof, between the fifteenth day of April, in the 
 year eighteen hundred and sixty-one and the date of this Act, to repel 
 invasions and to suppress insurrections and Indian hostilities in said States 
 and Territories and upon their borders, including all proper expenses nec- 
 essarily incurred by said States and Territories on account of said forces 
 having been so called into active service as aforesaid, and also all proper 
 claims paid or assumed by said States and Territories for horses and 
 equipments actually lost by said forces while in the line of duty in active 
 service (excepting and excluding therefrom any claim said State of Ore- 
 gon may have for money expended and indebtedness assumed or incurred 
 in suppressing Modoc Indian hostilities during the Modoc Indian war, and 
 
323 
 
 in defending that State from invasion by said Indians during the years 
 eighteen hundred and seventy-two and eighteen hundred and seventy- 
 three, which were submitted to and passed upon, by either approval or 
 rejection, by Inspector-General James A. Hardie, United States Army). 
 Said accounts for and on behalf of said State of Texas shall be confined 
 to claims arising since the twentieth day of October, eighteen hundred 
 and sixty-five, and for and on behalf of said Territories of Idaho and 
 Washington for said claims arising in the years eighteen hundred and 
 seventy-seven and eighteen hundred and seventy-eight. 
 
 Sec. 2. That no higher rate shall be allowed for the services of said 
 forces, and for supplies, transportation, and other proper expenses, than 
 was allowed and paid by the United States for similar services in the same 
 grade and for the same time in the United States Army serving in said 
 States and Territories, and for similar supplies, transportation, and other 
 proper expenses during the same time furnished the United States Army 
 in the same country; and no allowance shall be made for services of such 
 forces except for the time during which they were engaged in active ser- 
 vice in the field ; and no allowance shall be made for the services of any 
 person in more than one capacity at the same time, or for any expend- 
 itures for which the Secretary of War shall decide there was no necessity 
 at the time and under all the circumstances. 
 
 Sec. 3. That to enable the said officers to make the examination and 
 investigation herein authorized, the Governors of the said States and Ter- 
 ritories, respectively, or their duly authorized agents, shall file with the 
 Secretary of the Treasury abstracts and statements of all such claims by 
 said States and Territories, showing the amounts of such expenditures 
 and indebtedness and the purposes for which they were made, and accom- 
 panied with proper vouchers and evidence. 
 
 Sec. 4. That the Secretary of the Treasury shall, at the earliest practi- 
 cable time, report to Congress for final action the results of such examina- 
 tion and investigation, and the amount or amounts found to have been 
 properly expended for the purposes aforesaid; provided, that whenever the 
 examination of the accounts of any State or Territory hereinbefore men- 
 tioned shall have been completed, the same shall be separately reported to 
 Congress, without reference to the final examination of the accounts of 
 any other State or Territory. 
 
 Sec. 5. That any military services performed and expenditures on ac- 
 count thereof incurred during the Territorial organization of Nevada, and 
 paid for or assumed by either said Territory or said State of Nevada, shall 
 be also included, and examined, and reported to Congress in the same 
 manner as like services and expenditures shall be examined and reported 
 for the State of Nevada. 
 
 Forty-seventh Congress, first session. Senate. Report No. 575. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. May 12, 1882 — Ordered to be printed, 
 Mr. Grover, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the fol- 
 lowing 
 
 KEPORT. 
 
 [To accompany bill S. 1673.] 
 
 The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom were referred Senate Bill 
 1144, and Senate Joint Resolutions 10 and 13, " to authorize an examination 
 
324 
 
 and adjustment of the claims of the States of Kansas, Nevada, Oregon, 
 and Texas, and of the Territories of Idaho and Washington, for repelling 
 invasions and suppressing insurrections and Indian hostilities therein," sub- 
 mit the following report: 
 
 OREGON. 
 
 It appears by the report of the Adjutant-General, United States Army, 
 of April 3, 1882, that one regiment of cavalry, one regiment of infantry, 
 and one independent company of cavalry were raised in the State of Oregon 
 during the late war of the rebellion, and that the expenses incident thereto 
 have never been reimbursed said State by the United States; and that the 
 claims therefor have never been heretofore presented by said State for 
 audit and payment by the United States, as per report of the Secretary of 
 War of April 15, 1882, and of the Third Auditor of the Treasury of April 8, 
 1882. Under Section 3489 of the Revised Statutes, the claim for expendi- 
 tures so incurred by said State cannot now be presented for audit and pay- 
 ment without legislation by Congress. In addition thereto there are some 
 unadjusted claims of said State growing out of the Bannock and Umatilla 
 Indian hostilities therein in 1877 and 1878, evidenced by a communication 
 of the Secretary of War, of date last aforesaid, and some unadjusted 
 balances pertaining to the Modoc war, not presented for audit to General 
 James A. Hardie, approximating the sum of $5,000. 
 
 NEVADA. 
 
 It appears by the report of the Adjutant-General, United States Army, 
 of February 25, 1882, that one regiment of cavalry and one battalion of 
 infantry were raised in the late Territory of Nevada during the late war of 
 the rebellion, and that the expenses of raising, organizing, and placing in 
 the field said forces were never paid by said Territory, but were assumed 
 and paid by the State of Nevada, and that none of said expenses so incurred 
 by said Territory, and assumed and paid by said State, have ever been 
 reimbursed the State of Nevada by the United States, and that no claims 
 therefor have ever been heretofore presented by either said Territory or said 
 State for audit and payment by the United States. Under Section 3489 
 of the Revised Statutes, hereinbefore referred to, the payment of these 
 claims is barred by limitation. 
 
 These forces were raised to guard the overland mail route and emigrant 
 road to California, east of Carson City, and to do other military service in 
 Nevada, and were called out by the Governor of the late Territory of 
 Nevada upon requisitions therefor by the Commanding-General of the 
 Department of the Pacific, and under authority of the War Department, as 
 appears by copies of official correspondence furnished to your committee by 
 the Secretary of War and the General commanding the Division of the 
 Pacific; and it further appears that there are some unadjusted claims of the 
 State of Nevada for expenses growing out of the so called White River 
 Indian war of 1875, and aggregating $17,650 98, and of the so called Elko 
 Indian war of 1878 therein, and aggregating $4,654 64, and which sums, it 
 appears by the official statement of the Controller of said State of Nevada, 
 were expended and paid out of the Treasury of said State. 
 
 TEXAS. 
 
 The unadjusted claims of the State of Texas, provided for by this bill, 
 are those which accrued subsequent to October 14, 1865. These have been 
 
325 
 
 heretofore the subject-matter of much correspondence between the State 
 authorities of Texas and the authorities of the United States, and have 
 several times received the partial consideration of both branches of Con- 
 gress, but without reaching any finality, never having been audited or fully 
 examined, and consequently no payment on account thereof has been made. 
 
 These claims are referred to in Senate Ex. Doc. No. 74, second session 
 Forty-sixth Congress, and in the executive documents therein cited. 
 
 It appears by the official correspondence exhibited in the document 
 referred to, and copies of official correspondence from the State authorities 
 of Texas, and submitted to your committee, that the expenses for which 
 the State of Texas claims reimbursement were incurred by the authorities 
 thereof under its laws, and for the proper defense of the frontier of said 
 State against the attacks of numerous bands of Indians and Mexican 
 marauders. These claims approximate the sum of $1,027,375 67, and were 
 incurred between October 14, 1865, and August 31, 1877. 
 
 WASHINGTON AND IDAHO. 
 
 The volunteer troops in Washington and Idaho were in the field during 
 Indian hostilities in 1877 and 1878, in said Territories, by orders of the 
 local authorities thereof. While these volunteers were not mustered into 
 the regular service of the United States Army, they were attached to the 
 command of United States troops in the Department of the Columbia, and 
 acted with said troops, rendering valuable and faithful services during 
 said wars, under the orders and immediate command of officers of the 
 Kegular Army of the United States, as appears by copies of orders in the 
 hands of your committee. 
 
 The obligation of the General Government to defend each State is 
 acknowledged to be included in the Constitutional obligation to maintain 
 the " common defense,^^ by a long series of Acts of Congress making appro- 
 priations to cover the expenses of States and Territories of the Union which 
 have raised troops and have incurred liabilities in defending themselves 
 against Indian hostilities and other disturbances. 
 
 The bill herewith reported provides for an examination of the claims and 
 accounts of the States and Territories therein named by the Secretary of 
 the Treasury, acting in connection with the Secretary of War, and that 
 they report the amount of money necessarily expended and indebtedness 
 properly assumed in organizing, supplying, and sustaining volunteers and 
 militia called into active service by each of them in repelling invasions 
 and suppressing Indian hostilities therein, during the periods named. 
 
 This bill is carefully guarded against the assumption by the United 
 States of unnecessary liabilities, and fixes the pay of volunteers and mili- 
 tia of these several States and Territories on the basis of the pay of regular 
 troops. 
 
 Your committee therefore report the present original bill as a substitute 
 for Senate Bill 1144 and Senate Joint Resolutions 10 and 13, which hereto- 
 fore have been under consideration by said committee, having the same 
 objects as provided for by this bill, and recommend its passage. 
 
326 
 EXHIBIT No. 6. 
 
 Public— No 125. 
 
 AN ACT 
 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to examine and report to Congress 
 the amount of all claims of the States of Texas, Colorado, Oregon, Nebraska^ 
 California, Kansas, and Nevada, and the Territories of Washington and 
 Idaho, for money expended and indebtedness assumed, by said States and 
 Territories in repelling invasions and suppressing Indian hostilities, and 
 for other purposes. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 is hereby authorized and directed, with the aid and assistance of the Secre- 
 tary of War, to cause to be examined and investigated all the claims of the 
 States of Texas, Colorado, Oregon, Nebraska, California, Kansas, and Ne- 
 vada, and the Territories of Washington and Idaho, against the United 
 States of America, for moneys alleged to have been expended and for in- 
 debtedness alleged to have been assumed by said States and Territories in 
 organizing, arming, equipping, supplying, clothing, subsisting, transporting^ 
 and paying the volunteer and military forces of said States and Territories 
 called into active service by the proper authorities thereof, between the fif- 
 teenth day of April, in the year 1861, and the date of this Act, to repel inva- 
 sions and Indian hostilities in said States and Territories and upon their 
 borders, including all proper expenses necessarily incurred by said States 
 and Territories on account of said forces having been so called into active 
 service as aforesaid, and also all proper claims paid or assumed by said States 
 and Territories for horses and equipments actually lost by said forces while 
 in the line of duty in active service (excepting and excluding therefrom any 
 claim said State of Oregon may have for money expended and indebted- 
 ness assumed or incurred in suppressing Modoc Indian hostilities during 
 the Modoc Indian War, and in defending that State from invasion by said 
 Indians during the years 1872 and 1873, which were submitted to and 
 passed upon, by either approval or rejection, by Inspector-General James 
 A. Hardie, United States Army). Said accounts for and on behalf of said 
 State of Texas shall be confined to claims arising since the twentieth day 
 of October, 1865, and shall include the necessary expenses of defense 
 against Mexican raids or invasions as well as those for defense against 
 Indian hostilities, and for, and on behalf of, said Territories of Idaho and 
 Washington for said claims arising in the years 1877 and 1878. 
 
 Sec. 2. That no higher rate shall be allowed for the services of said 
 forces, and for supplies, transportation, and other proper expenses, than was 
 allowed and paid by the United States for similar services in the same 
 grade and for the same time in the United States Army serving in said 
 States and Territories, and for similar supplies, transportation, and other 
 proper expenses during the same time furnished the United States Army 
 in the same country; and no allowance shall be made for services of such 
 forces except for the time during which they were engaged in active service 
 in the field ; and no allowance shall be made for the services of any person 
 in more than one capacity at the same time, or for any expenditure for 
 which the Secretary of War shall decide there was no necessity at the time 
 and under all the circumstances. 
 
327 
 
 Sec. 3. That to enable the said officers to make the examination and 
 investigation herein authorized, the Governors of the said States and Terri* 
 tories, respectively, or their duly authorized agents, shall file with the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, abstracts and statements of all such claims by 
 said States and Territories, showing the amounts of such expenditures and 
 indebtedness, and the purposes for which they were made, and accompanied 
 with proper vouchers and evidence. 
 
 Sec. 4. That the Secretary of the Treasury shall, at the earliest prac- 
 ticable time, report to Congress for final action the results of such examina- 
 tion and investigation, and the amount or amounts found to have been 
 properly expended for the purposes aforesaid ; provided, that whenever the 
 examination of the accounts of any State or Territory hereinbefore men- 
 tioned shall have been completed, the same shall be separately reported 
 to Congress without reference to the final examination of the accounts of 
 any other State or Territory. 
 
 Sec. 5. That any military services performed and expenditures on ac- 
 count thereof, incurred during the Territorial organization of Nevada, and 
 paid for or assumed by either said Territory or said State of Nevada, shall 
 be also included, and examined and reported to Congress in the same 
 manner as like services and expenditures shall be examined and reported 
 for the State of Nevada. 
 
 Approved June 27, 1882. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 7. 
 
 State of California, Executive Department, 
 Sacramento, Cal., March 31, 1884. 
 
 In addition to the claims due the State of California from the United 
 States enumerated in the preamble to Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 
 20, and adopted by the Legislature of California on March 3, 1883, Captain 
 John Mullan, of San Francisco, California, now residing at Washington 
 City, D. C, is hereby appointed agent and attorney to represent the interest 
 of the State of California before the proper authorities of the United States 
 at Washington City, D. C, in the matter of all moneys or balances that 
 have been paid, or which remain due and to be or liable to be paid in whole 
 or in part by the State of California, on account of any Indian war bonds 
 or coupons issued by the State of California under the authority of the 
 Legislature thereof, in its Acts approved fifteenth February, 1851, third 
 May, 1852, and twenty-fifth April, 1857, respectively, for the suppression 
 of Indian hostilities within said State, for the purpose of recovering from 
 the United States for the State of California a sum equivalent thereto in 
 payment or satisfaction of the whole thereof; together with all interest which 
 is now or which may hereafter become due, payable, or allowed thereon, or 
 on any part thereof, by the United States; and also, to recover from the 
 United States all interest that is now or which may hereafter become due, 
 payable, or allowed by the United States to the State of California, on 
 account of any part of the money expended or liabilities assumed by this 
 State on account of the war of the rebellion. 
 
 The compensation of Captain Mullan for his services in the foregoing 
 named matters is fixed at twenty per cent of the moneys that may be col- 
 lected by him or paid to the State of California in any of these premises. 
 Provided, however, that this State shall not in any event become liable for 
 any expenses, fees, or salaries of any nature whatever other than such 
 contingent commission. 
 
328 
 
 This appointment and commission shall be subject to the ratification of 
 ihe Legislature, otherwise to be void. 
 
 GEORGE STONEMAN, 
 Governor of California. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 8. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 Senate Concurrent Resolution No. S, relative to directing the Governor to fix 
 the com'pensation for services rendered by Captain John Mullan, in collec- 
 tions of claims due the State of California from the United States. 
 
 [Adopted March 3, 1885.] 
 
 Whereas, The Governor and State Surveyor-General of this State, 
 respectively, have heretofore appointed Captain John Mullan, of San Fran- 
 cisco, California, agent and attorney to represent the State of California 
 before the proper authorities of the United States, at Washington, D. C, 
 in the matter of the claims of the State of California against the United 
 States, growing out of past Indian hostilities, and for interest on moneys 
 heretofore expended by this State on account of military operations herein 
 and borders hereof, and in recovering all land fees heretofore illegally paid 
 to the United States by this State; and whereas, in pursuance of Concur- 
 rent Resolution Number Twelve, adopted February twenty-sixth, eighteen 
 hundred and eighty-one, and in pursuance of Assembly Joint Resolution 
 Number Thirty, adopted March ninth, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, 
 James E. Hale and Thomas M. Nosier were duly appointed and commis- 
 sioned agents on behalf of the State of California and the Governor thereof, 
 by themselves and their duly constituted agents, to collect from the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States the cost, charges, and expenses properly 
 incurred by the State of California for enrolling, subsisting, clothing, sup- 
 plying, arming, equipping, paying, and transporting its troops employed in 
 aiding to suppress the insurrection against the United States; and whereas, 
 said James E. Hale and Thomas M. Nosier have duly constituted said 
 Captain John Mullan their agent and attorney, in pursuance of the fore- 
 going authority conferred on them, in their names, places, and stead, to 
 demand and receive all said moneys from said Government of the United 
 States, and in and about the said premises to act as their agent therein; 
 therefore, be it 
 
 Section 1. Resolved by the Senate of California, the Assembly concurring, 
 That the appointments so conferred upon Captain John Mullan by the 
 Governor and Surveyor-General, respectively, are hereby ratified and con- 
 firmed, and the Governor of this State be and he is hereby authorized and 
 directed to fix the compensation for the services by Captain John Mullan 
 heretofore and that may be by him hereafter rendered, at twenty per cent 
 of each of the sums or claims that may be by him collected from the United 
 States, and to pay to him such per cent out of the moneys that may be 
 collected by him and paid to this State on account of each of the foregoing 
 matters respectively; provided, however, that this State shall not, in any 
 event, become liable for any expenses, fees, and salaries of any nature 
 whatever, other than such contingent commission. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the proper State officers of the State of California be and 
 they are hereby authorized and directed to deliver to Captain John Mul- 
 lan, or to his authorized agent, all the original vouchers, certificates, and 
 
329 
 
 papers of every kind and nature relating to the claims of this State against 
 the Government of the United States for or on account of each of the fore- 
 going matters respectively, and also all Controller's warrants that have 
 been heretofore paid and canceled, and which may be needed to perfect 
 any of the claims of this State against the United States, represented by 
 him. 
 
 Sec. 3. That said State officers shall prepare and take from Captain 
 John Mullan, or from his authorized agent, a receipt in writing, bound in 
 a book same as they keep in their offices for all such papers as aforesaid, 
 and which shall show what the papers are in each case, the date thereof, 
 by what Board of Examiners passed, the amount and date of the warrant, 
 and in whose favor drawn. 
 
 JOHN DAGGETT, 
 
 President of the Senate. 
 
 W. H. PARKS, 
 
 Speaker of the Assembly. 
 
 Attest: THOS. L. THOMPSON, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 [Indorsed:] 
 
 Senate concurrent Resolution No. 3, passed the Senate February 25, 
 A. D. 1885. 
 
 EDWIN F. SMITH, 
 
 Secretary of the Senate. 
 
 Passed the Assembly February 26, A. D. 1885. 
 
 FRANK D. RYAN, 
 
 Clerk of the Assembly. 
 
 This resolution was received by the Governor this second day of March, 
 A. D. 1885. 
 
 W. W. MORELAND, 
 Private Secretary of the Governor. 
 
 State of California, | 
 
 Department of State. ) 
 
 I, Thos. L. Thompson, Secretary of State of the State of California, do 
 hereby certify that I have carefully compared the annexed copy of Senate 
 Concurrent Resolution No. 3, adopted by the Legislature of the State of 
 California at its twenty-sixth session, with the original now on file in my 
 office, and that the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole 
 thereof. Also, that this authentication is in due form and by the proper 
 officer. 
 
 Witness my hand and the Great Seal of State, at office in Sacramento, 
 California, the thirteenth day of March, A. D. 1885. 
 
 THOS. L. THOMPSON, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 By A. E. Shattuck, Deputy. 
 [seal.] 
 
330 
 EXHIBIT No. 9. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. Res. 172. Printer's No., 5692. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. February 25, 1884 — Read twice, refer- 
 red to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Rosecrans introduced the following joint resolution: 
 
 JOINT RESOLUTION 
 
 Amendatory of the Act of June twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and 
 eighty-two, entitled "An Act to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to 
 examine and report to Congress the amount of all claims of the States of 
 Texas, Colorado, Oregon, Nebraska, California, Kansas, and Nevada, and 
 the Territories of Washington and Idaho, for money expended and indebt- 
 edness assumed by said States and Territories in repelling invasion and 
 suppressing Indian hostilities, and for other purposes." 
 
 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
 of America^ in Congress assembled^ That the Act of Congress approved June 
 twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and eighty-two, entitled "An Act to 
 authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to examine and report to Congress 
 the amount of all claims of the States of Texas, Colorado, Oregon, 
 Nebraska, California, Kansas, and Nevada, and the Territories of Wash- 
 ington and Idaho, for money expended and indebtedness assumed by said 
 States and Territories in repelling invasion and suppressing Indian hostil- 
 ities, and for other purposes," be and the same is hereby amended by 
 striking out the words "April, in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-one,'^ 
 and inserting in lieu thereof the words "January, in the year eighteen hun- 
 dred and fifty-one." 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 10. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. House of Representatives. Report No. 807. 
 
 CLAIMS OF THE STATES OF TEXAS, COLORADO, OREGON, 
 NEBRASKA, CALIFORNIA, KANSAS, AND NEVADA, AND THE 
 TERRITORIES OF WASHINGTON AND IDAHO. 
 
 March 18, 1884 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
 the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Rosecrans, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the 
 following 
 
 REPORT. 
 [To accompany H. Res. No. 172.] 
 
 Your committee having had under consideration the above resolution^ 
 report as follows: 
 
 The Act which the joint resolution proposes to amend was passed as a 
 substitute for Senate Bills Nos. 1673, 1310, 1144, and 87, and Senate Joint 
 Resolution No. 10, upon which was made a favorable report. No. 133, Forty- 
 seventh Congress, and House Bills Nos. 422, 1688, 1908, 1909, 1936, and 
 3839, and House Joint Resolutions Nos. 27, 34, and 47, upon which was 
 made a favorable report. No. 141, Forty-seventh Congress. 
 
331 
 
 The date of April 15, 1861, was fixed as the earliest limit of the claims 
 in question, because said claims of the various States and Territories men- 
 tioned in the above bills and joint resolutions were on account of expendi- 
 tures subsequent to that date. It is only requisite to extend the benefits 
 of this Act to the State of California, whose expenditures were mostly, if 
 not altogether, during the ten years anterior to the date fixed therein. The 
 State of California had a bill for payment of the unpaid balance due her 
 for expenditures in Indian wars in 1851 and 1852, before the War Claims 
 Committee of the Forty-seventh Congress, upon which a favorable report 
 was made, but no further action taken, and consequently the name of the 
 State of California did not appear in this general bill as reported by the 
 Committee on Military Afi'airs. Subsequently, when the bill came to the 
 House, the name of California was inserted as an amendment, on motion 
 of one of the members of the California delegation who did not know that 
 the expenditures made by that State were prior to the date mentioned in 
 the bill (April 15, 1861). 
 
 From the report. No. 1847, Forty-seventh Congress, it will be seen that 
 California had established a claim which is not within the provisions of 
 this Act. It also appears from a letter of the Third Auditor, dated April 
 11, 1873 (see Appendix A), that Governor McDougal called into service a 
 battalion called the Mariposa Volunteers, for the purpose of suppressing 
 the insurrection of the Mariposa Indians, which was mustered into service 
 January 24, 1851, and served until July 25, 1851, the expense of which the 
 State assumed, but which in good conscience should have been paid by the 
 Government of the United States. It is also stated in a letter to the Chair- 
 man of this committee (see Appendix B) that the State in 1857 assumed, 
 by Act of the Legislature of April twenty-fifth, the payment of certain other 
 expenses for the suppression of Indian hostilities of a similar character but 
 of a small amount, the payment of which was provided for in 1862 ; but as 
 the expenses were incurred prior to 1861, California could not obtain relief 
 under the Act in question. 
 
 To give to California the benefits and advantages which the Act accords 
 to other States and Territories under like circumstances, it will be sufficient 
 to amend the Act by adding at the end of Section 1 of said Act — 
 
 "Provided that all such claims of the State of California arising on and 
 after the first day of January, 1851, shall be examined and investigated as 
 aforesaid." 
 
 Not doubting that California ought to be entitled to the benefits of the 
 Act the same as the other States specified therein, your committee recom- 
 mend that the joint resolution do pass. 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 Treasury Department, Third Auditor's Office, ) 
 Washington. D. C, April 11, 1873. j 
 Sir: In reply to your letter of, the nineteenth of March, addressed to the Secretary of 
 War, and referred to this office, I have to inform you that the battalion of Mariposa 
 Vols., under command of Maj. .Tames Savage, was in service from twenty-fourth of Jan- 
 uary, 1851, until twenty-fifth July, 1851. 
 
 The Captains commanding in the battalion were John Boling, William Dill, and John 
 J. Kuykendall. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 A. M. GANGEWER, 
 Acting Auditor. 
 E. J. Smith, Esq., No. 217 D street, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Appendix B. 
 
 Dear General: Permit me to call your attention to House Joint Resolution No. 172, 
 introduced February 25, 1884, and referred to your honorable Committee on Military 
 
332 
 
 Affairs, and to some of the reasons, in so far at least as same relates to the State of Cali- 
 fornia, why said resolutions should pass, to wit : 
 
 There are several instances wherein between the middle of January, 1851, and middle of 
 April, 1861, calls were made upon the citizens of California to organize themselves in said 
 State to suppress Indian hostilities, and for which the State of California incurred some 
 expense and liability, and for which there is not now any adequate legislation to reimburse 
 said State. Among other cases, 1 would cite that of the " Mariposa Battalion," called out 
 when. Governor McDougal was Governor of that State, about the middle of January, 1851, 
 and mustered into the service on the twenty-fourth day of January, 1851, and served from 
 January 24, 1851, to July 25, 1851, as per letter of Third Auditor of April 11, 1873, inclosed 
 as an exhibit. These volunteers provided their own horses and equipments. The camp 
 supplies and baggage-trains were furnished by the State of California. This military 
 force was called into existence by the State authorities, but its maintenance was at the 
 expense of the General Government. Maj. Ben. McCuUough was offered the command of 
 the battalion, but he declined it. 
 
 Such men in California at that time as James D. Savage volunteered and served as 
 Major; John J. Kuykendall, John Boling, and William Dill as Captains ; Reuben Chand- 
 ler, Gilbert, and Crawford as Lieutenants; A. Bronson and Lewis Leach as Surgeons, 
 and Drs. Pfifer and Black as Assistant Surgeons; with Barbour, Brinnell, McKee, Wozen- 
 craft, Hays, and other distinguished Calif ornians, many of whom are known to you. 
 Among others in said battalion were Col. Thomas Henley (father of Hon. Barclay Hen- 
 ley, your colleague now in Congress), Wm. B. Lewis, of Fresno, and W. J. Campbell of 
 Kings River, Tmare County, California, and others. 
 
 I also cite you the instances of the expenses incurred by the State of California in the 
 suppression of Indian hostilities in certain counties of California assumed by said State 
 April 25, 1857, and payment provided for May 21, 1862. So that the date of incurring such 
 expense was prior to April 15, 1861, but payment made by California subsequent to April 
 15, 1861, and which case, therefore, would not strictly come within the purview of the Act 
 of June 27, 1882, and which expenses have not yet been reimbursed said State by any ade- 
 quate provision by Congress. 
 
 While the expenses in these cases are not large, equity and good conscience both enjoin 
 that some ample legislative provision should be now made to fully meet the same. 
 
 In my judgment this resolution (H. Res. 172), if passed, will be ample to meet all such 
 cases. 
 
 The Act of Congress which your joint resolution seeks to amend has passed through the 
 careful scrutiny of both the Military Committee of the Senate and of the House and both 
 branches of Congress before it became a law, and hence it may be assumed to fully repre- 
 sent the views of Congress as to the principle and measure of relief to be granted said 
 States in said Act, and Resolution No. 172 is intended simply to change the date of April 
 15, 1861, in said Act, to January 15, 1851, so as to admit such cases as may exist in any of 
 said States between the two dates named in said resolution and of the classes as now pro- 
 vided for by law. 
 
 The history of the Act of June 27, 1882, now sought to be amended, might be appropri- 
 ately referred to by me with a view of stating to your honorable committee why the 
 fifteenth April, 1861, came to be named in said Act at all. 
 
 As State agent for Oregon and Nevada in December, 1881, I believe that under Section 
 3489 of the Revised Statutes the States of Oregon and Nevada could not recover from the 
 United States the expenses by them incurred during the war of the rebellion, 1861-'65, 
 without additional legislation, and because said two States had not then filed their claims 
 against the United States for the expenditure during the war of the rebellion and under 
 the Act of July 27, 1861. Whereupon, at my request, on December 10, 1881, Senator Grover 
 of Oregon, introduced in the Senate, Senate Joint Resolution No. 10 for Oregon (copy 
 inclosed herewith). On December 13, 1881, Senator Fair also introduced Senate Joint Reso- 
 lution No. 13 for Nevada (copy inclosed herewith); and on February 8, 1882, Senator 
 Plumb introduced Senate Bill No. 1144, which, while including both Oregon and Nevada, 
 also included Kansas, Texas, Idaho, and Washington Territories. (See copies inclosed 
 herewith.) But, as Senator Plumb had on December 5, 1881, introduced Senate Bill No. 
 87, which, like all the foregoing recited bills, were referred to the Senate Committee on 
 Military Affairs, said Senate Bill No. 87 was on February 7, 1882, reported back to the Senate 
 by Senator Cockrell in Senate Report No. 133, first session. Forty-seventh Congress, and 
 acted upon by the Senate as a separate measure (see copy of report that accompanied 
 said Senate Bill No. 87, herewith inclosed), and passed Senate thirtieth March, 1882. 
 
 Now, in none of these bills was any provision made for California, or any reference in 
 any thereof to said State. Thereafter, to wit, on May 12, 1882, Senator Grover reported 
 back a substitute (Senate No. 1673) for said Senate Resolution No. 10 and Senate Resolution 
 No. 13 and Senate bill No. 1144, and, as will appear from copy herewith inclosed, and of his 
 Report No. 575, first session. Forty-seventh Congress, and in which report he left out 
 Kansas, and because said State had been reported on as a separate measure, and acted on 
 separately, as before recited. 
 
 Now, in these Senate Joint Resolutions Nos. 10 and 13, without any particular attention 
 being paid to the date, reference was had more especially to the expenses incurred during 
 the war of the rebellion by Oregon and Nevada, and which expenses began on April 15, 
 1861; the date of April 15, 1861, named in said resolution, chanced thereby to become the 
 date named in Senator Grover's substitute. As this was being discussed in the Senate 
 (see Record, vol. No. 13, pages 6 to 8, first session. Forty-eighth Congress), it received sun- 
 
383 
 
 dry amendments, and by which Colorado, Nebraska, and California were included, and in 
 that shape it passed the Senate on eighth June, 1882. In the House there were also 
 sundry bills and resolutions introduced and to accomplish the same ends, and all referred 
 to your Military Committee, to wit: House Bills Nos. 422, 1688, 1908, 1909, 1936, and House 
 Resolutions Nos. 27 and 34, and for all of which Mr. Upson, from your Military Commit- 
 tee, on July 31, 1882, reported a substitute (H. R. No. 3839), with a report thereon (No. 141), 
 copies of all of which bills, resolutions, and reports are inclosed herewith. This House 
 substitute (No. 3839) was not acted on in the House, but when the aforesaid Senate Bill 
 No. 1673 (which passed the Senate) reached the House, the friends of the Senate Kansas 
 Bill (No. 87) sought to have said Senate bill, in which Kansas was not included, amended 
 so as to include Kansas; this amendment was made in the House on the twentieth day 
 of June, 1882 (see extract of Record, June 22, herewith); whereupon this Senate bill, so 
 amended, returned to the Senate for its concurrence, and it was concurred in by the Senate 
 on the twentieth day of June, 1882, and was approved and became the law on June 27, 
 1882; and which law House Resolution No. 172 seeks to amend simply by changing the 
 date named therein, and not otherwise. 
 
 This will account for the fact that no special attention was given to the date named 
 therein, April 15, 1861, and the manner in which California came in under its provisions. 
 The fact is that there have not been any Indian hostilities in (California since April 15, 1861, 
 but all occurred prior to that date, and unless said Act be amended as resolved in said 
 House Resolution No. 172, it is simply a dead letter to the State of California. The inten- 
 tion of Congress in said Act was to provide for all cases of the class named in said Act not 
 heretofore provided for, and if there be any cases named in said Act in the other States 
 enumerated in said Act, as I submit do now exist in the State of California, then there is 
 every good reason why said resolution should be unanimously and favorably recom- 
 mended for passage. 
 
 I therefore suggest in any case that it be enacted, even if its provisions be limited only 
 to the State of California. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 JOHN MULLAN. 
 State Agent for California. 
 
 Hon. W. S. Rosecrans, Chairman Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representa- 
 tives. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 11. 
 
 House of Representatives, U. S., 
 Washington, D. C, January 21, 1884. 
 
 Captain John Mullan, 1310 Conn. Avenue, Washington, D. C: 
 
 Dear Captain: I have received both your pamphlet and the certified 
 copies of the resolutions of the California Legislature. One copy of the 
 resolution was introduced and referred to the Committee on War Claims; 
 the other I have. You sent me two. Our committee has authorized me, 
 in my discretion, to facilitate the passage of Joint Resolution H. R. 172 by 
 smoothing the phraseology, and adding a mandate on the Secretary of 
 War to have an investigation made. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 W. S. ROSECRANS. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 11>^. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 50. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 10, 1883 — Read twice, 
 referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Rosecrans introduced the following bill: 
 
334 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To indemnify the State of California for balances paid and remaining due on 
 account of indebtedness incurred in the Indian wars in said State, for the 
 payment of which the State of California issued bonds in the year eighteen 
 hundred and sixty-two. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury- 
 be and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of Cahfor- 
 nia, or to her duly authorized agent, the sum of four thousand one hundred 
 and seventy-two dollars and fifty-six cents, being the amount of five bonds, 
 eight hundred and thirteen, eight hundred and fourteen, eight hundred 
 and fifteen, eight hundred and sixteen, and eight hundred and nineteen, 
 issued by the State of California on the twenty- first day of May, eighteen 
 hundred and sixty-two, in conformity with the Act of the Legislature of 
 said State authorizing the Treasurer thereof to issue bonds for the payment 
 of expenses incurred in the suppression of Indian hostilities in certain 
 counties of said State, approved April twenty-fifth, eighteen hundred and 
 fifty-seven, which amount is hereby appropriated out of any money in the 
 Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be paid said State, or to her duly 
 authorized agent, only upon the surrender of said bonds to the Secretary 
 of the Treasury. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 69. Printer's No., 69. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 10, 1883 — Read twice, refer- 
 red to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Rosecrans introduced the following bill: * 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To indemnify the State of California for balances paid and remaining due on 
 account of indebtedness incurred in the Indian wars, for the payment of 
 which said State issued bonds in eighteen hundred and fifty-one and eight- 
 een hundred and fifty-two, a part of which and of accrued interest thereon 
 remain unpaid owing to delays occasioned by War Department rulings, 
 under the Act of Congress of August fifth, eighteen hundred and fifty-four. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the sum of two hundred and 
 fifty thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary therefor, be 
 and the same is hereby appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury 
 not otherwise appropriated, to indemnify the State of California for balances 
 paid and remaining due and to be paid by said State on account of Indian 
 war bonds issued by said State under the Acts of the Legislature of eighteen 
 hundred and fifty-one and eighteen hundred and fifty-two, and accrued 
 interest thereon, recognized by the Act of Congress of August fifth, eighteen 
 hundred and fifty-four, but unpaid owing to delay due to War Department 
 rulings. 
 
 Sec. 2. That upon his draft the Secretary of the Treasury shall cause 
 the aforesaid sum to be paid over to the Treasurer of the State of Califor- 
 nia, who shall promptly apply the same to the payment of said balances 
 of indebtedness, and with least possible delay forward the vouchers there- 
 
335 
 
 for, accompanied by an abstract and account-current, and any balance of 
 said sum remaining unexpended and to be repaid, to the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, who, upon receipt thereof, after due verification of the same, shall 
 order the amount to be passed to the credit of said Treasurer of the State 
 of California, in final settlement of his accounts; provided, that the Gov- 
 ernor of said State, at the time of rendering said accounts, shall certify 
 upon said abstracts that the vouchers therein specified are accounts justly 
 due and paid by the State of California. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 6099. Printer's No., 6856. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. March 24, 1884 — Read twice, referred 
 to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To authorize and require the payment in cash to the State of California of 
 the sum of two hundred and nineteen thousand and seventy-five dollars and 
 ninety-eight cents, for moneys expended and liabilities assumed by said 
 State, to be paid by the United States, for the common defense, prior to 
 August thirty-first, eighteen hundred and sixty-one. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby authorized and required to pay to the State of Cali- 
 fornia, or to its authorized agent, out of any money in the Treasury not 
 otherwise appropriated, the sum of two hundred and nineteen thousand and 
 seventy-five dollars and ninety-eight cents in cash, which sum said State 
 expended or assumed to pay on account of services rendered and supplies 
 furnished to suppress Indian hostilities in certain counties of said State 
 prior to the thirty-first day of August, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, and 
 for which said State duly issued bonds, the amount of which have not yet 
 been fully paid by the United States to said State, or to the citizens thereof, 
 and which bonds the State of California promised to pay out of any money 
 to be appropriated by Congress for the payment of such expenses, and as 
 provided for by the Act of the Legislature of said State approved April 
 twenty-fifth, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, authorizing the Treasurer of 
 California to issue bonds for the payment of expenses incurred in the sup- 
 pression of Indian hostilities in certain counties of said State. 
 
 Sec. 2. That all laws or parts of laws, and all rulings or decisions of 
 any Department of the Government, or of any officer thereof, inconsistent 
 with the foregoing section, be and the same are hereby repealed and 
 annulled. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 6669. Printer's No., 7644. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. April 21, 1884 — Read twice, referred 
 to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
336 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To reappropriate the unexpended balance heretofore appropriated hy Congress 
 for the suppression of Indian hostilities in the State of California. 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the unexpended balance of 
 eight thousand three hundred and sixty-two dollars and sixteen cents of 
 the appropriation made by Congress August fifth, eighteen hundred and fifty- 
 four (10th Statutes, pages 582 and 583), and August eighteenth, eighteen 
 hundred and fifty-six (U. S. Statutes, vol. 11, page 91), for the suppression 
 of Indian hostilities in the State of California, and carried to the surplus 
 fund, be and the same is hereby re appropriate d ; and the Secretary of the 
 Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to pay the said sum to the 
 State of California upon the surrender by said State to said Secretary of 
 bonds and coupons issued by said State in part payment of said expenses, 
 which bonds and coupons have been redeemed and paid by said State in 
 said sum; and in the event that bonds and coupons so issued and redeemed 
 and paid by said State in said sum have been canceled and destroyed by 
 the authority of the Legislature thereof, then the aforesaid sum shall be 
 paid said State upon her furnishing the Secretary of the Treasury satis- 
 factory evidence that bonds and coupons so issued have been redeemed^ 
 paid, canceled, and destroyed to the amount of said unexpended balance, 
 under and by the authority of the Legislature of said State. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, second session. H. E,. 7975. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. January 19, 1885 — Read twice, refer- 
 red to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To indemnify the State of California on account of indebtedness incurred by 
 her in the Indian wars therein, and which has heretofore been paid by said 
 State. . 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of Cali- 
 fornia, or to her duly authorized agent, the sum of money heretofore paid 
 by the State of California in the redemption of the Indian war bonds issued 
 by said State under the Acts of her Legislature approved February fifteenth, 
 eighteen hundred and fifty-one, and May third, eighteen hundred and 
 fifty-two, and of the certificates of indebtedness issued in connection there- 
 with, on account of the suppression of Indian hostilities in said State prior 
 to January first, eighteen hundred and fifty-four, and which bonds and 
 certificates have heretofore been redeemed and paid by said State, together 
 with interest thereon at six per centum per annum from the dates of such 
 payment by said State, to the dates of the payment thereof by the United 
 States ; provided, that the sum to be so paid by the United States to said 
 State for the matters herein contained shall not exceed one hundred and 
 ten thousand nine hundred and forty-seven dollars and thirty-eight cents, 
 which amount is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury 
 
337 
 
 not otherwise appropriated, and to be paid to said State upon the surrender 
 by her, or by her duly authorized agent, of said bonds and of said certifi- 
 cates of indebtedness to the Treasury Department of the United States. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session, S. 809. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. December 19, 1883. 
 
 Mr. Miller of California asked and, by unanimous consent, obtained 
 leave to bring in the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 
 the Committee on Military Affairs. 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To indemnify the State of California for balances paid and remaining due 
 on account of indebtedness incurred in the Indian wars, for the payment of 
 which said State issued bonds in eighteen hundred and fifty-one and eighteen 
 hundred and fifty-tivo, a part of which remain unpaid owing to delays occa- 
 sioned by War Department rulings under the Act of Congress of August 
 fifth, eighteen hundred and fifty- four. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of Cali- 
 fornia, or her duly authorized agents, any sum found due, upon investiga- 
 tion, for balances alleged to have been paid and remaining due and to be 
 paid by said State on account of Indian war bonds issued by said State 
 under the Acts of the Legislature of eighteen hundred and fifty-one and 
 eighteen hundred and fifty-two, in the suppression of Indian hostilities 
 within the said State prior to the first of January, eighteen hundred and 
 fifty-four, and recognized by the Act of Congress of August fifth, eighteen 
 hundred and fifty-four; provided, that the sum so paid shall not exceed in 
 amount the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which amount 
 is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
 appropriated, and to be settled upon proper vouchers to be filed and passed 
 upon by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. S. 811. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. December 19, 1883. 
 
 Mr. Miller of California asked and by unanimous consent obtained leave 
 to bring in the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
 Committee on Military Aff'airs: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To indemnify the State of California for balances paid and remaining due 
 on account of indebtedness incurred in the Indian wars in said State, for 
 the payment of which the State of California issued' bonds in the year 
 eighteen hundred and sixty-two. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of Cali- 
 
 22 "^ 
 
338 
 
 fornia, or to her duly authorized agent, the sum of four thousand one hun- 
 dred and seventy-two dollars and fifty-six cents, being the amount of five 
 bonds, eight hundred and thirteen, eight hundred and fourteen, eight hun- 
 dred and fifteen, eight hundred and sixteen, and eight hundred and nine- 
 teen, issued by the State of California on the twenty-first day of May, 
 eighteen hundred and sixty-two, in conformity with the Act of the Legisla- 
 ture of said State authorizing the Treasurer thereof to issue bonds for the 
 payment of expenses incurred in the suppression of Indian hostilities in 
 certain counties of said State, approved April twenty-fifth, eighteen hun- 
 dred and fifty-seven, which amount is hereby appropriated out of any money 
 in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be paid said State, or to her 
 duly authoftzed agent, only upon the surrender of said bonds to the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. S. 1917. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. March 24, 1884. 
 Mr. Miller of California introduced the following bill, which was read 
 twice and referred to the Committee on INIilitary Affairs: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To authorize and require the payment to the State of California of the sum 
 of two hundred and forty-one thousand six hundred and twenty-five dollars 
 and eighty-tivo cents, for moneys expended and liabilities assumed by said 
 State for the common defense prior to September first, eighteen hundred and 
 fifty-six. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby authorized and required to pay to the State of Califor- 
 nia, or to its authorized State agent, out of any money in the Treasury not 
 otherwise appropriated, the sum of two hundred and forty-one thousand 
 six hundred and twenty-five dollars and eighty-two cents, in cash, which 
 sum said State expended or assumed to pay on account of services rendered 
 and supplies furnished for the suppression of Indian hostilities in said State 
 prior to September first, eighteen hundred and fifty-six, and for which said 
 State prior to said date duly issued bonds and coupons, the full amount of 
 which have not yet been paid by the United States to said State, or to the 
 citizens thereof, and which bonds and coupons were authorized to be issued 
 by the Acts of the Legislature thereof, approved February fifteenth, eighteen 
 hundred and fifty-one, and May third, eighteen hundred and fifty-two, 
 respectively, and as more particularly set forth in the report of the Con- 
 troller of said State to the Governor thereof under date of May twenty- 
 seventh, eighteen hundred and seventy-eight. 
 
 Sec. 2. That all laws or parts of laws, and all rulings or decisions of 
 any Department of the Government, or of any officer thereof, inconsistent 
 with the foregoing section, be and the same are hereby repealed and 
 annulled. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. S. 1970. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. April 1, 1884. 
 
 Mr. Groome introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
 referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 
 
339 
 
 A BILL 
 
 For the payment of certain coupons of certain Indian war bonds of the State 
 
 of California. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby directed to pay, out of the unexpended balance of an 
 appropriation of nine hundred and twenty-four thousand two hundred and 
 fifty-nine dollars and sixty-five cents made by the third section of the Act 
 of Congress, approved August fifth, eighteen hundred and fifty-four, the 
 sum of one thousand and ninety-two dollars, which last named amount is 
 hereby reappropriated, to the lawful holder of coupons three, four, and five 
 of two Indian war bonds numbered respectively one hundred and thirty- 
 four and one hundred and thirty-six, issued by the State of California 
 under the provisions of the Act of the Legislature thereof, approved May 
 third, eighteen hundred and fifty- two, for the suppression of Indian hostili- 
 ties therein, each of said bonds being for the sum of one hundred dollars, 
 and bearing interest at the rate of seven per centum per annum; and of 
 coupons three, four, and five of five other of said Indian war bonds num- 
 bered respectively one hundred and eighty-nine, one hundred and ninety, 
 two hundred and twenty-eight, two hundred and twenty-nine, and three 
 hundred and eleven, issued by said State under the provisions of said Act 
 of its Legislature, each of said last mentioned five bonds being for the sum 
 of one thousand dollars, and bearing interest at the rate of seven per 
 centum per annum; provided, that said coupons shall not be paid except 
 out of any amount remaining unapplied of the appropriation of nine hun- 
 dred and twenty-four thousand two hundred and fifty-nine dollars and 
 sixty-five cents heretofore made. . ' 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, second session. H, R. 8149. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. February 2, 1885 — Read twice, referred 
 to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To reappropriate the unexpended balance of an appropriation made by 
 
 former Acts of Congress. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and, House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the sum of eight thousand 
 three hundred and sixty-two dollars and sixteen cents, being an unex- 
 pended balance of an appropriation made by the Acts of Congress approved 
 August fifth, eighteen hundred and fifty-four, and August eighteenth, 
 eighteen hundred and fifty-six (United States Statutes, vol. 10, pages 
 582 and 583, and vol. 11, page 91), "to refund to the State of Cali- 
 fornia expenses incurred in suppressing Indian hostilities," which has 
 heretofore lapsed and been covered into the Treasury, be and the same is 
 hereby reappropriated; and the same shall be paid to the State of California 
 upon her surrendering to the Secretary of the Treasury the bonds and 
 coupons aggregating said sum, which have been heretofore redeemed and 
 paid by said State on account of the suppression of the hostilities named 
 
340 
 
 in said Acts; provided^ that the sums heretofore paid by the State of Cali- 
 fornia on account of said hostihties, which have not been heretofore repaid 
 by the United States, shall be refunded to said State, with interest at six 
 per centum per annum, from the dates of such payment by said State up 
 to the date of the passage of this Act, and to be paid out of any money in 
 the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, upon proper evidence of such pay- 
 ments by said State being furnished and filed by her with the Secretary 
 of the Treasury. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 12. 
 
 HOUSE BILL No. 50. 
 
 This bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Hon. W. 
 S. Rosecrans of California, on temth December, 1883, and referred to the 
 Committee on Military Affairs; and on ninth January, 1884, reference was 
 changed to the Committee on War Claims, and has for its object to grant 
 to the State of California a specific relief and as set forth in the title of 
 said bill. 
 
 A similar bill. No. 809, was also introduced in the Senate by Senator 
 Miller of California, on December 19, 1883, and was, on December 22, 1883, 
 referred by Honorable Senator S. B. Maxey, of the Committee on Military 
 Affairs, United States Senate, to the honorable Secretary of War, for a 
 report, and who, on January 24, 1884, in reply thereto, transmits a letter 
 from the honorable Third Auditor, of January 22, 1884, and which, by 
 order of the Senate, has been printed for the use of the Senate and House, 
 and constitutes Miscellaneous Senate Document No. 40, first session Forty- 
 vcighth Congress, and to which is appended a copv (in print) of said Sen- 
 ate Bill No. 809. 
 
 This report of said Third Auditor misapprehends the intentions and scope 
 of said bill, and fails to include and give to your honorable committee the 
 full information and facts and history of said matters, due, evidently, from 
 the fact that the same are not matters of record in the Third Auditor's 
 office. 
 
 This same subject was before the Forty-seventh Congress, and there intro- 
 duced by Hon. W. S. Rosecrans of California, in House Bill No. 2139, 
 
 session. Forty-seventh Congress, and referred to House Committee on War 
 Claims. 
 
 That committee, with all the facts before it, reported back, not the origi- 
 nal bill, but in lieu thereof, a substitute, to wit: H. R. No. 7241, copy of 
 which is attached hereto, and made a part hereof, and did accompany 
 same on January 11, 1883, with a full, detailed, and exhaustive report 
 thereon, to wit: House Report No. 1847, second session. Forty-seventh Con- 
 gress, copy of which is hereto attached, and made a part hereof, and in 
 which the history of the facts are set forth intelligently and fully, and 
 which justified the action of said committee in reporting back said substi- 
 tute, but which bill failed to be reached for action before the adjournment 
 of the Forty-seventh Congress. 
 
 Senate Bill No. 809, and House Bill No. 51, are exact verbatim copies of 
 said House substitute No. 7241, of the Forty-seventh Congress, and which 
 bill has again [on December 10, 1883] been introduced in the House by 
 Hon. W. S. Rosecrans of California, H. R. No. 51, and referred to the 
 honorable House Committee on Military Affairs, but which, on January 9, 
 1884, was, by order of the House rereferred to the honorable House Com- 
 mittee on War Claims, and before which the same is now pending. 
 
341 
 
 Wherefore, I now respectfully request that the honorable Committee on 
 War Claims of the House of Representatives will give full and due con- 
 sideration to said House Report No. 1847, herein referred and inclosed 
 herewith by copy, as embodying the history of the facts that justify the 
 legislation now asked for by California, and contained in the said House 
 Bill No. 51, and if necessary, I ask to be further heard in these premises. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Agent and Attorney for the State of California. 
 
 To the honorable Chairman, and members of the Committee on War 
 Claims, U. S. House of Representatives. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 13. 
 
 House of Representatives, U. S., | 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 6, 1885. j 
 
 To the members of the Committee on Appropriation, U. S. H. R.: 
 
 Gentleman: On February 3, 1885, I addressed the honorable Secretary 
 of the Treasury a letter, a copy of which is as follows, to wit: 
 
 House of Representatives, U. S., ) 
 
 . Washington, D. C, February 3, 1885. j 
 
 Hon. Secretary of the Treasury^ Washington, D. C. : 
 
 Sir: Please inform me, and immediately, if you can, what amount of the appropriation 
 made by Congress August 5, 1854, and August 18, 1856 (U. S. Statutes, vol. 10, page 582-3, 
 and vol. 11, page 91), " to refund to the State of California expenses incurred in suppressing 
 Indian hostilities," etc., has not been heretofore expended, but which has lapsed and been 
 carried into the Surplus Fund of the Treasury, and oblige, 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 BARCLAY HENLEY, 
 
 M. C. from California. 
 
 To this letter I received a reply, which is as follows, to wit: 
 
 Treasury Department. ) 
 February 5, 1885. ] 
 Hon. Barclay Henley, House of Representatives: 
 
 Sir: In reply to your letter of the third instant, asking what amount of the appropria- 
 tion made by Congress by the Acts of August 5, 1854, and August 18, 1856, " to refund to 
 the State of California expenses incurred in suppressing Indian hostilities," etc., remains 
 unexpended, I have to inform vou that it appears from the books of this department that 
 there is now in the Surplus ^und, of the moneys formerly appropriated for this object, 
 the sum of $8,357 16. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 H. Mcculloch, secretary. 
 
 And all of which I now submit to your committee in support of H. R. 
 No. 8149, by me, on February 2, 1885, introduced into the House, and by 
 'it referred to your committee for action. 
 
 I therefore have the honor to request that, in view of all the premises, 
 your honorable committee will at this session embody in your appropria- 
 tion bill making appropriations for the " Sundry Civil Expenses of the 
 Government," the contents and provisions of my said bill H. R. 8149, which 
 I submit, is in all respects meritorious and just, and that your favorable 
 consideration at this time of the matters therein contained, will be doing 
 an equity (though long delayed) to the State of California, which I, in 
 part, represent. 
 
342 
 
 The words " sixty-two," in line three of my said printed bill 8149, should 
 be changed so as to read " fifty-seven," and thereby tally with the said let- 
 ter of the honorable Secretary of the Treasury. 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 BARCLAY HENLEY, 
 M. C. from California. 
 
 AMENDMENT OF MR. HENLEY TO INDIAN APPROPRIATION 
 
 BILL, H. R. 5543. 
 
 At end of line insert as follows: (Page — .) 
 
 That the unexpired balance of eight thousand three hundred and fifty- 
 seven dollars and sixteen cents of the appropriation made by Congress, 
 August fifth, eighteen hundred and fifty-four (10 Stat. 582), as modified 
 by Acts of August 18, 1856 (11 Stat. 91), and June 23, 1860 (12 Stat. 104), 
 and July 25, 1868 (15 Stat. 175), and March 3, 1881 (21 Stat. 510), to 
 redeem California Indian war bonds issued for expenses in said State 
 incurred prior to January 1, 1854, and carried to the surplus fund, be and 
 the same is hereby reappropriated ; and the Secretary of the Treasury is 
 hereby authorized and directed to pay said sum to the State of California, 
 upon the surrender by her to said Secretary of bonds and coupons issued 
 by her in payment of said expenses, which have been heretofore redeemed 
 and paid by said State in said sum, and not heretofore paid by the United 
 States ; and the aforesaid sum shall be paid said State upon her furnishing 
 the Secretary of the Treasury satisfactory evidence that bonds and coupons 
 so issued have been redeemed, paid, and canceled by said State, under and 
 by the authority of the Legislature thereof, to the extent of said unex- 
 pended balance. 
 
 EXHIBIT No 14. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. Senate. Mis. Doc. No. 40. 
 
 LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF AVAR, 
 
 Transmitting a copy of the report of the Third Auditor of the Treasury 
 upon the bill (S. 809) to indemnify the State of California for balances paid 
 and remaining due on account of indebtedness incurred in the Indian wars. 
 January 25, 1884 — Reported by Mr. Maxey from the Committee on Mili- 
 tary Affairs, ordered to be printed, and recommitted. 
 
 War Department, \ 
 
 Washington City, January 24, 1884. j . 
 
 Sir: Referring to so much of your communication of December 22, 1883, 
 as requests information upon the subject of Senate Bill No. 809, " to indem- 
 nify the State of California for balances paid and remaining due on account 
 of indebtedness incurred in the Indian wars," etc., I have the honor, in 
 reply, to forward copy of the report of the Third Auditor of the Treasury, 
 dated the twenty-second instant, upon the bill, which it is hoped will aftbrd 
 the information desired. 
 
 A similar bill having been introduced in the House of Representatives, 
 
343 
 
 and the subject being one of considerable importance, I beg to request that 
 the letter of the Auditor may be printed. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 ROBERT T. LINCOLN, 
 
 Secretary of War. 
 
 Hon. S. B. Maxey, of Committee on Military Affairs, United States Senate. 
 
 Treasury Department, Third Auditor's Office, 
 WashingtoiN, D. C, January 22, 1884. 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to return ^^ * * -'A bill to indemnify the 
 State of California * * *," and the other papers referred to me by your 
 direction. 
 
 Notwithstanding the recitals in the bill, I am unable to perceive that 
 any part of the appropriation was due to the State, or that the non-payment 
 of the small balance of the appropriation was caused by " delays occasioned 
 by War Department rulings." On the contrary, the facts would seem to 
 be that the small unpaid balance belonged exclusively to the holders of the 
 yet outstanding California bonds, and that the sole reason for the non- 
 payment was the failure by a few of such holders to come forward and 
 present their bonds for payment. 
 
 A brief history of the legislation by Congress is as follows: 
 
 The original Act, August 5, 1854 (10 Stat., 582-583), directed the Secre- 
 tary of War to examine and ascertain the " amount of expense incurred 
 and now actually paid " by the State in the suppression of Indian hostili- 
 ties within the State prior to January 1, 1854, and to pay the amount so 
 ascertained into the State Treasury, but not to exceed $924,259 65. 
 
 But, as shown by correspondence, the State officials determined not to 
 present its claim as the law stood; and by Act of August 18, 1856, Sec. 8 
 (11 Stat. 91), the law was changed to provide that the appropriation should 
 be used to pay the holders of the war bonds which the State had issued on 
 account of such expenses. 
 
 An amendment was made by Act of June 23, 1860 (12 Stat., 104), but 
 it w^as of minor importance, and need not be now set out. 
 
 The holders of the great bulk of the bonds presented them within a short 
 time, and received payment. 
 
 A period of more than three years then elapsing without further calls, 
 the appropriation became by law " lapsed," and the unexpended balance, 
 $10,188 65, was therefore carried into the surplus fund. 
 
 Subsequently a few bonds, aggregating not over $2,500, were presented 
 to this office, but were returned, there being no fund for payment; and on 
 March 22, 1866, the Third Auditor recommended to the Secretary of War 
 to ask Congress to reappropriate said balance of $10,188 65. 
 
 By Act of July 25, 1868 (15 Stat, 175), a balance of $10,183 65 (five dol- 
 lars short) was reappropriated. Only one person, James Steele, presented 
 any bond, and he was paid $538 11. Again the appropriation "lapsed" 
 by want of calls upon it for a period of three years; and on July 1, 1874, 
 the balance, $9,645 52, was carried into the surplus fund. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1881 (21 Stat., pages 510-511), a sufficient amount 
 of the unexpended balance was reappropriated to pay the principal, with 
 interest to July 1, 1860, of four bonds described by denomination and serial 
 numbers; and payment was accordingly made to the owner, Frances D. 
 Bingham, in the sum of $1,288 36, leaving the balance now in the surplus 
 fund, $8,357 16. 
 
344 
 
 I do not know why Congress allowed interest to July 1, 1860, on Mrs. 
 Bingham's bonds. On the others interest was allowed to January 1, 1854; 
 as the appropriation, so I understand, would suffice for no more, having 
 been based upon the showing made by the State of the expense incurred 
 by it up to that date. 
 
 I fail to perceive that the State had any right in the unexpended balance. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 A. M. GANGEWER, Acting Auditor. 
 
 Hon. Robert T. Lincoln, Secretary of War. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. S. 809. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. December 19, 1883. 
 
 Mr. Miller of California asked and, by unanimous consent, obtained 
 leave to bring in the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 
 the Committee on Military Affairs: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 . To indewM'ify the State of California for balances paid and remaining due on 
 account of indebtedness incurred in the Indian wars, for the payment of 
 which said State issued bonds in eighteen hundred and fifty-one and eigh- 
 teen hundred and fifty-two , o, part of which remain unpaid owing to delays 
 occasioned by War Department ridings under the Act of Congress of August 
 fifth, eighteen hundred and fifty-four. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of California, 
 or her duly authorized agents, any sum found due, upon investigation, for 
 balances alleged to have been paid and remaining due and to be paid by 
 said State on account of Indian war bonds issued by said State under the 
 Acts of the Legislature of eighteen hundred and fifty-one and eighteen 
 hundred and fifty-two, in the suppression of Indian hostilities within the 
 said State prior to the first of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-four, 
 and recognized by the Act of Congress of August fifth, eighteen hundred 
 and fifty-four; provided, that the sum so paid shall not exceed in amount 
 the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which amount is hereby 
 appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
 and to be settled upon proper vouchers to be filed and passed upon by the 
 proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. Senate. Report No. 158. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. February 12, 1884 — Ordered to be 
 printed. 
 
 Mr. Maxey, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the fol- 
 lowing 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany bill S. 809.] 
 
 The Committee on Military Affairs, to which was referred bill S. 809, 
 respectfully submits the following report: 
 
345 
 
 On December 22, 1883, the committee addressed a communication to the 
 Secretary of War, requesting to be furnished with such information in respect 
 to the matters set forth in this bill as might be had in the War Department. 
 On the twenty-fourth of January, 1884, the Secretary replied as follows: 
 
 War Department, Washington City, January 24, 1884. 
 
 Sir: Referring to so much of vour communication of December 22, 1883, as requests 
 information upon the subject of Senate Bill No. 809, to "idemnify the State of California 
 for balances paid and remaining due on account of indebtedness incurred in the Indian 
 wars," etc., 1 have the honor, in reply, to forward copy of the report of the Third Auditor 
 of the Treasury, dated the twenty-second instant, upon the bill, which it is hoped will 
 afford the information desired. 
 
 A similar bill having been introduced in the House of Representatives, and the subject 
 being one of considerable importance, I beg to request that the letter of the Auditor rhay 
 be printed. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 ROBERT T. LINCOLN, Secretary of War. 
 Hon. S. B. Maxey, of Committee on Military Affairs, United States Senate. 
 
 The communication of the Third Auditor therein called for is as follows: 
 
 Treasury Department, Third Auditor's Office, ) 
 Washington, D. C, January 22, 1884. j 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to return * * * "A bill to indemnify the State of California 
 
 *^ * * " and the other papers referred to me by your direction. 
 
 Notwithstanding the recitals in the bill, I am unable to perceive that any part of the 
 appropriation was due to the State, or that the non-payment of the small balance of the 
 appropriation was caused by " delays occasioned by War Department rulings." On the 
 contrary, the facts would seem to be that the small unpaid balance belonged exclusively to 
 the holders of the yet outstanding California bonds, and that the sole reason for the non-pay- 
 ment was the failure by a few of such holders to come forward and present their bonds 
 for payment. 
 
 A brief history of the legislation bv Congress is as follows : 
 
 The original Act, August 5, 1854 (lO Stat., 582, 583), directed the Secretary of War to 
 examine and ascertain the "amount of expense incurred and now actually paid" by the 
 State in the suppression of Indian hostilities within the State prior to January 1, 1854, 
 and to pay the amount so ascertained into the State Treasury, but not to exceed $924,259 65. 
 
 But, as shown by correspondence, the State officials determined not to present its claim 
 as the law stood; and by Act of August 18, 1856, Sec. 8 (11 Stat., 91), the law was changed 
 to provide that the appropriation should be used to pay the holders of the war bonds which 
 the State had issued on account of such expenses. 
 
 An amendment was made by Act of June 23, 1860 (12 Stat., 104), but it was of minor 
 iniportance, and need not be now set out. 
 
 The holders of the great bulk of the bonds presented them within a short time, and 
 received payment. 
 
 A period of more than three years then elapsing without further calls, the appropriation 
 became by law " lapsed," and the unexpended balance, $10,188 65, was therefore carried into 
 the surplus fund. 
 
 Subsequently a few bonds, aggregating not over $2,500, were presented to this office, but 
 were returned, there being no fund for payment ; and on March 22, 1866, the Third Auditor 
 recommended to the Secretary of War to ask Congress to reappropriate said balance of 
 $10,188 65. 
 
 By Act of July 25, 1868 (15 Stat., 175), a balance of $10,183 65— five dollars short— was reap- 
 propriated. Only one person, James Steele, presented any bond, and he was paid $538 11. 
 Again the appropriation "lapsed," by want of calls upon it for a period of three years; 
 and on July 1, 1874, the balance, $9,645 52, was carried into the surplus fund. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1881 (21 Stat., pages 510, 511), a sufficient amount of the unexpended 
 balance was reappropriated to pay the principal, with interest to July 1, 1860, of four bonds 
 described by denomination and serial numbers; and payment was accordinglv made to 
 the owner, Frances D. Bingham, in the sum. of $1,288 36, leaving the balance now in the 
 surplus fund, $8,357 16. 
 
 I do not know why Congress allowed interest to July 1, 1860, on Mrs. Bingham's bonds. 
 On the others interest was allowed to January 1, 1854, as the appropriation, so I under- 
 stand, would suffice for no more, having been based upon the showing made by the State 
 
 of the expense incurred by it up to that date 
 I fail to perceive that the State ha 
 
 perceive that the State had any right in the unexpended balance. 
 Very respectfully, 
 ^^ ^ , A. M. GANGEWER, Acting Auditor. 
 
 Hon. Robert T. Lincoln, Secretary of War. 
 
346 
 
 The committee is of the opinion that the report of the Third Auditor is 
 conclusive as against the bill. The argument of counsel for California does 
 not overturn, in the opinion of the committee, the case upon the facts as 
 made out by the Third Auditor. It is insisted that — 
 
 The report of the Third Auditor misapprehends the intention and scope of said bill and 
 fails to include and give (to the committee) the full information and facts and history of 
 said matter, due evidently from the fact that the same are not matters of record in the 
 Third Auditor's office. 
 
 This argument, it is submitted, would address itself rather to the War 
 Department, or to that branch of it where " the matters of record " not in 
 the Third Auditor's office may be found, or to that office, wherever it be^ 
 which contains this testimony. The committee called upon the Secretary 
 of War (this being a war claim) and was furnished with the report of the 
 Third Auditor, with the remark, " which it is hoped will afford the infor- 
 mation desired." The importance of this report, in the estimation of the 
 Secretary, is shown by his request to have printed, which the committee 
 requested to be done, and the report was printed, and has evidently been 
 examined by counsel for the State. If there is anything else in the case 
 the committee has not been furnished with it, the committee assuming 
 that all was furnished which in the judgment of the Secretary of War 
 was pertinent. 
 
 The committee takes the bill and evidence furnished, and upon it reports 
 the same and recommends that bill S. 809 do not pass. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 15. 
 
 BAMBER, '^ 
 
 April 2, 1884 
 
 Senate Chamber, Washington, ) 
 
 Captain John Mullan, IS 10 Connecticut Avenue, City : 
 
 Dear Sir: Your note of yesterday, with reference to S. 809 and S. 1917^ 
 is before me. The former bill went over to-day, under rule 9. It is impos- 
 sible to hold such bills, as you request in this case, under the circum- 
 stances, and especially when they have been reported upon adversely. It 
 will come up again in due time, of course. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 JOHN F. MILLER. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 16. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 7380. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. June 24, 1884 — Referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 
 
 AMENDMENT 
 
 Intended to be proposed by Mr. Farley to the bill (H. R. 7380) making 
 appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal 
 year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty-five, and for other 
 purposes, viz.: Insert the following: 
 
 That the unexpended balance of eight thousand three hundred and 
 sixty-two dollars and sixteen cents of the appropriation made by Congress 
 August fifth, eighteen hundred and fifty-four (tenth Statutes, pages five 
 
347 
 
 hundred and eighty-two and five hundred and eighty-three) , and August 
 eighteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty-six (eleventh Statutes, page ninety- 
 one), for the suppression of Indian hostilities in the State of California, and 
 carried to the surplus fund, be and the same is hereby reappropriated ; and 
 the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to pay the 
 said sum to the State of California upon the surrender by said State to said 
 Secretary of bonds and coupons issued by said State in part payment of 
 said expenses, which bonds and coupons have been redeemed and paid by 
 said State in said sum ; and in the event that bonds and coupons so issued 
 and redeemed and paid by said State in said sum have been canceled and 
 destroyed by the authority of the Legislature thereof, then the aforesaid 
 sum shall be paid said State upon her furnishing the Secretary of the 
 Treasury satisfactory evidence that bonds and coupons so issued have been 
 redeemed, paid, canceled, and destroyed to the amount of said unexpended 
 balance, under and by the authority of the Legislature of said State. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 17. 
 
 AMENDMENT TO H. R.- 8255. 
 
 Intended to be proposed by Mr. Miller of California, to the bill H. R. 
 8255, making appropriations to supply deficiences in the appropriations 
 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, and for prior years and for other 
 purposes. 
 
 Insert at end of line 78 on page 48 of H. R. 8255, as follows, to wit: 
 That the unexpended balances of appropriations made by the Acts of 
 Congress approved August 5, 1854, August 18, 1856, and March 2, 1861 
 (U. S. Statutes, volume 10, pages 582-583, volume 11, page 91, and volume 
 12, pages 199-200), to refund to the State of California, expenses incurred 
 in suppressing Indian hostilities therein, etc., which have heretofore lapsed 
 and been carried into the surplus fund of the Treasury, be and the same 
 are hereby reappropriated, and the same shall be paid to the State of Cali- 
 fornia upon her surrendering to the Secretary of the Treasury, bonds and 
 coupons or other satisfactory vouchers (aggregating said unexpended bal- 
 ances), which have heretofore been wholly redeemed and fully paid by 
 said State on account of the suppression of the hostilities named in said 
 Acts, and not heretofore wholly redeemed or fully paid by the United 
 States. 
 
 EXHIBIT NO. 18. 
 
 House of Representatives, U. S.. ) 
 
 Washington, D. C, December 23, 1882. | 
 
 Hon. Third Auditor U. S. Treasury, Washington, D. C. : 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to inclose you, herewith, copy of Senate Report 
 No. 878, which accompanied H. R. No. 1729 of the third session Forty- 
 sixth Congress, and respectfully request that you may furnish me with 
 a copy of the descriptive list of bonds therein referred to (dated Febru- 
 ary 28, 1862,) as having been filed in your office by the officers of the 
 State of California (Treasurer and Governor), relating to California war 
 
348 
 
 bonds (Indian). Your early compliance with the foregoing request will 
 oblige, 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 C. P. BERRY, 
 Member of Congress Third District California. 
 
 Treasury Department, Third Auditor's Office, ) 
 Washington, D. C, January 3, 1883. j 
 
 Hon. C. P. Berry, House of Representatives: 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to return your request for a copy of a descriptive 
 list of certain California war bonds, being the list referred to in Senate 
 Report No. 878, Fortv-sixth Congress, third session (to accompany H. R. 
 1729). 
 
 Only one descriptive list of bonds issued by the State of California under 
 authority of State Act of May 3, 1852, is found in the files pertaining to 
 such bonds. The aggregate thereof, including interest computed to Janu- 
 ary 1, 1856, was only $770,162 49. I presume it was only a partial list, 
 including only such bonds as had been issued to the time it was made. 
 The latest dated bond upon it was April 4, 1855; and the highest serial 
 number in the denomination of $250 was No. 158. 
 
 The registers of this office (claim 9517) show that the bonds presented 
 by and returned to Mr. R. McBratney, were of the denomination of $250, 
 and bore the serial numbers 164, 166, 167, and 168. 
 
 Probably the list referred to in the Senate Report was a supplemental 
 one, including the bonds issued at later dates. I do not find it on file; nor 
 do I find in the papers any reference to it. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 E. W. KEIGHTLEY, Auditor. 
 
 Treasury Department, January 8, 1883. 
 
 Hon. C. P. Berry, House of Representatives : 
 
 Sir:. A.s requested in your letter of the fifth instant, I have the honor 
 to transmit herewith a statement of amounts expended from the appropria- 
 tion of $400,000, as made by the Act of March 2, 1861, to "pay to Califor- 
 nia, expenses incurred in suppressing Indian hostilities in 1854-5-6-7-8-9." 
 I am, very respectfully, 
 
 CHARLES T. FOLGER, Secretary. 
 
 Treasury Department, Register's Office, ) 
 
 January 8, 1882. j 
 
 Statement of amounts expended out of the appropriation of $400,000, 
 as approved March 2, 1861, to "pay to California for expenses incurred in 
 suppressing Indian hostilities in 1854-5-6-7-8-9." 
 
 1863, expenditures - $229,987 67 
 
 1864, expenditures - 542 09 
 
 Total amount expenditures ..- $230,529 76 
 
 Carried to the Surplus Fund, June 30, 1864 169,470 24 
 
 $400,000 00 
 
 . W. A. TITCOMB, Assistant Register. 
 
349 
 
 Treasury Department, January 15, 1881. 
 Hon. James T. Farley, United States Senate: 
 
 Sir: In reply to your inquiry of the twenty-eighth ultimo, concerning 
 certain bonds issued in 1852 and 1853 by the Legislature of the State of 
 California, for the suppression of Indian hostilities in said State, I inclose 
 herewith a copy of a report dated January 11, 1881, of the Third Auditor 
 of the Treasury, giving the numbers of the bonds in question, the dates of 
 their issue and payment, and to whom paid, and the amount of interest 
 paid on each bond. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 H. F. FRENCH, Acting Secretary. 
 
 [Copy.] 
 
 Treasury Department, Third Auditor's Office, 
 Washington, D. C, January 11, 1881. 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to return herewith a letter of Hon. Jas. T. Farley, 
 U. S. Senator from California, dated December 28, 1880, asking informa- 
 tion relative to certain bonds named therein, which has been referred to 
 this office. 
 
 Below you will find a statement showing the numbers of the bonds 
 referred to, the date of issue, amount of bonds, and amount of interest paid 
 by the United States. The rate of interest allowed was seven per cent, and 
 interest ceased January 1, 1854, viz.: 
 
 
 Date of Issue. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Coupons. 
 
 1 
 
 No. 1. Dated 
 Jan. 1, 1853. 
 
 No. 2. Dated 
 Jan. 1, 1854. 
 
 Date of Payment 
 of Bonds and Coupons. 
 
 8.S 
 
 June 24, 1852 
 
 1500 00 
 500 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 250 00 
 100 00 
 500 00 
 500 00 
 500 00 
 100 00 
 
 $17 98 
 
 $35 00 
 23 62 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 70 00 
 17 50 
 
 4 08 
 34 80 
 34 80 
 19 15 
 
 7 00 
 
 September 22, 1856 
 
 September 22, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 Soptember 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 September 20, 1856 
 
 October 27, 1856 
 
 288 
 
 April 28, 1853 
 
 41 
 
 June 22, 1852 
 
 36 75 
 36 75 
 36 75 
 36 75 
 36 75 
 36 75 
 36 75 
 36 75 
 36 75 
 36 75 
 
 35 75 
 
 36 75 
 36 75 
 36 75 
 36 75 
 36 75 
 36 36 
 36 36 
 36 36 
 35 97 
 35 97 
 35 97 
 13 80 
 13 80 
 13 80 
 13 80 
 13 80 
 13 80 
 
 3 20 
 
 49, 
 
 June 22,1852 
 
 48 
 44 
 
 June 22,1852 t... 
 
 June 22, 1852 
 
 45 
 
 June 22, 1852 
 
 4fi 
 
 June 22, 1852 
 
 47 
 
 June 22, 1852 
 
 48 
 
 June 22, 1852... 
 
 49 
 
 June 22, 1852 
 
 50 
 
 June 22, 1852. 
 
 58 
 
 June 22, 1852 
 
 54 
 
 55 
 
 June 22,1852 
 
 June 22, 1852 . 
 
 56 
 
 June 22, 1852... 
 
 57 
 
 June 22, 1852 
 
 58 
 
 June 22, 1852... 
 
 8? 
 
 June 24. 1852... 
 
 89 
 
 June 24, 1852. . 
 
 90 
 
 June 24, 1852 
 
 100 
 110 
 111 
 
 June 26.1852.... 
 
 June 26,1852... 
 
 June 26, 1852 
 
 320 
 8'?1 
 
 October 20,1852 
 
 October 20, 1822 
 
 324 
 325 
 326 
 329 
 61 
 
 October 20, 1852 
 
 October 20,1852 
 
 October 20, 1852. 
 
 October 20, 1852 
 
 October 25, 1852 
 
 June 1, 1853 
 
 ?87 
 
 October 27 1856 
 
 9.9,9, 
 
 January 3, 1853 
 
 January 3, 1853 
 
 June 14, 1853... 
 
 October 13, 1856 
 
 228 
 
 
 October 13, 1856 
 
 848 
 
 
 October 13, 1856 
 
 67 
 
 July 23, 1852-^ 
 
 
 November 25, 1856 
 
 
 
 
350 
 
 These bonds were paid per settlements Nos. 2840, 2843, 3072, 3193, and 
 3345 of 1856, under the Acts for refunding to the State of Cahfornia 
 expenses incurred in the suppression of Indian hostiUties, approved August 
 5, 1854, and August 18, 1856, to Charles St. J. Chubb, holder, under deci- 
 sion of the honorable Secretary of War, relating thereto, September 4, 1856. 
 The bonds are on file in this office. 
 
 Verv respectfully, 
 
 E. W. KEIGHTLEY, Auditor. 
 
 Hon. John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Treasury Department, Third Auditor's Office, 
 Washington, D. C, January 24, 1883. 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to return, herewith, the inclosed bond of the State 
 of California, No. 819, for $172 56, which you left with me yesterday, and to 
 inform you that, under the Act of Congress, approved March 2, 1861, enti- 
 tled an "Act for the payment of expenses incurred in the suppression of 
 Indian hostilities in the State of California" the sum of $400,000, or so 
 much thereof as should be necessary, was appropriated. 
 ' Under the second section of said Act the Third Auditor was authorized 
 and required to audit the accounts of said State who filed her claims in 
 this office in August, 1861, amounting to $449,605 74. 
 
 In the first of April, 1863, the Auditor completed his examination of 
 the claims filed, and made an award of $229,987 67, which was referred to 
 the Hon. Secretary of the Treasury on the seventh of June, 1863, and was 
 returned by him on the fifteenth of June, 1863, authorizing a settlement to 
 be made. 
 
 The Auditor, under date of June 16, 1863, reported a settlement to the 
 Second Comptroller for $229,987 67, who returned the same June 17, 1863, 
 confirming the action of the Third Auditor — and a warrant. No. 8591, dated 
 June 26, 1863, was issued by the Secretary of the Treasury ordering draft 
 for $229,987 67 to be sent to the Treasurer of the State of California. 
 
 On the twenty-eighth of September, 1863, a further sum of $542 09 was 
 allowed and paid to the State, and the balance of the appropriation, 
 $169,470 24, was carried to the surplus fund on the books of the Treasury 
 June 30, 1864. 
 
 The balance of the claims, $219,075 98, which were disallowed on the 
 examination by the accounting officers, being excessive charges above the 
 rates paid by the United States during the time and at the place where 
 these expenses were incurred, is barred from further action by this office, 
 as there is no statute now in force which will authorize the accounting 
 officers to further examine the claims of the State of California. 
 I am, very respectfully, 
 
 E. W. KEIGHTLEY, Auditor. 
 
 Hon. J. H. Slater, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 19. 
 
 Is a large bound book now in the Governor's office. 
 
351 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 20. 
 
 Treasury Department, Third Auditor's Office, ) 
 Washington, D. C, August 18, 1885. j 
 
 Sir : I return the California Indian war bonds recently presented by 
 you as attorney for that State and which you informed me the State 
 redeemed and now holds as owner. The balance of the appropriation 
 made by the Act of August 5, 1854, and which by the Act of August 18, 
 1856, was made applicable to the payment of the bonds issued by Califor- 
 nia, was long ago covered into the Treasury under the provisions of the ^'Sur- 
 plus Fund^^ law^ three years having lapsed without any call therefor. With 
 the termination of the appropriation ended the jurisdiction of the account- 
 ing officers to audit any claims based upon such bonds. The Act of June 
 20, 1874, amended by the Act of June 14, 1878, has no relation to appro- 
 priations terminating by operation of the Surplus Fund Act ; hence the 
 authority given by the Acts of 1874 and 1878 to the accounting officers to 
 audit claims for which appropriations have ceased to be available, has no 
 application to the case of these bonds. As new legislation by Congress 
 would be necessary to enable any action, I think it advisable that thi^ 
 office should not undertake the custody of such valuable papers until it shall 
 have some jurisdiction by law in regard to them. I return also sundry 
 other documents and accounts presented by you with the bonds, being bills 
 for expenses incurred by the State, certificates of unpaid balances on war- 
 rants drawn by the State Controller upon the State Treasury, etc. Even if 
 the appropriation made by Act of August 5, 1854, were'still alive, I do not 
 perceive that under the provisions of the Act of August 18, 1856, it would 
 be available for any purpose other than the payment of bonds. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 JNO. S. WILLIAMS, Auditor. 
 
 Capt. John MuUan, No. 1310 Connecticut Ave., Washington, D. C. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 15, 1886. 
 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of the 
 original letter which was sent me by the Treasury Department, which has 
 by me been submitted to the Chairman of the Committee on Appropria- 
 tions in the Senate to accompany Senate Bill No. 993, introduced by' Sena- 
 tor Stanford. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 21. 
 
 Treasury Department, Third Auditor's Office, \ 
 Washington, D. C, November 23, 1883. \ 
 
 I return the papers recently presented by you as a supplemental claim 
 by the State of California, under the Act of Congress, approved March 2, 
 1861, appropriating $400,000 for the payment of expenses incurred by 
 the State in the suppression of Indian hostilities in the years 1854-55- 
 56-58-59. 
 
 The balance of that appropriation, long since became liable by law to 
 be carried back into the Treasury under the provisions of the Surplus Fund 
 Act, and was so carried back. The lapsing of the appropriation, termin- 
 ated the authority of the Third Auditor to audit claims against it. 
 
 Moreover, the claims which you recently presented, do not appear to 
 
352 
 
 come within the class for which the appropriation was made. The only 
 expeditions in 1859, to which the Act of March 2, 1861, related, were the 
 "Klamath and Humboldt expeditions of 1858 and 1859," and the "Pitt 
 River expedition of 1859." The expedition of Captain Jarboe's Company 
 at Eel River, Mendocino County, in 1859, does not seem to have been one 
 of the two described above. 
 
 The Act authorized only the payment of the expenses of the States^ 
 incurred in suppressing certain Indian hostilities; it made no provision for 
 the expense of the Commission which was appointed by the State to come 
 to this city to urge upon Congress the propriety of providing for the pay- 
 ment of the war debt of the State. 
 
 I have no authority to consider the claims presented by you, and there- 
 fore return the papers. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 JOHN S. WILLIAMS, Auditor. 
 
 Captain John Mullan, 1310 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D. C. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 22. 
 
 INDIAN WAR BONDS— CONTROLLER'S REPORT. 
 
 Controller's Office, ) 
 Sacramento, May 27, 1878. j 
 
 To his Excellency William Irwin, Governor of California: 
 
 Sir: In conformity with your request, made under the authority of As- 
 sembly Joint Resolution No. 73, adopted March 30, 1878, which reads as 
 follows: 
 
 Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate concurring, First, that our 
 Senators be' instructed, and our Representatives requested, to urge upon Congress the 
 immediate payment of all bonds, coupons, and certificates of coupons issued by the State 
 of California, for expenses incurred in the Indian wars, which have not been paid by the 
 General Government; Second, that his Excellency, the Governor, be requested to cause a 
 statement of all such bonds, certificates, and coupons, and the circumstances connected 
 therewith, to be prepared by the Controller, and, upon such statement being prepared, to 
 cause an application to be made to Congress, in the name of the State of California, for 
 the payment of said bonds, coupons, and certificates ; Third, and that he forward a copy 
 of these resolutions to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress. 
 
 — I have the honor to make the following statement: 
 
 I find, upon examination of War Bond Register in State Treasurer's 
 office, and other records in Controller's office, that, under the Act of the 
 Legislature of California, approved February 15, 1851 (Statutes 1851, page 
 520), Indian war bonds were issued by the State of California to the amount 
 of $200,000, bearing interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum, and 
 payable in ten years; that, under the Act of the Legislature of May 3, 
 1852 (Statutes of 1852, page 59), Indian war bonds were issued by the State 
 of California to the amount of $638,100, bearing interest at the rate of 
 seven per cent per annum, and payable in ten years. 
 
 Of the principal of the above named bonds of 1851, amounting to $200,000, 
 I find, according to printed report of William Theodore Van Doren, Clerk 
 Third Auditor's office, Washington, made January 10, 1872 (see Appendix 
 to Journal of California Senate and Assembly, for the nineteenth session, 
 pages 28 and 29), that the United States Government has paid $197,000; 
 
353 
 
 that of the principal of the above named bonds of 1852, amounting to 
 $638,100 (according to said report of Wilham Theodore Van Doren, above 
 referred to), the United States Government has paid $598,450; that of the 
 principal of the last named bonds the State of California (according to 
 Controller's books), has paid $22,850, leaving outstanding of the principal 
 of .the bonds of 1851, $3,000; of the principal of the bonds of 1852, $16,- 
 800; making a total amount of said bonds outstanding of $19,800, together 
 with interest on the same, which said principal and interest, together with 
 the number and denomination of each of said outstanding bonds, is given 
 in the following table, to wit: 
 
 OUTSTANDING SEVEN PER CENT WAR BONDS, 1852. 
 
 Date of Bond. 
 
 Interest to 
 May 2, 1862. 
 
 Total. 
 
 October 11, 1852... 
 October 11, 1852 ... 
 October 12, 1852 ... 
 October 12, 1852... 
 October 12, 1852 ... 
 October 18, 1852... 
 October 19, 1852... 
 October 23, 1852... 
 October 23, 1852 ... 
 October 23, 1852... 
 October 25, 1852... 
 October 25, 1852... 
 October 25, 1852... 
 October 25, 1852... 
 October 25, 1852... 
 October 25, 1852... 
 October 27, 1852... 
 October27, 1852.-- 
 October 28, 1852... 
 November 1, 1852. 
 November 1, 1852. 
 November 3,1852. 
 November 13, 1852. 
 November 13,1852. 
 November 13, 1852. 
 November 16, 1852. 
 November 18, 1852. 
 November 18, 1852. 
 November 22, 1852. 
 November 22, 1852. 
 November 25, 1852. 
 November 25, 1852. 
 
 April27, 1853 
 
 August 13, 1853 ... 
 August 13, 1853 ... 
 August 13, 1853 ... 
 August 13, 1853 ... 
 January 19,1854... 
 .Tanuarv 19,1854... 
 March29, 1854 ..-. 
 
 March 31, 1854 
 
 March 31, 1854 
 
 March 31, 1854.... 
 
 April 12, 1854. 
 
 April 12, 1854 
 
 April 17, 1854 
 
 April 17, 1844 
 
 April 25, 1854 
 
 April 25, 1854 
 
 April 25, 1854 
 
 April 25, 1854 
 
 May 13,1854 
 
 May 13,1854 
 
 $100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 
 $66 91 
 
 m 91 
 
 66 89 
 66 89 
 66 89 
 66 77 
 66 75 
 66 67 
 66 67 
 66 67 
 66 63 
 66 63 
 66 63 
 66 63 
 66 63 
 66 63 
 66 59 
 66 59 
 66 57 
 66 51 
 66 51 
 66 47 
 66 28 
 66 28 
 66 28 
 66 22 
 66 18 
 66 18 
 66 10 
 66 10 
 66 05 
 66 05 
 63 10 
 63 04 
 63 04 
 63 04 
 63 04 
 58 20 
 58 20 
 56 64 
 56 60 
 56 60 
 56 60 
 56 39 
 56 39 
 56 29 
 56 29 
 56 14 
 56 14 
 56 14 
 56 14 
 55 85 
 55 85 
 
 $166 91 
 166 91 
 166 89 
 166 89 
 166 89 
 166 77 
 166 75 
 166 67 
 166 67 
 166 67 
 166 63 
 166 63 
 166 63 
 166 63 
 166 63 
 166 63 
 166 59 
 166 59 
 166 57 
 166 51 
 166 51 
 166 47 
 166 28 
 166 28 
 166 28 
 166 22 
 166 18 
 166 18 
 166 10 
 166 10 
 166 05 
 166 05 
 163 10 
 163 04 
 163 04 
 163 04 
 163 04 
 158 20 
 158 20 
 156 64 
 156 60 
 15f) 60 
 156 60 
 156 39 
 156 39 
 156 29 
 156 29 
 156 14 
 156 14 
 156 14 
 156 14 
 155 85 
 155 85 
 
 23 
 
354 
 
 Outstanding Seven Per Cent War Bonds, 1852— Continued. 
 
 Date of Bond. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Interest to 
 May 2, 1862. 
 
 May 13,1854 
 
 May 13,1854 
 
 May 26,1854 
 
 May 26, 1854 
 
 June 6, 1854 
 
 July 10, 1854 
 
 July 21, 1854 
 
 August 7,1854..., 
 August 11, 1854..-. 
 August 19, 1854.... 
 September 2, 1854 
 October 23, 1854... 
 October 24, 1854... 
 November 24, 1854 
 November 24, 1854 
 November 24, 1854 
 November 24, 1854 
 November 24, 1854 
 
 April 4, 1855 
 
 Julv28, 1855 
 
 August 1, 1855 .... 
 August 13, 1855 ... 
 August 13, 1855 ... 
 August 13, 1855 ... 
 August 13, 1855 ... 
 
 Totals 
 
 $100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 
 $55 85 
 55 85 
 55 53 
 55 53 
 55 53 
 54 67 
 54 47 
 54 15 
 54 07 
 53 92 
 53 67 
 52 68 
 52 66 
 52 08 
 52 08 
 52 08 
 52 08 
 52 08 
 49 54 
 47 33 
 47 27 
 47 04 
 47 04 
 47 04 
 47 04 
 
 $7,800 00 $4,641 56 
 
 $155 85 
 155 85 
 155 53 
 155 53 
 155 53 
 154 67 
 154 47 
 154 15 
 154 07 
 153 92 
 153 67 
 152 68 
 152 66 
 152 08 
 152 08 
 152 08 
 152 08 
 152 08 
 149 54 
 147 33 
 147 27 
 147 04 
 147 04 
 147 04 
 147 04 
 
 $12,441 56 
 
 OUTSTANDING SEVEN PER CENT WAR BONDS, 1852. 
 
 Date of Bond. 
 
 Interest to 
 May 2, 1862. 
 
 Total. 
 
 November 25, 1852 
 February 3, 1854 . . 
 
 July 10, 1854 
 
 July 21, 1854 
 
 July 21, 1854 
 
 July 21, 1854 
 
 July 21, 1854 
 
 July 21, 1854 
 
 August 24, 1854 ... 
 August 26, 1854 ... 
 August 26, 1854 ... 
 August 26, 1854 ... 
 September 14, 1854 
 September 14, 1854 
 October 18, 1854... 
 October 24, 1854... 
 October 24, 1854... 
 October 24, 1854... 
 October 24, 1854... 
 October 24, 1854.. 
 August 1, 1855 .... 
 
 August 1, 1855 
 
 August 1, 1855 .... 
 August 15, 1855 ... 
 
 May 18, 1856 
 
 May 18, 1856 
 
 May 18, 1856 
 
 May 18, 1856 
 
 Totals 
 
 $250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 
 $165 14 
 144 33 
 136 70 
 136 15 
 136 15 
 136 15 
 136 15 
 136 15 
 134 55 
 134 44 
 134 45 
 134 45 
 133 58 
 133 58 
 131 93 
 131 64 
 131 64 
 131 64 
 131 64 
 131 64 
 118 17 
 118 17 
 118 17 
 117 50 
 104 23 
 104 23 
 104 23 
 104 23 
 
 $7,000 00 
 
 $3,611 04 
 
 $415 15 
 394 33 
 386 70 
 386 15 
 386 15 
 386 15 
 386 15 
 386 15 
 384 55 
 384 45 
 384 45 
 384 45 
 383 58 
 383 58 
 381 93 
 381 64 
 381 64 
 381 64 
 381 64 
 381 64 
 368 17 
 368 17 
 368 17 
 367 50 
 354 23 
 354 23 
 354 23 
 354 23 
 
 $10,611 04 
 
355 
 
 OUTSTANDING SEVEN PER CENT WAR BONDS, 1852. 
 
 No. 
 
 Date of Bond. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Interest to 
 May '2, 1862. 
 
 Total. 
 
 186 
 307 
 416 
 420 
 
 November 29, 1852 
 
 Mavl4, 1853 
 
 May 13, 1854 
 
 July 10, 1854 
 
 Totals 
 
 1500 00 
 500 00 
 500 00 
 500 00 
 
 $329 87 
 313 83 
 278 92 
 273 38 
 
 $829 87 
 813 83 
 778 92 
 773 38 
 
 000 00 $1,196 00 $3,196 00 
 
 Interest calculated from date of bond to May 2, 1862. 
 
 OUTSTANDING TWELVE PER CENT WAR BONDS, 1851. 
 {Act of February 15, 1851.) 
 
 No. 
 
 Date of Bond. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Interest to 
 Feb. 15, 1861. 
 
 Total. 
 
 107 
 
 April 9, 1851 
 
 $1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 
 $1,182 00 
 1,182 00 
 1,167 00 
 
 $2,182 00 
 
 108 
 
 April 9, 1851 
 
 2,182 00 
 
 142 
 
 May 24, 1851 
 
 Totals 
 
 2,167 00 
 
 
 $3,000 00 
 
 $3,531 00 
 
 $6,531 00 
 
 
 
 
 Interest calculated from date of bond to February 15, 1861. 
 
 Interest and principal on bonds of 1852 — $100 each _.. $12,441 56 
 
 Interest and principal on bonds of 1852— $250 each 10,611 04 
 
 Interest and principal on bonds of 1852— $500 each 3,198 00 
 
 Interest and principal on bonds of 1851— $1,000 each 6,531 00 
 
 Total - $32,779 60 
 
 On August 5, 1854 (United States Statutes at Large, Volume X, page 
 583) , Congress passed a bill appropriating money to defray expenses incurred 
 by the State of California in suppressing Indian hostilities. Section 3 of 
 said bill reads as follows: 
 
 Section 3. And he it further enacted, That the Secretary of War be and he is hereby 
 authorized and directed to examine into and ascertain the amount of expenses incurred 
 by the State of California in the suppression of Indian hostilities within the said State 
 prior to the first day of January, A. D. 1854, and that the amount of such expenses, when 
 so ascertained, be paid into the Treasury of said State; provided, that the sum so paid shall 
 not exceed in amount the sum of $924,259 65, which amount is hereby appropriated out of 
 any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Could the above appropriation of $924,259 65 have been made immedi- 
 ately available, it would have paid up in full, principal and interest, the 
 said bonds under Acts of 1851 and 1852, issued prior to January 1, 1854; 
 but owing to the ruling of the honorable Secretary of War, to the effect 
 that the vouchers upon which the said bonds were issued would have to be 
 presented for examination to the War Department at Washington, delay 
 was caused, the result of which was that before the bondholders received 
 their money some two years and eight months elapsed, and the interest 
 coupons from January 1, 1854 (the date to which interest was paid on 
 bonds redeemed by the United States Government, bearing date prior to 
 January 1, 1854), to September 1, 1856, and amounting to $173,322 66, 
 were cut from the said redeemed bonds and returned to the respective 
 holders of said bonds so presented for redemption; which will more fully 
 
356 
 
 and at large appear by reference to reports made to the Governor of Cali- 
 fornia by Samuel B. Smith and J. W. Denver, Commissioners California 
 War Debt, which reports bear date, respectively, January 5, 1857, and 
 January 30, 1860. (See Appendix to Journals of Senate and Assembly, 
 19th Session, pages 10, 11, 12, 13.) 
 
 Included in the $638,100 of the seven per cent bonds, first herein 
 described, are bonds bearing date after said first day of January, 1854, 
 which were issued under the said Act of 1852, and Acts amendatory 
 thereof — a large number of which, both principal and interest, have been 
 paid in full by the United States Government — said government thus 
 acknowledging, to the fullest extent, the validity of the issue of bonds of 
 later date than January 1, 1854, and the obligation of the General Govern- 
 ment to pay the same ; all of which will more fully appear by reference to 
 the records of the United States War Department. 
 
 The Commissioners of California W^ar Debt give the amount of the 
 detached interest coupons, above alluded to, as $172,828 54. I make it 
 $173,322 66, as follows: 
 
 Interest on $197,000, bonds of 1851, for thirty-two months, at 12 per cent per 
 annum $63,040 00 
 
 Interest on $590,800, bonds of 1852, for thirty-two months, at 7 per cent per 
 annum.. 110,282 66 
 
 Total $173,322 66 
 
 The Joint Committee of Senate and Assembly, nineteenth session, in a 
 report made February 21, 1872, make the principal of bonds outstanding 
 as follows: 
 
 Outstanding principal of bonds under Act of 1851 $3,000 00 
 
 Outstanding principal of bonds under Act of 1852 14,700 00 
 
 Total .... $17,700 00 
 
 Which is not the true amount. The committee fell into an error by assum- 
 ing the whole issue under Act of 1852, to be $636,350, when it should have 
 been $638,100 — thus ignoring an issue of $1,750 made in 1855 and 1857, 
 under said Act of May 2, 1852; and then they say the State paid of said 
 bonds, principal, $23,200, when, in fact, the State only paid as principal on 
 said bonds the sum of $22,850; the balance paid by the State as principal 
 was $350 (making $23,200 paid as principal on said bonds by the State, as 
 appears bv record in Controller's office), which was paid to redeem Bond 
 No. 39, for $250, and Bond No. 343, for $100, both of which had been pre- 
 viously paid by the General Government, which latter amount of $350, of 
 course, did not diminish the amount of bonds outstanding. And as we 
 have seen that bonds were issued to the amount of $1,750 in excess of 
 the amount given by said joint committee, and $350 less was used by the 
 State to pay principal of said bonds than was stated by said joint com- 
 mittee, consequently there were less bonds redeemed by the State, by the 
 amount of $350, than stated by said joint committee, and more issued by 
 the State, by $1,750 (than stated by said committee) ; and, therefore, there 
 are bonds outstanding, issued under the Act of May 2, 1852, amounting to 
 $2,100 more than said joint committee report; or, in other words, there are 
 of said bonds of 1852, outstanding (principal), $16,800, instead of $14,700, 
 making, with the bonds of 1851, $19,800 now outstanding, which said 
 bonds, by numbers, date, and denomination, are given in another part of 
 this communication. 
 
357 
 
 To sum up, the account in tabular form is as follows: 
 
 Bonds of 1851 outstanding (principal) |3,000 00 
 
 Interest on same from date to maturity 3.531 00 
 
 Bonds under Act of 1852 outstanding (principal) 16,800 00 
 
 Interest on the same from date of bond to May 2, 1862, time of maturity 9,448 60 
 
 Coupons outstanding, cut from bonds of 1851, redeemed by United States 
 Government, said coupons being for interest on said bonds from January 1, 
 
 1854, to September 1, 1856 63,040 00 
 
 Coupons outstanding, cut from bonds of 1852, redeemed by United States Gov- 
 ernment, said coupons being for interest on said bonds from January 1, 1854, 
 to September 1, 1856 -.. 110,282 26 
 
 Total amount of bonds, principal and interest, outstanding. $206,102 26 
 
 To which amount is to be added the amount of principal and interest of 
 said bonds under Act of May, 1852, paid by the State of California — 
 $35,523 56— making the sum of $241,625 82 for which the General Gov- 
 ernment is justly liable to the State. 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 W. B. C. BROWN, Controller. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 225^. 
 
 Office of California State Agent, 1310 Connecticut Avenue, 
 
 Washington, January 20, 1885. 
 
 Hon. George Stoneman, Governor of California: 
 
 Dear Sir: I have the honor to transmit you herewith a printed "state- 
 ment in relation to the California Indian war debt, and of bonds in payment 
 therefor, issued by said State under the Acts of her Legislature, approved 
 February 15, 1851, and May 3, 1852," which I have carefully compiled and 
 which is intended to fully show the exact status of this subject-matter up 
 to January 1, 1885. 
 
 In accordance with the summary contained on page 10 thereof, Hon. 
 Barclay Henley, at my request, on the nineteenth day of January, 1885, 
 •introduced in the House H. R. No. 7975, which has been referred to the 
 House Committee on War Claims, copy of which is as follows, to wit: 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, second session. H. R. 7975. 
 
 ' A BILL 
 
 To indemnify the State of California on account of indebtedness incurred by 
 her in the Indian wars therein, and which has heretofore been paid by said 
 State. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
 be and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of Cali- 
 fornia, or to her dul}^ authorized agent, the sum of money heretofore, paid 
 by the State of California in the redemption of the Indian war bonds issued 
 by said State under the Acts of her Legislature, approved February 15, 
 1851, and May 3, 1852, and of the certificates of indebtedness issued in 
 connection therewith, on account of the suppression of Indian hostilities in 
 said State, prior to January 1, 1854; and which bonds and certificates have 
 
358 
 
 heretofore been redeemed and paid by said State, together with interest 
 thereon at six per cent per annum from the dates of such payments by said 
 State to the dates of the payment thereof by the United States; provided, 
 that the sum to be so paid by the United States to said State for the mat- 
 ters herein contained sliall not exceed one hundred and ten thousand nine 
 hundred and forty-seven dollars and thirty-eight cents, which amount is 
 hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
 priated, and to be paid to said State upon the surrender by her, or by her 
 duly authorized agent, of said bonds and of said certificates of indebtedness 
 to the Treasury Department of the United States. 
 
 Hon. Barclay Henley and Hon. P. B. Tully have secured for me a satis- 
 factory interview on this matter with Hon. G. W. Geddes, Chairman of the 
 House Committee on War Claims, and Mr. Geddes promised to see his com- 
 mittee in order that I should be heard before them on this subject at a full 
 meeting thereof, to be called at an early date. 
 
 In this connection permit me to suggest that you should at once lay 
 before the Legislature this matter in so far as it relates to that portion of 
 said debt not heretofore paid, either by the State of California or by the 
 United States, though assured and promised to be paid by said State, with 
 a recommendation that due provision of law should be made to pay the 
 same. 
 
 I am of the opinion that the United States will in due time refund and 
 repay to the State of California so much of said debt as the State herself 
 has heretofore assumed and by her heretofore paid, but I am equally of the 
 opinion that the United States will not assume nor pay any portion of said 
 debt which the State of California herself has assumed and not heretofore 
 by her paid. 
 
 I am also of the opinion if the State of California would pay the remain- 
 ing portion of said debt which she has assumed and promised to pay, to 
 wit : the sum of $203,856 47, either in cash or in bonds, that the United 
 States would thereafter refund the same to her. 
 
 I, therefore, take the liberty to suggest to you that you would lay this 
 entire subject-matter before the Legislature at its present session, and in a 
 special message, for such action as it may feel disposed to take in these 
 premises. 
 
 It is due to the history of this subject-matter to call your attention to the 
 fact that nearly every Governor of California since 1854 has brought this 
 subject to the attention of the Legislature of the State, and with the recom- 
 mendation that the State of Calfornia should pay this debt by her hereto- 
 fore assumed and by her promised to be paid, and thereafter let the State 
 present her claim to the proper authorities of the United States for reim- 
 bursement and payment. 
 
 I therefore suggest a bill to cover the foregoing proposition, and of the 
 form as follows, to wit : 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To redeem and pay so much of the California Indian war debt arising under 
 the Acts of her Legislature, approved February IS, 1851, and May 3, 1852, 
 as has not been heretofore paid by either the State of California or by the 
 United States. 
 
 The People of the State of California, represented in Senate and Assembly, do 
 
 enact as follows: 
 
 Section 1. The following sums are hereby appropriated out of any 
 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated: 
 
359 
 
 For the redemption and payment of California Indian war bonds, num- 
 bered 107, 108, and 142, for $1,000 each, issued under the Act of February 
 15, 1851, with interest on each thereof from the date of issuance of each 
 up to February 15, 1861, the date of maturity thereof, $6,531. 
 
 For the redemption and payment of Cahfornia Indian War Bonds, num- 
 bered 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 
 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 
 163, 219, 268, 269, 270, 271, 305, 306, 329, 331, 332, 333, 340, 341, 348, 349, 
 353, 354, 355, 356, 371, 372, 373, 374, 380, 381, 383, 384, 386, 390, 391, 394, 
 398, 401, 402,403,404, 405, 406, 407, 409, 413,416, 417, 418, 419, and 420, 
 for $100 each, issued under the Act of May 3, 1852, with interest on each 
 thereof from the date of issuance of each up to May 3, 1862, the date of 
 maturity thereof, $12,442 56. 
 
 For the redemption and payment of Cahfornia Indian war bonds, num- 
 bered 69, 113, 128, 129, 130, 134, 135, 136, 139, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 151, 
 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 160, 161, 162, and 163, for $250 each, issued under 
 the Act of May 3, 1852, with interest on each thereof from the date of 
 issuance of each up to May 3, 1862, the date of maturity thereof, $9,194 12. 
 
 For the redemption and payment of Cahfornia Indian war bonds, num- 
 bered 307, 416, and 420, for $500 each, issued under the Act of May 3, 1852, 
 with interest on each thereof from the date of issuance of each up to May 
 3, 1862, the date of maturity thereof, $2,366 13. 
 
 For the redemption and payment of interest on Cahfornia Indian war 
 bonds, issued under the Act of February 15, 1851 (represented by coupons 
 detached from said bonds, and which coupons were returned to the hold- 
 ers of said bonds and not paid), from January 1, 1854, to September 1, 
 1856, $63,040. 
 
 For the redemption and payment of interest on bonds issued under the 
 Act of May 3, 1852 (represented by coupons detached from said bonds, 
 and which coupons were returned to the holders of said bonds and not 
 paid), from January 1, 1854, to September 1, 1856, $110,282. 
 
 Sec. 2. The State Treasurer is hereby authorized to pay the aforesaid 
 sums on account of the redemption of said bonds and said coupons, upon 
 warrants to be drawn therefor by the State Controller, to whom the said 
 bonds and the said coupons shall be surrendered by the holders thereof; 
 and upon such surrender the Controller shall cancel the same, and when 
 so canceled he shall deliver each bond and each coupon to the Governor 
 of this State, who shall immediately thereafter cause the same, together 
 with all papers relating thereto, to be forwarded to Captain John Mullan, 
 State Agent for California at Washington City, D. C, who is hereby author- 
 ized to present the same to the proper authorities of the United States, and 
 secure their redemption and payment. 
 
 Sec. 3. The Governor, State Controller, and State Treasurer shall each 
 keep in their offices a special book, in which shall be recorded all trans- 
 actions by them respectively had under this Act, and they shall each 
 report fully thereon to the Legislature at its next session, and at every 
 subsequent session, until all the matters herein contained are finally 
 adjusted between the State of California and the United States. 
 
 Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect immediately. 
 
 I am, sir, your obedient scvant, 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 
 State Agent for California. 
 
360 
 
 STATEMENT IN RELATION TO THE CALIFORNIA INDIAN WAR 
 DEBT, AND OF BONDS IN PAYMENT THEREOF, ISSUED BY 
 SAID STATE UNDER THE ACT OF HER LEGISLATURE, AP- 
 PROVED FEBRUARY 15, 1851, AND MAY 3, 1852. 
 
 Office of the State Agent of the State of California, ") 
 No. 1310 Connecticut Avenue, 
 Washington City, D. C, December 15, 1884. ) 
 
 STATEMENT 
 
 In relation to the California Indian war debt and of bonds issued by the 
 authority of the Legislature of the State of California in liquidation of and 
 payment for the expenses incurred by said State for the common defense, 
 to wit: suppressing Indian hostilities that arose prior to January 1, 1854, 
 in said State, etc. 
 
 I. 
 
 On February 15, 1851, the Legislature of the State of California (Cali- 
 fornia Laws 1851, page 520), enacted a law as follows, to wit: 
 
 Section 1. By virtue of the power given to the Legislature by the Constitution of this 
 State, Article VIII, " In case of war to repel invasion or suppress insurrection," a loan not 
 exceeding five hundred thousand dollars is hereby authorized to be negotiated upon the 
 faith and credit of the State, payable in ten years, and at anj^ period after five years at the 
 pleasure of the State; said loan to bear a rate of interest not exceeding twelve per cent per 
 annum, payable annually or semi-annually at such place as the contracting parties may 
 agree ; provided, however, that the interest of the first year may be paid in advance out of 
 the loan thus made. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the Treasurer be and lie is hereby authorized and required to cause suita- 
 ble bonds to be provided for said loan, in sums not less than one thousand dollars. 
 
 Sec. 3. All such bonds shall be signed by the Treasurer in his official character, made 
 payable to and indorsed by the Governor in his official character, who shall affix the seal 
 of the State thereto, and countersigned by the Controller, which l3onds executed as afore- 
 said shall be transferable on delivery, and bind the State for the faithful payment thereof. 
 
 Sec. 4. After the bonds aforesaid shall have been countersigned by the Controller it 
 shall be his duty to make a register of the same in a book to be kept for that purpose, with 
 the number and amount thereof, and deliver them to the Treasurer, charging him with the 
 same. The Treasurer shall also keep a register of such bonds as may be negotiated. 
 
 Sec. 5. Coupons for the interest shall be attached to each bond, so that they may be 
 removed without injury or mutilation to the bond. 
 
 Sec. 6. The Treasurer shall be, and he is hereby authorized, with the approval of the 
 Governor of the State, to negotiate such loan as speedily as possible, at such time and 
 place, and in such amounts as they may determine the exigencies of the State require; 
 but no loan shall be negotiated below the par value thereof. 
 
 Sec 7. Any claim which this State has now, or may hereafter have, upon the General 
 Government for moneys expended out of this loan, for the purpose aforesaid, shall be and 
 the same is hereby set apart and pledged for the payment of the principal and interest 
 arising upon said bonds, together with all other moneys in the Treasury not otherwise 
 appropriated, or so much thereof as may be necessary. 
 
 Sec 8. The Treasurer is hereby authorized to defray such expenses as may be incurred 
 in obtaining the above loan; provided, that it does not exceed the sum of two thousand 
 dollars, to be paid out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated ; pro- 
 mded, said loan be negotiated in this State. 
 
 11. 
 
 On May 3, 1852, said State (California Laws 1852, p. 59), enacted an 
 additional law on the same subject as contained in the foregoing, and which 
 law is as follows, to wit: 
 
 Section 1. A sum not exceeding six hundred thousand dollars is hereby appropriated 
 and set apart as an additional war fund, payable in ten years, out of any moneys which 
 
361 
 
 may be appropriated by Congress to defray the expenses incurred by the State of Califor- 
 nia, and interest thereon at the rate of seven (7) per cent per annum, in the suppression 
 of Indian hostihties, or out of the proceeds of the sale of any public lands which may be 
 xlonated or set aside by Congress for that purpose; and should no such appropriation or 
 donation be made, or if an amount sufficient should not be appropriated or donated within 
 the said ten years, then the bonds authorized to be issued by this Act shall be good and 
 valid claims against the (State, and shall be paid out of any moneys in the Treasury not 
 otherwise appropriated to pay the expenses of the expeditions mentioned in this Act. 
 
 Sec. 2. Such liabilities as have been incurred allowed as provided by law, or may be 
 allowed by the Board of Examiners for the Mariposa expedition, also such accounts as 
 have been* or may be allowed under legislative authority, for the second Ei Dorado, Utah, 
 Los Angeles, Clear Lake, Klamath and Trinity, and Monterey expeditions against the 
 Indians, shall be funded or paid in bonds bearing seven per cent interest per annum, 
 from the date of issuing the same. 
 
 Sec. 3. All accounts heretofore examined and allowed by the Board of Examiners, con- 
 sisting of the Treasurer and Controller of State, and all other accounts of claims for 
 services and supplies rendered in the foregoing campaigns which have been examined and 
 allowed by either branch of the present Legislature, and as shown by the payrolls and 
 abstracts accompanying the same, or which may not have been so examined and allowed, 
 shall by said Board be again examined, where warrants have not been issued, and if 
 allowed, it is hereby made the duty of the Controller to issue his warrant on the Treas- 
 urer in favor of the person holding the claim so allowed, payable out of the war bonds, 
 and the Treasurer shall, on presentation of such warrant, therefor exchange the bonds 
 provided to be created by a preceding section of this Act. 
 
 Sec. 4. . In the examination herein required to be made by the Controller and Treas- 
 urer, they are hereby fully empowered, whenever or wherever any mistake may be 
 detected by them against the State, in the allowance which may have been made by either 
 branch of the Legislature to claimants, to correct the same, by a proper reduction thereof, 
 and in the allowance to be made of claims which have not been examined, thoy shall have 
 power, and are hereby required to pay to officers and privates, the same as is allowed by 
 the Act of March seventeenth, eighteen hundred and tifty-one, providing for the defense 
 of the eastern frontier against the Indians, and shall limit their payment for supplies to 
 the prices at which like articles were worth at the date of such purchase in the neighbor- 
 hood were made. 
 
 Sec. 5. The State Treasurer is hereby authorized and required to cause suitable bonds to 
 be provided for said payments, in sums of one hundred, two hundred and fifty, five hun- 
 dred, and one thousand dollars each. 
 
 Sec. 6, All such bonds shall be signed by the Treasurer in his official character, made 
 payable to and indorsed by the Governor in his official character, who shall affix the seal 
 of the State thereto, and countersigned by the Controller, which bonds, executed as 
 aforesaid, shall be transferable by assignment on the bonds, by the owner thereof or by 
 his attorney in fact, and bind the State for the faithful payment thereof. 
 
 Sec 7. After the bonds shall have been countersigned bj^ the Controller, it shall be his 
 duty to make a register of the same in a book to be kept for that purpose, with the num- 
 ber and amount thereof, and deliver them to the Treasurer, charging him with the same. 
 The Treasurer shall also keep a register of such bonds. 
 
 Sec 8. Coupons for the interest shall be attached to each bond, so that they may be 
 removed without injury or mutilation to the bond. 
 
 Sec 9. Any claim which the State has now, or may hereafter have, upon the General 
 Government, for moneys expended for the purposes aforesaid, shall be and the same is 
 hereby set apart and pledged for the payment of the principal and interest arising upon 
 said bonds. 
 
 Sec 10. The Treasurer is hereby authorized to defray such expenses as may be incurred 
 in obtaining the blanks for said bonds; provided, that they do not exceed the cost of one 
 thousand dollars, to be paid out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Sec Jl. The Treasurer shall deliver the bonds to claimants whenever demanded by 
 them in person or by legal agent. 
 
 Sec 12. Whenever the Treasurer shall derive a sufficient sum from the tax herein pro- 
 vided to be levied, he shall make certain arrangements for the payment of the interest of 
 the war bonds, and shall advertise for three months at least, in some newspaper in 
 Sacramento City and San Francisco, notifying holders of bonds when interest will be paid 
 at the State Treasury. 
 
 Sec 13. An Act authorizing the Treasurer of the State to negotiate a loan upon the faith 
 and credit of the State, for the purpose of defraying the expenses which have been and 
 may be incurred in suppressing Indian hostilities in the State, in the absence of adequate 
 provision being made by the General Government, passed February fifteenth, eighteen 
 hundred and tifty-one; also, an Act passed March seventeenth, eighteen hundred and 
 fifty-one, entitled "An Act authorizihg the Governor to call out troops to defend our 
 frontier, and providing for their pay and compensation," be and the same is hereby 
 repealed; provided, the repeal in nowise affect the War Loan Bonds already issued under 
 the provisions of the Act so repealed. 
 
362 
 III. 
 
 Under the aforesaid State statute of February 15, 1851, the State of Cali- 
 fornia issued interest-bearing bonds in the aggregate sum of $200,000, and 
 under the said State statute of May 3, 1852, said State issued other interest- 
 bearing bonds in the aggregate sum of $638,100. 
 
 On or about January 1, 1854, the State of CaHfornia submitted to 
 Congress a partial statement of the expenses she had so authorized and 
 incurred, and liabilities she had so assumed, and for which she had up to 
 January 1, 1854, issued interest-bearing bonds as provided for in said laws, 
 all issued under the two aforesaid Acts of her Legislature, and which bonds, 
 with interest represented by coupons attached thereto, and calculated only 
 up to January 1, 1854, aggregated the sum of $924,259 65. 
 
 Thereafter, to wit, on August 5 1854, (U. S. Stats., vol. 10, pp. 582, 583), 
 Congress appropriated said sum of $924,259 65 to defray the partial expenses 
 so presented by the State of California, and then actually paid by said State 
 and as calculated in the manner aforesaid, for suppressing Indian hostilities 
 therein, and represented by bonds bearing date prior to January 1, 1854, 
 and which Act of Congress is as follows, to wit: 
 
 Sec. 9. And he it further enacted, That the Secretary of War be and he is hereby author- 
 ized and directed to examine into and ascertain the amount of expenses incurred and now 
 actually paid, by the State of California, in the suppression of Indian hostilities within the 
 said State prior to the first of January, Anno Domini eighteen hundred and fifty -four, and 
 that the amount of such expenses, when so ascertained, be paid to the Treasury of said 
 State; provided, that the sum so paid shall not exceed in amount the sum of nine hundred 
 and twenty-four thousand two hundred and fifty-nine dollars and sixty -five cents ; which 
 amount is hereby appropriated out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
 priated. 
 
 Subsequent to the passage of said Act of Congress of August 5, 1854, 
 there arose some serious questions in these premises between the author- 
 ities of the State of California and those of the United States, and especially 
 as to whom and how said sum of $924,259 65 so appropriated by Congress 
 should be paid. 
 
 For the purpose of adjusting and specifically defining this matter, on 
 August 18, 1856 (U. S. Stats., vol. 11, p. 91), Congress enacted a second law 
 in regard to and explanatory of its original intention on this same subject- 
 matter, and in which last law the Secretary of War was directed to pay said 
 sum so appropriated in the Act of August 5, 1884, to wit, of $924,259 65, to 
 the holders of said bonds, and which Act of Congress of August 18, 1856, is 
 as follows, to wit: 
 
 •K- ** * * * * * * * * * 
 
 Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized and 
 directed to pay to the holders of the war bonds of the State of California the amount of 
 money ax)propriated by Act of Congress approved May [August] fifth, eighteen hundred 
 and fifty-four, "in payment of expenses incurred and now actually paid by said State of 
 California for the suppression of Indian hostilities within the said State prior to the first 
 day of January, Anno Domini eighteen hundred and fifty-four, under the following restric- 
 tions and regulations: Before any bonds shall be redeenied by the Secretary of War, they 
 shall be presented to the Board of Commissioners appointed by the Legislature of said 
 State by an Act approved April nineteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty-six, and the amount 
 due and payable upon each bond be indorsed thereon by said Commission. Upon pre- 
 sentation to the Secretary of War of any bond or bonds thus indorsed, it shall be his duty 
 to draw his warrant in favor of the holder or holders thereof for the amount certified to be 
 due upon the same by said Commissioners, upon the Secretary of the Treasury, who is 
 hereby directed to pay the same; provided, that said amounts in the aggregate shall not 
 exceed the amount of money apx)ropriated by Act of Congress approved August fifth^ 
 eighteen hundred and fifty-four; said bonds, after redemption, and after taking off the 
 coupons that remain unpaid, shall be delivered to the Secretary of War to be canceled." 
 
363 
 
 This appropriation of $924,259 65 made by Congress on August 5, 1854, 
 was based exclusively upon the amount of California Indian war claims 
 which the proper authorities of that State had presented January 1, 1854, 
 for the consideration of and payment by the United States, and which her 
 own officials had examined, audited, and allowed, with interest calculated 
 up to January 1, 1854, and for which amount interest-bearing bonds had 
 been issued by said State prior to January i, 1854- The aforesaid Act of 
 August 18, 1856, simply defined specifically the parties to whom the money so 
 appropriated on August 5, 1854, should be then paid. The only difference 
 between the two aforesaid Acts of August 5, 1854, and August 18, 1856, 
 being as follows, to wit: Under the Act of August 5, 1854, the sum appro- 
 priated was by the executive departments of the United States declared to 
 be payable only to the State of California, while under the Act of August 
 18, 1856, said sum was declared specifically by Congress to be paid direct 
 to the holders of the aforesaid bonds, and as issued by the State of California, 
 in the manner and at the dates aforesaid. 
 
 But there were similar and other expenses which had been incurred by 
 the State of California prior to January 1, 1854, but the claims for which 
 were not presented by the individual claimants to the State authorities of 
 California until after January 1, 1854, and hence not examined or audited 
 or allowed or calculated for by said State authorities until at dates subse- 
 quent to January 1, 1854, but the payment of all of which had been provided 
 for by the two aforesaid Acts of the Legislature of California of February 15, 
 1851, and May 3, 1852. For the liquidation of these last expenses when so 
 presented, examined, and allowed, the proper State authorities under the two 
 aforesaid Acts of the Legislature of California issued other interest-hearing 
 bonds, and all of which bonds necessarily bore date subsequent to January 
 1, 1854. 
 
 Payment of all the bonds so issued by said State subsequent to January 
 1, 1854, and of the coupons attached thereto, was refused by the U. S. 
 Treasury Department and continued to be by it refused until June 23, 
 1860, and because that department, in conjunction with the War Department 
 of the United States, on September 1, 1856, held that the legislation of Con- 
 gress as contained in its two aforesaid Acts of August 5, 1854, and August 
 18, 1856, limited the U. S. Treasury Department to the redemption of Cali- 
 fornia Indian war bonds that had been issued by the State authorities of 
 said State prior to January 1, 1854, and also limited and restricted that 
 department when paying interest earned by said bonds to the payment of 
 such interest only as had been earned and as had accrued prior and up to 
 January 1, 1854, but not subsequent to such date. The U. S. Treasury and 
 War Departments held that said legislation of Congress of August 5, 1854, 
 and August 18, 1856, did not apply to any bonds bearing date subsequent 
 to January 1, 1854, or to any interest earned thereon subsequent to January 
 1, 1854, or to any bonds issued or to any interest whatsoever earned subse- 
 quent to January 1, 1854, notwithstanding the fact was and is that the bonds 
 issued prior to January 1, 1854, were not redeemed by the United States until 
 September 1, 1856, and notwithstanding said interest-bearing bonds issued 
 subsequent to January 1, 1854, were all issued in liquidation and payment 
 of expenses that had been necessarily incurred by said State prior to Jan- 
 uary 1, 1854, and all issued by said State in liquidation of expenses similar 
 in all respects to those for which said State had issued bonds prior to 
 January 1, 1854, and all of which last named bonds with interest up to 
 January 1, 1854, have been paid by the U. S. Treasury Department, except 
 as hereinafter stated. 
 
 The partial claim presented to Congress by the State of California on or 
 
364 
 
 about January 1, 1854, for the expenses incurred by said State for the 
 suppression of Indian hostihties therein prior to January 1, 1854, was rep- 
 resented by bonds and coupons which had been issued by said State prior 
 to January 1, 1854, in full adjustment and in full liquidation of said 
 expenses, in so far as the same had been then presented and examined, 
 audited and allowed by said State prior to January 1, 1854, and not 
 otherwise. 
 
 But the claim so then presented by the State of California to the United 
 States was partial only, and did not represent and did not include, and 
 was not then intended to represent or to include the whole of the indebted- 
 ness^ that California had necessarily incurred prior to January 1, 1854, on 
 account of the aforesaid, expenses and liabilities. On the contrary, there 
 were other and additional expenses which had been necessarily incurred 
 by the State of California prior to January 1, 1854, but the claims for- 
 which had not been presented by her citizens to the proper State authori- 
 ties of said State, and hence by the latter not examined or audited, or 
 adjusted, or allowed until at dates subsequent to January 1, 1854, and for 
 which expenses when presented and by her proper State officials duly 
 examined, audited, and allowed, said. State issued other interest-bearing 
 bonds, bearing date subsequent to January 1, 1854, and as authorized by 
 said State under the aforesaid Act of her Legislature of May 3, 1852. 
 The just claims, therefore, in these premises of the State of California, 
 and of the individual holders of her said bonds and coupons as the same 
 now exist, may be itemized as follows, to wit: 
 
 First — For the redemption and payment to the legal holders thereof by the 
 United States of three outstanding, unredeemed, and unpaid bonds and 
 attached coupons, to wit: Nos. 107 and 108, both issued April 9, 1851, 
 and No. 142, issued May 24, 1851, for $1,000 each, all three being issued 
 under the aforesaid Act of February 15, 1851, and neither of which bonds 
 has ever heretofore been paid either by the State of California or by the 
 United States, as per tables hereto annexed. 
 
 Second — For the redemption and payment to the legal holders thereof by 
 the United States of the outstanding, unredeemed, and unpaid bonds and 
 coupons attached thereto, issued under the aforesaid Act of May 3, 1852, 
 and none of which bonds have ever heretofore been paid either by the 
 State of California or by the United States, as per tables hereto annexed. 
 
 Third — For the redemption and payment to the legal holders thereof by 
 the United States of the outstanding, unredeemed, unpaid, detached coupons 
 earned between January 1, 1854, and September 1, 1856, on which last 
 named date the United States redeemed and paid the bonds issued under 
 both of said Acts, from which all of said coupons had been detached, and 
 none of which coupons have ever heretofore been paid either by the State 
 of California or by the United States, as per tables hereto annexed. 
 
 Fourth — The payment to the State of California by the United States of 
 the bonds and coupons attached thereto, issued under the Act of May 3, 1852, 
 which have heretofore been redeemed and heretofore paid in cash by the 
 State of California out of her own State Treasury and with her own State 
 funds, but neither of which bonds, nor any thereof, nor the amount repre- 
 senting the same or any part thereof, has ever heretofore been redeemed or 
 paid by the United States, as per tables hereto annexed. 
 
 Fifth — The payment to the State of California by the United States of the 
 Treasurer's certificates of balances due individual claimants, issued by the 
 State of California and paid by said State, but no portion of which has 
 ever heretofore been reimbursed said State by the United States, as per 
 tables hereto annexed. 
 
365 
 
 Sixth — The payment to the State of California by the United States of 
 the expenses necessarily incurred, and paid in cash by the State of Cali- 
 fornia, in having said bonds prepared and issued under the two aforesaid 
 Acts of February 15, 1851, and May 3, 1852, and as provided for therein, 
 but no portion of which has ever heretofore been reimbursed said State by 
 the United States, as per tables hereto annexed. 
 
 Seventh — The payment to the State of California by the United States 
 of the interest due the State of California by the United States up to Jan- 
 uary 1, 1885, on the aforesaid payments by said State, as contained in 
 items 4, 5, and 6, between the dates of such payments by said State and 
 the date when the principal shall be refunded by the United States^ as- 
 sumed in this case to be January 1, 1885, and which interest is calculated 
 up to first January, 1885, at the rate of six per centum per annum, as per 
 tables hereto annexed. 
 
 Annexed hereto and made a part hereof are tables that are intended to 
 fully and specifically show: 
 
 First — The aggregate claim of the State of California in these premises. 
 
 Second — The aggregate claim of the individual holders of her said bonds, 
 with coupons attached thereto. 
 
 Third — The aggregate claim of the individual holders of the unpaid 
 coupons detached from said bonds paid by the United States, and which 
 coupons represent interest earned by said bonds between January 1, 1854^ 
 and September 1, 1856, on which last date said bonds were paid by the 
 United States. 
 
 Also annexed hereto and made a part hereof are the tables, which show 
 in detail — 
 
 First — Table A. — The Specific Indian war bonds and coupons attached 
 thereto, issued by said State under the two aforesaid Acts of February 15, 
 1851, and May 3, 1852, which have not been paid by the State of Califor- 
 nia, but which have heretofore been paid by the United States up to 
 December 15, 1884. 
 
 Second — Table B. — The Specific Indian war bonds and coupons at- 
 tached thereto, issued by said State under the aforesaid Acts of February 
 15, 1851, and May 3, 1852, which have heretofore been paid and redeemed 
 by the State of California, prior to December 15, 1884, but never paid by 
 the United States, and for which and the matters connected therewith the 
 State of California is now fully and justly entitled to be reimbursed by the 
 United States, and with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per 
 annum, from the dates of such payment by said State up to January 1, 
 1885. 
 
 Third — Table C— The Specific Indian war bonds issued by said State, 
 and coupons attached thereto, now outstanding, and none of which have 
 ever, as yet, been paid either by the State of California or by the United 
 States. 
 
 Fourth — Table D. — The amount represented by coupons being for inter- 
 est earned from January 1, 1854, to September 1, 1856, which coupons on 
 said last date were detached from the bonds issued under the two afore- 
 said State statutes and returned to the holders of the bonds to which they 
 pertained, and which coupons were left unpaid (while the bonds them- 
 selves on first September, 1856, together with coupons for interest earned 
 up to January 1, 1854, were redeemed and paid by the United States), 
 and which detached coupons have never been paid, either by the State of 
 California or by the United States, up to the date of this statement, Decem- 
 ber 15, 1884. 
 
 Appended hereto is also a copy of a letter marked Exhibit E, from the 
 
366 
 
 office of the Third Auditor of the Treasury, dated February 16, 1882, and 
 from which letter it appears that up to January 10^ 1872^ the United States 
 had paid to the holders of said bonds and coupons the sum of $914,071 02. 
 Subjoined hereto is also the additional legislation of Congress, bearing 
 date subsequent to August 18, 1856, on this same subject, and as follows, 
 to wit: on June 23, 1860 (U. S. Stats., vol. 12, p. 104), Congress enacted a 
 law as follows, to wit: 
 
 ■x- * * * * *•* * * * * * 
 
 Section 4. And he it further enacted, That the Secretary of War be and he is hereby- 
 authorized to pay out of the unexpended balance of appropriation for the war debt of the 
 State of California, made by the last section of the Act approved August fifth, eighteen 
 hundred and fifty-four, entitled " An Act making appropriation for the support of the 
 army for the year ending the thirtieth of June, eighteen hundred and fifty-five," any 
 outstanding aiid unpaid bonds and coupons issued hy said State for said war debt prior 
 to the passage of said Act, but bearing date subsequent to the first day of January, 
 eighteen hundred and fifty-four; provided, that no payment shall be made beyond the 
 unexpended amount of said appropriation now remaining in the Treasury." * * 
 
 And again, on July 25, 1868 (U. S. Stats., vol. 15, p. 175), Congress en- 
 acted a law as follows, to wit: 
 
 To reappropriate an unexpended balance of an appropriation made by Act approved 
 August fifth, eighteen hundred and fifty-four, " to refund to the State of California ex- 
 penses incurred in suppressing Indian hostilities," said balance having lapsed and been 
 covered into the Treasury on the thirtieth of June, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, 
 ten thousand one hundred and eighty-three dollars and sixty-three cents; provided, that 
 nothing shall be paid except subject to existing provisions of law, and upon the finding 
 and certificate of the Third Auditor that the same is actually due. 
 
 Under these two laws the United States paid one $500 bond, to wit, No. 
 186, issued November 29, 1852, under the aforesaid Act of May 3, 1852, 
 principal and interest of which, represented by earned coupons, aggregated 
 the sum of $538 11. 
 
 Again, Congress, on March 3, 1881 (U. S. Stats., vol. 21, pages 510, 511), 
 enacted a law as follows, to wit: 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury he and he is hereby directed to 
 pay out of the unexpended balance of an appropriation of $924,259 65, under the third 
 section of the Act of Congress approved August 5, 1854, the sum of $1,290 56, which last 
 named amount is hereby reappropriated to pay to the lawful holders of four California 
 Indian war bonds, issued by said State on the eighteenth day of May, 1856, under the 
 provision of the Act of the Legislature thereof approved May 3, 1852, for the suppression 
 of Indian hostilities therein, numbered, respectively. 164, 166, 167, 168, each bond being for 
 the sum of $250, and bearing interest from date of 'issue at the rate of seven per centum 
 per annum, the amount herein appropriated being for the principal of said bonds, with 
 interest thereon from date of issue until the first of July, 1860; provided, said bonds shall 
 not be paid except out of any amount remaining unapplied of the appropriation of 
 $924,259 65 heretofore made. 
 
 Under this last law the United States paid four $250 bonds, to wit, Nos. 
 164, 166, 167, and 168, all dated May 18, 1856, and all issued under the 
 aforesaid Act of May 3, 1852, the principal and interest represented by 
 coupons aggregating the sum of $1,288 36. 
 
 So that of the bonds and coupons thereto attached, as issued under the 
 two aforesaid Acts of the Legislature of California of February 15, 1851, 
 and May 3, 1852, the United States have up to December 15, 1884, paid 
 the several sums as follows, to wit: 
 
 First payment (between September 1, 1856, and January 10, 1872). $914,071 02 
 
 Second payment, March, 1872 538 11 
 
 Third payment, March, 1881 .- - ---- --- 1,288 36 
 
 Aggregating $915,897 49 
 
 Original appropriation by Congress 924,259 65 
 
 Balance $8,362 16 
 
367 
 
 Leaving an unexpended balance, to fifteenth of December, 1884, of the 
 original appropriation of $8,362 16, which unexpended balance has been 
 heretofore carried into the surplus fund in the United States Treasury, and 
 as now shown by the books thereof. 
 
 Herewith, also (except the Tables contained therein, which having been 
 revised and corrected by me, in consequence of the redemption by the 
 United States, since the date of said report, of certain bonds enumerated 
 in said report, and which tables, as now amended, are annexed hereto), 
 will be found a copy of a portion of the official report of the late Controller 
 of the State of California, Hon. W. B. C. Brown, dated May 27, 1878, and 
 as by him addressed to the then Governor of California, Hon. William 
 Irwin, in accordance with Assembly Joint Resolution, No. 73, of the Legis- 
 lature of California, March 30, 1878, and which report (Exhibit F) throws 
 much official light on this subject. 
 
 Wherefore, in the name and on behalf of the State of California, I report 
 that there is now equitably due the State of California by the United 
 States, the sum of $110,947 38, which sum should be paid by the United 
 States to reimburse said State for the indebtedness by her necessarily 
 incurred and by her heretofore paid for the common defense in the man- 
 ner and at the dates as hereinbefore fully stated or referred to, and as will 
 more fully appear by the following: 
 
 Table showing the aggregate claim, of the State of California against the United, States in the 
 matter of certain .California Indian war bonds, issued by said State under the authority of the 
 Acts of her Legislature, approved February 15, 1851, and May 3, 1852, respectively. 
 
 The United States to the State of California, Dr. 
 
 First — For the redemption and payment of certain California Indian war 
 bonds and coupons attached thereto, issued by the State of California under 
 the Act of her Legislature, approved May 3, 1852, which were redeemed and 
 paid in cash by said State out of her own State Treasury prior to fifeenth 
 December, 1884, together with interest thereon, calculated at 6 per cent per 
 annum up to January 1, 1885, as per Table B .|81,103 43 
 
 Second — For the redem|)tion and payment of certain certificates of indebted- 
 ness issued by the Treasurer of the State of California in payment of Cali- 
 fornia Indian war expenses, and which certificates were redeemed and paid 
 in cash by said State out of her own State Treasury prior to fifteenth Decem- 
 ber, 1884, together with interest thereon, calculated at 6 per cent per annum 
 up to January 1, 1885, as per Table G... ._. ..- 22,550 95 
 
 Third — For the reimbursement and payment of certain expenses necessarily 
 incurred by the State of California, and paid in cash by said State out of her 
 own State Treasury prior to fifteenth December, 1884, for preparing and 
 issuing the California Indian war bonds, as provided for by the Act of her 
 Legislature, approved February 15, 1851, together with interest thereon cal- 
 culated up to January 1, 1885, as per Table H 4,433 00 
 
 Fourth — For the reimbursement and payment of certain expenses necessarily 
 incurred by the State of California, and paid in cash by said State out of her 
 own State Treasury prior to fifteenth December. 1884, for preparing and 
 issuing the California Indian war bonds, as provided for hj the Act of her 
 Legislature, approved May 3, 1852, together with interest thereon calculated 
 up to January 1, 1885, as per Table I 2,860 00 
 
 Total aggregate claim of the State of California against the United States up to 
 first January, 1885, arising under the aforesaid Acts of February 15, 1851, 
 and May 3, 1852 $110,947 38 
 
 Respectfully, JOHN MULLAN, 
 
 State Agent for the State of California. 
 Washington City, D. C, December 15, 1884. 
 
 Washington City, 
 
 District of Columbia. 
 
 John Mullan, on first being duly sworn, says that he is now the State 
 Agent for the State of California, and temporarily residing in the City of 
 
368 
 
 Washington, for the purpose, among other things, of presenting the claims 
 of the State of California before the proper authorities and departments of 
 the Government of the United States; that he has read the foregoing state- 
 ment and the several tables and exhibits thereto attached in regard to the 
 matter of California Indian war claims against the United States, and the 
 whole thereof; that all the matters therein contained (errors and omissions 
 excepted) are true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters therein 
 stated upon information and belief, and as to those matters, that he believes 
 the same to be true. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this fifteenth day of December, 1884. 
 
 [seal.] N. D. ADAMS, Notary Public, 
 
 In and for the City of Washington and District of Columbia. 
 
 TABLE A. 
 
 List of alt California Indian war bonds, with interest, issued by the State of California under 
 the Act of her Legislattire, approved February 15,1851, for the stippression of Indian hostilities 
 in said State, which have beeyi redeemed and paid by the United States up to December 15, I884. 
 
 No. 
 
 Date of Bond. 
 
 Amount 
 of Bond. 
 
 No. 
 
 Date of Bond. 
 
 Amount 
 of Bond. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34* 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 41 
 42* 
 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 April 1 
 
 ,1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851- 
 , 1851- 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851- 
 , 1851- 
 , 1851- 
 , 1851- 
 , 1851- 
 ,1851. 
 , 1851- 
 , 1851 . 
 , 1851- 
 , 1851- 
 , 1851- 
 , 1851- 
 , 1851- 
 , 1851- 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851- 
 ,1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 , 1851. 
 
 $1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1.000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1.000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 
 43 
 44 
 45 
 46 
 
 47 
 
 48 
 
 49 
 
 50 
 
 51 
 
 52 
 
 53 
 
 54 
 
 55 
 
 56 
 
 57 
 
 58 
 
 59 
 
 60 
 
 61 
 
 62 
 
 63 
 
 64 
 
 65 
 
 66 
 
 67* 
 
 68 
 
 69 
 
 70 
 
 71 
 
 72 
 
 73 
 
 74* 
 
 75 
 
 76 
 
 77 
 
 78 
 
 79 
 
 80 
 101 
 102 
 103 
 104 
 
 April 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 
 Apri 
 
 19, 
 
 Apri 
 
 19 
 
 Apri 
 
 19 
 
 Apri 
 
 19, 
 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 1851 
 
 $1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 
 * Those so noted were paid as dui)licates in lieu of the original bonds. 
 
869 
 
 Table A — Continued. 
 
 Date of Bond. 
 
 Amount 
 of Bond. 
 
 No. 
 
 Date of Bond. 
 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 Apri 
 
 •il9, 1851.- 
 119,1851-- 
 •il9, 1851 -- 
 •il9, 1851.- 
 •il9, 1851.. 
 •il9, 1851.- 
 •il9, 1851 -- 
 •il9, 1851 -- 
 •il9, 1851.. 
 •il9, 1851.. 
 •il9, 1851.- 
 •il9, i851-- 
 •il9, 1851.. 
 ■il 11, 1851. 
 •il 21, 1851. 
 •il 21, 1851- 
 •il 21, 1851. 
 •il 21, 1851. 
 1121,1851- 
 1121,1851. 
 11 21, 1851. 
 1121,1851. 
 11 21, 1851- 
 _ 1121,1851. 
 May 24,1351.. 
 May 24,1851.. 
 May 24,1851-. 
 May 24, 1851- - 
 May 24, 1851 - - 
 Mav24, 1851-- 
 May 24,1851-- 
 May 24, 1851-- 
 May 24, 1851-- 
 May 24, 1851-. 
 May 24, 1851- - 
 May 24, 1851.. 
 May 24,1851-. 
 May 24,1851.. 
 May 24, 1851.. 
 May 24, 1851.. 
 May 24,1851-. 
 May 24, 1851.. 
 May 24,1851.. 
 June 10, 1851. 
 June 10, 1851. 
 June 10, 1851. 
 June 10, 1851. 
 June 10, 1851. 
 June 10, 1851. 
 June 10, 1851. 
 June 10, 1851. 
 June 10, 1851. 
 June 10, 1851. 
 June 10, 1851. 
 June 10, 1851- 
 Juue 10, 1851. 
 June 10, 1851. 
 
 $1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1;000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 
 165 
 166 
 167 
 168 
 169 
 170 
 171 
 172 
 173 
 174 
 175 
 176 
 177 
 178 
 179 
 180 
 181 
 182 
 183 
 184 
 185 
 186 
 187 
 188 
 189 
 190 
 191 
 192 
 193 
 194 
 195 
 196 
 197 
 198 
 199 
 226 
 227 
 228 
 229 
 230 
 231 
 232 
 233 
 234 
 235 
 236 
 237 
 238 
 239 
 240 
 241 
 242 
 243 
 244 
 245 
 268 
 
 June 10, 1851 
 June 10, 1851 
 June 10, 1851 
 June 10, 1851 
 June 10, 1851 
 June 10, 1851 
 June 10, 1851 
 June 10, 1851 
 June 10, 1851 
 June 10, 1851 
 June 10, 1851 
 July 25, 1851- 
 July 25, 
 
 July 25, 
 July 25: 
 July 25; 
 July 25 
 July 25: 
 July 25 
 July 25, 
 July 25 
 July 25 
 July 25 
 July 25 
 July 25 
 July 25 
 July 25 
 July 25 
 July 25 
 July 25 
 July 25 
 July 25; 
 July 25; 
 July 25; 
 July 25, 
 July 25! 
 July 25: 
 July 25, 
 July 25: 
 July 25, 
 July 25! 
 July 25 
 July 25, 
 July 25, 
 July 25, 
 July 25; 
 July 25: 
 July 25 
 July 25 
 July 25: 
 July 25: 
 July 25: 
 July 25: 
 July 25, 
 July 25 
 April 8, 
 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851 -. 
 1851- . 
 1851.. 
 1851- . 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851 -. 
 1851.. 
 1851 -. 
 1851 -. 
 1851.. 
 1851- . 
 1851 -. 
 1851 -. 
 1851 -. 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851 -. 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851 -. 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851 -. 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851 -. 
 1851.. 
 1851.. 
 1851 -. 
 
 24 
 
370 
 
 Table A — Continued. 
 
 List of all California Indian war bonds issued by the State of California under the Act of her 
 Legislature, approved May 3, 1862, for the suppression of Indian hostilities in said State, 
 which have been redeemed and paid by the United States up to December 15, 1884- 
 
 First — Bonds bearing date prior to January 1, 1854, with interest upon the coupons up 
 to the first day of January, 1854 : 
 
 No. of Bond. 
 
 Amount of 
 each Bond. 
 
 No. of Bond. 
 
 Amount of 
 each Bond. 
 
 1 to 341 inclusive 
 
 $1,000 
 500 
 500 
 500 
 500 
 500 
 250 
 
 70 to 105, inclusive 
 
 $250 
 
 1 to 90 inchisive 
 
 1 to 114 inclusive 
 
 100 
 
 92 to 185 inclusive 
 
 116 to 131 inclusive 
 
 100 
 
 186 . - 
 
 164 to 218, inclusive 
 
 100 
 
 187 to 306 inclusive 
 
 220 to 267, inclusive 
 
 100 
 
 308 to 399 inclusive 
 
 272 to 296, inclusive 
 
 lOO 
 
 1 to 68^ inclusive 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Second — Bonds bearing date subsequent to the first of January, 1854, with coupons paid 
 to the first of July, 1860: 
 
 No. of Bond. 
 
 Amount of 
 each Bond. 
 
 No. of Bond. 
 
 Amount of 
 each Bond. 
 
 403 - 
 
 $500 
 500 
 500 
 500 
 500 
 250 
 250 
 250 
 
 121 
 
 122 
 
 $250 
 
 409 
 
 250 
 
 410 
 
 123 
 
 250 
 
 411 
 
 124 .- 
 
 250 
 
 413 
 
 125 - 
 
 250 
 
 108 
 
 126 
 
 250 
 
 109 
 
 140 
 
 250 
 
 110 -. 
 
 149. 
 
 250 
 
 
 
 
 Table A— Continued. 
 
 Second— Bonds bearing date subsequent to the first of January, 1854, with coupons paid 
 to the first of July, 1860— Continued. 
 
 Number of Bond. 
 
 Amount of 
 each Bond. 
 
 Number of Bond. 
 
 Amount of 
 each Bond. 
 
 302 
 324 
 325 
 326 
 334 
 335 
 336 
 337 
 338 
 339 
 342 
 343 
 
 $100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 
 344 
 345 
 346 
 347 
 350 
 358 
 359 
 366 
 370 
 375 
 376 
 
 $100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 
 Third— Bonds bearing date subsequent to the first of January, 1854, with coupons paid 
 to the first of July, 1860: 
 
 Number of Bond. 
 
 Amount of 
 each Bond. 
 
 Number of Bond. 
 
 Amount o 
 each Bond. 
 
 164 
 
 $250 00 
 250 00 
 
 167 - 
 
 $250 00 
 
 165 
 
 168 - 
 
 250 00 
 
 
 
 
371 
 
 «> 
 
 i «■ 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 I 
 
 8i 
 
 
 
 s? 
 
 "o-JS 
 
 ^ 
 
 g^ 
 
 
 S"^ 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 ~ "^ 
 
 
 
 
 S^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^■^ 
 
 ^^J 
 
 
 o-^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 g'^So 
 
 
 o,< 
 
 •i 
 
 1; 
 
 
 
 
 ll 
 
 ©■ 
 
 >>» o. 
 
 
 <o B 
 
 e 
 
 S-. ^ 
 
 3^ 
 
 ?^ 
 
 « 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ■< 
 
 
 
 fe"^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ?i 
 
 ►o 
 
 
 
 Tg 
 V 
 
 j'& 
 
 s 
 
 •" ^ 
 
 .1 
 
 :S^^ 
 
 
 «c 
 
 ^« 
 
 ts 
 
 
 S 
 
 ^^ 
 
 W t 
 
 
 S i 
 
 ^-^ 
 
 
 
 1"s> 
 
 H -3 
 
 C^^ 
 
 »^ 
 
 S~ « 
 
 .^^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 j» 
 
 
 « 
 
 Srjg 
 
 
 -o-^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 -^^ 
 
 a 
 
 ;s^ 
 
 
 ?i,'r^ 
 
 ?^ 
 
 '^'^ 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 e » 
 
 
 ^? 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 sCQ e 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 :^'^ 
 
 S 
 
 §e 
 
 
 ^f 
 
 
 'TS ?: 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 ^.iS 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 5 
 
 *-"o 
 
 
 'e e 
 
 'S 
 
 
 
 e e 
 
 e 
 
 
 
 4^^ I 
 
 o ©■ a 
 
 lO 
 
 I 111 
 
 ^ "^ S' 'H -r 
 
 
 M 73 
 
 
 oUm 
 
 
 No. of Bond, ggj 
 
 lOimoimo lo o co' ci" cc c^ o o co eo lo »o c^c^c^ c^^ <n (M < 
 
 C0C0fCCCSCi0i0i0»C'i0(>1Ni0(M>0O^-t<CCe0C0'-IOOOOiM0i'-li-lr-lT-» 
 CCCCCOCCCOCOfOCOCOCOCOCOCOCCCOCOTCCOCCCOCOfOCCCOCOfOCO^CCCOCOCO 
 
 CO CO CO CO o^ CO CO CO cococo CO CO cc CO CO CO CO coco CO CO CO CO CO CO CO coco CO CO CO 
 
 ■ ^^| ^ H' ' ^■ J '' H '' HI ' < 'J ' ' ' ^'J '' H '' H '' ( ^ 1' Hi ' )^i i ( ^ '' H I H -J' - HI ' H"H '' H '' H^ ' (■ J '' H '' H '' H ' > H' ' H '' H' ' H > 
 
 t—t^t^l^t^^iC'^'TfTtiOOCCCCCCCCOJCSt^OOOOOCOClCOCOCOOlC'i— ll— IkOlO 
 C<liMC^(M<^qOOiOOQCODI:^t--r-t-l:^iOiOCOi-H7-li-lT-lt^t^CCi:CCCOiMCMOO 
 
 I0i0k0>0i0ici0k0ici0i0i0ici0^i0i0i0i0vci0i0v0i0i0>0^>0»0i0i0i0 
 
 CC CC O CC CD 
 r'r r^ ro r^ ro r 
 
 i-H i-H 1-H tH 00 OC 00 
 
 ^ ^CC CC CO ^ 
 00 1—1 00 00 00 00 
 
 3 P 
 
 ., I !;•,;, icD .!! I ...... .CO 
 
 III. . CD CD ■ CO ' 00 ' . . . 'COCOcDrccC ' ^O 
 CDCOCDCOCOCOCOCDCOCDi-lCOCDCDCOCOCDCDcD^CC^'-' 
 COCOCOCDCOOOOOCOOOCO -COCOCOCOCCOOOOon^nnnCD . 
 
 0O0O,-li-IO0i-l00^O0O0O0O0O0i-(iHSr2°^ — 
 
 i-li-l ^.,1-1 ^,-HCOrH,-l,-lT-(i-l „ ^ „ , „ - - 
 
 cToi" CO CO cTco "^'to lo 'arcTcrar CO ro ^ ^ ^ <^'"co cTo^a oT 
 
 .--wwM^-^-.r-r-tHrH^bCM^^^Hj-.fc^er'r-'rieSH&Cf-.f-i^-iM 
 
 ; ^ 5 p-PhPkP,p.5 5 ^5 a,^ q,^p^^p.^ ^ 5 ^ ^ ^^ p.&&p* 
 
 iH^^-5<1<{<!<!<ll-5l-5<1r^<1<l1<1<^<!<j<^h--5h-5H-5l-5H-s<!l<|<1<i<1-<< 
 
 ICOOO 
 
 C<)C<l(MC^<MOOiOOOOOOl^t^t^I:^t— iCiOCO' 
 
 1 00 00 10 10 CO CO O 1 
 ,-1 r-lt- t- CD CD CD < 
 
 ;s 
 
 S88S8S88888S88S8888888888S88S8S8 
 888888888S8S8888888888888S888888 
 
 00 00 00 00 < 
 
 OldOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
 
 OCQCQOGOOOi-li-li-li-li-l^r-lr-l .. „„„„„, ^. ^. 
 ^^,_(^,_( ____.„„^..„, .00 00 00 00 00 QO 2i ±i 
 
 I coco CO 
 
 VQ >0 O 10 lO ^ 
 
 Qoop3cooop(j;:iioioioio 
 
 >i t>> >i >j >i >j >j t>»c<r(M' oi oi r:j 5^ '"l „ .- ^ 
 >s>j>it>i>j>j>»l>i>i>»>;>i>j>i>H ;h t^ ^H ;h ;h ^h ;h(M(M(M(mco^oooooo 
 
 § § § § 5 3 ^ § g S g § § llllllllim o| S:^:^.'^^ 
 
 CiOr-l(MCO'*lOCDt^QOOiO'— .(MCOt^COOCOi— ICJQ- 
 COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOeOCOCOCOCOCO' 
 
 I CO CO CO CO CO coco CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO COCO CO 
 
372 
 
 O <n -S "^ 
 
 o © ■" fl 
 EH S cS 
 
 OiOC^OSCOir^t^t^OiOi' 
 
 I (M CD Oi 00 CC' CC < 
 ' CO O CO ^ <M C^ c 
 
 lOt^t^t^COCOCOO-lCOvOi— ICOCCCO(NC<100000COO 
 iCOCOCOCOCCCCCOCOiTOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 
 
 CO(M C<1 
 
 O TtH M< 
 
 CO 00 CO 
 
 CO CO CO 
 00 00 00 
 
 ^ s s -^ =o 
 
 lOVOiOiOlOiOrtHi— ICOCOCO(MCvI(MOOC<|(MC5i:DCOCC>iOIOt-Ii— liHi—lr- lTt<^ 
 t^t^t^t^l^t^t^C^t^t^t^l^t^t^COt^t^CDCDCDCOCDCDCOCOCCiCCCDlOiO 
 rHT-fi— IrHi-HiHrHi— IrHT-lTHiHr-li— (THiHiHi-HrHiHrHiHiHrHTHiHiHiHiHTH 
 
 t^ rH Tti CO C<l CD 
 CD ^ -^ ^ Tf CO 
 
 tH TJ^ "^ "^ -^ TjH 
 
 |2 = 
 
 CD lO "^ O Ttl Tfl 1— I ( 
 (M © O 00 CD CD tP 1 
 
 COCDCDCDCDCDCDCDcS^<^'^^<^'<^'-ICDCDCD 
 CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDof^CDCDCDCDCDCD ^CDCDOOCD 
 
 oooooooooooooooo: 
 
 !cDCD 
 000000 • I ' " ' I I iCDCD 
 i^.^.p_l!^^COCDCDCDCDCDCDCD 
 
 ' „„ „CD CDCDCOCOCDCDCDOOOO 
 
 GOCOOOOOQOOOi— lOOOOrHOOOOOOOOOOT-H,— I,— lOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOi— (■^ 
 
 P^PHP^P^P^P^aP^g P. & P^ A P- P< 13 P^ ft P, fl, O^ ft p^ Ch ^3 ftftftftftftftftftft 
 
 O o S 
 
 -< o 
 
 OlOit—t^lOiOOOOOOOC 
 ClCyiCiCiCOCOCDCDCD- 
 
 ii0U0^O>Oi0i0i0iOi0'*i'^-*TtiTt<'*i-<^TtiTt<Tj<C0C0rf^-rtH'^-#^ 
 
 c a> 
 
 88S88888888S888S888SSS888S888888S888S 
 8888888888888888888S888888888888gggSS 
 
 THTHiHiHi-HiHTH,HTHrHiHTHTH,-HTHT--l,HT-HiHi-li--lTHTHrH,-(iHT-l,-lr-lrHi-lTHCv|(>lC^C<lCq 
 
 ! lO lO 
 
 
 
 
 ^ ^ -tH ogoo 
 >0 Ut) lO '-I '— ' 
 
 00 00 00 _,-.'-^ o 
 ^ 1— I rri 
 
 i ^H Pi ^I'M 
 
 00 00- 
 
 1 lO lO lO 1^ lO t~- t^ 
 
 ■ QOICOOOOOOCCOOCXDOO^^OO 
 
 rAr^rr^rArr^n^r^^ . . "^ -^ -^ -^ ^ ^ ^.^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 4^ ^ ^OO" ^ ^ 
 
 oo'oo^oo^od cxTtDcd ^- 
 C^ C-l !M (M (M (M (M i^'O 
 
 '^-fJ 
 
 f-t ci a 
 ;3 ^H ^ 
 -. oj a> 
 
 COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCb^TJ^■<*1TJ^■rt^Tf<rt^TtiT^Tt^T}^^ 
 
373 
 
 IrHlOOrHlOO 
 
 1— I 1-H 00 00 00 00 00 < 
 
 ii— li— I^C5C5C:oOOOCO'*'n<CieOCOOC<iai050505(M(M(M(MC500iOiOOO< 
 COCOCOCOCOCOC<li--lT-l,--i,-li-li-li-lr-IOOOOO'<ti(M<M(M(MOOOOOD0000000 1^t^CD< 
 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOt— t^t^l^t^t— l—t^t^l^COCOCOCOCCCOt 
 
 - cq Oi t^ t^ CO (M 
 ' CO O »C lO ic ^ 
 
 I CO CO ^ CD CO CD 
 
 1 lO lO 1 
 
 1 00 00 ( 
 
 T}iTfH-<*<Ttl-^-*->#"*'<*I^^^Tf-<tl-<:*<TjHTfl-^-rt<COCCe0COCO-*-^-<*<Tt<00O00000X00000000000000( 
 
 H|0CHCCrH|COrH|OCi-l|00rH|CCrH|0CH0O 
 
 OcccorHeococooooo^tMoooooooor^t^r^t-t-t^t^ 
 
 iHCOCOiH»OlO>OTHrHTti<MCOCOCOCOC<l<MC<IC<ICOCOCO 
 
 II < ^ ii (>j ii H I' W < ±1 '< U '< H '' H I' (^I i 
 
 CDCOiMOOiOOOOO(MOO 
 
 TWi-ICa(MO»O(M(M00<M 
 
 OiOiaiCiOiCioooooooooooo< 
 
 COMCOCOC0C0C0C0COCOCOC0O:)00COC0COCOMC0COCOC0CCMC0C0C0 1-^l>-t^l-^t--l:^l>-t^t^l>t^t^t^ 
 
 01C505C50i05C5Ci05CiCi01'*iiC'* 
 
 CiO5O5O5OiOia)O5^'^':t<'tij?5OJai0iO5050iOi05O50i0:^ 
 'C 'Jh 'Jh "Jh '£h 'E '5h '5h 'SiJ 'C 'S 'C 'C 'C "E c 'Si 'C 'S *C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C "Sh 'C 'fn r; '^H 'C *C 'E 'Jh 'u 'u 'u 'u '5h "tn 'C 
 
 . - ^ . . . I ( .J i'^ g' r HM^ ' MvJM'J 
 
 (Moboooooor^t^t^t^t^t-i-^cDccfN 
 
 -*C<ICCCCC0C0C<IC^iM<MCCC0C0T-lin-(05 
 
 I' J'J i i H I' ^ -J i' (^1 ' ('J ii 'l-J i 
 O Q O 00 00 (M 00 
 (N O O C<» CM 00 <M 
 
 lOilOCOCOi-HOOOOCO 
 i 00 00 00 0000 00 00 t-t^ 
 
 888888S8SS8SS8S8888SS8S8S888S8888888888SS 
 
 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOO 
 I0i0i0>0i0>0i0i0i0i0i0i0i0i0i00i0i0i0i0i0ici0>0i0i00i00000000000000 
 
 ^oo"22 <» 
 
 =3 «3 w w 
 
 a3 0) =^ =3 
 
 00 00 
 
 ^»0 voS 
 -00 aC 00 CO 
 
 222tdCa3 a; a3 qj ^"^"^r'S '^' '"''"' '"' " 
 
 ^^ io 
 
 I I I 1-*^-* iOiOOO_u _„ 
 
 lo . lo > 1 • vo »o lO lo lo lo lo 00 00 i-H 3!: :* 
 
 00 lOOt-t^t^lOlOlOlOOOOOOOi-lT-l ,iS i5 
 iH CO i-H 10 10 10 00 00 00 00 1-1 1-1 1-H . -rri 30 00 
 
 -vo ,00 ac ao t-i i-i T-i r-f ,,. 
 
 ^^ 
 
 _ ::i 3 a> <u oj oj 
 
 O ?3 3 S ^ 
 
 1— I n 1— I r-l , , ,t^ r^ CM 
 , , , ,Utl 10 10 01 (N v^-- 
 
 rdBSPnP'P^P-'^CaoSCQ.n.ri.rHi-rrrjCCGCC'^cScS 
 •-s*1<(C>QCZ2C»C>Qi-sH^<HSi-s<i<5<,<!<q<!<qi-5r-5t-5l-st-5[si^S 
 
 PhPiPiPjH g ^ ^ 
 
 I 00 00 10 
 
 P.PhP,=3 
 
 'ti 00 
 Ooo 
 
 <D'-S 
 eS O 
 
 i0CDt^C00iOt^i-(C<)e0t^06Tt<t^00Ot--0001vO0iOi— fC<)COt^00050i-*C<I'^40CDI:^OOC<lTt<iOr^01 
 i-lTHr--lr-lT-IC<lC<lC0C000f0C0Tt<'*^»Oi0iOiOCDC0 1--t^l:^i-li-li-li-IOOOOOOOOr-i,-i,-lrHT-l 
 
374 
 
 
 
 
 
 the 
 date 
 
 1868 
 
 
 *~ ^ - 
 
 
 -^-^ 
 
 
 §^^ 
 
 
 e^ 1? 
 
 
 Californi 
 ed thereo7 
 proved M 
 
 
 
 >t^ 
 
 
 e ^ 
 
 
 -to <to ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^2 "S * 
 
 
 
 
 he S 
 ntere 
 ids 
 
 
 
 ^•^ o 
 
 
 -1"^ 
 
 
 ■^^ "» 
 
 
 
 T? 
 
 
 0) 
 
 's^s ^ 
 
 PI 
 
 
 C 
 
 J- "^-^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 Y 
 
 ^l^o^ 
 
 
 ISI 
 
 PQ 
 
 
 Ind 
 er % 
 the 
 
 <: 
 
 -*= g 
 
 H 
 
 s ?^-§ 
 
 
 5^-^^ 
 
 
 h^'^ 
 
 
 ^^T. 
 
 
 j^'^^ 
 
 
 
 
 g e g 
 
 
 ^«^ 
 
 
 .-^^ 
 
 
 
 
 Hi 
 
 
 of ce 
 
 by s 
 
 ereto 
 
 
 , TS-^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s S^^ 
 
 
 i^^ 
 
 ^ p § 
 
 ilil 
 lis? 
 
 i3 
 
 So §g 
 
 O CB.O § 
 
 13 ^ g S 
 
 S> O O Or-I 
 
 S g o ^. S 
 ^=2 J'° a 
 
 
 
 o 2i 
 < 
 
 No. of Bond 
 
 oooooooooo^-^ 
 
 
 ' lO ^ lO ■<*' -^ 
 
 coco 
 
 00( 
 
 :00 
 
 _ OOQOCDCD 
 
 , ^ - ^CD CC CD 00 CO 
 
 ,-|7-Ii-I,-I00O0COi-ItH 
 
 CO CO CO CO ^ '-I tH _ ^ 
 
 ^ ^ ^ ^ c^Tc^fi^fZ!! ^ 
 
 o o a o ^ , ^ :;5:;d 
 
 c3c3c3o3c5cSo3p^fi| 
 
 COCOCpCDlOOlOCOCO 
 
 88SS8SS88 
 888888888 
 
 lO lO lO If 
 
 00 00 COCX- ■ 
 
 CO CO CO CO '30 
 
 ■+0 -+3 -M +3 ivTco^co' rH r^ 
 
 S 2 2 2?ioics S S 
 
 ^3^2:33^" ^ ID <v 
 U) be be be >^ P^ >^. >■ > 
 
 13 -3 13 3^^ =« O O 
 
 cSOO 
 Ul - 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^H O 
 
 -fj O 
 
 0'+-' 
 
 H 
 
375 
 
 ^ ^-1 
 
 ^^•§ 
 "^ «•-' 
 
 S S £! 
 
 lie 
 
 
 s: ^ <to 
 
 
 iiif 
 
 o aj"- a 
 HP o3 
 
 =3 - gj CO 
 
 o a S „ 00 
 
 a 5 §, 
 
 la- 
 
 <! o g 
 
 3-C-2 
 
 
 No. of Bond 
 
 lO t^ lO t-- -^ Oi 
 
 t^ lO CO '^ 1— I tH 
 
 t-CO QO- 
 CCCC-+I I 
 CO t^rH : 
 
 t^ C5 t^ CO (M Oi 
 
 1-1 COCO t^ O t^ 
 
 O 
 
 OOOI- 
 
 00 GO 00 1-1 
 
 iOOO< 
 
 <M 
 
 (M 
 
 i-l(M rH 
 
 OOOO 
 01 1-1 C^ 
 
 oo 
 
 00 00 
 
 ^TtH 
 
 a a a ch cs a 
 
 t-05 r^CO CD CO 
 
 CO CO CD t^ lO -^ 
 
 iHCO <M 
 
 8888 88 
 
 ^ 
 
 <V( 
 
 O) j3 a> 
 ci Z, <^ ^ 
 
 CO C 
 
 3 ^ 
 
 03 
 
 o 
 
 Is 
 
 -I 
 
 c3^ 
 
 '-I h 
 
 
 g 
 
 .2 
 
 
 
 
 
 § 
 
 
 e*^ 
 
 
 <»r 
 
 ie 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 -^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 ^^ 
 
 cc 
 
 .°? 
 
 s 
 
 
 1 
 
 > 
 
 5S 
 
 .^ 
 
 «co 
 
 is. 
 
 ^.^ 
 
 
 V. 
 
 ^ 
 
 s^ 
 
 o 
 
 ?;^ 
 
 
 «1^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 w 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 O-iS 
 
 
 A 
 
 1 
 
 1^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 's 
 
 s 
 
 
 55 
 
 5^ 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 5i^ 
 
 S 
 
 ts 
 
 C^ 
 
 «<. 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 r: 
 
 
 'O 
 
 V 
 
 35 
 
 ^ 
 
 r^ 
 
 'e 
 
 
 t 
 
 i 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 -^ 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 ^ 
 
 e 
 
 rO 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 
 'V 
 
 
 &i 
 
 
 
 
 ;s 
 
 .^ 
 
 H 
 
 •2 
 
 I 
 
 ^ 
 
 *9 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 fe 
 
 w 
 
 ^ 
 
 §.S, 
 
 
 
 "s g 
 
 i"^ -S 
 
 s e o 
 
 § K O 1^ 
 
 ^11^ 
 
 unt 
 Cal- 
 
 
 
 L885. 
 
 8 
 
 
 11^- 
 
 
 <-.5t^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 otal 
 est 
 ifoi 
 nua 
 
 
 EH = « 
 
 
 '^rs hb 
 
 
 1 jj> 
 
 
 t due Cal 
 a from 
 paymen 
 iier to 
 y 1, 1885 
 
 S 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 CD a o >, cs 
 
 ¥s- 
 
 Icsl-'S 
 
 
 a c8 ^ 
 
 
 w -a i-s 
 
 
 •*- 
 
 
 Z-^-i 
 
 8 
 
 gig. 
 
 § 
 
 a * *j 
 
 c^"" 
 
 !^ a * 
 
 €«- 
 
 *'C-2 
 
 
 ofw e 
 
 
 H ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 -c 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 eS 
 
 
 
 -O 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 pq 
 
 
 
 «4-l 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 (M 
 
 ^ 
 
 t— 
 
 cS 
 
 00 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 <s 
 
 
 •i^ 
 
 
 cS 
 
 
 P 
 
 Sh 
 
 
 pH 
 
 
 < 
 
 ^^i 
 
 8 
 
 
 § 
 
 a to.rt 
 
 
 g£g 
 
 s^ 
 
 3-^ S 
 
 
 < ° 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 o © 
 
 
 s^- 
 
 2- 
 
 <5 o 
 
 €«■ 
 
 n3 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 pq 
 
 
 
 <«-< 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 ee 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 Sg 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 <<-i 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 i-T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ft 
 
 
 <1 
 
 No. of Bond. 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 a.a'^ 
 
 C'-' OJ * fH 
 
 
 o "'•go 
 O «-^oo 
 
 -n s;5 
 
 "§5l 
 
 * - £: 
 
 -I- 05 o 
 
 ^ a ® 
 
 a 5 00 
 Co® 
 
 ^ a t- 
 
 .a £ 
 If ^' 
 
 ■g 2 o 
 
 _ ® a a 
 
 P5:5 2 •- 
 
 "-' -a 02 
 
 O 00 t, •—' 
 
 ^3 ® 
 
 ^"a.^ g 
 
 c -2 .""^ ,2 ® 
 
 O -2 £ g ^ 
 
 .a ;« =; .o S 
 
 t- a =3 M 
 
 >J r- 2 ^ 
 
 ai ri at *^ 
 
 2§l^ 
 
376 
 
 TABLE C. 
 
 List of all California Indian war bonds, with interest, issued by the State of California, under 
 the Act of her Legislature approved February 15, 1851, for the suppression of Indian hos- 
 tilities in said State which have not, up to December 15, 1884, been redeemed or paid by either 
 said State or by the United States, but which are now outstanding, unpaid, and overdue. 
 
 No. 
 
 Date of Bond. 
 
 Interest 
 
 to February 
 
 15, 1861. 
 
 Total. 
 
 107 
 108 
 142 
 
 April 9, 1851. 
 April 9, 1851. 
 May 24, 1851. 
 
 $1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 1,000 00 
 
 Total aggregate 
 
 $1,182 00 
 1,182 00 
 1,167 00 
 
 $2,182 00 
 2,182 00 
 2,167 00 
 
 $6,531 00 
 
 TABLE C. 
 
 List of all California Indian war bonds, with interest, issued by the State of California under 
 the Act of her Legislature approved May 3, 1852, for the suppression of Indian hostilities 
 in said State which have not, tip to December 15, I884, been redeemed or paid by either said 
 State or by the United States, but which are now outstanding, unpaid, and overdue. 
 
 No. 
 
 Date of Bond. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Interest to 
 
 May 2, 1862. 
 
 Total. 
 
 132 
 133 
 134 
 135 
 136 
 137 
 138 
 139 
 140 
 141 
 142 
 143 
 144 
 145 
 146 
 147 
 148 
 149 
 150 
 151 
 152 
 153 
 154 
 155 
 156 
 157 
 158 
 159 
 
 October 11, 
 October 11, 
 October 12, 
 October 12, 
 October 12, 
 October 18, 
 October 19, 
 October 23, 
 October 23, 
 October 23, 
 October 25, 
 October 25, 
 October 25, 
 October 25, 
 October 25, 
 October 25, 
 October 27, 
 October 27, 
 October 28, 
 November 
 November 
 November 
 November 
 November 
 November 
 November 
 November 
 November 
 
 1852. _. 
 
 1852... 
 
 1852... 
 
 1852... 
 
 1852... 
 
 1852... 
 
 1852... 
 
 1852... 
 
 1852... 
 
 1852... 
 
 1852... 
 
 1852... 
 
 1852... 
 
 1852... 
 
 1852... 
 
 1852... 
 
 1852... 
 
 1852... 
 
 1852... 
 
 1, 1852. 
 
 1, 185?. 
 
 3, 1852. 
 
 13, 1852. 
 
 13, 1852. 
 
 13, 1852. 
 
 16,1852. 
 
 18, 1852. 
 
 18, 1852. 
 
 Total aggregate 
 
 $100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 
 $66 91 
 66 91 
 66 89 
 66 89 
 66 89 
 66 77 
 66 75 
 66 67 
 66 67 
 66 67 
 66 63 
 66 63 
 66 63 
 66 63 
 66 63 
 66 63 
 66 59 
 66 59 
 66 57 
 66 51 
 66 51 
 66 47 
 66 28 
 66 28 
 66 28 
 66 22 
 66 18 
 66 18 
 
 $166 91 
 166 91 
 166 89 
 166 89 
 166 89 
 166 77 
 166 75 
 166 67 
 166 67 
 166 67 
 166 63 
 166 63 
 166 63 
 166 63 
 166 63 
 166 63 
 166 59 
 166 59 
 166 57 
 166 51 
 166 51 
 166 47 
 166 28 
 166 28 
 169 28 
 166 22 
 166 18 
 166 18 
 
 $4,664 46 
 
377 
 
 Table C— Continued. 
 
 Date of Bond. 
 
 Interest to 
 May 2, 1862. 
 
 November 22, 1852. 
 November 22, 1852. 
 November 25,1852. 
 November 25, 1852. 
 
 April 27, 1853 
 
 August 13, 1853 ... 
 August 13, 1853 ... 
 August 13, 1853 ... 
 August 13, 1853 ... 
 January 19, 1854 .. 
 January 19, 1854 .. 
 March 29, 1854 .... 
 March 31, 1854 .... 
 March 31, 1154 .... 
 March 31, 1854 .... 
 
 April 12, 1854 
 
 April 12, 1854 
 
 April 17, 1854 
 
 April 17, 1854 
 
 April 25, 1854 
 
 April 25, 1854 
 
 April 25, 1854 
 
 April 25, 1854 
 
 May 13, 1854 
 
 May 13,1854 
 
 May 13,1854 
 
 May 13,1854 
 
 May 20, 1854 
 
 May 26,1854 
 
 June 6,1854 
 
 July 10, 1854 
 
 July 21, 1854 
 
 August 7, 1854 
 
 August 11,1854.... 
 August 19, 1854.... 
 September 2, 1854 
 October 23, 1854 .. 
 October 24, 1854... 
 November 24, 1854. 
 November 24, 1854 
 November 24, 1854 
 November 24, 1854. 
 November 24, 1854 
 April 4, 1855...... 
 
 July 28,1855 
 
 August 1, 1855 
 
 August 13,1855.-.. 
 August 13,1855... 
 August 13,1855-.-. 
 August 13,1855-.- 
 November 25, 1852. 
 Februarv3, 1854.- 
 
 July 10, 1854 
 
 Julv21,1854 - 
 
 July 21, 1854 
 
 July 21, 1854 
 
 Julv21, 1854 
 
 July 21,1854 
 
 August 24, 1854... 
 August 26, 1854-.. 
 August 26, 1854... 
 August 26, 1854--. 
 September 14, 1854 
 September 14, 1854 
 October 18, 1854- - 
 October 24, 1854 .. 
 October 24, 1854 . - 
 October 24, 1854.. 
 October 24, 1854... 
 
 $100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 08 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 100 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 60 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 
 $66 10 
 
 66 10 
 
 66 05 
 
 66 05 
 
 63 10 
 
 61 04 
 
 61 04 
 
 61 04 
 
 61 04 
 
 58 20 
 
 58 20 
 
 56 64 
 
 56 60 
 
 56 60 
 
 56 60 
 
 56 39 
 
 56 39 
 
 56 29 
 
 56 29 
 
 56 14 
 
 56 14 
 
 56 14 
 
 56 14 
 
 55 85 
 
 55 85 
 
 55 85 
 
 55 85 
 
 55 53 
 
 55 53 
 
 55 33 
 
 54 67 
 
 54 47 
 
 54 15 
 
 54 07 
 
 53 92 
 
 53 67 
 
 52 68 
 
 52 66 
 
 52 08 
 
 52 08 
 
 52 08 
 
 52 08 
 
 52 08 
 
 49 54 
 
 47 33 
 
 47 27 
 
 47 04 
 
 47 04 
 
 47 04 
 
 47 04 
 
 165 14 
 
 144 33 
 
 136 70 
 
 136 15 
 
 136 15 
 
 136 15 
 
 136 15 
 
 136 15 
 
 134 55 
 
 134 55 
 
 134 55 
 
 134 55 
 
 133 58 
 
 133 58 
 
 131 93 
 
 131 64 
 
 131 64 
 
 131 eA 
 
 131 64 
 
378 
 
 Table C — Continued. 
 
 Date of Boud. 
 
 Interest to 
 May 2, 1862. 
 
 Total. 
 
 156 
 160 
 161 
 162 
 163 
 307 
 416 
 420 
 
 October 24, 1854 
 August 1,1855.. 
 August 1, 1855 -- 
 August 1,1855.- 
 Augustl5, 1855- 
 
 Mavl4 1853 
 
 MaV 13; 1854..-. 
 July 10, 1854 -._- 
 
 Total aggregate 
 
 $250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 00 
 250 90 
 500 00 
 500 00 
 500 00 
 
 $131 64 
 118 17 
 118 17 
 118 17 
 117 50 
 313 83 
 278 92 
 273 38 
 
 $381 64 
 368 17 
 368 17 
 368 17 
 367 50 
 813 83 
 778 92 
 773 38 
 
 $9,977 93 
 
 TABLE D. 
 
 Amount of coupons detached from bonds paid by the United States September 1, 1856, and 
 which coupons represent interest earned by said bonds between January i, 1854, CL^^d Sep- 
 tember 1, 1856, and which interest has never heretofore been paid either by the United States 
 or by the State of California. 
 
 Interest on $197,000, bonds of 1851, for thirty-two months, from January 1, 1854, 
 to September 1, 1856, at 12 per cent per annum $63,040 00 
 
 Interest on $590,800, bonds of 1852, for thirty-two months, from January 1, 1854, 
 to September 1, 1856, at 7 per cent per annum 110,282 66 
 
 Total aggregate $173,322 66 
 
 TABLE G. 
 
 List showing the amount of certificates of indebtedness issued by the Treasurer of the State of 
 California prior to January 1, 1854, ^^ payment of California Indian war expenses, and which 
 certificates were redeemed and paid in cash by said State out of her own State Treasury prior 
 to the fifteenth of December, I884, and which have not been redeemed or paid by the United 
 States. 
 
 Amount , $7,896 62 
 
 Less cash received.. 11 67 
 
 Balance $7,884 95 
 
 Interest due State of California from January 1, 185'1, to January 1, 1885 14,666 00 
 
 Total amount due State of California to January 1, 1885 $22,550 95 
 
 TABLE H. 
 
 List showing the amount of expenses necessarily incurred by the State of California, and paid in 
 cash by said State out of her own State Treasury, prior to December 15, I884, for preparing and 
 issuing the California Indian war bonds, as provided for by the Act of her Legislature approved 
 February 15, 1851, and no portion of which amount has heretofore been reimbursed said State 
 by the United States. 
 
 Amount $1,550 00 
 
 Interest due State of California from January 1, 1854, to January 1, 1885 2,883 00 
 
 Total amount due State of California to January 1, 1885 $4,433 00 
 
 TABLE I. 
 
 List showing the amount of expenses necessarily incurred by the State of California, and paid in 
 cash by said State out of her own State Treasury, prior to December 15, I884, for preparing and 
 issuing the California Indian war bonds, as provided for by the Act of her Legislature approved 
 May 3, 1852, and no portion of which amount has heretofore been reimbursed said State by the 
 United States. 
 
 Amount... $1,000 00 
 
 Interest due State of California from January 1, 1854, to January 1, 1885.. 1,860 00 
 
 Total amount due State of California to January 1, 1885 $2,860 00 
 
379 
 
 Exhibit E. 
 
 Letter from the office of Third Auditor of the Treasury, February 16, 1882: 
 "I have to state that under Acts of August 5, 1854, August 18, 185B, June 23, 1860, and 
 July 25, 1868, the holders of bonds of said State who have presented the same to this 
 Department have been i)aid the sum of $914,071 02 for principal and interest which had 
 accrued prior to January 1, 1854; and if there are any unpaid bonds and accrued interest 
 which are considered as properly chargeable to the United States, no good reason appears 
 why they should not be presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury for settle- 
 ment in the same manner as those heretofore presented and paid, under any statute Con- 
 gress may deem proper to enact, and the appropriation remain in the Treasury of the 
 United States, to be drawn from as the claims shall be presented and settled, instead of 
 depositing the total amount of the appropriation with the Treasurer of the State of Cali- 
 fornia, as expressed in the second section of said bill. If the State of California has paid 
 the bonds and interest, or any part thereof, she should present her claim for reimburse- 
 ment, by filing the bonds and coupons paid in the same manner as individual holders and 
 owners. This would obviate the covering back into the Treasury of the United States 
 any unexpended balance which might be retained in the Treasury of the State for years, 
 as the bill does not fix a time for returning the balance to the Treasury of the l/nited 
 States." 
 
 The foregoing letter was addressed by Hon. A. M. Gangewer, Acting 
 Third Auditor, to Hon. Charles J. Folger, Secretary of the Treasury: 
 
 Exhibit F. 
 
 Controller's Report, made under and in accordance with Assembly Joint Resolution No. 
 73, March 30, 1878, to his Excellency the Governor. (Twenty-second session of the Legis- 
 lature.) 
 
 Controller's Office, Sacramento, May 27, 1878. 
 To his Excellency William Irwin, Governor of California : 
 
 Sir: In conformity with your request made under the authority of Assembly Joint 
 Resolution No. 73, adopted March 30, 1878, * * * I have the honor to make the follow- 
 ing statement: 
 
 I find upon examination of War Bond Register in State Treasurer's Office, and other 
 records in Controller's office, that, under the Act of the Legislature of California approved 
 February 15, 1851 (Statutes 1851, page 520), Indian war bonds were issued by the State of 
 California to the amount of $200,000, bearing interest at the rate of twelve per cent per 
 annum, and payable in ten years; that under the Act of the Legislature of May 3, 1852 
 (Statutes of 1852, page 59), Indian war bonds were issued by the State of California to the 
 amount of $638,100, bearing interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum, and payable 
 in ten years. 
 
 Of the principal of the above named bonds of 1851, amounting to $200,000, 1 find, accord- 
 ing to printed report of William Theodore Van Doren, clerk Third Auditor's office, Wash- 
 ington, made January 10, 1872 (see Appendix to Journal of California Senate and Assem- 
 bly for the nineteenth session, pages 28 and 29), that the United States Government 
 has paid $197,000; that of the principal of the above named bonds of 1852, amounting to 
 $638,100 (according to said report of William Theodore Van Doren, above referred to), the 
 United States Government has paid .$598,450; that of the principal of the last above named 
 bonds of the State of California (according to Controller's books) has paid $22,850, leaving 
 outstanding, of the principal of the bonds of 1851, $3,000; of the principal of the bonds of 
 1852, $16,800, together with interest on the same. * * * 
 
 Could the appropriation of $924,259 65 have been made immediately available, it would 
 have paid up in full, principal and interest, the said bonds under Acts of 1851 and 1852, 
 issued prior to January 1, 1854; but owing to the ruling of the honorable Secretary of 
 War, to the effect that the vouchers upon which said bonds were issued would have to be 
 presented for examination to the War Department at Washington, delay was caused, the 
 result of which was, that before the bondholders received their money some two years and 
 eight months elapsed, and the interest coupons from January 1, 1854 (the date to which 
 interest was paid on bonds redeemed bv the United States Government bearing date prior 
 to January 1, 1854), to September 1, 1856, and amounting to $173,322 66, were cut from the 
 said redeemed bonds and returned to the respective holders of said bonds so presented 
 for redemption ; which will more fully and at large appear by reference to reports made 
 to the Governor of California, by Samuel B. Smith and J. W. Denver, Commissioners Cal- 
 ifornia War Debt, which reports bear date, respectively, January 5, 1857, and January 30, 
 1860. (See Appendix to Journals of Senate and Assembly, nineteenth session, pages 10, 
 11, 12, and 13.) > f s . 
 
 Included in the $638,100 of the seven per cent bonds first herein described, are bonds 
 bearing date after said first day of January, 1854, which were issued under the said Act of 
 1852, and Acts amendatory thereof— a large number of which, both principal and interest, 
 have been paid in full by the United States Government— said Government thus acknowl- 
 edging, to the fullest extent, the validity of the issue of bonds of later date than January 
 
380 
 
 1, 1854, and the obligation of the General Government to pay the same; all of which will 
 more fully appear by reference to the records of the United States War Department. 
 
 To sum up, the account in tabular form is as follows : 
 
 Bonds of 1851 outstanding (principal) |3,000 00 
 
 Interest on same from date to maturity 3,531 00 
 
 Bonds under Act of 1852 outstanding (principal) 15,300 00 
 
 Interest on same from date of bond to May 2, 1862, time of maturity 8,701 81 
 
 Coupons outstanding, cut from bonds of 1851, redeemed by United States Gov- 
 ernment, said coupons being for interest on said bonds from January 1, 1854, 
 
 to September 1,1856 63.040 00 
 
 Coupons outstanding, cut from bonds of 1852, redeemed by the United States 
 Government, said coupons being for interest on said bonds from Januarv 1, 
 1854, to September 1, 1856 I... 110,282 66 
 
 Total amount of bonds, principal and interest, outstanding $203,855 47 
 
 To which amount is to be added the amount of principal and interest of said bonds under 
 the Act of May 3, 1852, paid by the State of California, * * * for which the General 
 Government is justly liable to the State. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 W. B. C. BROWN, Controller. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 23. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. 153. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 21, 1885 — Read twice, 
 referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To reappropriate the unexpended balance heretofore appropriated by Congress 
 for the suppression of Indian hostilities in the State of California. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the unexpended balance of 
 eight thousand three hundred and sixty-two dollars and sixteen cents of 
 the appropriation made by Congress August fifth, eighteen hundred and 
 fifty-four (tenth Statutes, pages five hundred and eighty-two and five hun- 
 dred and eighty-three), and August eighteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty- 
 six (United States Statutes, volume eleven, page ninety-one), for the sup- 
 pression of Indian hostilities in the State of California, and carried to the 
 surplus fund, be and the same is hereby reappropriated ; and the Secretary 
 of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to pay the said sum to 
 the State of California upon the surrender by said State to said Secretary 
 of bonds and coupons issued by said State in part payment of said expenses, 
 which have been redeemed and paid by said State in said sum; and the 
 aforesaid sum shall be paid said State upon her furnishing the Secretary 
 of the Treasury satisfactory evidence that bonds and coupons so issued 
 have been redeemed, paid, and canceled to the amount of said unexpended 
 balance, under and by the authority of the Legislature of said State. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. 135. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 21, 1885 — Read twice, 
 referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
381 
 A BILL 
 
 For the relief of the State of California. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America^ in Congress assembled^ That the provisions of the Act of 
 Congress approved June twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and eighty-two 
 (United States Statutes, volume twenty-two, page one hundred and eleven), 
 be and the same are hereby extended to all Indian war claims arising in 
 the State of California and upon the borders thereof between September 
 ninth, eighteen hundred and fifty, and April fifteenth, eighteen hundred 
 and sixty-one, and for which no provision has heretofore been enacted by 
 Congress, or which have not been heretofore presented to the proper account- 
 ing officers of the Treasury. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby authorized 
 and directed to pay to the State of California any sum found due upon 
 investigation for balances alleged to have been paid and assumed and 
 remaining due and to be paid by said State on account of Indian war bonds, 
 coupons", and certificates issued by said State under the Acts of her Legis- 
 lature approved February fifteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty-one. May 
 third, eighteen hundred and fifty-two, and April twenty-fifth, eighteen 
 hundred and fifty-seven, respectively, on account of the suppression of 
 Indian hostilities within and upon the borders of said State ; provided^ 
 that the sum so paid shall not exceed in amount the sum of two hundred 
 and fifty thousand dollars, which amount is hereby appropriated out of any 
 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and to be paid to said 
 State upon the surrender by her of said bonds, coupons, and certificates of 
 indebtedness, or pro rata for any portion thereof, to the Secretary of the 
 Treasury. • 
 
 Sec. 3. That the privilege is hereby granted to the State of California 
 of presenting to the Secretary of the Treasury any new or additional evidence 
 in support of any of its war claims filed or to be filed; and the Secretary of 
 the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to reopen, investigate, and 
 examine the same, in connection with such evidence so presented, together 
 with any such evidence as may be already of record in his department at 
 the date of the passage of this Act; and at the earliest practicable time he 
 shall report to Congress, for final action, the results of such examination 
 and investigation, and the amounts found to be equitably due or expended 
 by said State for any of the purposes aforesaid. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. 5566. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. February 15, 1886 — Read twice, 
 referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 For the relief of the State of California. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the provisions of the Act 
 of Congress approved March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-one 
 (United States Statutes, volume twelve, page one hundred and ninety-nine), 
 
382 
 
 be and the same are hereby extended to all Indian war claims arising in 
 the State of California, and upon the borders thereof, between September 
 ninth, eighteen hundred and fifty, and April fifteenth, eighteen hundred 
 and sixty-one, and for which no provision has heretofore been enacted by 
 Congress, or which have not been heretofore presented to the proper account- 
 ing officers of the Treasury; and the privilege is hereby granted to said 
 State of presenting to the Secretary of the Treasury any new, additional, 
 or corroboratory evidence in support of any of its Indian war claims here- 
 tofore filed; and said Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to 
 examine the same, in connection with such evidence as may be already of 
 record in his Department at the date of the passage of this Act, and to 
 allow said State whatever amounts he may find equitably due to or 
 expended by said State for any of the aforesaid purposes; provided, that 
 any allowance for or on account of any or all of the foregoing matters 
 shall be paid exclusively out of the unexpended balance of the appropri- 
 ation made in said Act of March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, 
 and now lapsed into the Treasury, and which unexpended balance is now 
 hereby re appropriated. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby author- 
 ized and directed to pay to the State of California any sum found by him, 
 upon investigation, to be due her for balances heretofore paid or assumed 
 and remaining due by said State on account of Indian war bonds, coupons, 
 warrants, and certificates of indebtedness issued by her under the Acts of 
 her Legislature approved February fifteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty- 
 one. May third, eighteen hundred and fifty-two, and April twenty-fifth, 
 eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, respectively, for the payment and defray- 
 ing of the expenses incurred in the suppression of Indian hostilities, and 
 matters in relation thereto arising in certain counties in said State, and 
 upon tlie borders thereof; provided, that the amount so paid shall not 
 exceed the sum of three hundred and thirty-five thousand and eighty-six 
 dollars and eighty-eight cents, which sum is hereby appropriated out of 
 any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the same to be 
 paid to said State, and upon the condition only of the surrender by her to 
 the Secretary of the Treasury of said bonds, coupons, warrants, and cer- 
 tificates of indebtedness, or payment to be made pro rata for any portion 
 thereof; provided further, that the acceptance of the indemnity hereby 
 provided shall operate as a final and complete discharge and satisfaction 
 of all claims or matters hereinbefore referred to. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. No. 8732. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. May 10, 1886 — Read twice, referred to 
 the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To reappropriate an unexpended balance. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled. That the unexpended balance of 
 eight thousand three hundred and fifty-seven dollars and sixteen cents, of 
 the appropriation made by Congress August fifth, eighteen hundred and 
 fifty-four (tenth Statutes, pages five hundred and eighty-two and five 
 
383 
 
 hundred and eighty-three), and Acts amendatory thereof and supple- 
 mental thereto, for the suppression of Indian hostilities in the State of Cal- 
 ifornia, and carried to the surplus fund, be and the same is hereby 
 reappropriated; and the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby 
 authorized and directed to pay said sum to the State of California upon 
 the surrender by said State to said Secretary of bonds in said sum issued 
 in part payment of said expenses, and which have been heretofore redeemed 
 and paid by her; and said sum shall be paid said State upon her furnish- 
 ing the Secretary of the Treasury satisfactory evidence that said bonds to 
 the amount of said unexpended balance, have been redeemed and paid by 
 said State, under and by virtue of the authority of the Legislature thereof: 
 provided, that no coupons attached to said bonds shall be paid said State 
 for any interest whatsoever accruing subsequent to May third, eighteen hun- 
 dred and sixty-two. 
 
 Forty -eighth Congress, second session. H. R. 8149. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. February 2, 1885 — Read twice, refer- 
 red to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To reappropriate the unexpended balance of an appropriation made by former 
 
 Acts of Congress. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the sum of eight thousand 
 three hundred and sixty-two dollars and sixteen cents, being an unexpended 
 balance of an appropriation made by the Acts of Congress approved 
 August fifth, eighteen hundred and fifty-four, and August eighteenth, 
 eighteen hundred and fifty-six (United States Statutes, volume ten, pages 
 five hundred and eighty-two and five hundred and eighty-three, and volume 
 eleven, page ninety-one), "to refund to the State of California expenses 
 incurred in suppressing Indian hostilities," which has heretofore lapsed 
 and been covered into the Treasury, be and the same is hereby reappro- 
 priated; and the same shall be paid to the State of California upon her 
 surrender to the Secretary of the Treasury the bonds and coupons aggregat- 
 ing said sums which have been heretofore redeemed and paid by said State 
 on account of the suppression of the hostilities named in said Acts; pro- 
 vided, that the sums heretofore paid by the State of California on account of 
 said hostilities which have not been heretofore repaid by the United States 
 shall be refunded to said State, with interest at six per centum per annum 
 from the dates of such payment by said State up to the date of the passage 
 of this Act, and to be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
 appropriated, upon proper evidence of such payments by said State being 
 furnished and filed by her with the Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 24. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. E. 5566. 
 
 Statement in support of H. R. No. 5566. Introduced February 15, 1886, 
 by Hon. Barclay Henley of California, and referred to the Committee on 
 War Claims — "A bill /or the relief of the State of California.'^ 
 
384 
 
 First — The object of the first part of section one of said bill is to authorize 
 an examination, by the Secretary of the Treasury, under a carefully prepared 
 statute which Congress has heretofore enacted, such California Indian war 
 claims as Congress has not as yet made any provision for; and to authorize 
 said Secretary to receive and properly act upon any new and corroboratory 
 evidence in support of any of its Indian war claims heretofore filed, and for 
 which Congress did make provision in its Act of March 2, 1861 (U. S. Stat, 
 vol. 12, page 199). 
 
 Congress in its Act of March 2, 1861 (U. S. Stat., vol. 12, p. 199) , in naming 
 certain counties, and in enumerating certain years therein, did great injustice 
 thereby to the State of California, by thus omitting from its scope similar 
 expenses incurred in other counties and in other years not named therein, 
 and on account of Indian hostilities that had arisen in said State prior to 
 March 2, 1861, the date of the passage of said Act. This omission evidently 
 was the oversight at the time either of Congress or of California's delegation 
 in Congress, but just now it is immaterial which. 
 
 The purpose now sought to be accomplished in this bill is to make said 
 statute of March 2, 1861, sufficiently general so as to have it apply equally 
 to all cases heretofore omitted therefrom, or such as were not provided for 
 or included therein. 
 
 Congress on June 27, 1882, passed a general bill for the relief of the States 
 of Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, California, Oregon, Nevada, and the 
 Territories of Washington and Idaho for such Indian war claims as arose 
 in said States respectively between April 15, 1861, and the date of the passage 
 of that Act. It would seem that these dates cover and include all the 
 claims growing out of Indian hostilities arising in each and all of said 
 States and Territories, except in the case of the State of California, in which 
 particular State all the Indian war claims arose prior to April 15, 1861; 
 and hence the object of the first section of this bill is to enable California 
 to present to the Treasury Department for examination such claims of this 
 class as arose in said State between September 9, 1850 (the date of the 
 admission of California into the Union), down to April 15, 1861 (the date 
 when said Act of June 27, 1882, began to operate). 
 
 There are a number of Indian war claims of California arising between 
 said two dates, to wit: September 9, 1850, and April 15, 1861, and for which 
 there has never as yet been made any provision of law by which they could 
 be examined by any tribunal of the United States, or be reported upon to 
 Congress, and they are as follows, to wit: 
 
 Mendocino Indian war claims of 1859.. 1 $23,839 10 
 
 Washoe Indian war of 1859 and 1860 ...' 26,327 60 
 
 Fro7n September 9, 1850, to April 15, 1861. 
 
 Various Indian war expenses... 33,509 74 
 
 Claims supported by new evidence. 53,871 25 
 
 Sundry items not enumerated, but estimated not in any event to exceed 31,822 55 
 
 1169,470 24 
 
 And which aggregate is now the sum of the unexpended balance made by 
 Congress in its said Act of March 8, 1861, and lapsed into the Treasury 
 and now in the Surplus Fund, and which unexpended balance said section 
 one now re appropriates. Equity and the uniform rule of Congress in sim- 
 ilar matters would seem to demand this legislation at this time. No new 
 or additional appropriation is asked for, but only the reappropriation of the 
 unexpended balance which Congress has heretofore appropriated for this 
 very class of claims, and which remains in the Treasury Department unex- 
 pended. See Exhibits "A," "B," and "C," hereto attached and made a 
 part hereof. 
 
385 
 
 This matter has heretofore been brought to the attention of Congress, and 
 was brought to its notice as late as the Forty-eighth Congress, to wit: on 
 February 24, 1884, by Hon. W. S. Rosecrans, by House Resolution No. 172 
 which was by him introduced, read twice, and referred to the honorable 
 Committee on Military Affairs, and which committee, on March 18, 1884, 
 made a favorable report thereon, to wit: House Report No. 807, Forty-eighth 
 Congress, first session. 
 
 This Resolution, No. 172, was thereafter, to wit, on May 10, 1884, called 
 up from the calendar for consideration by Mr. Rosecrans, and upon the 
 single objection of Hon. W. S. Holman of Indiana, it went over; and was 
 never thereafter acted upon or could ever be reached during the Forty-eighth 
 Congress, and for want of time prior to its adjournment. Copy of said 
 House Resolution, to wit, No. 172, and of House Report, to wit, No. 807, 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session, are hereto attached, marked respectively 
 "D," and "E," and made a part hereof. 
 
 Second — The object of the second part of section one, said bill, is to 
 finally clean up all matters relating to such Indian war claims of the State 
 of California as Congress has heretofore partially provided for by appro- 
 priate legislation. 
 
 The examination by the Treasury Department of California's Indian 
 war claims provided for in the aforesaid Act of March 2, 1861, was made 
 and concluded on the twenty-first April, 1863, but not brought to the notice 
 of the State of California until September 5, 1863, on which date, instead 
 of paying California the sum of $4C 0,000, as provided for in said Act of 
 March 2, 1861, there was paid to her by the Secretary of the Treasury only 
 the sum of $229,987 67, and as will more fully appear as per exhibit hereto 
 attached and made part hereof. 
 
 Both of these dates, to wit: April 21, 1863, and September 5, 1863, were 
 at a time v/hen California's mails went by sea only, and that via the Isth- 
 mus of Panama. This was during the war period, and at a time when the 
 officials of California administered the public affairs of said State in 
 wooden rented apartments, the present State Capitol building not being 
 then erected. 
 
 The State papers having been moved into the new Capitol and rearranged, 
 the State officers of California, within the last three years, have discovered 
 sundry written papers and documents constituting e^ddence, in the opinion 
 of her people, of value to her, and which they now desire to use in support 
 of various of their said Indian war claims provided for in said Act of March 
 2, 1861, and not allowed for the want of such evidence, and which evidence, 
 under the rulings of the Treasury Department (the claims having been 
 once examined and an account stated, but which California thinks was 
 only partial) can only now be made available or used by authority or per- 
 mission of Congress. 
 
 The necessity for this legislation is partially set forth in a letter from the 
 Third Auditor, which original letter is hereto attached and now made a 
 part hereof, and marked Exhibit "F." 
 
 The desire of the State of California to have Congress adjust the matter 
 is set forth in concurrent resolution of the State of California, copy of which 
 is hereto attached and now made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit "G." 
 
 The State of California submits, considering all the circumstances in 
 these premises since September 5, 1863, when said Treasury statement was 
 made, and the period of war, and the many and constant changes of 
 officials in said State, and in Congress from said State, and other matters 
 which will readily suggest themselves to the mind of the national legis- 
 25"" 
 
386 
 
 lator, that she has not in any degree slept on any of her rights, but on the 
 contrary, she has at the first proper opportunity, made her wants fully 
 known and filed her petition for indemnity with Congress; and she further 
 submits, that up to this time. Congress has not heeded her wants or her 
 petition to the extent at least of enacting that legislation which she submits is 
 adequate or sufficient, and needed to meet the condition of things now herein 
 respectfully presented. 
 
 Third — The second section of this bill is intended to make full and final 
 provision for all outstanding indebtedness growing out of Indian hostilities 
 in California, represented by the particular bonds, coupons, warrants, and 
 certificates of indebtedness issued in good faith by said State and in part 
 redeemed and paid by her out of her State Treasury; and the payment of 
 the balance of which has been by her assumed and now in the hands of 
 bona fide holders for value, and none of which have as yet been redeemed 
 or paid by the United States. 
 
 The subject-matter of this section of the bill was partially considered by 
 the House Committee on War Claims in the Forty-seventh Congress, second 
 session, and by it favorably reported January 11, 1884, by Hon. George 
 W. Geddes, its Chairman, copy of which report is now herewith sub- 
 mitted and made a part hereof and marked " H." The pending bill pro- 
 vides, therefore, for all claims of the State of California, growing out of 
 Indian hostilities therein that have heretofore arisen in said State, and for 
 which no adequate provision has heretofore been made by Congress. 
 
 The history of the issuance of these bonds, and the reasons why they are 
 still outstanding, unredeemed and unpaid by the United States, are suffi- 
 ciently set forth in said House Report, No. 1847, and which now would not 
 seem to demand any further extended notice. 
 
 Those of said bonds which have heretofore been paid by the State of 
 California have been presented by her to the Treasury Department for 
 payment, but payment has been refused for want of authority of law to 
 pay the same, and as will fully appear from copy of letter of the Third 
 Auditor of the Treasury of August 18, 1885, herewith submitted and made 
 a part hereof and marked "I." 
 
 Congress has several times recognized the validity of these bonds and 
 of its obligation to pay the same, and it has made provision for the redemp- 
 tion and payment thereof, and as will more fully appear by reference to 
 the statutes as follows, to wit: 
 
 U. S. Statutes, vol. 10, pages 582-583. 
 
 U. S. Statutes, vol. 11, page 91. 
 
 U. S. Statutes, vol. 12, page 104. 
 
 U. S. Statutes, vol. 15, page 175. 
 
 U. S. Statutes, vol. 21, pageg 510-511. 
 
 Showing that it has from time to time made provision for the redemp- 
 tion thereof, whenever heretofore properly presented for payment and as 
 shown by Exhibits " K," " L," " M," " N." 
 
 The State of California does not ask payment for any interest in these 
 premises on any moneys expended or advanced by her to the United States, 
 but simply asks to be reimbursed and refunded the principal which in 
 good faith she has paid and assumed on account of said bonds, etc. 
 
 The second section of this bill does not authorize any payment to the 
 State of California for any bond, coupon, warrant, or certificate of indebt- 
 edness except in those cases where the same shall have been previously paid by 
 the State of California, and then only upon the surrender of same by said 
 State to the United States, with the evidence of such payment thereof respect- 
 ively by her, and not otherwise. 
 
387 
 
 The amount of this indebtedness, without interest, is now $335,186 88, 
 which when paid will finally clean up every claim of this class of the 
 State of California on account of Indian hostilities that have arisen therein 
 and not heretofore paid. 
 
 This bill might be further amended by declaring therein that all matters 
 therein provided for should be presented by said State to the Secretary of 
 the Treasury within two years from the date of the passage of this bill. 
 
 I suggest the limitation of two years herein; and because, if this bill 
 passes before the first Monday in January, 1887 (on which day the Legis- 
 lature of California next meets), that State can take action thereon as to 
 all matters herein which she has not heretofore paid. But should this bill 
 not pass before the first Monday of January, 1887 (the Legislature of Cali- 
 fornia not meeting thereafter until two years therefrom) , a proper length 
 of time should be given the Legislature of California to make final pro- 
 vision of calling in this indebtedness, meeting it, and presenting the same 
 to the proper authorities of the United States, and which proper time in 
 this case is two years. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 Agent for the State of California. 
 
 Washington City, February 22, 1886. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 25. 
 
 Forty -ninth Congress, first session. H. R. 5566. Report No. 1298. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. February 15, 1886 — Read twice, re- 
 ferred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. March 
 23, 1886 — Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the 
 Whole House on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed. (Omit 
 the parts struck through and insert the parts printed in italics.) 
 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 For the relief of the State of California. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the provisions of the Act of 
 Congress approved March 2, 1861 (United States Statutes, volume 12, page 
 199), be and the same are hereby extended to all Indian war claims 
 arising in the State of California, and upon the borders thereof, between 
 September 9, 1850, and April 15, 1861, and for which no provision has 
 heretofore been enacted by Congress, or which have not been heretofore 
 presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury; including any 
 sum, on investigation found due her for balances heretofore paid, or assumed 
 and remaining due, by said State, and not hereinbefore or in said Act of 1861 
 included, or which, or the indebtedness out of which the same arose, have not 
 been heretofore paid or adjusted between the said State of California and the 
 United States, on account of Indian war bonds, warrants, and certificates of 
 indebtedness issued by her under the Acts of her Legislature, approved February 
 15, 1851, May S, 1852, and April 25, 1857, respectively, for the payment and 
 defraying of the expenses incurred in the suppression of Indian hostilities, and 
 matters in relation thereto, arising in certain counties in said State, and upon 
 
388 
 
 the borders thereof; the same to be paid to said State, and upon the condition 
 only of the surrender, by her to the Secretary of the Treasury, of said bondSy 
 warrants, and certificates of indebtedness or payment to be made pro rata for 
 any portion thereof ; provided further, that the acceptance of the indemnity 
 hereby provided shall operate as a final and complete discharge and satisfac- 
 tion of all claims or matters hereinbefore referred to ; provided further, that 
 any allowance for or on account of any or all of the foregoing matters shall 
 be paid exclusively out of the unexpended balance of the appropriation 
 made in said Act of March 2, 1861, and now lapsed into the Treasury^ 
 and which unexpended balance is now hereby appropriated. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. Report No. 1298. 
 
 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 March 26, 1866 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
 the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Lyman, from the Committee on War Claims, submitted the following 
 
 REPORT. 
 [To accompany bill H. R. 5566.] 
 
 The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 
 5566) for the relief of the State of California, have had the same under 
 consideration, and make the following report: 
 
 (1) March 2, 1861, Congress passed an Act (12 Statutes at Large, 199) 
 intending, no doubt, to enable that State (California) thereunder to adjust 
 all her claims against the Government for expenses incurred in her various 
 Indian wars. But through some mistake or misapprehension, it was so 
 narrow in its terms that only a portion of the expenses of the Indian 
 wars, which had been borne by said State, could be or were adjusted there- 
 under, and the first object of this bill now under consideration is to extend 
 the provisions of that Act so as to allow the adjustment of her claims for 
 Indian wars not in said Act of 1861 provided for. 
 
 (2) The bill also asks that the cases already filed and coming under the 
 Act of 1861, may be reopened and the State be allowed to present new, 
 additional, or corroboratory evidence in support thereof and a new adjust- 
 ment made. 
 
 (3) It appears that the State of California has, under various Acts of 
 her Legislature, at different times, issued Indian war bonds, coupons, 
 warrants, and certificates of indebtedness, some of which she has paid 
 and some of which have been paid by the United States Government, and 
 it is now sought by the provisions of this bill that she be reimbursed for 
 the same. 
 
 Your committee think that the first of the foregoing purposes of the bill 
 is just and proper, and recommend its adoption. 
 
 As to the second, the committee think, inasmuch as the cases therein 
 mentioned have been adjusted and disposed of, that it would be bad policy 
 to again open the same, and they report adversely thereon. 
 
 As to the third proposition, the committee say that in so far as the mat- 
 ters therein provided for are not covered by the Act of 1861, or by this Act, 
 the same is just and should be adopted, except so far as the same relates 
 to the payment of interest, or interest coupons, which should be stricken 
 out in pursuance of the well established policy of the Government. 
 
889 
 
 The committee therefore recommend the passage of the Act with the 
 following amendments: 
 
 (1) Strike out of first section that part thereof after the word " Treasury," in the twelfth 
 line, down to and including the word "purposes," in the twenty -first line; and, 
 
 (2) Insert after the word "Treasury," in the twelfth line, of the first section, the follow- 
 ing: "Including any sum on investigation found due her for balances heretofore paid, or 
 assumed and remaining due by said State, and not hereinbefore or in said Act of 1861 
 included, or which, or the indebtedness out of which the same arose, have not been here- 
 tofore paid or adjusted between the said State of California and the United States, on 
 account of Indian war bonds, warrants, and certificates of indebtedness issued by her 
 under the Acts of Legislature approved February 15, 1851, May 3, 1852, and April 25, 1857, 
 respectively, for the payment and defraying of the expenses incurred in the suppression 
 of Indian hostilities, and matters in relation thereto arising in certain counties in said 
 State, and upon the borders thereof; the same to be paid to said State, and upon the con- 
 dition only of the surrender by her to the Secretary of the Treasury of said bonds, warrants, 
 and certificates of indebtedness, or payment to be made pro rata for anv portion thereof; 
 provided further, that the acceptance of the indemnity hereby j)rovi(iea shall operate 
 as a final and complete discharge and satisfaction of all claims or matters hereinbefore 
 referred to." 
 
 (8) Insert after the word "provided," in the twenty-first line of the first section, the 
 word "further." 
 (4) Strike out the second section of the bill. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 26. 
 
 [Copy.] 
 
 Treasury Department, ) 
 March 20, 1886. j 
 Hon. Barclay Henley, House of Representatives: 
 
 Sir: In reply to your communication of the nineteenth instant, asking 
 what amount of the appropriation made by Congress by Act of August 5, 
 1854, and subsequent Acts, for the suppression of Indian hostilities in Cal- 
 ifornia, remains unexpended, I have the honor to inform you that the Act 
 of August 5, 1854 (10 Stat., 582), as modified by Acts of August 18, 1856 
 (11 Stat., 91), and June 23, 1860 (12 Stat., 104), appropriated $924,259 65 
 to redeem California war bonds issued for expenses incurred prior to Jan- 
 uary 1, 1854. Of this sum $10,188 63 was carried to the surplus fund June 
 30, 1863. 
 
 The Act of July 25, 1868, reappropriated the amount of $10,183 63, 
 but only one claim for $538 11 was paid therefrom, and the remainder, 
 $9,645 52, was carried to the surplus fund* on July 1, 1874. 
 
 The Act of March 3, 1881 (21 Stat., 510), reappropriated a sufficient sum 
 to pay four bonds described in said Act, and for that purpose the sum of 
 $1,288 36 was reappropriated. 
 
 The balance remaining in the surplus fund can not be used for further 
 payments on this account without additional authority from Congress. 
 
 Respectfully vours, 
 
 W. E. SMITH, 
 
 Assistant Secretary. 
 [Copy.] 
 
 Treasury Department, Third Auditor's Office, [ 
 Washington, D. C, May 5, 1886. ) 
 
 Hon. C. F. Fairchild, Acting Secretary of the Treasury : 
 
 Sir: I return the communication addressed you by Hon. Barclay Hen- 
 ley, M. C, on fourth instant, relative to the California war bonds, for the 
 payment of which provision was made by the Act of August 5, 1854, as 
 amended by Acts of August 18, 1856, and June 23, 1860. 
 
390 
 
 As there yet remains unpaid bonds to a greater amount than the balance 
 in the surplus fund ($8,357 16), I see no reason why such balance should 
 not be made available by reappropriation. It would, however, be unjust 
 to make the reappropriation applicable specially to the bonds redeemed 
 and now held by the State, as there is good reason to believe that some 
 bonds are held by private parties. All holders, whether the State or indi- 
 viduals, should stand upon a common footing, applying to all the natural 
 rule of payment as the bonds shall be presented, so long as the fund holds 
 out. 
 
 Provision should be made fixing the date to which interest should be 
 allowed. I suppose the fact to be that the exhibit first submitted by the 
 State to Congress computed the aggregate of the then ascertained expenses, 
 inclusive of interest to January 1, 18o4i to be $924,259 65, and that this 
 was the basis upon which the appropriation of that sum, as a maximum, 
 was made by the Act of August 5, 1854. (10 Statutes, 5823.) 
 
 At all events, the California Commissioners referred to in Act of Con- 
 gress of August 18, 1856 (11 Statutes, 91), seem to have known that said 
 sum would suffice to pay the bonds with interest only to January 1, 1854; 
 and in all their awards they limited the allowance of interest to that date. 
 Hence the vast majority of the bonds were paid upon that basis. Under 
 the peculiar wording of the Act of June 23, 1860, interest upon the few 
 bonds paid under it was allowed to July 1, 1860. 
 
 By Act of August, 1854, Congress proffered to the State reimbursement of 
 such expenses as it should prove to have been incurred, not exceeding the 
 maximum named. But, the State being dissatisfied with this proposition. 
 Congress, two years later, at the instance of the State, by the Act of August, 
 1856, offered to redeem the bonds issued by the State, and made the fund 
 before appropriated applicable to that purpose. The opportunity was there- 
 fore given to all bondholders to present their bonds at once. Although 
 there was no specific limitation as to the time in which bonds should be 
 presented, I think it was not contemplated by the Act of 1856 to offer to a 
 bondholder the privilege of holding his bond indefinitely, up to the expira- 
 tion of its terms, and drawing interest thereon from the United States for 
 the period during which he might desire to hold the same as a safe and 
 profitable investment; and the appropriation would have fallen far short of 
 payment upon that basis. 
 
 In my judgment, interest ought not to be allowed for any period after the 
 United States had offered to redeem the bonds and had provided a fund for 
 that purpose. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 JNO. S. WILLIAMS, 
 
 Auditor. 
 
 Treasury Department, ) 
 June 22, 1886. | 
 Hon. Barclay Henley, House of Representatives: 
 
 Sir: In reply to your communication of the nineteenth instant, requesting 
 copies of letters heretofore sent to you in regard to the unexpended balance 
 of appropriations made for suppressing Indian hostilities in California, I 
 have the honor to inclose copy of Department's letter of March 20, 1886, 
 and of the Third Auditor's letter of May 5, 1886. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 A¥. E. SMITH, 
 
 Assistant Secretary. 
 
391 
 
 [Copy.] 
 
 Treasury Department, July 2, 1886. 
 
 Hon. Barclay Henley, House of Representatives: 
 
 Sir: In reply to your communication of yesterday's date, I have the 
 honor to inform you that of the $400,000 appropriated by the Act of March 
 2, 1861 (12 Stat. p. 199), for payment to the State of California for ex- 
 penses incurred in suppressing Indian hostilities in the years 1854-55-56- 
 58-59, the sum of $169,470 24 remained unexpended and was carried to 
 the Surplus Fund on the thirtieth of June, 1864. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 C. S. FAIRCHILD, 
 Acting Secretary. 
 
 House of Representatives United States, | 
 Washington, D. C, March 31, 1886. S 
 
 Hon. Samuel J. Randall, Chairman Committee on Appropriation^^ and 
 Chairman Sub-Committee in charge of the Sundry Civil Appropriation 
 Bill: 
 
 My Dear Sir: First — I have the honor to inclose you herewith an item 
 which I respectfully ask may be included by you in the " Sundry Civil 
 Appropriation Bill " when reported to the House from your honorable Com- 
 mittee on Appropriation. 
 
 Second — Also, find herewith an original letter dated March 20, 1886, from 
 the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, setting forth that the sum named 
 in my said inclosed item, to wit, $8,357 16, is now an unexpended balance 
 in the Treasury, but which balance cannot be made available for the benefit 
 of the State of California without additional authority from or legislation by 
 Congress. Hence, this my request as herein made, and the legal necessity 
 thereof at this time. 
 
 During the Forty-eighth Congress I made a request similar to the fore- 
 going, but it seems to have been inadvertently overlooked. 
 
 I shall be gratified, therefore, if you and your Committee on Appropriation 
 will be kind enough to give this matter special consideration at this time 
 by having this provision inserted in your " Sundry Civil Appropriation 
 Bill," and oblige, 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 BARCLAY HENLEY, 
 M. C. from California. 
 
 House of Repkesentatives United States, > 
 Washington, D. C, March 31, 1886. j 
 
 "That the unexpended bahmceof eight thousand three hundred and fifty-seven dollars 
 and sixteen cents of the appropriation made by Congress July 25, 1868 (U. S. Stats., vol. 15, 
 p. 175), to refund to the State of California expenses incurred in suppressing Indian hos- 
 tilities," and carried to the Surplus Fund, be and the same is hereby >eappropriated; and 
 the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to pay said sum to the 
 State of California upon the surrender by her to said Secretary of the bonds issued by her 
 in payment of said expenses, and which bonds have been heretofore redeemed and paid 
 by sa'id State in said sum and not heretofore paid by the United States, and the aforesaid 
 sum shall be paid to said State upon her furnishing the Secretary of the Treasurj^ satis- 
 factory evidence that said bonds so issued have been redeemed, paid, and canceled by 
 said State, under and by the authority of the Legislature thereof, to the extent of saici 
 unexpended balance. 
 
892 
 
 House of Representatives United States, | 
 Washington, D. C, May 7, 1886. j 
 
 Hon. Samuel J. Randall, Chairman Committee on Appropriations, U. S. 
 House of Representatives : 
 
 Sir: Inclosed herewith please find a memorandum, which I ask may, 
 by your honorable Committee on Appropriations, be inserted as an item in 
 the Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill, Forty-ninth Congress, first session. 
 In support whereof please find the letter of the Treasury Department of 
 May 6, 1886, inclosing the report of the honorable Third Auditor of May 
 5, 1886, recommending that said sum of $8,357 16 be reappropriated. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 BARCLAY HENLEY, 
 M. C. from California. 
 
 House of Representatives United States, ( 
 Washington, D. C, June 5, 1886. ) 
 
 Hon. Samuel J. Randall, Chairman Committee on Appropriations: 
 
 Sir: I invite your attention to the following statement of facts: 
 
 First — There is now in the Treasury, heretofore appropriated by Con- 
 gress, an unexpended balance of $8,357 16, and which having been car- 
 ried into the Surplus Fund, has to be reappropriated in order to be avail- 
 able for the State of California. (See Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 herewith.) 
 This information you will perceive is contained in a report to me by the 
 honorable Secretary of the Treasury, under date of March 20, 1886, Mav 
 6, 1886, and May 5, 1886. 
 
 Second — I thereupon submitted said information to your honorable Com- 
 mittee, with request that there be inserted in the " Sundry Civil Appropri- 
 ation Bill" an item to reappropriate said $8,357 16 for the purposes for 
 which the original appropriation was made by Congress. 
 
 Third — Upon doing this I was given to understand that such informa- 
 tion should reach your committee through the Speaker of the House. 
 
 Fourth — W^herefore on tenth May, 1886, I, in the House, introduced a 
 resolution calling formally again upon the Secretary of the Treasury for 
 this information, so that it and the reply thereto should reach your com- 
 mittee through the Speaker. 
 
 Fifth — The resolution was referred to the War Claim Committee, and I 
 learn that upon that committee's communicating with the Treasury Depart- 
 ment, it is. informed that the information sought by said resolution had 
 already been communicated to me, and that said War Claim Committee 
 seems to be at a loss to know why this peculiar (red tape riding around 
 Robin Hood's barn) proceeding is necessary — a matter which I myself 
 think should not make any rules of the House, or of any committees, be 
 rendered necessary. The one object being is, that of getting before your 
 honorable Committee on Appropriations the official facts, as contained in 
 the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury of twentieth March, 1886, and 
 fifth and sixth of May, 1886. 
 
 Wherefore I now very respectfully ask your honorable Committee to 
 take cognizance of said report of the honorable Secretary of the Treasury, 
 and that you may be pleased to have inserted in the Sundry Civil Ap- 
 propriation Bill an item as follows, to wit: 
 
393 
 
 That the unexpended balance of $8,357 16 of the appropriation made by Congress 
 August 5. 1854 (10 Statutes, 582), as supplemented by Acts of August 18, 1856 (11 Statutes, 
 91), and June 23, 1860 (12 Statutes, 104), and July 25, 1868 (15 Statutes, 175), and March 3, 
 1881 (21 Statutes, 510), be and the same is hereby reappropriated ; and the Secretary of the 
 Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to pay said sum to the State of California, 
 upon the surrender by her to said Secretary of bonds issued by her in payment of the 
 expenses referred to in said Acts, which have been heretofore redeemed and paid by said 
 State in said sum, and not heretofore paid by the United States ; and the aforesaid sum 
 shall be paid said State upon her furnishing said Secretary with satisfactory evidence 
 that bonds so issued have been redeemed, paid, and canceled by said State, imder and by 
 the authority of the Legislature thereof, to the extent of said unexpended balance; pro- 
 vided, that no payment be made for an}^ sum earned by said bonds after May 3, 1862. 
 
 In view of all the foregoing, and the equity now due to the State of 
 California in these premises, I now ask that this matter have your careful 
 consideration, and that of your honorable Committee on Appropriations, 
 at this time. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 BARCLAY HENLEY, 
 M. C. from California. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 27. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. 5543. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. April 6, 1886 — Referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed. 
 
 AMENDMENT 
 
 Intended to be proposed by Mr. Stanford to the bill (H. R. 5543) making 
 appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian Depart- 
 ment, and for fulfilling treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes, for 
 the year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and for 
 other purposes, viz.: Insert the following: 
 
 That the unexpended balance of eight thousand three hundred and fifty- 
 seven dollars and sixteen cents of the appropriation made by Congress 
 July twenty-fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight (United States Statutes, 
 volume fifteen, page one hundred and seventy-five), " to refund to the State 
 of California expenses incurred in suppressing Indian hostilities," and 
 carried to the surplus fund, be and the same is hereby reappropriated; 
 and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to pay 
 said sum to the State of California upon the surrender by her to said Sec- 
 retary of the bonds issued by her in payment of said expenses, and which 
 bonds have been heretofore redeemed and paid by said State in said sum, 
 and not heretofore paid by the United States ; and the aforesaid sum shall 
 be paid to said State upon her furnishing the Secretary of the Treasury 
 satisfactory evidence that said bonds so issued have been redeemed, paid, 
 and canceled by said State, under and by the authority of the Legislature 
 thereof, to the extent of said unexpended balance. 
 
394 
 EXHIBIT No. 28. 
 
 Before the Forty-ninth Congress, first session, 
 
 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE 
 DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION BILL AS PROPOSED BY SEN- 
 ATOR HEARST OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Said amendment being as follows, to wit: Forty-ninth Congress, first 
 session. H. R. 9726. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. July 3, 1886 — Referred to the 
 Committee on Appropriations, and ordered printed. 
 
 Amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. Hearst to the bill (H. R. 
 9726) making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations 
 for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty-six, 
 and for prior years, and for other purposes, viz.: Insert the following: 
 
 That so much of the unexpended balances of the appropriations made 
 by Congress under the Acts approved August fifth, eighteen hundred and 
 fifty-four (tenth Statutes, page five hundred and eighty-two), and August 
 eighteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty-six (eleventh Statutes, page ninety- 
 one), and March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-one (twelfth Statutes, 
 page one hundred and ninety-nine), as may be necessary therefor, be and 
 the same are hereby reappropriated ; and the Secretary of the Treasury is 
 hereby authorized and directed to pay said sums to the State of California 
 upon the surrender by her to said Secretary of bonds issued by her in 
 payment of expenses incurred by her in thQ suppression of Indian hostili- 
 ties in said State prior to March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, 
 and which bonds have been heretofore redeemed and paid by said State in 
 said sums, and not heretofore paid or redeemed by the United States; and 
 the aforesaid sums shall be paid to said State only upon the condition of 
 furnishing said Secretary with evidence satisfactory to him that the bonds 
 so issued have been redeemed, paid, and canceled by the State officers of 
 said State under and by authority of the Legislature thereof, and to the 
 extent of said unexpended and reappropriated balances; provided, hovjever, 
 that no payment shall be made by said Secretary to said State for any 
 sums earned by said bonds after May third, eighteen hundred and sixty- 
 two. 
 
 The object of this amendment is to reimburse the State of California in 
 the sum of $53,234 90 for and on account of certain California Indian war 
 bonds, aggregating that sum, which were issued by said State in payment 
 of expenses incurred by her in the suppression of Indian hostilities therein 
 prior to March 2, 1861, and which bonds subsequent thereto were paid and 
 redeemed and canceled by the proper State officers of said State acting 
 therein under the authority of the Legislature thereof, and which bonds 
 have never heretofore been paid or redeemed by the United States; the 
 same to be paid out of the unexpended balances of the appropriations 
 heretofore made by Congress, and which balances have lapsed and been 
 heretofore carried into the surplus fund. 
 
 Of the appropriations made by Congress in its Act of August 5, 1854 (10 
 Statutes, page 582), and the same repeated in its Act of August 18, 1856, 
 (11 Statutes, page 91), there now remains unexpended and available for 
 this purpose, but carried into the surplus fund, and which the Secretary of 
 the Treasury states cannot be used for further payment on this account 
 without additional authority from Congress, the sum^ 
 
395 
 
 As per Exhibit "A" herewith, of $8,357 16 
 
 As per Exhibit "B" herewith, of 169,470 24 
 
 Making a total of said unexpended balances of |177,827 40 
 
 And of which amount it is now proposed by said amendment to reappropriate 
 the sum of '_ $53,234 90 
 
 Exhibit A. 
 
 Treasury Department, March 20, 1886. 
 Hon. Barclay Henley, House of Representatives: 
 
 Sir: In reply to your communication of the nineteenth instant, asking what amount of 
 the appropriation made by Congress by Act of August 5, 1854, and subsequent Acts for 
 the suppression of Indian hostilities in California, remains unexpended, I have the honor 
 to inform you that the Act of August 5, 1854 (10 Stat., 582), as modified by Acts of August 
 18, 1856 (11 Stat., 91), and June 23, 1860 (12 Stat., 104), appropriated $924,259 65 to redeem 
 California war bonds issued for expenses incurred prior to January 1, 1854. Of this sum 
 $10,188 63 was carried to the surplus fund June 30, 1863. 
 
 The Act of July 25, 1868, reappropriated the amount of $10,183 63, but only one claim 
 for $538 11 was paid therefrom, and the remainder— $9,645 52— was carried to' the surplus 
 fund on July 1, 1874. 
 
 The Act of March 3, 1881 (21 Stat, 510), reappropriated a sufficient sum to pay four bonds 
 described in said Act, and for that purpose the sum of $1,288 36 was reappropriated. 
 
 The balance remaining in the surplus fund cannot be used for further payments on this 
 account without additional authority from Congress. 
 ■ Respectfully yours, 
 
 W. E. SMITH, Assistant Secretary. 
 
 Exhibit B. 
 
 Treasury Department, July 2, 1886. 
 Hon. Barclay Henley, House of Representatives: 
 
 Sir: In reply to your communication of yesterday's date, I have the honor to inform 
 you that of the $400,000 appropriated by the Act of March 3, 1861 (12 Stat., p. 199), for pay- 
 ment to the State of California for expenses incurred in suppressing Indian hostilities in 
 the years 1854, 1855, 185(5, 1858, and 1859, the sum of $169,470 24 remained unexpended, and 
 was carried to the surplus fund on the thirtieth of June, 1864. 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 C. S. FAIRCHILD, Acting Secretary. 
 
 Of the Indian war bonds issued by the State of Cahfornia under its Act of Feb- 
 ruary 15, 1851, the sum as paid by said State is $2,190 00 
 
 And of the Indian war bonds issued by the State of California under its Act of 
 
 May 3, 1852, the sum as paid by said State is 36,580 48 
 
 And of the Indian war bonds issued by the State of California under its Act of 
 April 25, 1857, the sum as paid by said State is 14,464 42 
 
 Making, as aforesaid, a total aggregate of $53,234 90 
 
 All of these bonds were redeemed and paid and canceled by the State of 
 California subsequent to the dates when said unexpended balances lapsed 
 into the Treasury, and none of same were in her possession prior to said 
 date, after the issue thereof. 
 
 These bonds from time to time have been heretofore redeemed and paid 
 by the State of California, under special Acts of her Legislature, as the 
 same were presented to her by the holders thereof, said State relying, as she 
 did then and does now, upon" the good faith of the United States to redeem 
 and pay the same upon presentation by her, and as others have been here- 
 tofore paid by the United States whenever presented. 
 
 The United States has sustained no loss whatever by virtue of the non- 
 presentation thereof prior to this date, and whatever loss there has been 
 sustained in these premises, and by virtue of a presentation thereof only at 
 this date has been that of the State of California, and not otherwise. 
 
 Wherefore, in view of the foregoing facts, it is respectfully suggested and 
 now submitted that said amendment might be appropriately changed so as 
 to read as follows, to wit: 
 
 That the sum of $8,357 16, being the unexpended balance of the appro- 
 
396 
 
 priation made by Congress, under the Acts approved August 5, 1854 (10 
 Stat. p. 582), and August 18, 1856 (11 Stat. p. 91), and the sum of .$44,- 
 877 74 of the unexpended balance of the appropriation made by Congress 
 under the Act approved March 2, 1861 (12 Stat. p. 199), be and the same 
 are hereby reappropriated ; and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby 
 authorized and directed to pay said sums to the State of Cahfornia, upon 
 the surrender by her to said Secretary, of bonds issued by her in payment 
 of expenses incurred by her in the suppression of Indian hostilities in said 
 State prior to March 2, 1861. and which bonds have been heretofore 
 redeemed and paid by said State in said sums, and not heretofore paid or 
 redeemed by the United States; and the aforesaid sums shall be paid to 
 said State only upon the condition of furnishing said Secretary with evi- 
 dence satisfactory to him, that bonds so issued have been redeemed, paid, 
 and canceled by the State officers of said State under and by the author- 
 ity of the Legislature thereof, to the extent of said unexpended and reap- 
 propriated balances; provided, however, that no payment shall be made by 
 said Secretary to said State for any sums earned by said bonds after May 
 3, 1862. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 Agent and Attorney for the State of California. 
 
 EXHIBIT No 29. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. 5209. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. February 8, 1886 — Read twice, referred 
 to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 In relation, to Indian depredations. 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Court of Claims shall 
 have power to hear and determine all claims for depredations committed 
 by Indians arising under section seventeen of the Act of Congress of June 
 thirtieth, eighteen hundred and thirty-four, entitled "An Act to regulate 
 trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes and to preserve peace on the 
 frontiers." 
 
 Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary of the Senate, 
 or the Clerk of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, shall 
 transmit to the Court of Claims for adjudication all claims heretofore pre- 
 sented to the Interior Department or to Congress, with all vouchers, papers, 
 proofs, and documents pertaining thereto, and the same shall be there pro- 
 ceeded in under such rules as said Court may adopt. 
 
 Sec. 3. That the Attorney-General, or his assistants under his direc- 
 tion, shall appear therein to defend the United States and the Indians in 
 all such actions, with the same power to interpose counter-claims, offsets, 
 defenses for fraud and other defenses as now given in said Court. 
 
 Sec. 4. That the same right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the 
 United States existing in other cases in the Court of Claims shall exist in 
 the cases considered under this Act. 
 
397 
 
 Sec. 5. That no person shall be excluded from testifying in cases under 
 this Act on account of being a party or interested; and the affidavits and 
 other evidence heretofore filed in Congress or in the departments in such 
 cases may be considered by said Court, and such weight shall be given to 
 such evidence as the Court may deem proper. 
 
 Sec. 6. That in all cases where the depredation was committed by a 
 tribe of Indians, or by members of a tribe, to which annuities are due 
 from the United States, the Court of Claims shall make said fact a part of 
 their judgment. 
 
 Sec. 7. That in all cases where the Court shall find in accordance with 
 the preceding section, that annuities are due, the amount of the judgments 
 shall be deducted and paid from said annuities; and if there be no 
 annuities due, then the amount of the judgments shall be charged against 
 the tribe of Indians by which, or by members of which, the depredations 
 were committed, and the same shall be deducted and paid from any funds 
 which may be or become due to said Indians from the sale of their lands 
 or from any appropriation that may be made for the benefit of such tribe, 
 other than appropriations for their current and necessary subsistence, sup- 
 port, and education; and if there be no such fund or appropriation avail- 
 able, then the same shall be paid out of the public Treasury. 
 
 Sec. 8. That in all said claims arising six years or more prior to the 
 passage of this Act, whether heretofore presented or not, a petition shall be 
 presented to the Court within three years from the date hereof, and not 
 thereafter; and in all such claims arising less than six years prior to the 
 date hereof, or which may hereafter arise, a petition shall be so presented 
 within six years from the date of such depredation, and not thereafter; 
 and all claims for Indian depredations not so presented within the time 
 limited by this section shall be forever barred, and shall not be considered 
 by any department of the Government. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. 8080. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. April 19, 1886 — Read twice, referred 
 to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 Making an appropriation for the purpose of paying Indian depredation 
 claims which have been audited and approved by the Secretary of the Inte- 
 rior and reported to Congress. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That there be and hereby is 
 appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
 ated, the sum of five millions of dollars, or so much thereof as may be nec- 
 essary to pay the Indian depredation claims which have been heretofore 
 filed and investigated under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior 
 and reported by him to Congress, in pursuance of the laws of Congress, 
 and in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secre- 
 tary of the Interior. 
 
398 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. 8082. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. April 19, 1886 — Read twice, referred 
 to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 In relation to Indian depredations. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Court of Claims shall 
 have power to hear and determine all claims for depredations committed 
 by Indians embraced within the terms of section tw^enty-one hundred and 
 fifty-six of the Revised Statutes, whether the said claims have been hereto- 
 fore presented to the Interior Department or Congress or not. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary of the Senate, 
 or the Clerk of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, shall, 
 immediately after the passage of this Act, transmit to the Court of Claims 
 for adjudication all claims for Indian depredations heretofore presented to 
 the Interior Department or to Congress, with all vouchers, papers, proofs, 
 and documents pertaining thereto, and upon the presentation of a petition 
 on behalf of any claimant within the time hereinafter limited, the same 
 shall be there proceeded in under such rules as said Court may adopt. 
 
 Sec. 3. That the Attorney-General, or his assistants under his direction, 
 shall appear therein to defend the United States and the Indians in all 
 such actions, with the same power to interpose counter-claims, oft'sets, 
 defenses for fraud, and other defenses as now given in said Court. 
 
 Sec. 4. That the same right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the 
 United States existing in other cases in the Court of Claims shall exist in 
 the cases considered under this Act. 
 
 Sec. 5. That no person shall be excluded from testifying in cases under 
 this Act on account of being a party oy interested; and the affidavits 
 and other evidence heretofore filed in Congress or in the departments in 
 such cases may be considered by said Court, and such weight shall be 
 given to such evidence as the Court may deem proper. 
 
 Sec. 6. That the Court of Claims shall, in every judgment rendered 
 under this Act, find the tribe of Indians by which, or by members of which, 
 the depredation was committed, and whether annuities or other funds are 
 due to said tribe from the United States. 
 
 Sec. 7. That the amount of any judgment so rendered shall be charged 
 against the tribes by which, or by members of which, the Court shall find 
 that the depredation was committed, and shall be deducted and paid in 
 the following manner: First, from any annuities due said tribe from the 
 United States; second, if no annuities are due or available, from any other 
 funds due said tribe from the United States, arising from the sale of their 
 lands or otherwise; third, if no such funds are due or available, from any 
 appropriations for the benefit of said tribe, other than appropriations for 
 their current and necessary support, subsistence, and education; and, fourth, 
 if no such annuity, fund, or appropriation is due or available, the amount 
 of the judgment shall be paid from the public Treasury; provided, that 
 any amount so paid from the public Treasury shall remain a charge against 
 such tribe, and shall be deducted from any annuity, fund, or appropriation 
 hereinbefore designated which may hereafter become due from the United 
 States to such tribe. 
 
399 
 
 Sec. 8. That in all said claims which have arisen prior to the passage 
 of this Act, whether heretofore presented or not, a petition on behalf of the 
 claimant shall be presented to the Court within three years from the date 
 hereof, and not thereafter; and in all such claims arising less than six years 
 prior to the date hereof, or which may hereafter arise, such petition shall 
 be so presented within six years from the date of such depredation, and not 
 thereafter; and all claims for Indian depredations not so presented within 
 the time limited by this section shall be forever barred, and shall not be 
 considered by any department of the Government. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. No. 9729. 
 [Report No. 3117.] 
 
 In the House of Representatives. June 30, 1886 — Read twice, committed 
 to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and 
 ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Hailey, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, reported the follow- 
 ing bill as a substitute for H. R. No. 7849: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To establish a Board of Commissioners to examine, adjust, and report on all 
 claims arising out of Indian treaties and, depredations committed by In- 
 dians, and for other purposes. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the President of the United 
 States is hereby authorized and directed to appoint, by and with the advice 
 and consent of the Senate, three Commissioners, who shall each hold office 
 until the completion of the work hereinafter assigned to them, unless sooner 
 removed by the President. Said Commissioners shall be designated by the 
 President as the Board of Indian Depredation Claims, one of which he 
 shall designate as Chairman of said Board. They shall perform the duties 
 hereinafter prescribed. They shall each receive an annual salary of three 
 thousand dollars, to be paid in monthly payments. In addition to their 
 salary they shall each receive their necessary traveling expenses while in 
 the performance of their duty. They shall each take the usual oath of 
 office before entering upon the discharge of their duties. They shall have 
 power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, and make all such needful 
 rules and regulations as they may find necessary to carry out the objects of 
 this Act and to preserve order. Any two of said Commissioners shall con- 
 stitute a quorum to do business, and they shall hold their regular sessions 
 in the city of Washington, District of Columbia; but they may hold special 
 sessions in the Indian Territory, or at such other place or places as they 
 may deem best, to obtain information and evidence to enable them to 
 arrive at just conclusions; and in that case each one may act separately, if 
 so decided upon by the full Commission, but such separate action shall be 
 submitted to the Commission in general session. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Interior shall provide a suitable office, 
 with necessary office furniture and stationery, in or as near the Interior 
 Department, in Washington, District of Columbia, as practicable, for said 
 Board of Indian Depredation Claims. The Secretary of the Interior and 
 the Secretary of War are hereby directed to deliver, or cause to be delivered. 
 
400 
 
 to the Chairman of said Board, all of the claims for depredations commit- 
 ted by Indians against whites or their property, or by whites against 
 Indians or their property, and all other papers containing statements or 
 proofs in support of or against said claims that are on file in their Depart- 
 ments, together with such information as they are in possession of touching 
 the validity of such claims. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby author- 
 ized and directed to furnish said Board with a competent clerk, who shall 
 be a stenographer, and whose annual pay shall be two thousand dollars, 
 payable in monthly payments. The Secretary shall also furnish them 
 with a competent messenger, whose annual pay shall be eight hundred 
 dollars, payable in monthly payments. 
 
 Sec. 3. That as soon as said Board shall have received the claims and 
 other papers provided for in section two of this Act, they shall proceed to 
 the performance of their duties as provided for herein. They shall ex- 
 amine each claim separately, including all proofs on file for or against or 
 that may be offered for or against such claims, and decide on the amount 
 due, if any, from the Government of the United States or from Indian 
 tribes under existing laws or treaty stipulations, and to whom due. Each 
 claim, with all proofs and their decision thereon, shall be kept in separate 
 packages; and a record of their decision in each case shall be entered in a 
 book to be kept for that purpose by their clerk, showing the number of the 
 claim, the name and residence of the claimant, the nature of the claim, the 
 time and place where it accrued, the amount claimed, and the amount 
 allowed, if any. 
 
 Sec. 4. That the Board of Indian Depredation Claims is hereby author- 
 ized and directed to examine and allow, upon satisfactory proof, not to 
 exceed the cash value at the time of the loss of the property in the locality 
 where such loss occurred, all of the following claims, and no others: 
 
 First — For property of citizens of the United States which was unlaw- 
 fully taken or destroyed by Indians, without just cause or provocation on 
 the part of the owner or agent in charge, and not returned or paid for. 
 
 Second — For property unlawfully taken or destroyed by whites from 
 peaceable Indians, without just cause or provocation on the part of the 
 owner or agent in charge, and not returned or paid for; provided, that no 
 claim shall be allowed for property lost within the limits of any Indian 
 reservation that was knowingly kept there by the owner unless it is clearly 
 proven that the owner of said property had a legal right to have said prop- 
 erty on said reservation at the time of said loss, and that he had given no 
 provocation for having such property taken or destroyed. That said Com- 
 missioners shall in all cases take into consideration, and, if proper, allow, 
 all just offsets or counter-claims in each case as justice and equity may 
 require. And the United States shall be represented before said Commis- 
 sioners through the Attorney-General of the United States, whose duty it 
 shall be to see that the interests of the Government are properly presented; 
 and the claimants shall be represented before said Commissioners in per- 
 son or by attorney. 
 
 Sec. 5. That the Chairman of the Board of Indian Depredation Claims 
 is hereby directed to report a list of all claims acted upon by said Com- 
 missioners to Congress, within thirty days after the meeting of that body 
 at their first session after the passage of this Act, and to report in like 
 manner to each subsequent Congress thereafter, and oftener if called upon 
 by either House of Congress. Said report shall give the name of each 
 claimant, the amount claimed, the amount allowed by the Commissioners, 
 the residence of the claimant, and the time and place where the loss was 
 
401 
 
 sustained. The original claims, with proofs, shall he kept in the office of 
 said Commissioners, subject to the order of Congress. 
 
 Sec. 6. That the amount allowed in each case shall be incorporated in 
 the general Indian appropriation bill unless, in the judgment of Congress, 
 said allowances are unjust to the claimants or the Government; provided^ 
 that if any of the amounts so found due and allowed by said Commissioners 
 shall be for property taken or destroyed by any tribe of Indians, or indi- 
 vidual members thereof, having funds or annuities of any kind due or to 
 become due them from the United States, such amounts shall, if appropri- 
 ated for in the general Indian appropriation bill, be charged to said 
 Indians, and deducted from such dues or annuities. 
 
 Sec. 7. That there is hereby appropriated out of the United States 
 Treasury, out of any money not otherwise appropriated, forty thousand 
 dollars, or so much thereof as is necessary to pay the salaries of the three 
 Commissioners, one clerk, one messenger, and other incidental expenses 
 connected therewith, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, to be 
 audited by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department. 
 
 Sec. 8. That all claims against the Government of the United States 
 that come under the provisions of this Act, not presented as provided for 
 herein within three years from the approval of this Act, shall be forever 
 barred; and all claims that are presented under the provisions of this Act 
 and disallowed, or any portion of such claims as are disallowed, shall be 
 forever barred as against the Government of the United States; provided, 
 that either the claimant or the Government shall have the right to appeal 
 to the Court of Claims from any decision of the Commissioners allowing 
 or disallowing or dismissing any claim, within ninety days from the 
 announcement of any such decision; and said Court shall try said causes 
 upon the proofs received and considered by the Commission, and such 
 other proofs as may be taken in accordance with the rules of said Court, 
 and shall report to Congress upon such claims in the manner provided in 
 section five of this Act, but shall not render judgment in such cases. The 
 party appealing shall be known as the appellant, and the adverse party 
 as the respondent. Such appeal shall be taken by the appellant filing a 
 notice of appeal, specifying the grounds of such appeal, with said Com- 
 missioners, at their office in the city of Washington, and by serving a copy 
 of such notice on the respondent or his attorney. The appellant, other 
 than the United States, shall, before such appeal becomes effective, also file 
 with said Commissioners a bond in the sum of five hundred dollars, with 
 proper sureties, to be approved by the Chairman of said Commissioners, 
 conditioned to pay the cost of such appeal in case the decision of the Com- 
 missioners is not reversed in whole or in part; and upon the appeal being 
 perfected as aforesaid, the Commissioners shall transmit the entire rec^ord 
 and all the proofs and papers in the case to the Court of Claims, and said 
 Court shall thereupon proceed to hear and determine such appeals con- 
 formably to its procedure in other cases, except as modified by this Act. 
 
 Sec. 9. That all Acts and parts of Acts in conflict or inconsistent with 
 the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. House of Representatives. Report No. 3117. 
 
 CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF INDIAN TREATIES. 
 
 June 30, 1886 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
 state of the Union and ordered to be printed. 
 
 26"" 
 
402 
 
 Mr. Hailey, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the follow- 
 ing 
 
 REPORT. 
 [To accompany bill H. R. 9729.] 
 
 The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 
 7849) " to establish a Board of Commissioners to examine, adjust, and report 
 on all claims arising out of Indian treaties and depredations committed by 
 the Indians, and for other purposes," have duly considered the same and 
 report as follows: 
 
 For many years large numbers of claims of citizens of the United States 
 for depredations committed by the Indians have come before each session 
 of Congress. Some have been presented by private bills and petitions, 
 while many others have been transmitted to Congress by the Secretary of 
 the Interior, in accordance with existing law. Numerous other claims of 
 Indians for depredations by white men have also been reported upon by 
 the Secretary of the Interior. No positive action has been taken by any 
 Congress, with a view to final disposition of either of these classes of claims. 
 At each session numerous propositions have been made in the form of gen- 
 eral bills, to refer these claims to some commission or to the Court of Claims; 
 but, so far as your committee can find, no action has ever been taken by 
 any committee upon any of these propositions. Each Congress has con- 
 tented itself with paying a few of the claims by special enactment. Your 
 committee have had before them both general and special bills, proposing 
 to deal with claims of this class as well as a comprehensive report of the 
 Secretary of the Interior showing the number of claims filed in this Depart- 
 ment (H. R. Ex. Doc. 125, Forty-ninth Congress, first session) . After a care- 
 ful consideration, your committee have reached the conclusion that the only 
 course consistent with a due regard on the one hand for the obligations of 
 the Government, and on the other for the proper security of the Treasury 
 from unfounded demands, is to provide for the examination of these claims 
 by some tribunal endowed with ample facilities for sifting their merits 
 thoroughly, in whose findings Congress may safely repose confidence. 
 Mindful of the importance of the subject-matter, your committee have 
 deemed it proper to present these reasons for submitting the substitute 
 which accompanies this report. 
 
 The relations of the Government to the Indians are complex. When the 
 problem to be solved involves not only these relations but also the obliga- 
 tions of the Government towards its citizens and the Indians in their rela- 
 tions to each other, its true solution can only be reached after the ^ most 
 painstaking and careful consideration. A full review of the legislation of 
 Congress upon the subject of the depredations of Indians and whites upon 
 each other is the first necessity in this consideration. 
 
 From the earliest days of the Government, its policy in regard to the 
 Indians has been to keep them separated from the whites and to regulate 
 all intercourse between the two races in the strictest manner. The Act of 
 July 22, 1790 (1 Stat. L., 137), is the first law of the United States to regu- 
 late trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes. This forbade any trad- 
 ing with the Indians except by those receiving Federal licenses therefor. 
 By Act of March 1, 1793 (1 Stat. L., 329), these provisions were reenacted 
 and other provisions adopted forbidding settlement on or surveying Indian 
 lands, and making void all purchases of land from Indians except by treaty 
 or convention under the authority of the United States. 
 
 On May 19, 1796, a third and more comprehensive Act was passed to 
 
403 
 
 cover the whole subject of trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes. 
 This Act (1 Stat. L.* 469), carefully defined the Indian country by metes 
 and bounds, reenacted the various restrictive provisions of the former laws, 
 and, in addition, forbade any person going into the Indian country to hunt 
 or graze cattle, under the penalty of fine or imprisonment, or even entering 
 the Indian country south of the Ohio River without a license. Notwith- 
 standing the heavy penalties contained in this Act for offenses against the 
 Indians, and the provisions for punishment, if found outside the Indian 
 country, of any Indian offending against the whites. Congress foresaw that 
 depredations would occur on both sides. Provision was therefore made for 
 such cases. Congress was not unmindful in those days that it had assumed 
 a large but definite obligation by keeping the Indian free in his property 
 from any liability for his offenses against white men, and by guaranteeing 
 him absolute immunity of person if he should return to his reservation 
 before arrest. Neither was Congress inclined to refuse the assumption of 
 this obligation by the United States, even at a time when the impoverished 
 condition of the national finances commanded the most careful scrutiny of 
 every new assumption of financial liability. On the other hand, it was felt 
 that the Indian should know that he should suffer no wrong by the evil 
 actions of bad white men, but that the Great Father would fully care for 
 him. It was felt, too, that in no way could peace be so well kept between 
 the two races as by the assurance that the Government would make full 
 recompense for all wrongs which one race might inflict upon the other. 
 Congress, therefore, governed by the legal obligation in the one case, and by 
 a high sense of honor in dealing with inferior peoples in the other, together 
 with a just appreciation of the wisest policy toward both the citizens and 
 the Indians, enacted that the United States should guarantee an eventual 
 indemnity both to white men and to Indians for the losses sustained by the 
 depredations of the one upon the other. With a view to enforcing the tribal 
 responsibility for depredations, all payments made by the United States 
 for depredations by the Indians were to be reimbursed out of tribal funds, 
 if such funds existed, while, on the other hand, a heavy punishment was 
 affixed to the offenses committed by white men against the Indians. 
 
 The just and equitable policy embodied in this law was continued by 
 repeated enactment for many years, provisions substantially identical being 
 contained in two temporary statutes, those of March 3, 1799 (Sees. 4 and 14, 
 1 Stat. L., 747, 748), and March 30, 1802 (Sees. 4 and 14, 2 Stat. L., 141, 
 143), and finally embodied in the permanent "intercourse Act" of June 30, 
 1834 (Sees. 16 and 17, 4 Stat. L., 731). All these sections will be found in 
 full in Appendices A and B, which are attached hereto and made a part of 
 this report. 
 
 These ancient rules, controlling the Government in dealing with the 
 relations between the Indians and white settlers, continued in force for 
 nearly sixty years without substantial change. By Act of February 28, 
 1859, Section 8 (11 Stat. L., 401), Congress repealed the provision guaran- 
 teeing eventual indemnity to whites for losses by Indian depredations in 
 cases where no treaty funds existed, although carefully preserving by the 
 same Act the obligation to make indemnification out of annuities, and sub- 
 sequently providing by joint resolution of June 25, 1860 (12 Stat. L., 120), 
 that any right to indemnity existing at the date of the former Act should 
 not be impaired. The guarantee of indemnity to Indians in cases of dep- 
 redations by whites was not affected by this Act, nor has there been any 
 legislation since upon this subject. It remains a statutory obligation. Sec- 
 tion 16 of the Act of June 30, 1834, being reenacted as Sections 2154 and 
 2155, Revised Statutes. 
 
404 
 
 During all this period of time payment of claims for Indian depredations 
 was made to a considerable extent by the Indian Bureau. After the Act 
 of 1859, the same course was followed in regard to claims against Indian 
 tribes to whom annuities were due. If the claim was duly proved to the 
 satisfaction of the Indian Bureau, it was paid out of the annuities, unless as 
 occurred in many cases, the annuities were not sufficient to supply the 
 absolute needs of the Indians. In that case the claims remained unpaid 
 ex necessitate, though contrary to the law. But after the close of the late war 
 a feeling of distrust arose as to the sufficiency of the means under the control 
 of the Indian Bureau for determining the validity of claims of this class. 
 It began to be feared that an executive bureau was wanting in facilities for 
 the investigation of claims of large amounts, involving unliquidated darn- 
 ages, sufficient to warrant entire confidence that just claims would be paid 
 and unjust claims rejected. For this reason Congress determined to leave 
 for itself the final disposition of all such cases, and enacted, July 16, 1870 
 (16 Stat. L., 360), that no appropriations to pay annuities should thereafter 
 be used to pay depredation claims, and that no depredation claims should 
 be paid without special appropriation therefor by Congress. This provision 
 of law now appears as Section 2098, Revised Statutes. Two years after 
 this enactment an Act of Congress (May 29, 1872) (Section 7, 17 Stat. L., 
 190), was passed, doubtless designed to afford a comprehensive remedy to 
 claimants who had suffered losses by Indian depredations. This required 
 the Secretary of the Interior to investigate claims of this class presented to 
 him, and to report the claims to Congress, together with his allowance or 
 disallowance, and all the evidence. This law appears as Sections 445 and 
 466, Revised Statutes. It was probably expected that the reports of the 
 Interior Department under this Act would be generally accepted, and that 
 the special appropriations for allowed claims would be made almost as a 
 matter of course. But the result has been far different. The reassertion 
 of the ancient liability of the Government is strongly implied in the Act 
 of 1872, but very few payments have been made. In nearly every Congress 
 bills authorizing the payment of a few claims have become laws either 
 because of their exceptional merit or from some other causes. While these 
 few cases are sufficient to show that the liability of the Government has 
 been constantly affirmed, they amount to very little as an actual discharge 
 of its obligations. So great was the wrong caused by the delay in payment 
 that at the second session of the Forty-eighth Congress a large number of 
 claims of this kind which had been approved by the Interior Department 
 were placed upon the Indian appropriation bill, and passed by the House 
 of Representatives. But the Senate, in compliance with its rule forbidding 
 the payment of private claims in general appropriation Acts, struck all 
 these claims out, inserting instead an appropriation of $10,000 for a further 
 investigation of these claims by the Interior Department. (Act of March 
 3, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 376; see copy of law in Appendix A.) The chief result 
 of this investigation seems to have been the discovery by the Indian Office 
 that a larg6 majority of the claims heretofore duly considered were barred 
 by the provisions of a repealed law. The last legislative Act upon this sub- 
 ject is an appropriation of $20,000 by the Indian Appropriation Act of May 
 15, 1886, for continuing this investigation, the appropriation having been 
 inserted by the Senate after the bill had passed the House. 
 
 This review of the legislation on the subject shows that the payment of 
 claims of these classes is in strict accordance with the old and settled pol- 
 icy of the Government begun seven years after the Constitution went into 
 effect and reiterated many times in after years. This policy, too, is no more 
 
405 
 
 than a recognition of the obligations to which the Government is bound 
 upon the highest principles of justice. 
 
 In the able and comprehensive speech delivered by Senator J. N. Dolph 
 in the Senate on April 16, 1886 (Congressional Record Forty-ninth Con- 
 gress, first session, p. 3657), the principles upon which the obligation rests 
 to pay the Indian depredation claims are fully and conclusively stated. 
 This speech is the most complete presentation of this subject ever made to 
 either house of Congress and contains valuable materials to which this 
 report is greatly indebted. (See appendices.) 
 
 Senator Dolph says (pp. 3660 and 3661): 
 
 Submission to the Government is the primary obligation of the citizen, and protection 
 of the citizen is the correlative obligation of the Government. Theoretically, it is the duty 
 of the Government to afiord protection to all its citizens in the enjoyment of life, liberty, 
 and property, not only within its borders, but everywhere they may lawfully go. While 
 its obligation to afford protection is sometimes by law devolved by the State upon munic- 
 ipal corporations intrusted with certain powers of government, the duty is the duty of the 
 State, the power so exercised being derived from the State. The Government of the 
 United States forms no exception to this general rule. Within the powers conferred upon 
 it by the Federal Constitution and for the purposes of its creation it demands the alle- 
 giance of the citizen, and to the extent of those powers it owes every citizen protection. 
 As Congress has power "to declare war," "to raise and support armies," "provide and 
 maintain a navy," and the States are prohibited from keeping ships or troops in time of 
 peace, from entering into any agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign 
 power or to engage in war, it becomes the evident duty of the General Government to 
 protect the citizens of the United States in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property 
 against foreign powers and their citizens and subjects, and the obligation of the Govern- 
 ment to do this has never been denied, and in the discharge of this obligation it has 
 declared war, called into use the Army and Navy, taxed the people, and borrowed money 
 upon the public credit. 
 
 For every wrong there should be a remedy. If one citizen of a State injures another in 
 person or property, the State ought to provide for the redress of that wrong by legal meth- 
 ods; and whenever the State, or municipal corporations within a State, fails to afford 
 such reasonable protection as is within its powers to the citizen, the State or municipal 
 corporation upon the plainest principles of justice should be required to indemnify the 
 citizen for any loss sustained by reason of such failure. 
 
 The States are powerless under the Federal Constitution to protect their citizens from 
 the Indian tribes. It is true that in case of actual Indian hostilities they may repel inva- 
 sion and drive the murderous savages back to their cities of refuge — the reservations — but 
 within them they are safe under the protecting segis of the Federal authority. The States 
 cannot demand or enforce satisfaction from the Indians for the losses sustained by their 
 citizens. The Federal Government interposes itself between the States and their citizens 
 to shield the Indians from the ordinary and natural consequences of their acts. The cit- 
 izen cannot justly demand that recourse against the State which is allowed by the laws 
 of many countries and many of the States for losses occasioned by lawlessness and vio- 
 lence, and can only look to the Federal Government for redress. 
 
 Hon. Martin Maginnis, for a number of years a Delegate from Montana, 
 has also very forcibly presented the obligation of the Government in this 
 matter (Cong. Rec, vol. 11, Part 1, p. 640): 
 
 The Government sets up in the Territories these independent principalities known as 
 reservations. They are occupied by people recognized in a sense as independent nation- 
 alities, under the control and protection of the General Government. The laws of the 
 commonwealths in which they are situated do not cover them. The process of the civil 
 Courts cannot invade them. They are cities of refuge, and the Government declares to all 
 surrounding people that they shall not disturb its wards, and assumes the position of 
 guardian and arbiter between them and all others. You say that people who trade or 
 settle in such countries should take the risk of their ventures. So they should under the 
 laws. But if a white man burns your house or steals your horse you can follow him 
 anywhere with the law. You can arrest him, punish, and perhaps recover your property. 
 But when these Indians make a raid off their reservations, invade a settlement, and take 
 your horses and cattle and drive them, under your very eyes, to the reservation, what can 
 you do with the law ? 
 
 Suppose they murder and destroy and then retreat to their own dominions, and your 
 Marshals and Sheriffs follow them in hot pursuit to the very boundaries of their reserva- 
 tion, what remedy have you ? Your law no longer follows the Indians. The process of 
 your Court falls dead as soon as your pursuit reaches the line of his reservation, which 
 
406 
 
 the Government orders you not to cross, and, safe in his city of refuge, the depredator 
 laughs at you and is safe from your law officers, and can exhibit your stolen property 
 before your outraged face, and you have no right to reclaim it, and no remedy for your 
 wrong, except through the General Government. 
 
 The Government, in pursuance of its settled policy, says that you shall not cross that 
 line, nor shall your Courts, or their officers, or your local laws. It says these people are 
 the wards of the Government, and if you have any cause of complaint you must come to 
 the Government of the United States, and it will arbitrate your differences and settle the 
 measures of your damages. 
 
 Having no other recourse, and being forbidden to resort to any, the settler, therefore, 
 comes to the Government of the United States to right his wrong, and to obtain justice for 
 the acts which have been committed by those whom the Government excludes from the 
 operation of the local law, and for whom, as its own wards, it assumes the responsibility. 
 
 In providing for the payment of these claims, Congress will do nothing 
 more than follow the analogies both of ancient and modern laws of other 
 jurisdictions, holding the municipality liable in case of damage by mobs. 
 The Saxon laws provided that the ville should pay forty marks for the 
 killing of any person if the slayer escaped. The statutes of Manchester 
 (13 Ed. I, ch. 1), provided that the hundred should be liable for robberies, 
 if the country would not answer for the bodies of the offenders, and by Act 
 of 7 and 8 Geo. IV, ch. 31, an action was given against the county for 
 damages committed by mobs. The States of the Union have not been 
 backward in following these precedents. New York, Pennsylvania, New 
 Jersey, Maryland, South Carolina, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, 
 Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin, all have similar laws. If 
 these laws be good public policy and sound justice when the criminal and 
 civil Courts are open against offenders, how much more should the United 
 States pay for the depredations unlawfully committed by Indians, who are 
 sacredly protected by the Government of the United States from the process 
 of the Courts of justice? 
 
 It has been seen that the statutory obligation requiring payment to the 
 Indians in case of offenses committed against them by white men has never 
 been in the least altered. On the contrary, it has been the subject of 
 repeated treaty confirmations. (See Appendix F.) Your committee deem 
 this obligation and that of paying our citizens for depredations committed 
 by the Indians to be reciprocal. The citizen should not be treated with less 
 consideration than the Indian. The duty to each should be performed, and 
 means provided for payment to each of his rightful dues. Senator Cole of 
 California, well said in 1870 (Cong. Globe, Part 5, p. 4010, Forty-first Con- 
 gress, second session) : 
 
 A great deal less care, it seems to me, is given to our own race than to the Indian race. 
 We are providing for their comfort and convenience, and not providing for those against 
 whom they have committed oflenses—Aipon whom they have inflicted damage in some way 
 or other. 
 
 The bill reported by your committee makes a just provision for the wrongs 
 committed on both sides. 
 
 The reading of the many Indian treaties made from the foundation of the 
 Government to 1871, when further treaty making with Indians was forbid- 
 den by law, shows that many of the Indian tribes have formally agreed 
 that their annuities or other funds shall be liable for payment for depreda- 
 tions committed by members of the tribes. In Appendix D to this report 
 is given a list of treaties making provisions as to this subject. It has 
 already been seen that the United States by law took upon itself the 
 obligation of paying these claims from treaty funds, and has never divested 
 itself of that obligation, although there has been for a number of years a 
 failure to make appropriation for the performance of this obligation. The 
 
407 
 
 law and the treaties in effect make the Government the trustee holding 
 these funds for the benefit of the sufferers by any depredations which these 
 Indians may commit. 
 
 The Government has also assumed the obligation of caring for the Indians 
 and supplying all their material necessities. Where the Indians have had 
 treaty funds due them the Government has been relieved of the need of 
 appropriating money from the Treasury to supply their necessities; but in 
 using funds which ought to have been kept for the benefit of the sufferers 
 by depredations in supplying the need of the Indians the trustee has made 
 itself liable for the payment of the claims of the sufferers. There are many 
 Indians to whom annuities were due in 1870 who have now received every- 
 thing due them, although claims for depredations committed by them have 
 been presented and allowed. 
 
 It was the duty of the Government, both by statute and treaty, to pay these 
 claims with the treaty funds, but having neglected this duty and diverted 
 the funds, no matter how useful a purpose, it must now answer to the 
 claimants from the Treasury. In House Ex. Doc. 5, Forty-first Congress, 
 second session, p. 182, it appears that $4,167,486 30 was estimated as nec- 
 essary to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1870, to fulfill 
 treaty stipulations with Indian tribes. Nearly all this sum might have been 
 held by the Government by law and treaty for the payment of claims for 
 depredations, but was not. But payments to the Indians have been made 
 to so large an extent that in the book of estimates (H. R. Ex. Doc. 5, 49th 
 Cong., 1st sess., p. 250) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1887, only 
 $2,725,444 84 is estimated to be necessary for this purpose, and this includes 
 $1,400,000, due under the Act of February 28, 1877 (19 Stat. L., 256), to the 
 Sioux Indians. (Same document, p. 137.) This leaves an annual charge 
 of only $1,325,444 84, now due upon treaty obligations existing in 1870, 
 against $4,167,486 30 then due, and this lesser sum is subject to annual 
 diminution. Wherever these now exhausted annuities were paid to tribes 
 who had commited depredations the Government violated its trust to the 
 sufferers, and now should answer to them. 
 
 Your committee deem it proper to place before the House as full an esti- 
 mate as possible of the amount of claims which may be allowed under this 
 Act for depredations committed by Indians. The law, as has already been 
 seen, has continuously permitted the presentation of these claims to the 
 Indian Bureau. In a letter to Senator Dolph (see Congressional Record, 
 49th Cong., 1st sess., p. 3665, and Appendix I to this report, where the letter 
 is reprinted), the Commissioner of Indian Affairs states that the claims 
 on file in this office, dating from 1850 to the present time, aggregate 
 $13,000,000; that many of these claims, to an indeterminable amount, were 
 paid by the Indian agents prior to the year 1870, and that Congress has 
 appropriated by special Acts $1,654,530. Subtracting this amount appro- 
 priated from the total claimed, leaves $11,345,470 as a maximum of all the 
 claims presented without allowing for the uncertain amount paid by Indian 
 agents. By reference to the table presented as Appendix H to this report, 
 giving the amounts claimed, allowed, and disallowed, in various claims 
 tribunals, it will be seen that the highest proportion of the amounts allowed to 
 the amounts claimed in any of these seven tribunals is less than twenty-five 
 per cent; that this maximum percentage was in a tribunal (the Court of 
 Claims) which has had a strict statute of limitations, and in which the cog- 
 nizable claims are those arising upon contract, and generally for liquidated 
 sums; that the next highest proportion, in claims considered by the 
 Quartermaster-General under the Act of July 4, 1864, is but fourteen per 
 
408 
 
 cent, and that the proportions run down as low as one tenth of one per cent 
 (claims against France under the convention of January 15, 1880). 
 
 As many of the witnesses are dead by whom the claims embraced in 
 this bill might have been proved at an earlier date, as many of the claim- 
 ants are dead and their heirs scattered to all parts of the country, and as 
 the claims are for items of property which are easily subject to a higher 
 valuation by the ow^ner than they might have in the view of the Commis- 
 sion, the committee are of the opinion that the proportion of allowances to 
 claims cannot in any event exceed 25 per cent, the maximum percentage 
 shown as having been allowed by any of the tribunals whose allowances 
 are contained in the table presented in Appendix H. This is a liberal esti- 
 mate and would fix the total of allow^ances upon claims already filed in 
 the Interior Department at about $2,800,000. 
 
 It is not possible to estimate with certainty the number of new claims 
 which would be filed before the Commission in addition to those now in 
 the Interior Department. The committee think it safe to say that, at the 
 outside, no more than one half as many claims will be presented as have 
 already been filed, especially when it is known that all the claims will be 
 subjected to the rigid scrutiny of a commission which will be able to take 
 testimony on the spot where the claim originated. Doubtless, too, the pro- 
 portion of allowances will be less in cases to be filed than in claims presented 
 shortly after the losses occurred. But if this liberal addition be made and 
 the same proportion of allowances used as a basis of estimate, it will be 
 seen that the total expenditure under this Act for Indian depredation 
 claims is not likely to exceed $4,200,000. While it is difficult to make an 
 approximation of this character, it will be noticed that the bases of calcu- 
 lation involved in this estimate are all liberal. The payments will be 
 extended over a term of years, and will, therefore, not fall with any great 
 weight on the Government in any particular year. 
 
 The bill reported by the committee provides for the appointment of a 
 special Board of three Commissioners, who shall hold their regular sessions 
 in Washington, and special sessions in the Indian Territory, or in any other 
 places where they may best obtain information and evidence to aid them 
 in arriving at correct decisions. To further their obtaining evidence, each 
 member of the Board is authorized to act separately for that purpose only. 
 All decisions upon claims are to be made by the Board in its regular 
 sessions. All claims for depredations by Indians upon whites or by whites 
 upon Indians, with all the papers and information relating thereto on file 
 in the Departments, are to be delivered to the Board on its organization. 
 The Board is also authorized to consider all off'sets or counter-claims, and 
 allow them as against the claimants. 
 
 Your committee have thought it best that the functions of the 
 Commissioners should be, as far as possible, strictly judicial. They have 
 therefore reported in the bill a provision making it the duty of the Attor- 
 ney-General to see that the interests of the Government are properly 
 presented. In some commissions and tribunals heretofore created, possess- 
 ing judicial functions, the Commissioners have been obliged to act both 
 as judges and as counsel for the United States. These two positions your 
 committee deem to be especially incompatible. Either the Commissioner 
 is so closely occupied by his judicial duties that the interests of the Gov- 
 ernment are not properly cared for, or in his zeal for the protection of the 
 United States he forgets his judicial capacity. A grievous injustice results 
 in either case. The only remedy for this is a strict separation of the two 
 functions. 
 
409 
 
 Your committee are strongly opposed to any secret modes of examination 
 of claims of so much importance as those embraced in this bill, and believe 
 that the Commission should take all its proceedings in the full view of both 
 parties, as represented by their counsel, and subject to that same scrutiny 
 which experience has proved to be so valuable in the ordinary proceedings 
 of Courts. Every man is entitled to a day in Court, and to have his cause 
 fairly heard. Your committee have thought it proper to provide for such 
 hearing before this Commission, believing that in this way only can there 
 be satisfaction with its decisions. 
 
 The amounts thus allowed by the Commissioners are to be incorporated 
 in the Indian appropriation bill. But your committee have thought it 
 proper to express in this bill a reservation, excepting from appropriation 
 any allowances which, in the judgment of Congress, are unjust to the 
 claimants or the Government. 
 
 Your committee have also provided in the sixth section of the bill that 
 if any of the amounts allowed shall be for depredations committed by 
 tribes of Indians, or by individual members of tribes having funds due or 
 to become due them from the Government, the amounts appropriated shall 
 be deducted from such dues or annuities. In another part of this report 
 it has been shown that many tribes have provided by treaty for such 
 deductions. It has been suggested that the tribe ought not to suffer for the 
 wrong doings of its individual members; but your committee think that 
 the correct way to enforce good conduct among the Indians is by such a 
 provision, thus placing the responsibility for individual conduct upon the 
 tribe, who possess the control over the individuals, and requiring the tribe 
 to answer out of their annuities for individual misconduct. This was the 
 view taken by Senator Thayer of Nebraska, in debate (Cong. Globe, 41st 
 Cong., 2d session, part 5, p. 4012). 
 
 I say to them also that the way to produce an effect upon the Indians is by letting them 
 know that if they commit these depredations their annuities shall be taken to pay for them. 
 This is the only way in which you will reach them. That is the only way in which you 
 will have an effect on the Indians and compel them to cease their depredations on the 
 settlers. 
 
 The treaties themselves make no difference in their provisions for 
 payment out of annuity funds between cases of individual depredations 
 and those of tribal depredations, and the Act of 1834 is explicit in its 
 reference to the acts of individual Indians. The general theory of the 
 Government in dealing with the Indians up to the present time has been 
 to deal with them in their tribal relations, and to remit individual relations 
 between Indians to the tribal customs and regulations. 
 
 The number of Indians in the United States in 1884, exclusive of Alaska, 
 was 264,369. (See report of Commissioner of Indian Affairs for 1884, 
 page xviii.) The total area of Indian reservations, October 10, 1883, was 
 135,998,101 acres. (See The Public Domain, page 1253.) This is an 
 average of about 511 acres to each Indian. It is evident to the most casual 
 observer that this small number of Indians cannot continue indefinitely to 
 occupy all this large amount of land. Numerous bills are before Congress 
 at every session proposing to divide reservations and purchase them from 
 the Indians. It is not doubted that it will become necessary for Congress 
 at some future day to provide for the purchase of various portions of the 
 Indian lands; thereby large sums of money will become due to different 
 tribes. Your committee believe that the tribal funds so obtained should, 
 equally with the annuities now due, be chargeable with the amounts paid 
 in satisfaction of the claims for depredations committed by the tribes. 
 
410 
 
 They therefore report a provision requiring that the payments on account 
 of the depredation claims shall be charged to and deducted from funds 
 " to become due," as well as those already due. It is believed that the 
 Indians themselves will thus ultimately pay the greater proportion of the 
 claims for their depredations. 
 
 Your committee have also reported a provision that all claims not pre- 
 sented within three years from the approval of this Act, and all claims, 
 presented and disallowed, and all disallowed portions of claims, shall be 
 forever barred. The object of the committee in this provision is to make 
 the proceedings of the Commission a final settlement of these claims, so 
 that they shall never thereafter be urged upon Congress. But it is realized 
 that no bar of this kind can be final unless every claim has received such 
 thorough and careful consideration as will commend itself to the sense of 
 justice of the American people. To effect this end fully your committee 
 have provided that an appeal to the Court of Claims be allowed in every 
 claim from the decision of the Commission, whether it is for the Govern- 
 ment or the claimant. This Court, after an existence of over thirty years, 
 has established itself in the public confidence. So carefully are its decis- 
 ions considered that at the term of the Supreme Court of the United States 
 for 1885-86, no decision of the Court of Claims was reversed, although 
 eighteen appeals from this Court were decided. It is believed that when 
 the action of a temporary Commission is taken under the watchful eye of 
 a Court and its decisions are subject to the scrutiny of a reviewing power, 
 it will exercise its authority with greater care than if subject to no control. 
 The experience of Congress in some past instances shows that even after a 
 decision by a quasi judicial tribunal claimants are apt to appear before 
 Congress with rejected claims and pray a reversal of the action of this 
 tribunal. It is a well known fact that the Committee on War Claims is 
 overburdened year after year with appeals, mounting in number into the 
 thousands, from claimants who allege that they have been injured by the 
 adverse action of the Southern Claims Commission and the Quartermaster- 
 General. That committee has already found it necessary to refer many of 
 these claims, already decided by one or the other of these tribunals, to the 
 Court of Claims for reconsideration, in accordance with the provisions of 
 the Act of March 3, 1883, commonly called the " Bowman Act." It is 
 believed that such an undesirable result as this can best be avoided by 
 permitting every claimant who deems the action of the Commission unjust 
 to appeal to the Court of Claims at once. The Court of Claims is actually 
 an appeal Court from the decisions of the various departments. Claimants 
 whose demands are rejected by the tribunals of first instance, usually the 
 Executive Departments, have in general a right of appeal to the Court of 
 Claims. There seems to be no reason. why the claimants provided for in 
 this bill should be precluded from further remedy by the adverse decision 
 of the Court of first instance. They are therefore afforded a right to review 
 by a superior tribunal. The Government is put in an equally advantageous 
 position. The findings of the Commission in favor of claimants may be 
 again examined and the United States will appropriate to pay only claims 
 which have passed the scrutiny of the Court of Claims, or in which the law 
 officers of the Government may acquiesce in the decisions of the Commis- 
 sion. The Court of Claims is not authorized to render judgment in such 
 cases, but makes a report to Congress in the same manner as is made by 
 the Commission. 
 
 Your committee believe that the passage of the bill reported by them 
 will afford valuable and much needed relief in many ways. The Secretary 
 of the Interior and the Commissioner of Indian Aff'airs, and to some extent 
 
411 
 
 the Secretary of War, already crowded with necessary and proper duties, 
 have been burdened with work for which an Executive Department is not 
 fitted — the investigation of old and disputed demands against the Govern- 
 ment. The same claims, after investigation in the executive branch of the 
 Government, have been repeatedly, and with justice, pressed upon Con- 
 gress. Members of Congress, upon whose time the public business makes 
 the most urgent demands, have been compelled to give attention to these 
 cases, and the committees year after year have had their dockets burdened 
 with them. Each Congress has seen a few cases disposed of, but many 
 more added to take their places. This bill relieves both the executive and 
 legislative branches of the Government by creating a new tribunal with 
 powers which enable it to properly exercise judicial functions. But not 
 alone to the Government does this bill offer relief. Your committee believes 
 that it affords a just and proper means of settlement for well founded and 
 long urged demands both of the citizens of the United States and the 
 wards of the Government. The meeting of the two races upon the frontier 
 has necessarily been fruitful in conflict. There have been wrongs on both 
 sides. To the Indian, the ward of the Government, justice and generosity 
 must go hand in hand in awarding recompense for wrongs. The settler 
 rightfully demands an equal justice. The early pioneers in the far West, 
 the makers of a new civilization, the founders of a great empire, the leaders 
 in the great army of workers who have made the vast western wilderness 
 blossom with rich harvests, are among the noblest heroes and greatest bene- 
 factors of this Republic, and deserve from a grateful country an ample 
 recognition of their trials and privations. It is difficult for one who has 
 not taken part in that stupendous work to realize the labors of these early 
 pioneers. Crossing the plains by slow and toilsome journeys, day after 
 day gradually pressing nearer to their long sought destinations, reaching 
 them after trials sufficient to dismay less stout hearts, they begin to carve 
 out homes for themselves, their wives and their children, in the wilderness. 
 The clearing is made, the house built, the field fenced and plowed, the seed 
 planted, and the harvest reaped. Then when the settler has passed his 
 weariest day of toil and the future begins to look full of promise, a sudden 
 warning is swiftly borne from the next settlement that the hostile Indians 
 are coming. The warning comes too late. Before the settler can escape 
 the savages, mounted on the murdered white man's horses, fed with Gov- 
 ernment rations, armed with guns with which a kind guardian has provided 
 them — these wards of the nation sack his house and carry away or burn all 
 the fruits of his toil. The settler is fortunate if he escapes with his life or 
 if he does not see his wife and daughters killed before his eyes or suffer a 
 fate far worse than death. When the Indians are gone all that is left is a 
 heap of ruins. His home is a home no longer; it is little more than the 
 wilderness. If he dares again occupy his old homestead he must begin life 
 anew. Such is the veritable history of many a settler. Year after year has 
 every Representative from the West been appealed to by these veterans to 
 secure a recognition by the Government of their just demands, until now 
 these old heroes of a struggle as noble in its victories but as sad in its 
 defeats as any war, ask with despair: " Shall we never be paid for our 
 losses?" 
 
 Your committee are not unmindful of the weighty responsibility of the 
 Government to the Indians, or that they, too, have suffered wrongs. But 
 the settler himself must receive a long delayed measure of justice. It is 
 believed that the bill reported by your committee as a substitute for House 
 Bill 7849 affords a practical mode of redress. It is therefore reported favor- 
 ably to the House, with the recommendation that it do pass. 
 
412 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 GENERAL LEGISLATION ON CLAIMS FOR DEPREDATIONS COMMITTED BY INDIANS. 
 
 I.— Act of May 19, 1796, Sec. U (i Stat. L., 472). 
 
 And he it further enacted, That if any Indian or Indians, belonging to any tribe in amity 
 with the United States, shall come over or across the said boundary line into any State or 
 Territory inhabited by citizens of the United States, and there take, steal, or destroy any 
 horse, horses, or other property, belonging to any citizen or inhabitant of the tfnited 
 States, or of either of the territorial districts of the United States, or shall commit any 
 murder, violence, or outrage, upon any such citizen or inhabitant, it shall be the duty of 
 such citizen or inhabitant, his representative, attorney, or agent, to make application to 
 the superintendent, or such other person as the President of the United States shall 
 authorize for that purpose; who, upon being furnished with the necessary documents and 
 proofs, shall, under the direction or instruction of the President of the United States, 
 make application to the nation or tribe, to which such Indian or Indians shall belong, for 
 satisfaction ; and if such nation or tribe shall neglect or refuse to make satisfaction, in a 
 reasonable time, not exceeding eighteen months, then it shall be the duty of such super- 
 President of the United States, and forward to him all the documents and proofs in the 
 intendent, or other person authorized, as aforesaid, to nuike return of his doings to the 
 case, that such further steps may be taken as shall be proper to obtain satisfaction for the 
 injury. And, in the meantime, in respect to the properry so taken, stolen, or destroyed, 
 the United States guarantee to the party injured an eventual indemnification; provided 
 always, that if such injured party, his representative, attorney, or agent, shall in any way 
 violate any of the provisions of this Act, by seeking or attempting to obtain private satis- 
 faction or 'revenge, by crossing over the line, on any of the Indian lands, he shall forfeit 
 all claim upon the United States for such indemnification ; and provided, also, that noth- 
 ing herein contained shall x>revent the legal apprehension or arresting, within the limits 
 of any State or district, of any Indian having so offended; and provided further, that it 
 shall be lawful for the President of the United States to deduct such sum or sums as shall 
 be paid for the property taken, stolen, or destroyed, by any such Indian, out of the annual 
 stipend which the United States are bound to pay to the tribe to which such Indian shall 
 belong. 
 
 11.— Act of March 3, 1799, Sec. U {1 Stat. L., 747). 
 
 And he it further enacted, That if any Indian or Indians, belonging to any tribe in amity 
 with the United States, shall come over or cross the said boundary line, into any State or 
 Territory inhabited by citizens of the United States, and there take, steal, or destroy any 
 horse, or horses, or other property, belonging to any citizen or inhabitant of the United 
 States, or of either of tlie territorial districts of the United States, or shall commit any 
 murder, violence, or outrage upon any such citizen or inhabitant, it shall be the duty of 
 such citizen or inhabitant, his representative, attorney, or agent, to make application to 
 the superintendent, or such other person as the President of the United States shall 
 authorize for that purpose ; who, upon being furnished with the necessary documents and 
 proof, shall, under the direction or instruction of the President of the United States, 
 make application to the nation or tribe to which such Indian or Indians shall belong for 
 satisfaction, and if such nation or tribe shall neglect or refuse to make satisfaction,' in a 
 reasonable time, not exceeding eighteen months, then it shall be the duty of such super- 
 intendent, or other person authorized as aforesaid, to make return of his doings to the 
 President of the United States, and forward to him all the documents and proofs in the 
 case, that such further steps may be taken as shall be proper to obtain satisfaction for the 
 injury; and, in the meantime, in respect to the property so taken, stolen, or destroj^ed, 
 the United States guarantee to the party injured, an eventual indemnification; provided 
 always, that if such injured party, his representative, attorney, or agent, shall, in any way, 
 violate any of the provisions of this Act by seeking, or attenipting to obtain private satis- 
 faction or revenge, by crossing over the line, on any of the Indian lands, he shall forfeit 
 all claim upon the United States for such indemnification ; and provided, also, that noth- 
 ing herein contained shall prevent the legal apprehension or arresting, within the limits 
 of any State or district, of any Indian having so offended; and provided further, that it 
 shall be lawful for the President of the United States to deduct such sum or sums as 
 shall be paid for the property taken, stolen, or destroyed by anj^; such Indian, out of the 
 annual stipend which the United States are bound to pay to the tribe to which such Indian 
 shall belong. 
 
 HI.— Act of March 30, 1802, Sec. I4 {2 Stat. L., Ip). 
 
 And he it further enacted. That if any Indian or Indians, belonging to any tribe in amity 
 with the United States, shall come over or cross the said boundary line, into any State or 
 Territory inhabited by citizens of the United States, and there take, steal, or destroy any 
 horse, horses, or other property, belonging to any citizen or inhabitant of the United States, 
 or of either of the Territorial districts of the United States, or shall commit any murder, 
 violence, or outrage, upon any such citizen or inhabitant, it shall be the duty of such citi- 
 zen or inhabitant, his rej)resentative, attorney, or agent, to make application to the super- 
 intendent, or such other person as the President of the United States shall authorize for 
 that purpose, who, upon being furnished with the necessary documents and proofs, shall, 
 under the direction or instruction of the President of the United States, make application 
 
413 
 
 to the nation or tribe to which such Indian or Indians shall belong, for satisfaction, and if 
 such nation or tribe shall neglect or refuse to make satisfaction in a reasonable time, not 
 exceeding twelve months, then it shall be the duty of such superintendent, or other per- 
 son authorized as aforesaid, to make return of his doings to the President of the United 
 States, and forward to him all the documents and proofs in the case, that such further 
 steps may be taken as shall be proper to obtain satisfaction for the injury. And, in the 
 meantime, in respect to the property so taken, stolen, or destroyed, the United States 
 guarantee to the party injured an eventual indemnification ; provided always, that if such 
 injured party, his representative, attorney, or agent, shall in any way violate any of the 
 
 Erovisions of this Act, by seeking or attempting to obtain private satisfaction or revenge, 
 y crossing over the line, on any of the Indian lands, he shall forfeit all claim upon the 
 United States for such indemnification ; and provided, also, that nothing herein contained 
 shall prevent the legal apprehension or arresting, within the limits of any State or district, 
 of any Indian having so oliended ; and further provided, that it shall be lawful for the 
 President of the United States to deduct such sum or sums as shall be paid for the prop- 
 erty taken, stolen, or destroyed by such Indian, out of the annual stipend which the United 
 States are bound to pay to the tribe to which such Indian shall belong* 
 
 lY.—Act of June SO, 1834, Sec. 17 (4 Stat. L., 731). 
 
 And he it further enacted. That if any Indian or Indians belonging to any tribe in amity 
 with the United States shall, within "the Indian country, take or destroy the property of 
 any person lawfully within such country, or shall pass from the Indian country into Imy 
 State or Territory inhabited by citizens of the United States, and there take, steal, or 
 destroy any horse, horses, or other property, belonging to any citizen or inhabitant of the 
 United States, such citizen or inhabitant, his representative, attorney, or agent, may make 
 application to the proper superintendent, agent, or sub-agent, who, upon being furnished 
 with the necessary documents and proofs, shall, under the direction of the President, 
 make application to the nation or tribe to which said Indian or Indians shall belong, for 
 satisfaction ; and if such nation or tribe shall neglect or refuse to make satisfaction in a 
 reasonable time, not exceeding twelve months, it shall be the duty of such superintendent, 
 agent, or sub-agent, to make return of his doings to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 
 that such further steps may be taken as shall be proper, in the opinion of the President, 
 to obtain satisfaction for the injury ; and, in the meantime, in respect to the {property so 
 taken, stolen,or destroyed, the United States guarantee to the party so injured an eventual 
 indemnification ; provided, that if such injured party, his representative, attorney, or 
 agent, shall in any way violate any of the provisions of this Act, by seeking or attempting 
 to obtain private satisfaction or revenge, he shall forfeit all claim'upon the United States 
 for such mdemnification; and provided, also, that unless such claim shall be presented 
 within three years after the commission of the injury, the same shall be barred. And if 
 the nation or tribe to which such Indian may belong receive any annuity from the United 
 States, such claim shall, at the next payment of the annuity, be deducted therefrom and 
 paid to the party injured; and if no annuity is payable to such nation or tribe, then the 
 amount of the claim shall be paid from the Treasury of the United States; provided, that 
 nothing herein contained shall prevent the legal apprehension and punishment of any 
 Indians having so offended. 
 
 N.—Act of February 28, 1869, Sec. 8 {11 Stat. L., 4OI). 
 
 And be it further enacted, That so much of the Act entitled " An Act to regulate trade 
 and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and preserve peace on the frontiers," approved 
 June thirteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty-four, as provides that the United States 
 shall make indemnification out of the Treasury for property taken or destroyed in certain 
 cases, by the Indians trespassing on white men as described in the said Act, be and the 
 same is hereby repealed; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be so con- 
 strued as to impair or destroy the obligations of the Indians to make indemnification out 
 of the annuities as prescribed in said A.ct. 
 
 Yl.— Joint Resolution of June 25, 1860 {12 Stat. L., 120). 
 
 That the repeal of [by] the eighth section of the Act of Congress, approved the twenty- 
 eighth day of February, eighteen hundred and fifty-nine, of so much of the Act of Con- 
 gress entitled " An Act to regulate trade and intercourse with Indian tribes, and to preserve 
 peace on the frontiers," approved June thirteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty-four, as 
 provides that the United States shall make indemnification out of the Treasury for prop- 
 erty taken or destroyed in certain cases by Indians trespassing on white men, as described 
 in said Act, shall not be construed to destroy or impair any right to indemnity which 
 existed at the date of said repeal. 
 
 Yll.—Act of July 15, 1870, Sec. 4 {16 Stat. L. 360). Sec. 2098, Revised Statutes. 
 
 And be it further enacted, That no part of the moneys appropriated by this Act, or which 
 may hereafter be appropriated in any general Actor deficiency bill making appropriations 
 for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian department, to pay annuities due 
 
414 
 
 to or to be used and expended for the care and benefit of any tribe or tribes of Indians 
 named herein, shall be applied to the payment of any claim for depredations that may 
 have been or may be committed by such tribe or tribes, or any member or members 
 thereof; and no claim for Indian depredations shall hereafter be paid until Congress shall 
 make special appropriation therefor; and all Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent herewith 
 are hereby repealed. 
 
 YIll.—Act of May 29, 1872, Sec. 7 {17 Stat. L., 190). Sees. 445 and 466, Revised Statutes. 
 
 That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to prepare and cause to be 
 published such rules and regulations as he niay deem necessary or proper, prescribing the 
 manner of presenting claims arising under existing laws or treaty stipulations, for com- 
 pensation for depredations committed by the Indians, and the degree and character of 
 the evidence necessary to support such claims; he shall carefullj' investigate all such 
 claims as may be pres'ented, subject to the rules and regulations prepared l3y him, and 
 report to Congress, at each session thereof, the nature, character, and amount of such 
 claims, whether allowed by him or not, and the evidence upon which his action was based; 
 provided, that no payment on account of said claims shall be made without a specific 
 appropriation therefor by Congress. 
 
 YK.— Section 2156, Revised Statutes. 
 
 If any Indian belonging to any tribe in amity with the United States shall, within the 
 Indian 'country, take or destroy the property of any person lawfully within such country, 
 or shall pass from Indian country into any State or Territory inhabited by citizens of the 
 United States, and there take, steal, or destroy any horse or other property belonging to 
 any citizen or inhabitant of the United States, such citizen or inhabitant, his representa- 
 tive, attorney, or agent, may make application to the proper superintendent, agent, or sub- 
 agent, who, upon being furnished with the necessary documents and proofs, shall, under 
 the direction of the President, make application to the nation or tribe to which such Indian 
 shall belong for satisfaction; and if such nation or tribe shall neglect or refuse to make 
 satisfaction in a reasonable time, not exceeding twelve months, such superintendent, agent, 
 or sub-agent shall make return of his doings to the Commissioner of Indian Aflfairs, that 
 such further steps may be taken as shall be proper, in the opinion of the President, to 
 obtain satisfaction for the injury. 
 
 X.— ^c« of March 3, 1885 {23 Stat. L., 376). 
 
 INDIAN DEPKEDATION CLAIMS. 
 
 For the investigation of certain Indian depredation claims, ten thousand dollars; and 
 in expending said sum the Secretary of the Interior shall cause a complete list of all claims 
 heretofore filed in the Interior Department, and which have been approved in whole or in 
 part, and now remain unpaid, and also all such claims as are pending but not yet exam- 
 ined, on behalf of citizens of the United States, on account of depredations committed, 
 chargeable against any tribe of Indians by reason of any treaty between such tribe and the 
 United States, including the name and address of the claimants, the date of the alleged 
 depredations, by what tribe committed, the date of examination and approval, with a ref- 
 erence to the date and clause of the treaty creating the obligation for payment, to be made 
 and presented to Congress at its next regular session ; and the Secretary is authorized and 
 empowered, before making such report, to cause such additional investigation to be made 
 and such further testimony to be taken as he may deem necessary to enable him to deter- 
 mine the kind and value of all property damaged and destroyed by reason of the depreda- 
 tions aforesaid, and by what tribe such depredations were committed ; and his report shall 
 include his determination upon each claim, together with the names and residences of 
 witnesses and the testimony of each, and also what funds are now existing or to be derived 
 by reason of treaty or other obligation out of which the same should be paid. 
 
 XL— Act of May 15, 1886 {not yet ptihlished). 
 
 Indian depredation claims: For continuing the investigation and examination of cer- 
 tain Indian depredation claims, originally authorized, and in the manner therein provided 
 for, by the Indian appropriation Act, approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty- 
 five, twenty thousand dollars ; and the examination and report shall include claims if any, 
 barred by statute, such fact to be stated in the report; and all claims whose examination 
 shall be completed by .January first, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, shall then be 
 reported to Congress, with the opinions and conclusions of the Commissioner of Indian 
 Affairs and the Secretary of the Interior upon all material facts, and all the evidence and 
 papers pertaining thereto. 
 
 Appendix B. 
 
 genekal legislation on claims for depredations committed by whites on the prop- 
 erty of indians. 
 
 l.—Act of May 19, 1796, Sec. 4 {1 Stat. L., 470). 
 
 And be it further enacted, That if any such citizen, or other person, shall go into any 
 town, settlement, or territory belonging, or secured by treaty with the United States, to 
 
415 
 
 any nation or tribe of Indians, and shall there commit robbery, larceny, trespass, or other 
 crime against the person or property of any friendly Indian or Indians which would be 
 punishable, if committed within the jurisdiction of any State against a citizen of the 
 United States, or unauthorized by law, and with a hostile intention, shall be found on 
 any Indian land, such offender shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one hundred dollars, aud 
 be imprisoned not exceeding twelve months ; and shall also, when property is taken or 
 destroyed, forfeit and pay to such Indian or Indians to whom the property taken and 
 destroyed belongs a sum equal to twice the just value of the property so taken or 
 destroyed i and if such offender shall be unable to pay a sum at least equal to the said 
 just value, whatever such payment shall fall short of the said just value shall be paid out 
 of the Treasury of the United States ; provided, nevertheless, that no such Indian shall be 
 entitled to any payment out of the Treasury of the United States for any such property 
 taken or destroyed if he, or any of the nation to which he belongs, shall have sought 
 private revenge or attempted to obtain satisfaction by any force or violence. 
 
 11.— Act of March 3, 1799, Sec. 4 {1 Stat. L., 744). 
 
 And he it further enacted, That if any such citizen or yjerson shall go into any town, set- 
 tlement, or territory belonging or secured by treaty with the United States to any nation 
 or tribe of Indians, and shall there commit robbery, larceny, trespass, or other crime 
 against the person or property of any friendly Indian or Indians, which would be punish- 
 able if committed within the jurisdiction of any State against a citizen of the United 
 States, or unauthorized by law, and with a hostile intention, shall be found on any Indian 
 land, such offender shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one hundred dollars and be 
 imprisoned not exceeding twelve months ; and shall also, when property is taken or 
 destroyed, forfeit and pay to such Indian or Indians to whom the property taken and 
 destroyed belongs a sum equal to twice the just value of the property so taken or destroyed; 
 and if such offender shall be unable to pay a sum equal at least to the said just value, 
 whatever such payment shall fall short of the said just value shall be paid out of the 
 Treasury of the United States ; provided, nevertheless, that no such Indian shall be entitled 
 to any payment out of the Treasury of the United States for any such property taken or 
 destroyed if he, or any of the nation to which he belongs, shall have sought private 
 revenge or attempted to obtain satisfaction by any force or violence. 
 
 111.— Act of March 30, 1802, Sec. 4 {% Stat. L., I4I). 
 
 And he it further enacted. That if any such citizen, or other person, shall go into any 
 town, settlement, or territory belonging or secured by treaty with the United States to 
 any nation or tribe of Indians, and shall there commit robbery, larceny, trespass, or other 
 crime against the person or property of any friendly Indian or Indians which would be 
 punishable if committed within the jurisdiction of any State against a citizen of the 
 United States, or unauthorized by law, and with a hostile intention, shall be found on any 
 Indian land, such offender shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one hundred dollars and be 
 imprisoned not exceeding twelve months; and shall also, when property is taken or 
 destroyed, forfeit and pay to such Indian or Indians to whom the property taken and 
 destroyed belongs a sum equal to twice the just value of the property so taken or 
 destroyed ; and if smch offender shall be unable to pay a sum at least equal to the said 
 just value, whatever such payment shall fall short of the said just value shall be paid out 
 of the Treasury of the United States; provided, nevertheless, that no such Indian shall be 
 entitled to any payment out of the Treasury of the United States for such property taken 
 or destroyed if he, or any of the nation to which he belongs, shall have sought private 
 revenge or attempted to obtain satisfaction by any force or violence. 
 
 lY.—Act of June 30, 1834, Sec. 16 (4 Stat. L., 731). 
 
 And be it further enacted, That where, in the commission by a white person of any crime, 
 offense, or misdemeanor within the Indian country, the property of any friendly Indian 
 is taken, injured, or destroyed, and a conviction is had for such crime, offense, or misde- 
 meanor, the person so convicted shall be sentenced to pay to such friendly Indian to 
 whom the property may belong, or whose person may be injured, a sum equal to twice 
 the just value of the property so taken, injured, or destroyed ; and if such offender shall 
 be unable to pay a sum at least equal to the just value or amount, whatever such pay- 
 ment shall fall short of the same shall be paid out of the Treasury of the United States ; 
 provided, that no such Indian shall be entitled to any payment out of the Treasury of the 
 United States for any such property if he, or any of the nation to which he belongs, shall 
 have sought private revenge or attempted to obtain satisfaction by any force or violence ; 
 and provided, also, that if such offender cannot be apprehended and brought to trial, the 
 amount of such property shall be paid out of the Treasury, as aforesaid. 
 
 V. — Sections 2154 and 2155, Revised Statutes. 
 
 Whenever, in the commission by a white person of any crime, offense, or misdemeanor 
 within the Indian country, the property of any friendly Indian is taken, injured, or 
 destroyed, and a conviction is had for such crime, offense, or misdemeanor, the person so 
 convicted shall be sentenced to pay to such friendly Indian to whom the property may 
 belong, or whose person may be injured, a sum equal to twice the just value of the prop- 
 erty so taken, injured, or destroyed. 
 
416 
 
 If such offender shall be unable to pay a sum at least equal to the just value or amount, 
 whatever such payment shall fall short of the same shall be paid out of the Treasury of 
 the United States. If such offender cannot be apprehended and brought to trial, "the 
 amount of such property shall be paid out of the Treasury ; but no Indian shall be entitled 
 to any payment out of the Treasury of the United States for any such property if he, or 
 any of the nation to which he belongs, have sought private revenge, or have attempted to 
 obtain satisfaction by any force or violence. 
 
 Appendix C. 
 special legislation.— appropriations for indian depredation claims. 
 
 The following is a list of special appropriations for payment of Indian depredation 
 claims. In each case it is stated whether payment is to be made from the Treasury or 
 from the Indian annuities. The total of amounts appropriated from the Treasurv is 
 $1,604,028 25; the total appropriated from Indian annuities is |201,316 37. But these totals 
 do not embrace the sums appropriated from the Treasury by several Acts (March 2, 1827 ; 
 May 31, 1830; June 30, 1834), in which the amounts are not specified. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1819 (Section 5, 3 Statutes, 517), $4,000 is appropriated from the 
 Treasury to satisfy claims of citizens of the United States for property stolen or destroyed 
 by the Osages. 
 
 By Act of March 2, 1827 (6 Statutes, 361), William Morrison, late contractor for supplies 
 to the Army, is allowed credit (out of the Treasury) for sixty-nine beef cattle taken from 
 near the military post of Prairie Du Chien, in July, 1816, by certain predatory tribes of 
 Indians. 
 
 By Act of March 25, 1830 (6 Statutes, 408), the Secretary of War is directed to pay $6,703 
 from the Treasury to four persons for property taken by the Osage Indians from 1816 to 
 1823. 
 
 By Act of May 31, 1830 (4 Statutes, 428), certain depredation claims are referred to the 
 Third Auditor to be decided according to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of March 
 30, 1802, the money to be paid out of the Treasury. 
 
 By Act of March 2, 1831 (4 Statutes, 470), $1,300 is appropriated from the Treasury for 
 payment of su.ndry claims for Indian depredations. 
 
 By Act of June 28, 1834 (4 Statutes, 705), $7,800 is appropriated from the Treasury to 
 defray the expense of investigating claims against the Seminoles for property stolen or 
 destroyed by them and for liquidating such as may be satisfactorily established. 
 
 By Act of June 30, 1834 (4 Statutes, 721), payment not exceeding $250,000 is granted out 
 of the Treasury to citizens of Georgia for claims founded upon the capture and detention 
 or destruction of property by Creek Indians prior to the Act of March 30, 1802. 
 
 By Act of June 30, 1834 (6 Statutes, 581), certain claims for Indian depredations are 
 referred to the Secretary of War, who is directed to pay out of the Treasury all which 
 shall be established. 
 
 By Act of July 1, 1836 (6 Statutes 659), $403 is appropriated from the Treasury to James 
 Alexander, and $575 to Ira Nash, for losses sustained and depredations committed by Sac 
 and Fox Indians in 1814. 
 
 By Act of July 2, 1836 (6 Statutes, 671), the Secretary of War is directed to pay to Joseph 
 Bogy $6,000 from the Indian annuities for his merchandise and property taken or destroyed 
 by the Choctaw Indians in 1807. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1837 (5 Statutes, 158-162), the President is directed to report to Con- 
 gress as to depredations committed by the Seminoles and Creeks, before and after the 
 resent Indian war. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1841 (6 Statutes, 822), the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to pay 
 out of the Treasury, to Avery, Saltmarsh & Co., mail contractors, $9,779 for property 
 employed by them in transporting the mail, captured and destroyed lay the Creek Indians 
 in May, 1836. 
 
 By Act of June 15, 1844 (6 Statutes, 913), the Secretary of War is directed to pay to George 
 Wallis $3,000 out of the Indian annuities, for the destruction of cattle belonging to the 
 said Wallis, by the Sac and Fox and Iowa Indians. 
 
 By Act of August 9, 1846 (9 Statutes, 24 Private), $1,500 is appropriated from the Indian 
 annuities to pay to the legal representatives of Cyrus Turner for depredations committed 
 by Sioux Indians. 
 
 By Act of March 2, 1847 (9 Statutes, 41 Private), $1,081 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay Elijah White and others for property taken by the Pawnee Indians. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1847 (9 Statutes, 41 Private), $676 *91 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay Joseph E. Primeau and Thomas J. Chapman for depredations committed by Yank- 
 ton Indians. 
 
 By Act of August 14, 1848 (9 Statutes, 90 Private), $800 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay Charles N. Gibson for a wagon captured and destroyed by the Seminole Indians in 
 Middle Florida in February, 1839. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1849(9 Statutes, 141 Private), $4,155 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pav Thomas Talbot and others for property taken by the Pawnee Indians. 
 
 By^Act of August 30, 1852 (10 Statutes, 41, 55), $1,200 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay James M. Marsh for losses for property taken by the Sioux Indians while extending 
 the line of surveys under contract. 
 
417 
 
 By Act of January 18, 1855 (10 Statutes, 843), $500 is appropriated from the Treasury to 
 pay Moses D. Hogan for cattle taken by the Indians. 
 
 i5y Act of August 18, 1856 (11 Statutes, 65, 81), the Secretary of the Interior is ordered 
 to investigate claims for depredations by Indians in New Mexico. 
 
 By Act of March 16, 1858 (11 Statutes, 527, the sum of $200, with interest from the first 
 day of June, 1852, was appropriated from the Treasury to pay John Hamilton, of Cham- 
 paign County, Ohio, for his time and services during his imprisonment with the Indians 
 in the war of 1812 with Great Britain. 
 
 By Act of June 19, 1860 (12 Statutes, 44, 58), $16,679 74 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay for the loss and destruction of property of citizens of Minnesota and Iowa at 
 Spirit Lake in 1857, by Sioux Indians. 
 
 By Act of March 2, 1861 (12 Statutes, 203), $9,640 74 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to indemnify citizens of Iowa and Minnesota for destruction of property at or near Spirit 
 Lake by Inkpadutah's band of Sioux Indians. 
 
 By iLct of February 16, 1863 (12 Statutes, 652, 658), provision is made for payment out of 
 their forfeited annuities for damages done by Sioux Indians in Minnesota on the occasion 
 of the Sioux massacre in 1862, 
 
 By Act of May 28, 1864 (13 Statutes, 92), $928,411 is appropriated from the Treasury to 
 paj' the awards of the commission under the act of February 16, 1883, for damages done 
 by"^the Sioux Indians in 1862, and a further sum of $241,963 is appropriated for additional 
 claims. 
 
 By Act of June 29, 1866 (14 Statutes, 609), $28,175 is appropriated from the Treasury for 
 Elizabeth Woodward and George Chorpenning for destruction of property by Indians in 
 1862, and by the second section of the same Act $26,370 is appropriated from the Indian 
 annuities to pay George Chorpenning for property destroyed by Indians prior to April 1, 
 1856. 
 
 By Act of March 2, 1868 (15 Statutes, 356), $400 is appropriated from the Treasury to the 
 widow of Maj. Gen. I. B. Richardson for one mule and four horses stolen from him by 
 Apache Indians while on military dutv in New Mexico. 
 
 By Act of April 10, 1869 (16 Statutes, 13, 39), $10,906 34 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay for depredations committed by Indians in Northwestern Iowa, in 1857. 
 
 By"^Act of February 27,1871 (16 Statutes, 704), $2,564 10 is appropriated out of any money 
 appropriated for the benefit of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians, to Lucy A. Smith, for 
 losses by depredations of said Indians in Nebraska. 
 
 By Act of May 7, 1872 (17 Statutes, 395), commissioners are appointed to examine into 
 depredations committed by Indians and Mexicans in Texas. 
 
 By Act of May 21, 1872 (17 Statutes, 661), $14,650 is appropriated from the Treasury to 
 indemnifv Charles F. Tracy for depredations committed by Apaches in May, 1870. 
 
 By Act''of June 5, 1872 (17 Statutes, 675), $10,000 is appropriated from the Treasury to 
 pav Mrs. Fanny Kelly for property taken and destroved by Sioux Indians in 1864. 
 
 By Act of June 10, 1872 (17 Statutes, 690), $30,000 is' appropriated from the Treasury to 
 pay the heirs of Alexander Watson for property lost, captured, or destroyed in Florida 
 duVing the Indian hostilities commencing in 1835. 
 
 By Act of June 10, 1872 (17 Statutes, 701), $13,200 is appropriated from the Treasury to 
 Elbridge Gerry for valuable services rendered the Government in 1864, and for all claims 
 for Indian depredations up to the date of the passage of this Act. 
 
 By xVct of March 3, 1873 (17 Statutes, 766), $2,250 is appropriated from the Treasury to 
 Mrs. Ann Marble, administratrix, for losses by depredations by Cheyenne Indians. 
 
 By Act of April 28, 1874 (18 Statutes, 543), $1,095 37 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay Mrs. Siloma Deck for losses by depredations by Sioux Indians in 1852. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1875 (18 Statutes, 424), $2,500 each is appropriated to Adelaide 
 German and Julia German, two white children captured in Kansas, the same to be with- 
 held from annuities due the Cheyennes. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1877 (19 Statutes, 549), $2,283 92 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pav Hans C. Peterson for damages by Sioux Indians in Minnesota in 1862. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1879 (20 Statutes, 396), $2,915 with interest at 7 per cent is appropriated 
 from any treaty funds of the Kiowa Indians, to the heirs of Abel S. Lee for property 
 taken and destroyed by the Kiowa Indians in 1872. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1879 (20 Statutes, 390), $5,000 is appropriated out of any money 
 hereafter appropriated for the use and benefit of the Cheyenne Indians, to Mrs. Celia C 
 Short. 
 
 By Act of June 8, 1880 (21 Statutes, 549), $15,867 50 is appropriated to pay Henry Warren 
 for damages sustained by depredations of Indians in 1871, while Warren was a Govern- 
 ment contractor, the same to be withheld from the annuities due the Indians. 
 
 By Act of June 16, 1880 (21 Statutes, 588), $2,000 is appropriated from the annuities due 
 the Cheyenne or Arapaho Indians to Amanda M. Cook, whose mother was killed and 
 herself captured by the Indians in 1865. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1881 (21 Statutes, eAO), $58,659 46 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay Dodd, Brown & Co., assignees of E. M. Durfee & Co., and others, for depredations 
 committed by various tribes of Indians, the amounts to be deducted from the annuities. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1881 (21 Statutes, 640), $3,600 is appropriated from money belonging 
 to the Osage Indians to pay William Redus for depredations committed by these Indians. 
 
 By Act of May 17, 1882 "(22 Statutes, 86), $9,870 10 is appropriated from unexpended 
 balances of treaty funds to pay various claimants for damages caused by raids of North- 
 ern Cheyennes. 
 
 27- 
 
418 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1883 (22 Statutes, 804), $12,200 is appropriated from moneys due the 
 Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians to Powers & Newman, and D. and B. Powers for depre- 
 dations committed by these Indians. 
 
 By Act of March 20, 1884 (23 Statutes, 525), $5,400 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay Louisa Boddy for depredations committed by the Modoc Indians. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1885 (23 Statutes, 498), $46,770 21 is appropriated to pay W. C. Oburn 
 out of annuities for depredations committed by the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians. 
 
 Appendix D. 
 
 Indiak Treaties Making Provisions as to Payment Out of Annuities for Depreda- 
 tions Committed on the Property of White Men. 
 
 [The references by pages are to the " Revision of Indian Treaties," 1873.] 
 
 Tribks. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Blackf eet 
 
 Calapooias 
 
 Chastas 
 
 Cherokees 
 
 Cherokees 
 
 Cheyennes and Arapahoes 
 
 North Cheyennes and North Arapahoes 
 
 Chippewas (see note a below) 
 
 Comanches and Wichitas 
 
 Comanches, Kiowas, Apaches 
 
 Comanches, Kiowas 
 
 Crows 
 
 Dwamish and Squamish 
 
 Flatheads 
 
 Kansas (see note b below) 
 
 Kansas .-- 
 
 Kiowas, Katakas, etc. 
 
 Makahs --- 
 
 Navajos - 
 
 Nes Percys 
 
 Nisquallies, Puyallups 
 
 Omahas 
 
 Osages (see note c below)... 
 
 Osages (see noted below) 
 
 Osages (see note e below) 
 
 Oregon, Middle 
 
 Otoes and Missourias 
 
 Pawnees 
 
 Poncas 
 
 Quapaws 
 
 Quinaielts, etc 
 
 Sacs and Foxes 
 
 S'Klallams 
 
 Snakes 
 
 Sioux, Yanktons 
 
 Sioux, Mendawakanton, Wahpakosta 
 
 Sioux, Sisseton,Wahpeton-.. 
 
 Sioux, Brul6, Ogallalla 
 
 Shoshones, Eastern and Bannocks 
 
 Utahs 
 
 Umpquas and Calapooias 
 
 Utes 
 
 Walla Wallas and Cayuses 
 
 Yakamas -. 
 
 April 25, 1856 
 
 April 10, 1855 
 
 April 10, 1855 
 
 January 21, 1795 . 
 October 2, 1798... 
 August 19, 1868... 
 August 25, 1868 ... 
 
 May 5,1864 
 
 May 19, 1836 
 
 February 12, 1854 
 August 25, 1868... 
 July 25, 1868 ..... 
 
 April 11, 1859 
 
 April 18, 1859 
 
 December 30, 1825 
 December 30, 1825 
 February 21, 1838. 
 
 April 18,^ 1859 
 
 August 12, 1818... 
 
 April 29, 1859 
 
 March 3, 1855 
 
 June 21, 1854 
 
 January 7, 1819 .. 
 December 30, 1825 
 
 March 2, 1839 
 
 April 19, 1859 
 
 June 21, 1854 
 
 May 26, 1858 
 
 April 11,1859 
 
 July 15, 1818 
 
 April 11, 1859 
 
 February 12, 1823. 
 
 April 29, 1859 
 
 July 10, 1866 
 
 February 26, 1859. 
 March 31, 1859 .... 
 March 31, 1859 .... 
 February 24, 1869. 
 February 24, 1869- 
 December 14, 1864. 
 March 30, 1855--.. 
 November 6,1868.. 
 
 April 11,1859 
 
 April 18, 1859 
 
 11 
 6 
 8 
 4 
 9 
 1 
 1 
 4 
 3, 5 
 4,108 
 1 
 1 
 9 
 8 
 7 
 
 10 
 
 ;, 5, 7 
 
 9 
 1 
 
 10 
 1, 2 
 
 10 
 
 22 
 
 25 
 
 32 
 
 35 
 
 130 
 
 136 
 
 255 
 
 304, 305 
 
 310, 311 
 
 319 
 
 328 
 
 381 
 
 388, 389 
 
 412 
 
 413 
 
 456, 457 
 
 463, 464 
 
 528 
 
 537, 538 
 
 563 
 
 567, 568 
 
 575, 576 
 
 580 
 
 584 
 
 627 
 
 640 
 
 653 
 
 664 
 
 718 
 
 726 
 
 739 
 
 ■ 803 
 
 805 
 
 861 
 
 88, 89 
 
 907 
 
 914, 915 
 
 932 
 
 972 
 
 980, 981 
 
 983, 984 
 
 992 
 
 1,045 
 
 717, 
 
 725, 
 
 738, 
 
 a The United States agrees to appropriate $100,000 to pay for depredations and forcible exactions. 
 b The United States agrees to pay for all depredations since 1815. 
 
 c Depredations committed since 1814 are to be paid by the United States, in consideration of the cession of 
 Indian lands. 
 d The United States agrees to pay for all depredations since 1808. 
 e The United States agrees to pay all depredation claims. 
 
419 
 
 Appendix E. 
 
 List of Treaties by which the Indians Agree to Use Their Best Efforts to Return 
 Stolen Property or to Punish Offenders. 
 
 [The references by pages are to the "Kevision of Indian Treaties," 1873.] 
 
 Date. 
 
 Article. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Belantse-Etoas, etc 
 
 Chippewas 
 
 Chippewas - 
 
 Comanches, lonies, Anadacas, Caddoes, etc. 
 
 Crows 
 
 Delawares -. - 
 
 lowas 
 
 Kaskaskias, Peorias 
 
 Klamath, etc 
 
 Kickapoos 
 
 Makahs -.. 
 
 Miamies 
 
 Mandans 
 
 Osages - .-. 
 
 Osages • 
 
 Otoes and Missourias 
 
 Pawnees 
 
 Poncas 
 
 Ricaras 
 
 Rogue Rivers 
 
 Sacs and Foxes 
 
 Shawnees _. 
 
 Sioux, Yanktons, Tetons, Yanktonais 
 
 Sioux, Ogallallas 
 
 Sioux, Oncpapas 
 
 Unipquas 
 
 Winnebagoes... 
 
 February 6, 1826 . 
 January 29, 1855 . 
 
 April?, 1855 
 
 March 8, 1847.-. 
 February 6, 1826 . 
 February 14, 1805 
 
 July 17, 1854 
 
 August 10, 1854 . . 
 February 17, 1870 
 
 July 17, 1854 
 
 February 6, 1826 . 
 August 4, 1854 ... 
 February 6, 1826 . 
 December 26, 1815 
 January 21, 1867 . 
 February 6, 1826 . 
 February 6, 1826 . 
 February 6, 1826 . 
 February 26, 1826 
 
 April 12, 1854 
 
 July 17, 1854 
 
 November 2, 1854 
 February 6, 1826. 
 February 6, 1826 ., 
 February 6, 1826 . 
 February 5, 1855 . 
 May23, 'L855 
 
 14, 15 
 
 225, 226 
 
 270 
 
 307 
 
 326, 327 
 
 336 
 
 406 
 
 429 
 
 436 
 
 447 
 
 460 
 
 519 
 
 466 
 
 573, 574 
 
 588 
 
 632 
 
 643 
 
 667, 668 
 
 728, 729 
 
 731, 732 
 
 761, 762 
 
 800 
 
 868 
 
 872, 873 
 
 874, 875 
 
 976 
 
 1,010 
 
420 
 
 Appendix F. 
 
 List of Treaties by which it is Provided that the Indians Shall be Paid by thi 
 Government for Depredations Committed on Their Property by White Men. 
 
 [The references by pages are to the "Revision of Indian Treaties," 1873.] 
 
 Tribes. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Article. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Blackf eet 
 
 Belantse-Etoas-- --. 
 
 €herokees 
 
 Creeks 
 
 Cheyennes and Arapahoes 
 
 Number Cheyennes and number Arapahoes 
 
 Choctaws and Chickasaws 
 
 Comanches and Wichitas 
 
 Comanches, Kiowas, Apaches 
 
 Comanches, Kiowas. 
 
 €rows -- 
 
 Crows 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Kiowas, Katakas, etc. 
 
 Makahs 
 
 Mandans.- 
 
 Navajoes 
 
 Osages 
 
 Otoes and Missourias 
 
 Pawnees .-- 
 
 Poncas 
 
 Quapaws 
 
 Kicaras 
 
 Rogue Rivers 
 
 Sacs and Foxes 
 
 Shawnees ..* 
 
 Sioux, Yanktons, Tetons, Yanktonais ._ 
 
 Sioux, Ogallallas 
 
 Sioux, Oncpapas 
 
 Sioux, Ogallallas, Bruits 
 
 Shoshones, Eastern, and Bannocks -.. _ 
 
 Utahs 
 
 Umpquas -.. 
 
 Utes 
 
 April 25, 1856 
 
 Februarys, 1826 
 
 October 2, 1798 
 
 August 28, 1856 
 
 August 19, 1868 
 
 August 25, 1868 
 
 March 4, 1856 
 
 May 19, 1836 
 
 February 12, 1854... 
 
 August 25, 1868 
 
 February 6, 1826 .... 
 
 July 25, 1868 
 
 December 30, 1825... 
 February 21, 1838... 
 
 February 6, 1826 
 
 February 6, 1826 
 
 August 12, 1818 
 
 December 26, 1815... 
 
 February 6, 1826 
 
 February 6, 1826 
 
 February 6, 1826-.-. 
 
 July 15, 1818 
 
 February 26, 1825 . . . 
 
 April 12, 1854 
 
 February 12, 1823... 
 November 2, 1854 ... 
 
 Februarv6, 1826 
 
 February 6, 1826 
 
 February 6, 1826.... 
 February 24, 1869 _.. 
 February 24, 1869... 
 December 14, 1864... 
 February 5, 1855.-.. 
 Novembers 1868 --. 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 6 
 
 14, 15 
 
 9 
 
 35 
 
 18 
 
 112 
 
 1 
 
 130 
 
 1 
 
 136 
 
 14 
 
 280 
 
 3 
 
 304 
 
 4,108 
 
 310, 311 
 
 1 
 
 319 
 
 5 
 
 326, 327 
 
 1 
 
 328 
 
 10 
 
 413 
 
 3, 5, 7 
 
 456, 457 
 
 5 
 
 460 
 
 6 
 
 466 
 
 1 
 
 528 
 
 9 
 
 573, 574 
 
 5 
 
 643 
 
 5 
 
 643 
 
 5 
 
 667, 668 
 
 6 
 
 717, 718 
 
 6 
 
 728, 729 
 
 6 
 
 731, 732 
 
 5 
 
 738, 739 
 
 11 
 
 799 
 
 5 
 
 868 
 
 5 
 
 872, 873 
 
 5 
 
 574, 575 
 
 1 
 
 914, 915 
 
 1 
 
 932 
 
 6 
 
 972 
 
 6 
 
 976 
 
 6 
 
 983, 984 
 
 Appendix G. 
 expressions of opinion in debate, senate and house of representatives. 
 
 Senate. 
 [Congressional Globe, Forty-first Congress, second session, part 5.] 
 
 Mr. Thayer (page 4012) : 
 
 The honorable Senator from Iowa and the honorable Senator from Oregon say that 
 in some cases the annuities of Indian tribes have been absorbed in meeting these claims. 
 I tell those two Senators that the property, the all of settlers on the frontier has been 
 destroyed by Indians; and I say to them also that the way to produce an effect upon the 
 Indians is by letting them know that if they commit these depredations their annuities 
 shall be taken to pay for them. That is the only way in which you will reach them. 
 That is the only way in which you will have an effect on the Indians and compel them 
 to cease their depredations on the settlers. The last remedy for a man whose property, 
 whose crops, whose horses, and whose cattle have been taken from him by Indians is to 
 tell him to come to Congress and wait until the day of doom before he can get satisfac- 
 tion or compensation. I trust that this whole section will be stricken out. 
 
 Mr. Tipton (page 4012) : 
 
 Every Senator here who knows anything about the new States knows that when a 
 band of savages pass through our borders, or when the Indians who are on the reserva- 
 tions pass through our States, there is nothing that protects the property of the settler 
 
421 
 
 so well as a consciousness on the part of the chiefs and the head men of the Indians that 
 if the stock of the settler is killed, if his crops are destroyed, their annuities may be 
 reached and they will feel it in their pockets. Nothing so completely gives protection to 
 the settler as that. Then, when their young men spread upon the prairies and roam 
 about at will, when they come upon the cabin of a settler and his property is entirely in 
 their power, they will have been warned by those in authority over them not to touch it 
 or the value of the property will be taken out of their annuities. 1 tell you that gives us 
 more protection when they pass through our inhabited counties and portions of our 
 States than anything else that you can devise. But let it be understood that if they 
 commit depredations, those who complain of them, if they can make a case, may come to 
 Congress and get their pay out of the Treasury of the United States, and who cares 
 what depredations are then committed? I say that unless this section be stricken out, 
 or so amended that the redress shall be direct upon the tribe or upon the annuities of the 
 tribe, we shall have very little protection. 
 
 Mr. Williams (page 4219) : 
 
 It is a mistaken policy, in my judgment, that undertakes to throw around these 
 Indian tribes the protection of law in robbery, a thing which they will understand just as 
 well as white men. It will not be long before the Indians will know that they can with 
 impunity make inroads upon the white settlers and steal their horses and cattle, and 
 carry them away and make use of them, and that there is no remedy for the white 
 persons so injured. 
 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 [Congressional Globe, Forty-first Congress, second session, part 6.] 
 
 Mr. Degener (page 5009) : 
 
 I am not a lawyer, but common sense teaches me that if any person dhooses to keep a 
 dangerous animal on his premises, say a rattlesnake in his room, if he chooses to feed it 
 chooses to provide a warm blanket for that rattlesnake, so that it may not suffer from 
 cold, and if he does not choose to extract the poisonous fangs of that animal, then he 
 becomes responsible should that rattlesnake escape from his room and go upon the prem- 
 ises of his neighbor and there bite his neighbor, or his neighbor's wife, or children, or his 
 cattle. I believe common sense teaches us that that is the correct principle. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson (page 5010) : > • 
 
 The principle is essentially just, and there is no reason for changing the existing law 
 except the clamor which has arisen on account of the reputation that the Indian Depart- 
 ment has had before the country. If the Indian Department stood as well before the 
 country as the Treasury Department there is not a man in this House who would think 
 of making the change proposed by this amendment. 
 
 Mr. Paine (page 5011) : 
 
 On the other hand, it is desirable, if possible, to so regulate the payment of our annui- 
 ties to the Indians that we may avoid the difficulties, the animosities, and the troubles 
 that will be sure to grow out of the collection of false and fictitious and sham claims 
 against the Indians. If there were an absolute certainty that only just claims would 
 be presented against these Indians, if we were sure that only the claims of honest 
 frontiersmen whose property had actually been destroyed or stolen would be presented 
 and paid out of the moneys which would otherwise be devoted to the payment of these 
 annuities, then I would have no hesitation in allowing the law to stand as it now is. But 
 there is the danger that, by permitting the law to stand as it now is, we shall give encour- 
 agement to the prosecution of unjust claims. I believe everybody understands that it 
 has been true that large numbers of outrageous claims have been presented against the 
 Indians; demands made by men who set themselves deliberately to work to trump up 
 claims upon no substantial foundation, for the purpose of robbing these Indians. On the 
 whole, for the purpose of avoiding that difficulty, I am willing to encounter another. 
 
 Senate. 
 
 [Congressional Record, Forty-eighth Congress, second session, vol. 16, part 2.] 
 
 Mr. Plumb (page 1717) : 
 
 ******* 
 ' While I say that, I am as earnest as any one can be in favor of the Government adopt- 
 ing a rule which shall result in the payment of what I regard as justly an obligation 
 
422 
 
 against the Government as any other one which it is called upon to respond to. There 
 are millions of dollars, I believe, certainly many hundreds of thovisands of dollars, which 
 the Government of the United States owes to claimants all over the country. I have no 
 doubt the case of which the Senator from California speaks is one, to a certain extent at 
 all events; possibly there may be some doubt about the amount; but in all those cases 
 there ought to be a tribunal provided for the ascertainment of the amount due. I intro- 
 duced a bill years ago, and have reintroduced it, to have an auditing of these claims in 
 order that they might come before Congress not as objects of suspicion, but upon their 
 true footing as genuine existing liabilities against the Government, and having had all 
 the scrutiny that they ought to have preceding their allowance. The Committee on 
 Appropriations, for the purpose of bringing about this result, seized upon an amendment 
 offered to the bill in the House and so reframed it as they believe will result in establish- 
 ing the validity or invalidity of these claims in such a way that they will not be subject 
 to objection any longer. 
 
 Mr. Dawes (page 1718) : 
 
 ******* 
 
 Instead of committing the United States to the payment of particular claims by pay- 
 ing fifteen per cent upon them and letting all this vast amount remain back waiting for 
 that provision to go through, the Committee on Appropriations have proposed on page 
 47 of the bill, this amendment which I beg leave to read : 
 
 ******* 
 
 " For the investigation of certain Indian depredation claims, $10,000; and in expend- 
 ing said sum the Secretary of the Interior shall cause a complete list of all claims hereto- 
 fore filed in the Interior Department and which have been approved in whole or in part 
 and now remain unpaid, and also all such claims as are pending but not yet examined, 
 on behalf of citizens of the United States on account of depredations committed, charge- 
 able against any tribe of Indians by reason of any treaty between such tribe and the 
 United States, including the name and address of the claimants, the date of the alleged 
 depredations, by what tribe committed, the date of examination and approval, with a 
 reference to the date and clause of the treaty creating the obligation for payment, to be 
 made and presented to Congress at its next regular session; and the Secretary is author- 
 ized and empowered, before making such report, to cause such additional investigation 
 to be made and such further testimony to be taken as he may deem necessary to enable 
 him to determine the kind and value of all property damaged or destroyed by reason of 
 the depredations aforesaid, and by what tribes such depredations were committed ; and 
 his report shall include his determination upon each claim, together with the names and 
 residences of witnesses and the testimony of each, and also what funds are now existing 
 or to be derived by reason of treaty or other obligation out of which the same should 
 
 be paid." 
 
 * * * * * * * 
 
 The Secretary of the Interior is required to pass upon these claims. He has passed 
 upon them in the past in the manner which I have suggested. He has not had the 
 money to send anybody into the Territories where it has been alleged that these depreda- 
 tions have been made. He has the power under the statute, but he has not had the 
 money ; he has had no men that he could pay for that purpose. Therefore, whenever a 
 man sent his claim up here or referred it to the agent of the tribe, when the agent of the 
 tribe got the affidavits furnished by the claimant and sent them up here without any 
 hearing or cross-examination whatever, the Secretary of the Interior has written 
 " approved ;" and the claims come to Congress, thirty-one hundred of them in a single letter, 
 amounting to more than a million and a half dollars, and a dozen of them were put upon 
 a single page in this bill by the other branch with a stipulation that only fifteen per cent 
 should be paid. Fifteen per cent of them would take twice as much as the very Indians 
 upon whom they are charged have got in the Treasury; and we are called upon in this 
 bill independent of that, to appropriate some $25,000 to support and feed these very 
 Indians. ^ 
 
 I submit that the safest way is the one proposed by the Committee on Appropria- 
 tions, and that any other way is unsafe, unfair to other claimants, invidious, unjust, and 
 groundless discrimination in favor of these claims. 
 
 Mr. Coke (page 1719): 
 
 I think, Mr. President, that a proper measure of justice to the claimants who have 
 suffered from Indian depredations would suggest to the committee and to the Senate 
 that the claims which have been investigated under Acts of Congress prescribing the 
 mode and manner of their investigation, which are on file in the Interior Department, 
 and have been reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior, approved by him as 
 just and honest claims, should be embraced in this bill, and appropriations made to pay 
 them. The committee propose by their amendment that they shall be reinvestigated. 
 Why reinvestigate claims which have already been fully investigated ? We must pre- 
 sume that they have been fully investigated, because the Secretary of the Interior, the 
 Commissioner of Indian Afftiirs, the agents and superintendents over the Indians, all 
 had authority to make the investigations, to summon witnesses and take depositions, and 
 
423 
 
 upon their investigation, presumably correctly made, the Secretary of the Interior has 
 reported a large number of these claims, belonging chiefly in Kansas, Colorado, and 
 Texas, as just and approved by him 
 
 The committee now propose to reinvestigate those claims after a lapse of from fifteen 
 to twenty years, when all the testimony has gone, possibly when the facts upon which 
 the claims are founded are necessarily obscured from loss of testimony and death of 
 witnesses. There is no justice in such a course. 
 
 The people of the frontier States knew that they had no recourse against the Indians, 
 except what Congress gave them, and Congress in the Acts to which I have referred pre- 
 scribed certain methods which they have pursued. They submitted themselves fully to 
 the jurisdiction prescribed ; and now, after their claims have been approved by the tribu- 
 nal ax^pointed by Congress, their witnesses dead or scattered, they are to be called upon to 
 again come forward and resubstantiate the same claims already adjudicated and on file 
 in the Department and reported approved to Congress. 
 
 (Page 1720): 
 
 1 know something about these claims for Indian depredations. I know that the 
 frontier of Texas was at one time driven back seventy-five miles by hostile Indians from 
 the Fort Sill Reservation, where they were under the care and control and management 
 and protection of the Government of the United States. The people of Texas dared not 
 go upon that reservation to retaliate. They could have gone there and wiped out the 
 Indians, but the United States Government protected them. Whenever a full moon 
 shone at night they came down upon Texas, drove off cattle and horses, burned houses 
 and killed and scalped men, and carried women and children into captivity. 
 
 I know that this was the case for live years, and Mr. Francis A. Walker, who was 
 Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in his book upon the Indian problem, speaking of the 
 improvement of the Indians, of their methods, and of their beginning to acquire prop- 
 erty, said of the Comanches and Kiowas, that they have some 16,000 head of horses and 
 mules, stolen chiefly from Texas. That is a statement in the History of the Indian Prob- 
 lem, by Mr. Francis A. Walker. 
 
 I have no doubt that the same experience was realized by all the other frontier States. 
 I have personal knowledge of the fact that until the State of Texas organized a battalion 
 of State troops and sent them to the frontier and protected the settlers against the Indians, 
 the frontier was almost abandoned. I know hundreds and hundreds of men in Texas 
 who had thousands of head of cattle and hundreds of head of horses, who lost every 
 dollar's worth of property they had by the depredations of those Indians. Yet the Sena- 
 tor from Massachusetts would cast an imputation upon the justice of these claims, 
 examined and approved as they have been. 
 
 Not one claim in twenty has been filed that could have been filed in the Interior 
 Department from Texas. It is too late to file them now; the parties cannot comply with 
 the law ; they are excluded. Those which are filed represent a very small proportion of 
 the claims which ought to have been filed by people who lost nearly everything they had 
 by the depredations of Indians. The requirements of the law were so onerous and the 
 people were so hopeless of recovering any of their losses that but few .of them ever 
 attempted it. The principal difficulty was to identify the, Indians or the tribe to which 
 they belonged, without which the law promised no relief, and which could rarely be 
 done. 
 
 Mr. President, I believe that these claims which have been reported to the Interior 
 Department, and which have been investigated and have been approved by the tribunal 
 appointed by the Government of the United States are just claims and ought to be paid. 
 I believe the committee should take every one of these claims and put them on this 
 appropriation bill. The Government of the United States is as justly and honestly bound 
 to see those claims paid as it is to see any bond it has ever issued paid. The Indians are 
 the wards of the Government. There has been no time when the people could not have 
 protected themselves had they been permitted to do it, and failing to restrain them the 
 Government made itself responsible for the depredations of the Indians. This responsi- 
 bility has many times been recognized by the Government, as I propose on another 
 occasion to show. 
 
 As the Senate Committee on Appropriations determined that they would not appro- 
 priate the money now to pay these claims, that they would not put these claims thus 
 approved and reported upon this bill, then I believe the next best thing for them to do 
 was, as the committee has done, require a full report of all these claims to be made to 
 Congress at the next session, and when this report comes in and we see what they all 
 amount to I shall favor, and I believe that the honor of the Government will require, 
 that Congress shall take steps to liquidate them at once. I do not see why those who 
 have honest claims for Indian depredations should be sneered at. They are* the pioneers 
 of the country. They have gone westward until we have no frontier left, blazing the 
 way for settlement and civilization. 
 
 Mr. Manderson (page 1720): 
 
 Mr. President, I certainly quite agree with the suggestions made by the Senator from 
 Texas in regard to the duty of the Government to pay those who have suffered loss on 
 
424 
 
 the frontier of the country by reason of Indian depredations, and I wish to supplement 
 his suggestion as to the claims mentioned in this bill, in that part of the bill which has 
 already been stricken out by the action of the committee, by reading from a report of 
 the Committee on Claims. It was stated by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Jackson] 
 that the claims presented in this bill had been reported adversely by the committee. 
 That statement is truthful; but it does not tell all the truth. The inference might follow 
 that these claims were rejected because of lack of merit, for fraud, or because the parties 
 had not suffered the losses they pretended to have suffered; but that is not the tinding 
 of the committee. The Committee on Claims, following the action of the Interior 
 Department, reports as to these claims, and I read from the report: 
 
 "The claimants are all citizens of Texas, generally engaged in agriculture or stock 
 raising, quietly and peaceably pursuing their avocations, having nothing to do with trade 
 or traflSc with the Indians, and in no way connected with any disturbance between whites 
 and Indians, there or elsewhere. They were all citizens of the State of Texas, and while 
 engaged in peaceful pursuits were set upon by bands of Indians (who were supposed to 
 be under the restraint and control of the Government on their reservations), their stock 
 stampeded and driven off, and other property destroyed or carried away, and in many 
 cases their herders killed or wounded. They have, as the evidence shows, at all times 
 refrained from any violation of law" by taking the remedy in their own hands, and giving 
 blow for blow, but have, in compliance with the laws which Congress has from time to 
 time passed for their protection and indemnity, made out their claims, supported them 
 by ample proof, both as to quantity and value, and have presented them to the officers 
 designated by the Government to examine into their justness and the truthfulness of 
 their statements ; and those officers, after having sent the claims to the agents of the 
 different tribes to be presented to the Indians for their statements in regard to them, and 
 after hearing the reports of those agents, and making a careful examination of the proofs 
 offered by the claimants, have allowed them the various sums for payment of which the 
 claimants now ask an appropriation by Congress." 
 
 So that these claims have not been allowed by the Department of the Interior upon 
 mere ex parte affidavits, but upon full investigation and with a chance to the Indian 
 themselves, through their agents, to be heard. 
 
 They are taken up in this report, and although the committee recognizes their merit 
 and the obligation upon the Government to pay this class of claims, it does report 
 adversely to them, as suggested by the Senator from Tennessee, in this language: 
 
 As stated in your committee's report upon the claim of Overton and Love, there are 
 a large number of these claims, equally meritorious, on file in the office of the Commis- 
 sioner of Indian Affairs. No good reason can be given for paying the claims under con- 
 sideration without paying them all. This' committee cannot recommend the passage of 
 such claims until Congress adopts some general policy of dealing with all these claims. 
 
 I admit that the suggestion of the committee is a wise one. AH of these claims should 
 be dealt with, but year after year rolls by and they are not paid. In my own State I know 
 of existing claims, as valid and meritorious as those that are stated in the report, that are 
 nearly a quarter of a century old, for depredations committed by Indians upon frontiers- 
 men who were invited by the Government to go upon Government land, and these men, 
 driven from their lands, their homes destroyed, and in frequent instances members of 
 their familiea killed or treated worse by Indian depredators, remain with their serious 
 losses yet unpaid. 
 
 I submit, Mr. President, that it is a crying shame that these claims have not been 
 paid. 
 
 Mr. Maxey (page 1721): 
 
 Mr. President, the general plan for efficient and prompt settlement of outstanding 
 claims proposed by the Committee on Appropriations I think is wise; but I submit to 
 that committee and to the Senate whether there is any reason why, because they propose 
 to adopt that plan, the claims which have been allowed by the House and which come to 
 us as approved claims shall be stricken out of the bill. In other words, the law has always 
 favored the vigilant. If gentlemen who have claims have gone to the labor and expense 
 of gathering up their testimony, of laying it before the Secretary of the Interior, of hav- 
 ing their claims examined and approved and recommended to Congress, and Congress in 
 its wisdom allows these claims, and the bill comes to us with those claims thus allowed, I 
 ask if there is any reason or propriety in striking out all the claims allowed, as found on 
 pages 8, 9, 10, etc., of the bill which comes to us from the House, simply because a pro- 
 vision is made by the Appropriations Committee for a general settlement of all such 
 claims ? If the claims which are allowed are just in themselves, and the Senator in charge 
 of this bill does not gainsay that proposition ; if they are right, why should they be struck 
 out in order to take their place under the general plan of settlement when they have 
 already been examined and approved and allowed by the proper committee of the House 
 as just and proper claims? I can, therefore, see no reason why these claims shall be 
 stricken out, nor do I see any conflict between the claims which are allowed by the House 
 standing as a part of this bill, and the proviso which is put in by the Appropriations Com- 
 mittee of the Senate in respect to those claims which are not as yet allowed, or have not 
 been sent up by the Secretary of the Interior. 
 
 " Mr. President, it is to the interest of the Republic that there be an end of litigation, 
 and if these men have had any claims litigated and passed upon and they have been allowed 
 
425. 
 
 by the House, why should they be stricken out of the bill by the Senate ? It is not pre- 
 tended that they are not just claims. If there was a shadow of suspicion cast on the 
 claims there would be some reason in that, but there is none. They are admitted to be 
 just, they are admitted to be right, but they are simply stricken out because they may 
 conflict with the plan proposed for future settlements. These claims have been already 
 settled, why should they be relegated to the future to be settled then ? I cannot see any 
 reason for that. It does not seem to me to be a fair proposition. 
 
 Mr. Miller of California (page 1722): 
 
 What I object to is this practice of the Government of the United States, which is 
 unbecoming a great government, interposing technical objections to shilly-shally around 
 and put off payment in the manner of a bankrupt debtor, or a man who is not disposed 
 to pay his debts. That is the position in which the Committee on Appropriations to-day 
 are putting the Government of the United States in relation to the citizens who hold these 
 claims. That there is an obligation to pay these claims out of the funds held in trust by 
 the Government belonging to the Indians there can be no doubt; but the Committee on 
 Appropriations, or the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, who has charge of 
 this bill, seems to desire to put off the payment continually. It is so year after year. This 
 process has been going on for a great many years, and when we are confronted by the 
 condition of things, then we invent some new scheme, some new plan by which these 
 claims shall be put off; we have not got the report we want, or there is something lacking, 
 and a man who has vigilantly prosecuted his claim and has had it adjudicated, and the 
 amount- found due shall not be paid because somebody who has not used the time dili- 
 gently, and whose claim has not been adjudicated, is not paid, and that furnishes a 
 reason why the man who has a just claim which has been adjudicated shall not be paid. 
 That seems to me a strange position to take. I cannot see why when a claim is adjudi- 
 cated and found to be due this great Government should desire to put off the day of pay- 
 ment, and to bring up technical and other objections to avoid the payment. 
 
 I will go further and say that I am in favor of paying all just and adjudicated claims 
 of this class out of the Treasury. I believe it is incumbent on the Government to do it. 
 The law was once that the Government was required to pay such claims. It was after- 
 ward amended so that the payment should be made out of funds belonging to the Indians. 
 To refuse to pay these claims, to allow the Indians to commit depredations without their 
 being required to pay, or the Government being required to pay the resulting damages to 
 property, is only to encourage Indian depredations and to continue the practice. If a 
 white citizen of the United States commits a depredation on the Indians he must pay 
 double the amount of the damage sustained by the Indians. I want to see Indian depre- 
 dations stopped, and I do not know any better way than to require payment. The Gov- 
 ernment is bound to furnish protection to its citizens. I do not want the citizen to be 
 paid more than he has actually suffered. I want the claim to be just; I want it investi- 
 gated thoroughly and completely, and adjudicated in every phase of it before payment is 
 made. I contend in these cases, or in some of them that I have personal knowledge of 
 at any rate, there has been such an investigation and such an adjudication, and there 
 remains no doubt about the bona fides or justice of the claims. 
 
 Mr. Maxey (page 1723) : 
 
 We have said that these Indian disturbances were not wars, that Indians were not to 
 be regarded as belligerents. They are wards of the nation. The Government of the 
 United States has assumed to take care of them and to protect the frontier against them 
 by placing them on reservations and under the control of the military; and they have 
 thus invited people to go on the frontier, risk their lives, and risk their property. 
 
 The Government has invited them to do that, and has placed agents over the Indians; 
 but for all that they break out and they carry with them the torch ; they burn, pillage, rob, 
 destroy, murder, and carry into captivity ; and when these unfortunate people come to 
 Congress and ask for relief, because every man has not been prepared to bring forward 
 his claim in the mode and manner which is required, all others who have done so are to 
 be relegated to some commission hereafter to be appointed to regulate these things. Sir, 
 that is not just. Let '^every tub stand upon its own bottom." If a man has an honest 
 claim let it be brought forward, and if the claims amount to $8,000,000, as the Senator from 
 Wisconsin says, if they are just claims for depredations committed bj'' these wards of the 
 nation upon the defenseless frontier people in the destruction and robbery of their prop- 
 erty, this Government, as an upright and honorable and honest gentleman would do, 
 ought to pay the last dollar of it if the Indians have not enough money of their own to 
 pay that debt. I assume in the broadest form the position that it would be just and right 
 and fair to do it. 
 
 Mr. Cockrell (page 1724) : 
 
 It is a matter of absolute necessity that we shall sift these claims, that we shall ascer- 
 tain those that are properly chargeable against the nations and tribes that have annuities, 
 
426 
 
 and with whom we have treaty stipulations, and whose money we have, so that we can 
 pay the claims. Now, 1 am for making these Indians pay every solitary dollar due for 
 the actual depredations committed by them, whenever they have any money or whenever 
 they have any lands out of which they can be paid. I want to hold them responsible to 
 the'fuUest extent of the law ; but I only want to pay what is actually due, the real value 
 of the propertj'' destroyed, or the real injury done to it, and not mere imaginative dam- 
 ages that may have resulted, and which should never be allowed in any Court of justice. 
 Therefore, we put in the amendment, under the head of " Indian Depredation Claims," at 
 page 47, requiring a thorough investigation of this whole matter. We appropriate |10,000 
 for it. The Secretary can take this money and he can have a thorough investigation 
 made; he can report to us all the facts; he can show us the evidence upon which these 
 claims are allowed, and the treaties and the funds. Then we can go to work and settle 
 the cases intelligently, and honestly, and fairly; but we cannot do it until we have that 
 information, and it is idle to undertake to do it. We are simply making fish of one and 
 flesh of another. We are making a favorite of one, and we are doing great injustice and 
 wrong to hundreds of others. 
 
 Appendix H. 
 
 claims presented, allowed, and disallowed in various claims tribunals, showing the 
 proportions of claims to allowances. 
 
 I. 
 
 Southern Claims Commission, under Act of March 3, 1871 (16 Stat. L., 524): 
 
 Amount claimed .-. -.. $60,258,150 44 
 
 Amount allowed 4,636,920 69 
 
 Amount rejected 55,621,229 75 
 
 (See House Miscellaneous Document No. 30, Forty-sixth Congress, second session.) 
 
 II. 
 
 Court of Claims in cases decided from December term, 1867, to December term, 1880: 
 
 Amount claimed $80,315,529 20 
 
 Amount allowed .-. 19.770,540 98 
 
 Amount rejected 60,544,988 22 
 
 (See seventeenth volume Court of Claims Keports, page 11.) 
 
 III. 
 
 Claims Commission under convention with Great Britain of February, 1853 (10 Stat. L., 
 988) : 
 
 Amount claimed, " millions." 
 
 Amount allowed, about $600,000 00 
 
 (See message of the President communicating the proceedings, printed by the Senate 
 Printer, 1858, page 4.) 
 
 Claims Commission under convention with Mexico of July 4, 1868 (15 Stat. L., 679): 
 
 Amount of claims against the United States $86,661,981 15 
 
 Amount allowed in claims against the United States 150,498 41 
 
 Amount rejected in claims against the United States 86,511,392 74 
 
 Amount of claims against Mexico . --- 470,126,613 40 
 
 Amount allowed in claims against Mexico 4,125,622 20 
 
 Amount rejected in claims against Mexico 466,000,991 20 
 
 (See Senate Executive Document No. 31, Forty-fourth Congress, second session.) 
 
 V. 
 
 Claims Commission urtder convention with France of January 15, 1880 (21 Stat. L., 673) : 
 
 Amount of claims against the United States -.. $17,368,151 27 
 
 Amount allowed in claims against the United States 625,566 35 
 
 Amount rejected in claims against the United States 16,742,584 92 
 
 Amount of claims against France.-- 2,427,544 91 
 
 Amount allowed in claims against France, 13,659 francs 14 cent., or about.. 2,732 00 
 
 Amount rejected in claims against France 2,424,812 91 
 
 (See House Executive Document No. 235, Forty-eighth Congress, second session, pages 
 191, 193.) 
 
427 
 
 VI. 
 
 Claims under the Act of July 4, 1864, filed in the office of the Quartermaster-General : 
 
 Amount claimed $41,107,266 48 
 
 Amount reported to the Third Auditor under the second section of said Act 
 
 with recommendation for settlement up to March 6, 1886 5,750,119 71 
 
 Amount rejected.- --- 29,083,554 16 
 
 Amount of claims pending at said date 6,273,592 61 
 
 VII. 
 
 Claims filed in the office of the Commissary-General up to March 10, 1886: 
 
 Amount claimed - $4,944,111 14 
 
 Amount recommended to the Third Auditor of the Treasury for settlement 
 
 under said Act to said date --- 429,533 47 
 
 Amount rejected 4,509,704 17 
 
 Amount of claims now pending 4,873 50 
 
 ^ Appendix I. 
 
 xetter of commissioner of indian affairs, showing the amount of claims for depre- 
 dations committed by the indians, filed in the office of indian affairs. 
 
 Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs, ) 
 Washington, D. C, March 3, 1886. j 
 
 Sir: In reply to your interrogatories relative to number, amount, etc., of Indian depre- 
 dation claims pending in this office, I have the honor to inform you that with the forces 
 employed and the amount of other duties devolving upon them, it has been impossible to 
 collect the full and exact data you desire; such facts, however, as the office has been able 
 to collect, and which are believed to be approximatelj'^ correct, are given. 
 
 There are about forty-five hundred claims on file on account of Indian depredations, 
 dating from 1850 to the present time, and they aggregate in amount $13,000,000. Prior to 
 the Act of July 15, 1870 (see Revised Statutes, Section 2098), claims against Indians for 
 depredations were paid by United States Indian agents. As to what amount was thus 
 paid the office has not been able to ascertain. By an examination of the Statutes at Large, 
 'beginning with the Act of March 3, 1819 (3 Statutes, page 517), and coming down to the 
 Act of March 3, 1885 (23 Statutes, 498), it will be seen that Congress has appropriated by 
 special Acts in payment of claims about the sum of $1,654,530. 
 
 As to what amount of claims has been allowed by and what amount has been rejected 
 by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs or the Secretary of the Interior heretofore cannot 
 he ascertained within the time desired by you, if in fact it could be ascertained at all in a 
 satisfactory manner, as in many instances the same claim has been disallowed by one 
 Secretary of the Interior and allowed by his successor. 
 Very respectfullv, 
 
 J. D. C. ATKINS, Commissioner. 
 
 Hon. J. N. Dolph, United States Senate. 
 
 INDIAN DEPREDATION CLAIMS. 
 
 ' Speech of Hon. J. N. Dolph. 
 
 The President ^ro tempore. The bill called up by the Senator from Ore- 
 gon is now before the Senate. 
 
 Mr. Dolph. As I desire to refer to Senate Bill 1820, I ask to have it 
 read as part of my remarks. 
 
 The President pro tempore. The bill will be read. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows: 
 
 Be it enacted, etc., That there be and hereby is appropriated, out of any money in the 
 Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $5,000,000, or so much thereof as' may be 
 necessary, to pay the Indian depredation claims which have been heretofore filed and 
 investigated under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior and reported by him to 
 Congress, in pursuance of the laws of Congress and in accordance with the rules and regu- 
 lations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. 
 
 Mr. Dolph. I now ask to have read the bill which I introduced this 
 morning concerning Indian depredations. 
 
428 
 
 The President pro tempore. The bill will be read. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read the bill (S. 2169) in relation to Indian depreda- 
 tions, as follows: 
 
 Be it enacted, etc., That the Court of Claims shall have power to hear and determine all 
 claims for depredations committed by Indians embraced within the terms of Section 2156 
 of the Revised Statutes, whether the said claims have been heretofore presented to the 
 Interior Department or Congress, or not. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the Secretarj^ of the Interior, or the Secretary of the Senate, or the Clerk 
 of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, shall immediately after the passage 
 of this Act transmit to the Court of Claims for adjudication all claims for Indian depre- 
 dations heretofore presented to the Interior Department or to Congress, with all vouchers, 
 papers, proofs, and documents pertaining thereto, and upon the presentation of a petition 
 on behalf of any claimant within the time hereinafter limited the same shall be there pro- 
 ceeded in under such rules as said Court may adopt. 
 
 Sec. 3. That the Attorney-General, or his assistants under his direction, shall appear 
 therein to defend the United States and the Indians in all such actions, with the same 
 power to interpose counter-claims, offsets, defenses for fraud, and other defenses as now 
 given in said Court. 
 
 Sec 4. That the same right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States exist- 
 ing in other cases in the Court of Claims shall exist in the cases considered under this 
 Act. 
 
 Sec. 5. That no person shall be excluded from testifying in cases under this Act on 
 account of being a party or interested ; and the affidavits and other evidence heretofore 
 filed in Congress, or in the Departments, in such cases may be considered by said Courts 
 and such weight shall be given to such evidence as the Court may deem proper. 
 
 Sec 6. That the Court of Claims shall in every judgment rendered under this Act find 
 the tribe of Indians by which, or by members of which, the depredation was committed,, 
 and whether annuities or other funds are due to said tribe from the United States. 
 
 Sec 7. That the amount of any judgment so rendered shall be charged against the tribes 
 by which, or by members of which, the Court shall find that the depredation was com- 
 mitted, and shall be deducted and paid in the following manner: First, from any annui- 
 ties due said tribe from the United States ; secondly, if no annuities are due or available 
 from any other funds due said tribe from the United States arising from the sale of their 
 lands or otherwise ; thirdly, if no such funds are due or available from any appropriations 
 for the benefit of said tribe, other than appropriations for their current and necessary sup- 
 port, subsistence, and education ; and fourthly, if no such annuity, fund, or appropriation 
 IS due or available, the amount of the judgment shall be paid from the public Treasury; 
 provided, that any amount so paid from the public Treasury shall remain a charge against 
 such tribe, and shall be deducted from any annuity, fund, or appropriation hereinbefore 
 designated which may hereafter become due from the United States to such tribe. 
 
 Sec 8. That in all said claims which have arisen prior to the passage of this Act, 
 whether heretofore presented or not, a petition on behalf of the claimant shall be presented 
 to the Court within three years from the date hereof, and not thereafter; and in all such 
 claims arising less than six years prior to the date hereof, or which may hereafter arise, 
 such a petition shall be so presented within six years from the date of such depredation, 
 and not thereafter; and all claims for Indian depredations not so presented within the 
 time limited by this section shall be forever barred, and shall not be considered by any 
 department of the Government. 
 
 Mr. Dolph. Mr. President, by the two bills just read it is designed to 
 provide for the adjudication and payment of that class of claims against 
 the Government, known as Indian depredation claims. By the first of 
 these bills an appropriation is proposed for the payment of all such claims 
 as have been duly presented to the Interior Department, examined and 
 approved, and reported to Congress, and by the second it is proposed to pro- 
 vide for claimants whose claims for any reason have not been so examined 
 and approved, a tribunal to which such claims can be presented and adju- 
 dicated according to law and the rules and practice of the Court. 
 
 On the sixteenth day of January, 1884, I introduced and had referred to 
 the Committee on Indian Affairs a bill to provide for ascertaining losses 
 sustained by citizens of the United States in Oregon, Washington and Idaho 
 Territories, and in Northern California, by reason of Indian depredations 
 committed during the period from 1855 to 1878 inclusive. The bill pro- 
 vided in substance for the appointment of three Commissioners to inquire 
 into the extent and character of such depredations, and the description 
 and value of the property destroyed or carried away, and the damage 
 
429 
 
 sustained by citizens by reason thereof; and it also further provided the 
 manner in which testimony should be taken, and such claims should be 
 examined and reported by the Commissioners to the Third Auditor of the 
 Treasury, and by him to the Secretary of the Treasury to be transmitted 
 to Congress for an appropriation. That bill and a number of private bills 
 for the relief of citizens for losses sustained by such depredations, intro- 
 duced by me at the same session, were referred to the Committee on Indian 
 Affairs, but none of them were ever reported. 
 
 Being desirous of presenting to the committee and to the Senate the 
 reasons which, in my judgment, require that such claims should be paid 
 without further delay, and fearing that if the bills which have just been 
 read shall be first referred to the committee they will share the fate of those 
 on the same subject, heretofore introduced by me and referred to the com- 
 mittee, I have concluded to address the Senate upon them before they are 
 referred. 
 
 The civil status of the Indians in the United States has always been an 
 anomaly. From an early period in the history of the Government the 
 Indian tribes were treated in a degree as political bodies, and as possessing 
 some of the functions of nationality, but as neither foreign nor domestic 
 nations. Congress, however, by an Act approved March 3, 1871, provided 
 that thereafter no recognition by treaty or otherwise should be made by the 
 United States of the claim of any Indian tribe as being an independent 
 nation, tribe, or power. In the articles of confederation it was declared 
 that "the United States in Congress assembled have the sole and exclusive 
 right and power of regulating the trade and managing all the affairs with 
 the Indians not members of the States." 
 
 Under this provision Congress issued a proclamation September 22, 1783, 
 prohibiting and forbidding all persons from making settlements on lands 
 inhabited or claimed by Indians within the limits or jurisdiction of any 
 State, and from purchasing or receiving any gift or cession of such lands 
 or claims without the authority of Congress, and declaring every such un- 
 authorized settlement, purchase, or cession null and void. It has been 
 settled by decisions of the highest judicial tribunal of the country that the 
 Indian tribes are not the owners of the Territories occupied by them, but 
 that the title to the same is in the United States, subject to the right of 
 occupancy by the Indians, and that such tribes are incompetent to transfer 
 any rights to the soil, and that any conveyances of their lands by them 
 are void ah initio^ the right to the property not subsisting in the grantor; 
 that the General Government holds the right of eminent domain as well 
 as the title to the soil in the public lands subject to the right of occupancy 
 by the Indians, and that, as was said by Chief Justice Marshall, in John- 
 son vs. McIntosh^S Wheaton, 543: "The Indian inhabitants are considered 
 merely as occupants to be protected while in peace in the possession of 
 their lands, but incapable of transferring an absolute title to others." 
 
 Acting upon this theory, the Government has never surveyed, sold, or 
 disposed of the public lands prior to the extinguishment of the Indian 
 right of occupancy, but has proceeded from time to time to terminate the 
 occupancy of the Indians as the lands were needed for settlement, by con- 
 quest or purchase; and since the Act of March 3, 1871, keeps up the form 
 of purchase of the right of occupancy, although not recognizing the Indian 
 tribes as independent powers, and although the Indians are treated in ajl 
 other respects as mere wards of the Government. The more sensible and 
 consistent position under existing laws would be to treat the right of occu- 
 pancy as a privilege only, which the Government may withdraw when the 
 interests of civilization and of such wards, in the opinion of the guardian. 
 
430 
 
 may demand it. Having assumed the absolute control of the Indians 
 and treated them as personal wards, the Government should assume as 
 absolute a control of their property and not permit the want of their con- 
 sent to stand in the way of a disposition thereof, which, in the opinion of 
 Congress, would be for their benefit. 
 
 The Indians in the United States are now, and have been for years, upon 
 reservations, the boundaries of which have been fixed by the Government, 
 and which are in charge of agents appointed by it, and are maintained to 
 a great extent by annual appropriations from the Federal Treasury. Con- 
 gress under the Constitution has power to regulate commerce with the 
 Indian tribes, and under this power the United States has at all times 
 exercised the exclusive control of the trade and intercourse with the Indians, 
 and no one has ever been permitted to deal with them except under license 
 from it. The first Act regulating trade and commerce with the Indians 
 was passed May 19, 1796 (1 Stat., 469). Section 14 of this Act was as 
 follows: 
 
 And be it further enacted, That if any Indian or Indians, belonging to any tribe in amity 
 with the United States, shall come over or across the said boundary line into any State or 
 Territory inhabited by citizens of the United States, and there take, steal, or destroj^ any 
 horse, horses, or other property belonging to any citizen or inhabitant of the United 
 States, or of either of the Territorial districts of the United States, or shall commit any 
 murder, violence, or outrage upon any such citizen or inhabitant, it shall be the duty of 
 such citizen or inhabitant, his representative, attorney, or agent, to make application to 
 the superintendent, or such other person as the President of the United States shall 
 authorize for that purpose; who, upon being furnished with the necessary documents and 
 proofs, shall, under the direction or instruction of the President of the United States, 
 make application to the nation or tribe to which such Indian or Indians shall belong, 
 for satisfaction ; and if such nation or tribe shall neglect or refuse to make satisfaction in 
 a reasonable time, not exceeding eighteen months, then it shall be the duty of such super- 
 intendent or other person authorized, as aforesaid, to make return of his doings to the 
 President of the United States, and forward to him all documents and proofs in the case, 
 that such further steps may be taken as shall be proper to obtain satisfaction for the 
 injury. And in the meantime, in respect to the property taken, stolen, or destroyed, the 
 United States guarantees to the party injured an eventual indemnification; provided 
 always, that if such injured party, his representative, attorney, or agent, shall, in any 
 way, violate any of the provisions of this Act, by seeking or attempting to obtain private 
 satisfaction or revenge, bv crossing over the line on any of the Indian lands, he shall for- 
 feit all claim upon the United States for such indemnification; arid provided, also, that 
 nothing herein contained shall prevent the legal apprehension or arresting within the 
 limits of any State or district of any Indian having so offended ; arid provided further, 
 that it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to deduct such sum or sums 
 as shall be paid for the property taken, stolen, or destroyed by any such Indian, out of 
 the annual stipend which the United States are bound to pay to the tribe to which such 
 Indian shall belong. 
 
 This section was substantially reenacted in the Act of March 3, 1779 
 (1 Statutes, 747), in the Act of March 30, 1802 (2 Statutes, 143), and in 
 the Act of June 30, 1834 (4 Statutes, 731). The changes from the origi- 
 nal section made by the Acts of 1779 and 1802 were merely verbal, and 
 all of the Acts contained the following clause, quoted from the Act of 
 June 30, 1834: 
 
 And, in the meantime, in respect to the property so taken, stolen, or destroyed, the 
 United States guarantee to the person injured an eventual indemnification. 
 
 And the Act of 1834 contained the following provision: 
 
 And if the nation or tribe to which such Indian may belong receive an annuity from 
 the United States, such claim shall, at the next payment of the annuity, be deducted 
 therefrom and paid to the party injured; and if no annuity is payable to such nation or 
 tribe, then the amount of the claim shall be paid from the treasury of the United States. 
 
 These provisions of the Act of 1834 remained in force, and claims for 
 losses from Indian depredations, were paid by the United States in accord- 
 
431 
 
 ance therewith until the passage of the Act of February 28, 1859, Section 
 8 of which repealed the provision for the payment of these claims from 
 the Treasury, and was in the following words: 
 
 And be it further enacted, That so much of the Act entitled "An Act to regulate trade 
 and intercourse with the Indian tribes and preserve peace on the frontiers," approved 
 June 30, 1834, as provides that the United States shall make indemnification out of the 
 Treasury for property taken or destroyed in certain cases by Indians trespassing on white 
 men, as described in the said Act, be and the same is hereby repealed; provided, hoivever, 
 that nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to impair or destroy the olDligation 
 of the Indians to make indemnification out of the annuities as prescribed' in said Act. 
 
 By joint resolution passed June 25, 1860 (12 Statutes, 120), it was pro- 
 vided : 
 
 That the repeal by the eighth section of the Act of Congress approved the twenty-eighth 
 day of February, 1859, of so much of the Act of Congress entitled " An Act to regulate 
 trade and intercourse with Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers," ap- 
 proved June 30, 1834, as provides that the United States shall make indemnification out 
 of the Treasurj^ for property taken or destroyed in certain cases by Indians trespassing 
 on white men, as described in said Act, shall not be construed to destroy or impair any 
 right to indemnity which existed at the date of said repeal. 
 
 Claims for Indian depredations, arising prior to February 28, 1859, were 
 therefore paid out of the Treasury, if there were no annuities payable to 
 the tribes committing the depredations from which they could have been 
 paid, and the payment of claims for depredations committed after Feb- 
 ruary 28, 1859, was continued out of annuities due the tribe committing 
 the depredations until the passage of the Act of July 15, 1870, Section 4 
 of which (now 2098 of the Revised Statutes) is as follows: 
 
 That no part of the moneys appropriated by this Act, or which may hereafter be appro- 
 priated in any general Act or deficiency bill, making appropriations for the current and 
 contingent expenses of the Indian Department, to pay annuities due, or to be used and 
 expended for the care and benefit of any tribe or tribes of Indians named herein, shall be 
 applied to the payment of any claim for depredations that may have been or may be 
 committed hy such tribe or tribes, or any member or members thereof; and no claim for 
 Indian depredations shall hereafter be paid until Congress shall make special appropri- 
 ation therefor; and all Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. 
 
 By an Act passed May 29, 1872 (17 Statutes, 190, now Section 466 R. S.), 
 the Secretary of the Interior is required to prepare and cause to be pub- 
 lished such regulations as he may deem proper, prescribing the manner of 
 presenting claims arising under laws or treaty stipulations for compensa- 
 tion for depredations committed by the Indians, and the degree and char- 
 acter of the evidence necessary to support such claims, and to carefully 
 investigate such claims as may be presented, subject to the regulations 
 prepared by him; and it is provided that "no payment on account of said 
 claims shall be made without a specific appropriation therefor by Con- 
 gress." 
 
 Sections 2156 and 2157 of the Revised Statutes, being a part of the Act 
 of June 30, 1834, as modified by the Act of February 28, 1859, and of 
 July 15, 1870, provide: 
 
 Sec. 2156. If any Indian, belonging to any tribe in amity with the United States, shall, 
 within the Indian country, take or destroy the property of any person lawfully within 
 such country, or shall pass from Indian country into any State or Territory inhabited by 
 citizens of the United States, and there take, steal, or destroy any horse or other property 
 belonging to any citizen or inhabitant of the United States, such citizen or inhabitant, 
 his representative, attorney, or agent may make application to the proper superintendent, 
 agent, or subagent, who, upon being furnished with the necessary documents and proofs, 
 shall, under the direction of the President, make application to the nation or tribe to 
 which such Indian shall belong for satisfaction; and if such nation or tribe shall neglect 
 or refuse to make satisfaction in a reasonable time, not exceeding twelve months, such 
 
432 
 
 superintendent, agent, or subagent shall make return of his doings to the Commissioner 
 of Indian Affairs, that such further steps may be taken as shall be proper in the opinion 
 of the President to obtain satisfaction for the injury. 
 
 Sec. 2157. The superintendents, agents, and subagents within their respective districts 
 are authorized and empowered to take depositions of witnesses touching any depreda- 
 tions within the purview of the preceding sections, and to administer oaths to the depo- 
 nents. 
 
 These sections have remained in force, and numerous claims for Indian 
 depredations have since 1859 been presented to and audited by the Interior 
 Department, notwithstanding the Government had virtually ceased to 
 appropriate money for the payment of the claims thus audited. If it was 
 intended by Congress, by the Act of 1859, to repudiate the obligation of 
 the Government to its citizens to indemnify them for such losses it should 
 have said so then, and not have held out to thein delusive hopes by con- 
 tinuing to receive proofs of these claims and to audit them under regula- 
 tions prescribed by its authority. 
 
 The claims examined and audited by the Interior Department have 
 been reported at different times to Congress and are contained in the fol- 
 lowing executive documents, all being letters from the Secretary of the 
 Interior to the House of Representatives: 
 
 House Executive Document No. 127, Twenty-fifth Congress, second 
 session. 
 
 House Executive Document No. 311, Forty-first Congress, second session. 
 
 House Executive Document No. 11, Forty-second Congress, third session. 
 
 House Executive Document No. 65, Forty-third Congress, second session. 
 
 House Executive Document No. 147, Forty-fourth Congress, first session. 
 
 House Executive Document No. 135, Forty-seventh Congress, first session. 
 
 House Executive Document No. 10, Forty-seventh Congress, second ses- 
 sion. 
 
 House Executive Document No. 23, Forty-eighth Congress, first session. 
 
 House Executive Document No. 102, Forty-eighth Congress, first session. 
 
 House Executive Document, No. 132, Forty-eighth Congress, first session. 
 
 House Executive Document No. 20, Forty-eighth Congress, second ses- 
 sion. 
 
 House Executive Document No. 86, Forty-eighth Congress, second session. 
 
 House Executive Document No. 182, Forty-eighth Congress, second ses- 
 sion. 
 
 House Executive Document No. 197, Forty-eighth Congress, second ses- 
 sion. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1885, the Indian appropriation bill, the sum of 
 $10,000 was appropriated for the investigation of certain Indian depredation 
 claims, and it is provided in said Act that "in expending said sum the 
 Secretary of the Interior shall cause to be made a complete list of all 
 claims heretofore filed in the Interior Department, and which have been 
 approved in whole or in part, and now remain unpaid; and also such claims 
 as are pending, but not yet examined, on behalf of citizens of the United 
 States, on account of depredations committed chargeable against any tribe 
 of Indians by reason of any treaty between such tribe and the United 
 States, including the name and address of the claimants," etc. 
 
 The first clause of this provision is construed by the Interior Department 
 to comprehend all claims for Indian depredations, without reference to 
 treaty obligations, which had been approved in whole or in part, and were 
 unpaid and on file in this Department at the date of the passage of the Act. 
 
 The latter clause is construed to comprehend, and to require the exami- 
 nation of such unexamined claims in favor of citizens of the United States, 
 on account of Indian depredations, as were pending at the passage of the 
 
433 
 
 Act, and which are chargeable to Indians who were in amity with the 
 United States, and bound by treaty obligations to make satisfaction therefor. 
 
 So that unintentionally, probably, Congress has, in the claims directed 
 to be reported, made a distinction between claims of the same class, filed 
 under the same law, and audited under the same regulations of the Inte- 
 rior Department, by requiring those only which had been approved before 
 the passage of the Act, to be reported in cases in which they are not charge- 
 able to the Indians under treaty stipulations. 
 
 By House Executive Document No. 125, being a letter from the Secre- 
 tary of the Interior, dated March 11, 1886, to the Speaker of the House of 
 Kepresentatives, there was transmitted a report of the Commissioner of 
 Indian Affairs, made in pursuance of said Act of March 3, 1885, contain- 
 ing a list of about forty-five hundred claims, approximating in amount, as 
 is stated in the report, to about $15,000,000. Some idea of the magnitude 
 of the question of the adjudication and payment of these claims can be 
 obtained by an inspection of this report, which I hold in my hand. 
 
 The list of claims with alphabetical indexes makes a volume of two hun- 
 dred and ninety pages. Most of the claims which appear in this report 
 have been heretofore reported to Congress from year to year by the Secre- 
 tary of the Interior in his annual reports of depredation claims audited and 
 -allowed under the provisions of the Revised Statutes, and still the claimants 
 have no assurance of the payment of their claims. We should temporize 
 with this matter no longer. It can be better dealt with now than it ever 
 can be hereafter. 
 
 Under the authority conferred upon the Secretary of the Interior by Sec- 
 tion 466 of the Revised Statutes, there was issued July 13, 1872, by the 
 Department rules and regulations, still in force, of which the following is 
 a copy: 
 
 Rtdes and regulations adopted by the Department of the Interior relative to the presentation and 
 examination of claims on account of depredations committed by Indians. 
 
 By the seventh section of the Act of Congress making appropriations for the Indian 
 Department, approved May 29, 1872, it is enacted: "That it shall be the duty of the Sec- 
 retary of the Interior to prepare and cause to be published such rules and regulations as 
 he may deem necessary or proper, prescribing the manner of presenting claims arising 
 under existing laws or treaty stipulations, for compensation for depredations committed 
 by the Indians, and the degree and character of the evidence to support such claims; he 
 shall carefully investigate all such claims as may be presented, subject to the rules and 
 regulations prepared by him, and report to Congress, at each session thereof, the nature, 
 character, and amount of such claims, whether allowed by him or not, and the evidence 
 upon which his action was based ; provided, that no payment on account of said claim 
 shall be made without a specific appropriation by Congress." 
 
 In compliance with the requirement of the law as quoted above the following rules and 
 regulations are prescribed : 
 
 1. Application for indemnity or satisfaction for the loss or injury sustained must be 
 made by the claimant, his attorney or duly authorized agent, * * * to the United 
 States * * * Indian agent, or subagent within whose jurisdiction or charge the nation, 
 tribe, or band is to which the offenders or depredators belong. 
 
 2. The necessary documents and proofs must accompany the application of the claim- 
 ant, his attorney, or agent, and should be in legal form, and consist — 
 
 First— 01 the sworn declaration of the claimant, setting forth when and where the dep- 
 redation was committed, and by what Indians, their tribe or nation being named ; describ- 
 ing fully the property stolen or destroyed, and giving the quantity of each article or 
 number, condition or quality thereof, and the just value of each article or piece of prop- 
 erty at the time the same was so taken or destroyed. Should the depredation have been 
 committed while the claimant was in the Indian country, he must state whether he was 
 lawfully there, either having a license to trade with the Indians, a passport, or a permit 
 from the proper Indian authorities, or was en route through said country to a place of ulti- 
 mate destination at some point within the limits of any State or Territory not included 
 within the limits of the reservation for any nation or tribe of Indians set apart by treaty 
 provision or by executive order; and he in such declaration must further state whether 
 any of the property so stolen or destroyed has subsequently been recovered by or for him, 
 the claimant; and whether the claimant has at any time received part compensation 
 
 28 •" 
 
434 
 
 therefor, and, if so, how much, when, and from what source ; and further, that the claim- 
 ant has in no way endeavored to obtain private satisfaction or revenge. 
 
 Second — Of depositions of two or more persons having personal cognizance of the facts 
 or any of them as embraced in the declaration of the claimant, which depositions must 
 set forth the means of knowledge which deponents have as to the fact of the depredation, 
 when, where, by what Indians, and under what circumstances the depredation was com- 
 mitted, of what the property consisted that was so taken or destroyed by the Indians, 
 describing it as fully as practicable, and stating the value thereof. If the deponents, or 
 any of them, were at the time of the depredation in the employment of the claimant it 
 must be so stated, and in what capacity. In addition to the foregoing, the claimant must 
 show, by his own evidence or that of other persons, that at the time the depredation was 
 committed the property then stolen or destroyed was being properly guarded and cared 
 for, and that the loss thereof was not occasioned by the negligence or carelessness of him- 
 self or employes. 
 
 3. The testimony adduced by the claimant must be taken before some officer authorized 
 by law to administer oaths, or it may be taken before the proper * * * Indian agent, 
 or subagent. If taken before a Justice of the Peace, the oflBcial character of that person 
 should be certified by some proper officer empowered thereunto. All interlineations or 
 changes that it may be necessary to make in the testimony of any person testifying in 
 behalf of the claimant, either before or at the signing of the same, must be duly attested 
 by the officer before whom the testimony is sworn to and subscribed. 
 
 4. When the application, documents, and proofs shall have been received by the * * * 
 Indian agent, or subagent, said officer shall carefully investigate the case; shall ascertain 
 by inquiry of reliable persons, from advertised prices, or otherwise, whether the prices, 
 fixed by the claimant upon the articles of property mentioned in the claim are just and 
 fair as compared with the market prices ruling at the time in the State or Territory in 
 which the depredation was committed, with due allowance for enhancement of price by 
 reason of transportation ; and, where it is possible to procure it, said officer shall, if deemed 
 advisable, take testimony as to the credibility of the claimant, or of any person testifying 
 in his behalf; and also respecting the statements set forth in the application, documents, 
 and proofs submitted by the claimant. Upon the performance of this duty, the * * * 
 Indian agent, or subagent, will, without unnecessary delay, present the case to the proper 
 nation or tribe assembled in council, according to the custom of such nation or tribe, and, 
 after fully explaining it to them, he will then and there demand satisfaction for the claim- 
 ant. If within a reasonable time the nation or tribe shall not have complied with such 
 demand, the fact of the depredation by some of their people being admitted in such coun- 
 cil, or if they deny the charge as made and pe^-emptorily refuse to render any satisfaction, 
 the * *«■ * agent, or subagent, will in such case submit a report of the proceedings had, 
 together with all the papers, to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Such report shall 
 state whether the Indians in council recognized, remembered, and admitted the depreda- 
 tions charged; and, if so, how far and with what particularity the allegations of the claim- 
 ant respecting such depredations were borne out by the recollections and acknowledgments 
 of the Indians in reference thereto. 
 
 5. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs will cause all claims received by him as above 
 noticed to be duly registered and filed in his office, and shall, as soon thereafter as practi- 
 cable, cause the same to be carefully examined, and then forwarded, with a report of his 
 views and opinion in each case, to the Secretary of the Interior for the action of the 
 Department. 
 
 C. DELANO, Secretary. 
 Department of the Interior, July 13, 1872. 
 
 And under the Act of March 3, 1885, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs 
 issued a circular, of which the following is a copy: 
 
 To — 
 
 [Circular No. 159.] 
 
 n 
 Washington, D. C, , 188—. 
 
 Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs, ) 
 
 By an item in the Act of Congress, approved March 3, 1885 (Stats. 23, p. 376), the Secre- 
 tary of the Interior is required to investigate certain depredation claims as therein indi- 
 cated, and make report thereof to Congress at its next regular session. 
 
 The evidence on file in depredation claim for $ is not made in compliance with 
 
 the rules prescribed by the Department, and is defective and inadequate to satisfactorily 
 establish the claim. Any additional evidence in support of the claim must be submitted 
 immediately, and if none is submitted within days the case will be examined, adjudi- 
 cated, and disposed of upon the testimony now on file and forwarded to the Secretary of 
 the Interior for transmittal to Congress at its next session, as required by law. 
 
 All documents and proofs in support of the claim must be in legal form, consisting of : 
 
 First — Of the sworn declaration of the claimant, setting forth when and where the dep- 
 redation was committed, and by what Indians, their tribe or nation being named; describ- 
 ing fully the property stolen or destroyed, and giving the quantity of each article, or 
 number, condition,* or quality thereof, and the just value of each article or piece of prop- 
 erty at the time the same was so taken or destroyed. Should the depredation have been 
 
435 
 
 committed while the claimant was in the Indian country, he must state whether he was 
 lawfully there, either having a license to trade with the Indians, a passport, or a permit 
 from the proper Indian authorities, or was en route through said country to a place of ulti- 
 mate destination at some point within the limits of any State or Territory not included 
 within the limits of the reservation for any nation or tribe of Indians set apart by treaty 
 provision or by executive order; and he, in such declaration, must further state whether 
 any of the property so stolen or destroyed has subsequently been recovered by or for him, 
 the claimant; and whether the claimant has at any time received part compensation 
 therefor, and, if so, how much, when, and from what source; and further, that the claim- 
 ant has in no way endeavored to obtain private satisfaction or revenge. 
 
 Second — Of depositions of two or more persons having personal cognizance of the facts 
 or any of them, as embraced in the declaration of the claimant, which depositions must 
 set forth the means of knowledge which deponents have as to the fact of the depredation, 
 when, where, by what Indians, and under what circumstances the depredation was com- 
 mitted, what the property consisted of that was so taken or destroyed by the Indians, 
 describing it as fully as practicable, and stating the value thereof, if the' deponents, or 
 any of them, were at the time of the depredation in the employment of the claimant, it 
 must be so stated, and in what capacity. In addition to the foregoing, the claimant must 
 show, by his own evidence, or that of other persons, that at the time the depredation was 
 committed the property then stolen or destroyed was being properly guarded and cared 
 for, and that the loss thereof was not occasioned by the negligence or carelessness of him- 
 self or employes. 
 
 Commissioner. 
 
 While the Government is thus, by neglecting to make appropriations, 
 ignoring the claims of its own citizens it is careful to protect the rights of 
 the Indians. Provision is made by law for the recovery from any white 
 person of twice the value of any property of an Indian taken, injured, or 
 destroyed by such white person and for the payment of the just value of 
 such property from the Treasury of the United States if the offender is 
 unable to pay the same or can not be apprehended and brought to trial. 
 These provisions are found in Sections 2154 and 2155 of the Revised Stat- 
 utes, which are as follows: 
 
 Sec. 2154. Whenever, in the commission, by a white person, of any crime, offense, or 
 misdemeanor within the Indian country, the property of any friendly Indian is taken, 
 injured, or destroyed, and a conviction "is had for such crime, offense, or misdemeanor, 
 the person so convicted shall be sentenced to pay to such friendly Indian to whom the 
 property may belong, or whose person may be injured, a sum equal to twice the just value 
 of the property so taken, injured, or destroyed. 
 
 Sec. 2155. If such offender shall be unable to paj^ a sum at least equal to the just value 
 or amount, whatever such payment shall fall short of the sum shall be paid out of the 
 Treasury of the United States. If such offender can not be apprehended and brought to 
 trial, the amount of such property shall be paid out of the Treasury. But no Indian shall 
 be entitled to any payment out of the Treasury of the United States, for any such prop- 
 erty, if he, or any of the nation to which he belongs, have sought private revenge, or have 
 attempted to obtain satisfaction by any force or violence. 
 
 The Committee on Indian Affairs at the present session has reported 
 upon two bills, one (S. 145) for the relief of James Bainter, and the other 
 (S. 146, report No. 130) for the relief of George S. Comstock, upon what 
 appears to me to be a new theory for getting rid of this class of claims. 
 The reports in these two cases are substantially alike. The one in the case 
 of George S. Comstock is as follows: 
 
 The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 146) for relief of 
 George S. Comstock, have considered the same, and in accordance with the views of the 
 Commissioner of Indian Affairs, given in the inclosed letter, which is made part of this 
 report, they recommend the indefinite postponement of the bill. 
 
 Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs, ) 
 Washington, D. C, February 11, 1886. ) 
 
 Sir: 1 am in receipt, by reference, of your letter of the sixth instant, addressed to the 
 honorable Secretary of the Interior, referring bill (S. 146) for the relief of George S. Com- 
 stock, with a request for such information relative thereto as this Department may pos- 
 sess, and in reply I have the honor to report that it appears from the records of this office 
 that a claim of ^George S. Comstock, amounting to $18,908 53 on account of depredations 
 alleged to have been committed by Cheyenne and Sioux Indians, on the ninth and tenth 
 
436 
 
 days of August, 1864, was filed in this office June 22, 1882; on the eighth July following 
 the claim was transmitted to United States Indian Agent McGilly cuddy, at Pine Ridge 
 agency, Dakota, with directions to carefully examine all the facts connected therewith, and, 
 after submitting the same to the Indians m council, to report the result, together with his 
 recommendation of allowance or disallowance. Under date of January 21, 1884, Agent 
 McGrilly cuddy returned the claim with his report, recommending favorable action. On 
 the second of February following, the report of this office, recommending an allowance of 
 $12,404 36, to be paid from moneys due Sioux of different tribes, including Santee Sioux of 
 Nebraska, was submitted to the honorable Secretary of this Department, and by him 
 transmitted under date of February 15, 1884, to the Speaker House of Representatives, and 
 api^ears, by Executive Document No. 102, Forty-eighth Congress, first session, to have 
 been referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 
 
 The claim was returned to this office for reexamination in pursuance to the provisions 
 of the Act approved March 3, 1885, and was again examined and reported to the honorable 
 the Secretary of the Interior, under date of November thirtieth last, with the reconfmenda- 
 tion that the claim be dismissed as barred by force of the seventeenth section of the Act 
 approved June 30, 1834 (4 Statutes, 731, 732), and the recommendation for disallowance 
 was concurrred in by the honorable Secretary, under date of tenth December last. 
 
 The papers in the case are now on file in this office. Senate Bill 146 is herewith returned. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 J. D. C. ATKINS, Commissioner. 
 
 Hon. H. L. Dawes, Chairman Committee on Indian Affairs', United States Senate. 
 
 Section 17 of the Act of June 30, 1834, referred to in this report, was 
 what is now Section 2156 of Revised Statutes. It contained the clause by 
 which the United States guaranteed to the party injured by the taking or 
 destroying of his property by Indians an eventual indemnification, and 
 also the following proviso: 
 
 Provided, That if such injured party, his representative, attorney, or agent, shall in any 
 way violate any of the provisions of this Act by seeking or attempting to obtain private 
 satisfaction or revenge, he shall forfeit all claim upon the United States for such indem- 
 nification ; and provided, also, that unless such claim shall be presented within three years 
 after the commission of the injury, the same shall be barred; and if the nation or tribe to 
 which such Indian may belong receive an annuity from the United States, such claim 
 shall at the next payment of the annuity be deducted therefrom and paid to the party 
 injured, and if no annuity is due to such nation or tribe then the amount of the claim 
 shall be paid from the Treasury of the United States. 
 
 These provisions for the payment of claims out of the Treasury and out 
 of annuities were repealed by the Acts of February 28, 1859, and July 15, 
 1870. When these provisions were repealed the limitation of the statute, 
 in my judgment, ceased to be of force. After such repeal there could be no 
 payment of such claims without the authority of Congress, and a statute of 
 limitation against Congressional action would be useless. That part of the 
 statute was not, therefore, included in the Revised Statutes, and if in force 
 when the Revised Statutes were enacted was expressly repealed by Section 
 5596. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the In- 
 terior, however, notwithstanding the claims in question were presented and 
 audited by their predecessors under the rules prescribed by the Interior 
 Department and reported to Congress for its action have, upon reexamina- 
 tion of the claims, discovered, as they suppose, that they are barred by a 
 statute of limitations which originally applied to the payment of claims by 
 the Department without Congressional action and which has long since 
 ceased to be operative, and the Committee on Indian Affairs appears to 
 have adopted the views of the Department. 
 
 Since the provisions for the payment of these claims out of the Treasury 
 and out of annuities were repealed and claimants could only look to Con- 
 gress for legislation authorizing their payment it would be palpably unjust 
 to apply any statute of limitation to them or to discriminate between claims 
 equally meritorious. If after the long delay of Congress to act upon these 
 claims, and after the Government has, by a course of conduct continued 
 for over a quarter of a century, induced these claimants to believe their 
 
437 
 
 claims are just and that they would be paid by the Government, they are 
 not to be paid, some better excuse should be found than that they were not 
 presented in time. 
 
 I have examined the debates in Congress upon the subject of the obliga- 
 tion of the Government to protect its citizens against depredations by the 
 Indian tribes and to pay them for losses incurred by such depredations, 
 and I am surprised to find that neither when the general laws under which 
 the Government indemnify its citizens for such losses prior to the passage 
 of the Act of 1859, providing that depredation claims should not there- 
 after be paid out of the Treasury, nor when the Act of 1871 providing that 
 such claims should no longer be paid from annuities due the tribes com- 
 mitting the depredations without the consent of Congress, or when any of 
 the private Acts for the payment of such claims which have been passed 
 were under consideration, was there any considerable discussion of the 
 principles upon which such indemnity should be made or withheld. Con- 
 gress appears to have assumed that such an obligation existed and to have 
 acted upon it for over sixty years after the organization of the Government 
 and to have suddenly, without much consideration or discussion, changed 
 its policy and repudiated its obligations to its citizens in this regard if one 
 exists. 
 
 I find myself, therefore, compelled, in support of the proposition that it 
 is the duty of the Federal Government to afford protection to its citizens 
 against Indian depredations, and to make good their losses arising from 
 inadequate protection, except in so far as the uniform course of the Gov- 
 ernment prior to 1859 tends to show the existence of such an obligation, 
 to resort to first principles. I admit that the obligation, if it exists, must 
 be traced to the duty of the Government to afford protection to each of its 
 citizens in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, which lies at the 
 foundation of the social compact. I need not stop to show that such a 
 general obligation exists. Government is organized society. The word 
 designates the aggregate powers, whatever the form, to which the exercise 
 of sovereignty belongs in a State. It can exist no longer than it can com- 
 pel the submission of all the citizens of the State to its authority, expressed 
 in accordance with the fundamental law which constitutes the social com- 
 pact. 
 
 Submission to the Government is the primary obligation of the citizen, 
 and protection of the citizen is the correlative obligation of the Government. 
 Theoretically, it is the duty of the Government to afford protection to all 
 its citizens in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, not only within 
 its borders, but everywhere they may lawfully go. While its obligation to 
 afford protection is sometimes by law devolved by the State upon municipal 
 corporations intrusted with certain powers of Government, the duty is the 
 duty of the State, the power so exercised being derived from the State. 
 The Government of the United States forms no exception to this general 
 rule. Within the powers conferred upon it by the Federal Constitution and 
 for the purposes of its creation it demands the allegiance of the citizen, 
 and to the extent of those powers it owes every citizen protection. As 
 Congress has power " to declare war," " to raise and support armies," " to 
 provide and maintain a navy," and the States are prohibited from keeping 
 ships or troops in time of peace, from entering into any agreement or com- 
 pact with another State, or with a foreign power, or to engage in war, it 
 becomes the evident duty of the General Government to protect the citizens 
 of the United States in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property against 
 foreign powers and their citizens and subjects, and the obligation of the 
 Government to do this has never been denied, and in the discharge of this 
 
438 
 
 obligation it has declared war, called into use the army and navy, taxed 
 the people, and borrowed money upon the public credit. 
 
 The Senator from Georgia, during the discussion of the educational bill, 
 cited an Act of Congress, approved by President Washington, appropriating 
 $4,539 06 to indemnify citizens of the United States for money paid by them 
 as a ransom to the Government of Algiers (Act approved May 30, 1796). 
 This Act was but a recognition of an obligation of the Government to its 
 citizens; which, so far as I know, has never been repudiated in similar 
 cases. The United States have never failed to demand of foreign nations 
 satisfaction for injuries done by such foreign nations or their subjects to the 
 persons or property of its citizens. The war with Algiers was waged for 
 the purpose of punishing that State for depredations upon our commerce 
 and the unlawful imprisonment of our citizens. The war of 1812 was 
 caused by the interference of Great Britain with the rights of our merchant 
 •marine and of our sailors; and to-day, should the most powerful nation 
 upon the earth, or the citizens of that nation, upon the high seas or within 
 the jurisdiction of such nation, where our citizens, under treaty stipulation, 
 have a lawful right to go for pleasure or profit, forcibly take or destroy the 
 property of an American citizen, and refuse to make restitution or submit 
 the matter to arbitration, war would be declared against that nation, and 
 the administration which should refuse to demand indemnity for such an 
 outrage would be hurled from power by an indignant people. 
 
 The obligation of a government to protect its citizens in a foreign country 
 is thus cited by Wheaton on International Law (Boyd's edition, page 207): 
 
 The American citizen who goes into a foreign country is entitled to the protection 
 of our Government; and if, without the violation of any municipal law, he should be 
 unjustly oppressed, he would have a right to claim protection of his Government, and the 
 interference of the American Government in his favor would be considered a justifiable 
 interference. 
 
 This is from Halleck (page 276) : 
 
 If a State should neglect to enact the requisite laws to restrain its subjects and citizens 
 from systematic and repeated aggressions upon the rights of others, and to enforce such 
 laws when made, it not only exposes itself to the just hostility of the parties aggrieved, 
 but virtually becomes an oiitlaw from the society of nations, and, by the well established 
 principles of international jurisprudence, is liable to be attacked and punished by all. 
 
 This is from another American authority, Woolsey (§ 62) : 
 
 Foreigners admitted into a country are subject to the laws. They are * * * entitled 
 to protection, and failure to secure this or any act of oppression may be a ground of com- 
 plaint, of retorsion, or even of war, on the part of their native country. 
 
 Vattel states the principle thus: 
 
 If a nation should refuse or fail to pass the laws necessary to restrain its citizens from 
 aggression upon other States, or upon their citizens; or if, such laws being enacted, the 
 officers of the State neglect to enforce them, and such aggressions by individuals result 
 therefrom, the State is unquestionably responsible for the injury. 
 
 Hall, a recent writer in England, says: 
 
 Prima facie a State is, of course, responsible for all acts or omissions taking place within 
 its territory, by which another State or the subjects of the latter are injuriously affected. 
 * * * If the acts done are imdisguisedly open or of common notoriety, the State is 
 obviously responsible for not using proper means to repress them. As obviously it becomes 
 responsible, by way of complicity, after the act, if it does not inflict punishment to the 
 extent of its legal powers. 
 
439 
 Phillimore says (Volume II, chapter 2) : 
 
 The State to which the foreigner belongs may interfere for his protection when he has 
 received positive maltreatment, or when he has been denied ordinary justice in the for- 
 eign country. The State of the foreigner may insist upon reparation immediately in 
 the former case. In the latter the State must be satisfied that its citizen has exhausted 
 the means of legal redress afforded by the tribunals of the country in which he has been 
 injured. If those tribunals are unable or unwilling to entertain or adjudicate upon his 
 grievance, the ground for interference is fairly laid. But it behooves the interfering State 
 to take the utmost care: first, that the commission of the wrong be clearly established; 
 secondly, that the denials of the local tribunals to decide the question at issue be no less 
 clearly established. It is onlj^ after these propositions have been irrefragably proved that 
 the State of the foreigner can demand reparation, and it is not until after the executive, 
 as well as the judicial, authorities have refused redress, that recourse can be had to repri- 
 sals, much less to war. 
 
 Our relations with the Indian tribes are as much under the exclusive 
 power of the General Government as our relations with foreign nations. 
 Congress has power under the Federal Constitution, and has always exercised 
 it, to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes. If the relations between 
 the United States and the Indians are in any sense similar to those between 
 the United States and foreign nations, then it is the duty of the General 
 Government to afford its citizens protection against the Indian tribes; but 
 I shall proceed to show that such is not the true relation, and that the obli- 
 gation of the Government in this regard rests upon stronger grounds. 
 
 Predicated upon the fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution, 
 which provides: 
 
 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of 
 Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and on application of the 
 Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature can not be convened), against 
 domestic violence — 
 
 And upon the latter part of the tenth section of the first article of the 
 Constitution, which is as follows: 
 
 No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, 
 or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, 
 or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent 
 danger as will not admit of delay. 
 
 The States and Territories have always preferred claims against the 
 General Government for expenses incurred by them on account of volunteers 
 and militia called out for their protection against hostile Indians, and where 
 the emergency was such as to require action before the United States could 
 or did take effective measures for their protection there is an unbroken line 
 of precedents for the payment of such claims by the General Government- 
 
 For every wrong there should be a remedy. If one citizen of a State 
 injures another in person or property the State ought to provide for the 
 redress of that wrong by legal methods; and whenever the State, or muni- 
 cipal corporation within a State, fails to afford such reasonable protection 
 as is within its powers to the citizen, the State or municipal corporation 
 upon the plainest principles of justice should be required to indemnify the 
 citizen for any loss sustained by reason of such failure. 
 
 The States are powerless under the Federal Constitution to protect their 
 citizens from the Indian tribes. It is true that in case of actual Indian 
 hostilities they may repel invasion and drive the murderous savages back 
 to their cities of refuge — the reservations — but within them they are safe 
 under the protecting aegis of the Federal authority. The States can not 
 demand or enforce satisfaction from the Indians for the losses sustained by 
 
440 
 
 their citizens. The Federal Government interposes itself between the States 
 and their citizens to shield the Indians from the ordinary and natural con- 
 sequences of their acts. The citizen can not justly demand that recourse 
 against the State which is allowed by the laws of many countries and many 
 of the States for losses occasioned by lawlessness and violence, and can only 
 look to the Federal Government for redress. Laws providing for making 
 good at the public expense the losses of those who have been so unfortunate, 
 as, without their own fault, to be injured and to suffer the loss of their prop- 
 erty by acts of lawlessness and violence which it was the duty of the 
 Government to prevent, have existed from an early period. 
 
 It was one of the institutions of Canute which was recognized by the 
 Saxon laws that when any person was killed and the slayer had escaped, 
 the ville should pay forty marks for his death, and if it could not be raised 
 in the ville then the hundred should pay for it. 
 
 In the statutes of Manchester (13 Ed. I, chapter 1, page 1) provision is 
 made touching the crimes of robbery, murder, and arson that if the country, 
 i. e., the jury, would not answer for the bodies of the offenders, the people ■ 
 dwelling in the county were to be amenable for the robberies and the dam- 
 ages sustained, so that the whole hundred where the robbery was committed, 
 with the franchise thereof, should be amenable. 
 
 An Act for consolidating and amending the laws of England relative to 
 remedies against the hundred (7 and 8 Geo. IV, ch. 31) repealed several 
 prior Acts providing remedies against the hundred for damage occasioned 
 by persons violently and tumultuously assembled, and provided a new 
 method of procedure. As the hundreds were not corporations the action 
 was to be brought against the Constable, and the judgment being rendered 
 the Sheriff was to draw his warrant on the County Treasurer for the amount 
 of the recovery, and the money was to be collected by taxation from the 
 hundred liable. 
 
 An Act of the Legislative Assembly of the State of New York entitled 
 "An Act for compensating parties whose property may be destroyed in con- 
 sequence of mobs or riots," passed April 13, 1855, provides for the bringing 
 of an action to be prosecuted to judgment according to the usual modes of 
 prosecuting suits against cities and counties by persons sustaining losses by 
 destruction of property by mobs or riots, and under its provisions judgments 
 were recovered against New York City by citizens whose property was 
 destroyed by the draft riots of 1863. 
 
 The Legislative Assembly of Pennsylvania, by an Act approved May 31, 
 1841, made the city of Philadelphia liable for property destroyed by a mob, 
 and that Act was by an Act approved March 20, 1849, extended to Allegheny 
 County, and under its provisions parties whose property was destroyed by 
 mobs at Pittsburgh during the riots of July, 1877, recovered judgment against 
 the county. 
 
 Similar statutes are in force in the following States: Kentucky, Maine, 
 Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, 
 South Carolina, and Wisconsin. 
 
 The laws of these States, as we have seen, are based upon a policy which 
 is coeval with the laws of England. 
 
 The United States have assumed the control and management of the 
 Indians, and in any possible view of the case should be held liable for their 
 torts. If it be made to appear that any domestic animal is vicious and 
 accustomed to do hurt, and that the owner has been notified of the fact, a 
 duty is then imposed upon him to keep the animal secure, and he is respon- 
 sible for the mischief done by the animal in consequence of a failure to 
 observe the duty, and the duty to protect against vicious animals is imposed 
 
441 
 
 upon the keeper irrespective of ownership. The duty of one who should 
 undertake to keep a dangerous wild animal would be even greater than that 
 imposed upon the keeper of a vicious animal. 
 
 The practical relation of the General Government to the Indian tribes has 
 been for years and is now that of guardian and ward. The Government 
 has taken and exercised control of the persons and estates of the Indians. 
 The general rule is that an infant is responsible for his torts as any other 
 person would be, and certainly the Indian wards of the Government are 
 entitled to no greater immunity than infants under guardianship. The 
 Indians to-day, whether they are considered as owners of the soil of the 
 reservations occupied by them or only as having the right of occupation^ 
 which must be extinguished by purchase before it is open to settlement 
 under the land laws, are wealthy. Their average individual wealth is prob- 
 ably far above the average wealth of the citizens of the United States and 
 of any other civilized country. 
 
 The total number of Indian reservations in 1880 was 147; total acreage, 
 154,436,302; total number of Indians, exclusive of the natives of Alaska, 
 was 253_,934, which gives about 603.41 acres of land to each Indian. The 
 Government is from year to year extinguishing the right of occupancy of 
 its Indian wards to these lands and paying large sums to the Indians 
 therefor; it also makes large appropriations from the Treasury for their 
 support and education, and at the same time shields their property from 
 the just demands of its citizens for losses on account of property stolen or 
 destroyed. 
 
 The obligation of the General Government to support and educate the 
 Indian, whatever may be its origin or extent, is a national obligation. 
 There is no reason or justice in assuming that it must be discharged at the 
 expense of individual citizens, and whenever the National Government 
 refuses to pay the just demands of its citizens against the Indian tribes out 
 of moneys due from the Government to such tribes, and which by treaty 
 stipulations with them the Government has a right to retain and pay to its 
 citizens in satisfaction of their claims, or which, according to international 
 law, it would, in the exercise of its duty to protect the rights of its citizens, 
 have the power to retain, and pays such moneys to the Indian tribes or 
 expends it for their support and education, it discharges a national obliga- 
 tion at the expense of individual claims, and upon the plainest principles 
 of justice must be substituted for the Indian tribes, and is in duty bound 
 to make satisfaction to its citizens. 
 
 By the treaty between the United States and France, promulgated by 
 the President December 21, 1801, the United States was relieved from cer- 
 tain embarrassing obligations to France arising under the treaty of alliance 
 with that country of February 6, 1778, and the treaty of amity and com- 
 merce of the same date, which obligations were no less than to guarantee 
 the possessions of France in America, and of important privileges for the 
 armed ships of France, and a promise of American convoy to French com- 
 merce, and in return set off and released the individual claims of her 
 citizens against the French Government arising from the spoliation of our 
 commerce by France. Eighty-four years afterward, at the last Congress, 
 long after the original claimants and two succeeding generations had passed 
 away. Congress provided for the payment of the private claims thus bar- 
 tered away by the Government. 
 
 On January 17, 1870, Mr. Sumner made an exhaustive report upon these 
 French spoliation claims, in which the grounds of the liability of the Gov- 
 ernment were clearly and forcibly stated, and from which I quote the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
442 
 
 Had the claims on each side been "national," no subsequent question could have 
 occurred, for each would have extinguished the other in all respects forever. It was the 
 peculiarity in this case that on one side the claims were " national " and on the other side 
 "individual." But a set-off of "individual" claims against "national" claims must, of 
 course, leave that Government responsible which has appropriated the " individual " 
 claims to this purpose. The set-ofF and mutual release is between nation and nation ; but 
 if the claims on one side are only " individual," and not " national," the nation which, by 
 virtue of this consideration, is released from " national " obligations must be substituted 
 for the other nation as debtor, so that every "individual" whose claims are thus appro- 
 priated can confidently turn to it for satisfaction. On this point there can be no doubt, 
 whether we regard it in the light of common sense, reason, duty. Constitution, or 
 authority. 
 
 (1) According to common sense, any " individual " interest appropriated to a " national " 
 purpose must create a debt on the part of the nation, still further enhanced if through 
 this appropriation the nation is relieved from outstanding engagements already the 
 occasion of infinite embarrassment, and hanging like a drawn sword over the future. 
 
 (2) According to reason, any person intrusted with the guardianship of particular 
 interests becomes personally responsible with regard to them, especially if he undertakes 
 to barter them against other interests for which he is personally responsible. Thus, an 
 attorney sacrificing the claims of his clients for the release of his own personal obligations 
 becomes personally liable, and so also the trustee appropriating the trust fund for any 
 personal interest becomes personally liable. All this is too plain for argument, but it is 
 applicable to a nation as to an individual. In the case now before your committee, our 
 (jrovernment was attorney to prosecute "individual" claims of citizens, and also trustee 
 for their benefit, to watch and protect their interests, so that it was bound to all the 
 responsibilities of attorney and trustee, absolutely incapacitated from any act of personal 
 advantage, and compelled to regard all that it obtained, whatever form of value it might 
 assume, whether money or release, as a trust fund for the original claimants. 
 
 (3) Duty, also, in harmony with reason, enjoins upon government the protection of 
 citizens against foreign spoliations and the prosecution of their claims to judgment. 
 Claimants are powerless as " individuals." Their claims are effective only when adopted 
 by the nation. This duty, so ^obvious on general principles, was reinforced in the present 
 case by the special undertakmg of Mr. Jefferson, already adduced, when he announced 
 that he "had it in charge from the President to assure the merchants of the United States 
 concerned in 'foreign commerce and navigation that due attention will be paid to any 
 injuries they may suffer on the high seas or in foreign countries." Such a duty, thus 
 founded and thus openly assumed, could not be abandoned on any inducement proceed- 
 ing from France without a corresponding responsibility toward those citizens whose 
 interests were allowed to suffer. A waiver of national duty, especially where made for 
 the national benefit, must entail national obligation. 
 
 (4) The Constitution also plainly requires what seems so obvious to common sense, 
 reason, and duty when it declares that " private property shall not be taken for public use 
 without just compensation." Here "private property," to a vast amount, was taken for 
 "public use," involving the peace and welfare of the whole country; and down to this day 
 the sufferers are petitioning Congress for that "just compensation" solemnly promised 
 by the Constitution. 
 
 (5) Public law is also in harmony with the Constitution in this requirement. Accord- 
 ing to Vattel, the sovereign may, in the exercise of his right of eminent domain, dispose 
 of the property, and even the person, of a subject, by a treaty with a foreign power; " but," 
 says this eminent authority, " as it is for the public advantage that he thus disposes of 
 them, the State is bound to indemnify the citizens who are sufferers by the transaction." 
 (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 4, ch. 2, §12.) Words more applicable to the present case 
 could not be employed. 
 
 This reasoning applies with equal force to the case under consideration, 
 in which the United States, guardian of the Indian wards and of the inter- 
 ests of its own citizens, to save expenditures from its Treasury on account 
 of such wards, interposes its authority to prevent the appropriation of the 
 property of its wards to compensate its own citizens for losses arising from 
 the torts of such wards. The analogy is complete. 
 
 In the discharge of its obligation to protect its citizens from losses from 
 Indian depredations, the Government has in many instances, in treaties 
 with the Indian tribes, stipulated for the payment, out of annuities coming 
 to such tribes, of claims against them for depredations committed on the 
 property of white men. In other treaties the Indians have been required 
 to agree to use their best efforts to return stolen property and to punish 
 offenders. In others the United States has stipulated that the Indians 
 should be paid by the Government for depredations committed upon their 
 property by white men. I will submit, at the close of my remarks, lists of 
 these treaties. 
 
448 
 
 Numerous special acts for the payment of the losses of citizens on 
 account of Indian depredations have been passed by Congress, extending 
 from 1819 up to last session, so that precedents are not wanting for such 
 payment, even since the provisions for the payment of such claims out of 
 the Treasury and out of annuities without special appropriations were 
 repealed. 
 
 I have prepared a list of such special Acts (but which I am not certain 
 contains them all) showing in each case whether payment was made out 
 of the Treasury or from Indian annuities. The total amount of the appro- 
 priations from the Treasury is $1,604,028 25. The total appropriations 
 from Indian annuities is $197,716 37. These totals do not include the 
 sum paid under the general laws heretofore referred to. 
 
 The Senate amendment striking out of the Indian Appropriation Bill of 
 last session the provisions for the payment of sundry depredation claims, 
 was adopted, upon the ground that it was general legislation upon an 
 appropriation bill. But with strange inconsistency the Senate Committee 
 on Appropriations reported the Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill with a 
 clause appropriating $46,770 22 to pay H. C. Oburn, out of annuities, for 
 depredations committed by the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians, and the 
 bill passed with the provision. 
 
 Able reports have been made upon some of the private bills which have 
 been passed by Congress for payment of such claims, in which the grounds 
 of the liabilit}'' of the Government are stated with much force. From 
 Report No. 780, made by Mr. Comingo at the first session of the Forty-third 
 Congress, upon the bill (H. R. 3315) for the relief of John Fletcher, I quote 
 the following: 
 
 Such being tlie facts in the case, is the Government liable to indemnify claimant for his 
 said loss ? That we may be able to arrive at a satisfactory and just conclusion in the 
 premises, it may be well to consider the relations the Indians bear to the Government, and 
 the legislation that affects that relation. Between them and the citizens of the United 
 States legislation has interjjosed a "high wall and a deep ditch," and has thereby left the 
 latter without remedy, if the Government is not liable for the depredations of those around 
 whom it has thrown its protecting arms, and between whom and its citizens it has inter- 
 posed insuperable barriers. 
 
 The Indians have long been regarded and treated as the wards of the Government. 
 This relation was recognized and acted upon almost three quarters of a century ago, and 
 at no time since has it been disclaimed. As far back as 1802 our ancestors saw the propriety 
 and necessity of protecting the then feeble Kepublic from the rapacity and violence of that 
 race, and provided means of indemnity for spoliations committed by such of them as 
 were in "amity with the United States." (2 Stat, at Large, page 143.) 
 
 This liability and promise to indemnify continued as a part of the written law of the 
 land from that time until 1859, when, as we shall presently see, the promise, but not the 
 liability, was revoked by Congress. The liability, in the opinion of your committee, did 
 not depend upon, nor was it created by the promise. It existed independent of the latter— 
 the latter being a simple recognition of the former; and, in the opinion of your committee, 
 the liability has not yet been ignored, but to the contrary has been recognized in all sub- 
 sequent legislation on the subject, although the express promise of indemnity has been 
 recalled. 
 
 The Trade and Intercourse Act of 1834 expressly repeals that of 1802 (4 Stats, at Large, 
 page 734); but by the seventeenth section of said Act (4 Stats, at Large, page 731) provi- 
 sions are made for full indemnity, and the same is guaranteed by the Government. This 
 statute remained in force from the thirtieth of June, 1834, to the twenty-eighth of Febru- 
 ary, 1859, at which time it was repealed. The repealing clause is as follows : 
 
 "Afid be it further enacted, That so much of the Act entitled "An Act to regulate trade and 
 intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers," approved June 
 30, 1834, as provides that the United States shall make indemnification out of the Treasury 
 for property taken or destroyed in certain cases by Indians trespassing on white men, a's 
 described in said Act, be and the same is hereby repealed; provided, however, that nothing 
 herein contained shall be so construed as to impair or destroy the obligation of the 
 Indians to make indemnification out of the annuities, as prescribed in said Act." (11 Stats. 
 at Large, page 401, section 8.) 
 
 Let it be remembered that this leaves in force all of said Act, except the clause that 
 guarantees indemnity out of the Treasury. The seventeenth section of the Act of June 
 30, 1834, contains the following among other provisions : 
 
444 
 
 ^'Provided, That if such injured partj', his representative, attorney, or agent, shall in any- 
 way violate any of the provisions of this Act, by seeking or attempting to obtain private 
 satisfaction or revenge, he shall forfeit all claims on the United States for such indemnifi- 
 cation." 
 
 Thus, we find the citizens of the United States are wholly without remedy for wrongs 
 and injuries perpetrated by the Indians unless by reason of the peculiar relationship they 
 sustain to the Government, and the exclusive guardianship over them, assumed by the 
 latter, it is responsible for their willful and unprovoked trespasses. 
 
 The Act of July 15, 1870 (16 Stats, at Large, section 4, page 360), forbids the use of any 
 part of the annuities then due, or thereafter to become due the Indians designated in the 
 Act, in payment of claims growing out of their depredations. It should be observed that 
 it does not ignore the liability of the Government in such cases, but rather recognizes it, 
 by providing that claims of that character shall not be paid out of annuities, and that 
 they may be paid by a special appropriation made for that purpose by an Act of Congress. 
 
 The section last referred to, reads as follows : 
 
 " That no part of the moneys hereby appropriated by this Act, or which may hereafter 
 be appropriated in any general Act or deficiency bill making appropriations for the cur- 
 rent and contingent expenses of the Indian Department, to pay annuities due to or to be 
 used and expended for the care and benefit of any tribe or tribes of Indians named herein > 
 shall be applied to the payment of any claim for depredations that may have been or that 
 may be committed by said tribe or tribes, or any member or members thereof; and no 
 claims for Indian depredations shall hereafter be paid, until Congress shall make special 
 appropriations therefor; and all Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent herewith are hereby 
 repealed." 
 
 By the seventh section of an Act approved May 29, 1872 (17 Stats, at Large, page 190) the 
 last clause of the foregoing section is reenacted, and it is made the duty of the Secretary 
 of the Interior to prepare and publish such rules and regulations as he may deem 
 necessary, prescribing the manner of presenting claims for compensation for depredations 
 committed by Indians, and the degree and character of the evidence necessary to support 
 the same, and to report to Congress at each session thereof, the nature and character, 
 etc., of such claims, whether allowed by him or not, "and the evidence on which the action 
 was based. 
 
 Provisions are thus made for ascertaining the extent of injuries that may be inflicted 
 on citizens of the United States ; the result of these injuries we call claims, and we provide 
 that they may be paid out of our General Treasury, and that they shall not be paid out of 
 the annuities due or to become the Indians. If we do not thereby recognize a right on 
 the part of those who suffer from the depredations of these people to recover the actual 
 damages they may sustain, what is the meaning and effect of all this legislation? Why 
 do we forbid the injured to redress their own grievances? and why lock up the annuities 
 of those who despoil our citizens, and hold out a pretended promise of payment? 
 
 Congress may make appropriations to pay these losses. This is plain. But it is insisted 
 by some that there is no legal liability to pay them. If this be true, when did the liability 
 cease ? Why have we continued to pay some of these claims, and why make provisions for 
 prosecuting them in the manner in which we have done? and why do we provide for pay- 
 ing them out of the Treasury ? If they are not valid claims, by what authority can we 
 appropriate money out of the Treasury to pay them ? The right of recovery depends, in 
 each case, on the particular facts that bear upon it. In this respect it does not differ from 
 the right of recovery in any civil action, such as assumpsit, covenant, or trespass. 
 
 And from Report No. 253, made by Mr. Mason in the House of Repre- 
 sentatives at the Forty-seventh Congress, upon the bill (H. R. 2824) for 
 the relief of William Franklin Grounds, I quote the following: 
 
 Your committee are satisfied that the claim of Mr. Grounds is a just one, and that the 
 Government is under obligation to compensate him for these losses. In arriving at these 
 conclusions, your committee are guided by numerous legislative precedents in cases sim- 
 ilar- to this, and by the principles declared by eminent publicists. They believe that it 
 would be in violation of the spirit of our institutions to impose on one citizen the burdens 
 which should be borne by all, and that the citizen who pays taxes, bears arms, serves on 
 juries, and bears his just proportion of the burdens of Government, and complies with 
 all its exactions, is entitled to security in person and property, and to the prompt fulfill- 
 ment by the Government of all the obligations it is under to'him as a citizen. 
 
 The Committee on Indian Affairs of the United States Senate, first session, Thirty-fourth 
 Congress, to whom was referred a bill authorizing the payment of certain claims for 
 Indian depredations, and which the equities were not as clear and strong as those which 
 exist in this case, say : 
 
 The spoliations for which redress is now sought were caused by predatorj'^ expeditions, 
 undertaken without lawful authority and without cause, as likewise without the usual 
 formalities, and solely with the view to plunder, and is therefore excepted by Vattel and 
 all the approved publicists from the principle under which redress is here sought to be 
 derived, and brings it within the principle under which, by the practice of all civilized 
 nations, the citizen or subject has been held entitled to indemnity, and under which this 
 Government has uniformly extended redress. (Senate Report No". 244, first session Thirtj^- 
 fourth Congress, vol. 2.) 
 
445 
 
 These great principles of government have been recognized and passed into a compact 
 between this Government and the citizen in the several " trade and intercourse laws " 
 enacted by Congress in 1802, 1834, and 1859. Since then it has repeatedly, in the hun- 
 dreds of private Acts for relief, recognized its obligations to pay the citizen out of the 
 Treasury of the United States for losses sustained by Indian depredations. It has gone 
 even further, and paid friendly Indians for losses sustained at the hands of hostiles of 
 the same tribe, when they (the hostiles) failed to make restitution of the property stolen, 
 as stipulated in the articles of capitulation. 
 
 The law of 1859 repealing the provisions of the Act of 1834, by which 
 the United States guaranteed eventual indemnity for losses on account of 
 Indian depredations, and which provided for the payment of such claims 
 out of the Treasury, was an amendment to the Indian Appropriation Bill, 
 and passed without much consideration and without debate. But the Act 
 of 1870 provoked more discussion. In the Senate during the debate upon 
 the bill, Mr. Thayer of Nebraska said: 
 
 Mr. Thayer. The honorable Senator from Iowa and the honorable Senator from Oregon 
 say that in some cases the annuities of Indian tribes have been absorbed in meeting these 
 claims. I tell those two Senators that the property, the all of settlers on the frontier has 
 been destroyed by Indians ; and I say to them also that the way to produce an eflfect upon 
 the Indians is by letting them know that if they commit these depredations their annuities 
 shall be taken to pay for them. That is the only way in which you will reach them. That 
 is the only way in which you will have an ettect on the Indians and compel them to cease 
 their depredations on the settlers. The last remedy for a man whose property, whose 
 crops, whose horses, and whose cattle have been taken from him by Indians is to' tell him 
 to come to Congress and wait until the day of doom before he can get satisfaction or com- 
 pensation. I trust that this whole section will be stricken out. 
 
 Mr. Tipton said: 
 
 Every Senator here who knows anything about the new States knows that when a band 
 of savages pass through our borders, or when the Indians who are on the reservations 
 pass through our States, there is nothing that protects the property of the settler so well as 
 . a consciousness on the part of the chiefs and the head men of the Indians that if the stock 
 of the settler is killed, if his crops are destroyed, their annuities may be reached and they 
 will feel it in their pockets. Nothing so completely gives protection to the settler as that. 
 Then, when their young men spread upon the prairies and roam about at will, when they 
 come upon the cabin of a settler and his property is entirely in their power, they will 
 have been warned by those in authority over them not to touch it or the value of the 
 property will be taken out of their annuities. I tell you that gives us more protection 
 w^hen they pass through our inhabited counties and portions of our States than anything 
 else you can devise. But let it be understood that if they commit depredations, those 
 who complain of them, if they can make a case, may come to Congress and get their pay 
 out of the Treasury of the United States, and who cares what depredations are then com- 
 mitted? I say that unless this section be stricken out, or so amended that the redress 
 shall be direct upon the tribe or upon the annuities of the tribe, we shall have very little 
 protection. 
 
 Mr. Williams said: 
 
 It is a mistaken pohcy, in my judgment, that undertakes to throw around these Indian 
 tribes the protection of law in robbery, a thing which they will understand just as well 
 as white men. It will not be long before the Indians will know that they can with im- 
 punity make inroads upon the white settlers and steal their horses and cattle, and carry 
 them away and make use of them, and that there is no remedy for the white persons so 
 injured. 
 
 In the House of Representatives Mr. Degener said: 
 
 1 am not a lawyer, but common sense teaches me that if any person chooses to keep a 
 dangerous animal on his premises, say a rattlesnake in his room, if he chooses to feed it, 
 chooses to provide a warm blanket for that rattlesnake, so that it may not suffer from 
 cold, and if he does not choose to extract the poisonous fangs of that animal, then he 
 becomes responsible should that rattlesnake escape from his room and go upon the 
 premises of his neighbor and there bite his neighbor, or his neighbor's wife, or his children, 
 or his cattle. I believe that common sense teaches us that that is the correct principle. 
 
446 
 Mr. Wilkinson said: 
 
 The principle is essentially just, and there is no reason for changing the existing law 
 except the clamor which has*^ arisen on account of the reputation that the Indian Depart- 
 ment has had before the country. If the Indian Department stood as well before the 
 country as the Treasury Department there is not a man in this House who would think 
 of making the change proposed by this amendment. 
 
 Mr. Paine said: 
 
 On the other hand, it is desirable, if possible, to so regulate the payment of our annuities 
 to the Indians that we may avoid the difficulties, the animosities, and the troubles that 
 will be sure to grow out of the collection of false and fictitious and sham claims against 
 the Indians. If there were an absolute certainty that only just claims would be presented 
 against these Indians, if we were sure that only the claims of honest frontiersmen whose 
 property had actually been destroyed or stolen would be presented and paid out of the 
 moneys which would otherwise be devoted to the payment of these annuities, then I 
 would have no hesitation in allowing the law to stand as it now is. But there is the 
 danger that, by permitting the law to stand as it now is, we shall give encouragement to 
 the prosecution of unjust claims. I believe everybody understands that it has been true 
 that large numbers of outrageous claims have been presented against the Indians; 
 demands made by men who set themselves deliberately to work to trump up claims 
 upon no substantial foundation, for the purpose of robbing these Indians. On the whole, 
 for the purpose of avoiding that difficulty, I am willing to encounter another. 
 
 And during the debate upon the Act of May 16, 1872, Mr. Harlan of 
 Iowa said: 
 
 Under the amendment the Senate has agreed to, the last amendment preceding this 
 offered by the honorable Senator from Nebraska, it will be the duty of the Secretary of the 
 Interior to examine these claims and report them to Congress. Then Congress can make 
 an appropriation to pay each claim that is specifically reported by the department. It 
 seems to me that would be much safer than to order their payment out of the appropri- 
 ations made to feed and clothe these Indians that are now being supported by the Govern- 
 ment and have no other resource whatever, except preying on the frontier settlements. 
 
 From these debates it is apparent that it was not the intention of Con- 
 gress by the Acts of 1859, 1870, and 1872 to repudiate its obligations to its 
 citizens on account of these claims, but only to require that the same 
 should not be paid without special appropriation by Congress for that pur- 
 pose. The statement of Senator Thayer that the " last remedy for a man 
 whose property, whose crops, whose horses, and whose cattle have been 
 taken from him by the Indians is to tell him to come to Congress and wait 
 until the day of doom before he can get satisfaction or compensation " was 
 prophetic. 
 
 The discussion in the Senate of the amendment reported by the Com- 
 mittee on Appropriations, to strike out the provisions in the Indian Appro- 
 priation Bill of last session as it came from the House for the payment of 
 certain depredation claims which had been presented to the Department of 
 the Interior, audited, and reported to Congress, was, I think, the most 
 extended discussion which ever took place in Congress upon the subject of 
 the payment of such claims, and no Senator during that discussion ven- 
 tured to question or deny the obligation of the Government to pay such 
 claims, but all the Senators who took any considerable part in the debate 
 expressed the opinion that such an obligation exists. 
 
 Mr. Plumb said: 
 
 While I say that, I am as earnest as any one can be in favor of the Government adopting 
 a rule which shall result in the payment of what I regard as justly an obligation against 
 the Government as any other one which it is called upon to respond to. There are 
 millions of dollars, I believe, certainly many hundreds of thousands of dollars, which the 
 Government of the United States owes to claimants all over the country. I have no doubt 
 
447 
 
 the case of which the Senator from California speaks is one, to a certain extent at all 
 events ; possibly there may be some doubt about the amount ; but in all these cases there 
 ought to be a tribunal provided for the ascertainment of the amount due. I introduced 
 a bill years ago, and have reintroduced it, to have an auditing of these claims in order 
 that they might come before Congress not as objects of suspicion, but upon their true 
 footing as genuine existing liabilities against the Government, and having had all the 
 scrutiny that they ought to have preceding their allowance. The Committee on Appro- 
 priations, for the purpose of bringing about this result, seized upon an amendment offered 
 to the bill in the House and so reframed it as they believe will result in establishing the 
 validity or invalidity of these claims in such a way that they will not be subject to objec- 
 tion any longer, 
 
 Mr. Dawes said: 
 
 Instead of committing the United States to the payment of particular claims by paying 
 fifteen per cent upon them and letting all this vast amount remain back waiting'^for that 
 provision to go through, the Committee on Appropriations have proposed, on page 47 of 
 this bill, this amendment, which 1 beg leave to read: 
 
 * *** »*'* •X-* * **** 
 
 "For the investigatibn of certain Indian depredations claims, $10,000; and in expending 
 said sum the Secretary of the Interior shall cause a complete list of all claims heretofore 
 filed in the Interior Department, and which have been approved in whole or in part, and 
 now remain unpaid, and also all such claims as are pending, but not yet examined, on 
 behalf of citizens of the United States on account of depredations committed, chargeable 
 against any tribe of Indians by reason of any treaty between such tribe and the United 
 States, including the name and address of the claimants, the date of the alleged depreda- 
 tions, by what tribe committed, the date of examination and approval, with a reference to 
 the date and clause of the treaty creating the obligation for payment, to be made and 
 presented to Congress at its next regular session; and the Secretary is authorized and 
 empowered, before making such report, to cause such additional investigation to be made, 
 and such further testimony to be taken, as he may deem necessary to enable him to 
 determine the kind and value of all property damaged or destroyed by reason of the 
 depredations aforesaid, and by what tribes such depredations were committed ; and his 
 report shall include his determination upon each claim, together with the names and resi- 
 dences of witnesses, and the testimony of each, and also what funds are now existing, or 
 to be derived by reason of treaty or other obligation, out of which the same should be 
 paid." 
 
 *** ** ** ***** 
 
 The Secretary of the Interior is required to pass upon these claims. He has passed 
 upon them in the past in the manner which I have suggested. He has not had the money 
 to send anybody into the Territories, where it has been alleged that these depredations 
 have been made. He has the power, under the statute, but he has not had the money; 
 he has had no men that he could pay for that purpose. Therefore, whenever a man sent 
 his claim up here, or referred it to the agent or the tribe, when the agent of the tribe got 
 the affidavit furnished by the claimant and sent them up here, without any hearing or 
 cross-examination whatever, the Secretary of the Interior has written "approved ;" and 
 the claims come to Congress, thirty-one hundred of them in a single letter, amounting to 
 more than a million and a half dollars, and a dozen of them were put upon a single page 
 in this bill, by the other branch, with a stipulation that only fifteen per cent should be 
 paid. Fifteen per cent of them would take twice as much as the very Indians upon 
 whom they are charged have got in the Treasury ; and we are called upon in this bill, 
 independent of that, to appropriate some $25,000 to support and feed these very Indians. 
 
 I submit that the safest way is the one proposed by the Committee on Appropriations, 
 and that any other way is unsafe, unfair to other claimants, invidious, unjust, and ground- 
 less discrimination in favor of these claims. 
 
 Mr. Coke said: 
 
 I think, Mr. President, that a proper measure of justice to the claimants who have 
 suffered from Indian depredations would suggest to the committee and to the Senate that 
 the claims which have been investigated under Acts of Congress prescribing the mode 
 and manner of their investigation, which are on file in the Interior Department, and have 
 been reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior, approved by him as just and 
 honest claims, should be embraced in this" bill, and the appropriations made to pay them. 
 The committee propose, by their amendment, that they shall be reinvestigated. Why 
 reinvestigate claims which have already been fully investigated? We must presume 
 that they have been fully investigated, because the Secretary of the Interior, the Commis- 
 sioner of Indian Affairs, the agents and superintendents over the Indians, all had authority 
 to make the investigations, to summon witnesses and take depositions, and upon their 
 investigation, presumably correctly made, the Secretary of the Interior has reported a 
 large number of these claims, belonging chiefly in Kansas, Colorado, and Texas, as just 
 and approved by him. 
 
448 
 
 The committee now propose to reinvestigate those claims after a lapse of from fifteen to 
 twenty years, when ail the testimony has gone, possibly when the facts upon which the 
 claims are founded are necessarily obscured from loss of testimony and death of witnesses. 
 There is no justice in such a course. 
 
 The people of the frontier States knew that they had no recourse against the Indians, 
 except what Congress gave them, and Congress, in the Acts to which I have referred, 
 prescribed certain methods which they have pursued. They submitted themselves fully 
 to the jurisdiction prescribed; and now, after their claims have been approved by the 
 tribunal appointed by Congress, their witnesses dead or scattered, they are to be called 
 upon to again come forward and resubstantiate the same claims already adjudicated and 
 on file in the Department and reported approved to Congress. 
 
 ************ 
 
 I know something about these claims for Indian depredations. I know that the frontier 
 of Texas was at one time driven back seventy-five miles by hostile Indians from the Fort 
 Sill reservation, where they were under the care and control, and management and pro- 
 tection of the Government of the United States. The people of Texas dared not go upon 
 that reservation to retaliate. They could have gone there and wiped out the Indians, but 
 the United States Government protected them. Whenever a full moon shone at night 
 they came down upon Texas, drove off cattle and horses, burned houses, and killed and 
 scalped men, and carried women and children into captivity. 
 
 ************ 
 
 I have no doubt that the same experience was realized by all the other frontier States. 
 I have personal knowledge of the fact that, until the State of Texas organized a battalion 
 of State troops and sent them to the frontier and protected the settlers against the Indians, 
 the frontier was almost abandoned. I know hundreds and hundreds of men in Texas 
 who had thousands of head of cattle and hundreds of head of horses, who lost every 
 dollar's worth of property they had by the depredations of those Indians. Yet the Sen- 
 ator from Massachusetts would cast an imputation upon the justice of these claims, 
 examined and approved as they have been. 
 
 ****.*** **** 
 
 As the Senate Committee on Appropriations determined that they would not appropri- 
 ate the money now to pay these claims, that they would not put these claims thus 
 approved and reported upon this bill, then I believe the next best thing for them to do was, 
 as the committee has done, require a full report of all these claims to be made to Congress 
 at the next session, and when this report comes in and we see what they all amount to, I 
 shall favor, and I believe that the honor of the Government will require, that Congress 
 shall take steps to liquidate them at once. I do not see why those who have honest claims 
 for Indian depredations should be sneered at. They are the pioneers of the country. 
 They have gone westward until we have no frontier left, blazing the way for settlement 
 and civilization. 
 
 Mr. Manderson said: 
 
 Mr. President, I certainly quite agree with the suggestions made by the Senator from 
 Texas, in regard to the duty of the Government to pay those who have suffered loss on 
 the frontier of the country by reason of Indian depredations, and I wish to supplement 
 his suggestion, as to the claims mentioned in this bill, in that part of the bill which has 
 already been stricken out by the action of the committee, by reading from a report of the 
 Committee on Claims. It was stated by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Jackson] that 
 the claims presented in this bill had been reported adversely bj^ the committee. That 
 statement is truthful; but it does not tell all the truth. The inference might follow that 
 these claims were rejected because of lack of merit, for fraud, or because the parties had 
 not suffered the losses they pretended to have suffered ; but that is not the finding of the 
 committee. The Committee on Claims, following the action of the Interior Department, 
 reports as to these claims, and I read from the report: 
 
 "The claimants are all citizens of Texas, generally engaged in agriculture or stock 
 raising, quietly and peacefully pursuing their avocations, having nothing to do with trade 
 or traffic with the Indians, and in no way connected with any disturbance between whites 
 and Indians there or elsewhere. They were all citizens of the State of Texas, and while 
 engaged in peaceful pursuits were set upon by bands of Indians (who were supposed to 
 be under the restraint and control of the Government on their reservations), their stock 
 stampeded and driven off', and other property destroyed or carried away, and in many 
 cases their herders killed or wounded. They have, as the evidence shows, at all times 
 refrained from any violation of law hy taking the remedy into their own hands and giving 
 blow for blow, but have, in compliance with the laws which Congress has, from time to 
 time, passed for their protection and indemnity, made out their claims, supported them 
 by ample proof, both as to quantity and value, and have presented them to the officers 
 designated by the Government to examine into their justness and the truthfulness of their 
 statements; and those officers, after having sent the claims to the agents of the different 
 tribes to be presented to the Indians for their statements in regard to them, and after 
 hearing the reports of those agents and making a careful examination of the i)roofs 
 offered by the claimants, have allowed them the various sums, for payment of which 
 the claimants now ask an appropriation by Congress.'" 
 
449 
 
 So that these claims have not been allowed by the Department of the Interior upon 
 mere ex 'parte affidavits, but upon full investigation and with a chance to the Indians 
 themselves, through their agents, to be heard. 
 
 They are taken up in this report, and although the committee recognizes their merit 
 and the obligation upon the (government to pay this class of claims, it does report 
 adversely to them, as suggested by the Senator from Tennessee, in this language: 
 
 "As stated in your committee's"^ report upon the claim of Overton and Love, there are 
 a large number of these claims, equally meritorious, on file in the office of the Commis- 
 sioner of Indian Affairs. No good reason can be given for paying the claims under con- 
 sideration without paying them all. This committee cannot recommend the passage of 
 such claims until Congress adopts some general policy of dealing with all these claims.'* 
 
 I admit that the suggestion of the committee is a wise one. All of these claims should 
 be dealt with, but year after year rolls by and they are not paid. In my own State I know 
 of existing claims, as valid and as meritorious as those that are stated in the report, that are 
 nearly a quarter of a century old, for depredations committed by Indians upon frontiers- 
 men who were invited b}^ the Government to go upon Government land, and these men 
 driven from their lands, their homes destroyed, and in frequent instances members of 
 their families killed or treated worse by Indian depredators, remain with their, serious 
 losses yet unpaid. 
 
 I submit, Mr. President, that it is a crying shame that these claims have not been paid. 
 
 Mr. Maxey said : 
 
 Mr. President, the general plan for efficient aud prompt settlement of outstanding 
 claims proposed by the Committee on Apx)ropriations I think is wise; but I submit to 
 that committee and to the Senate whether there is any reason why, because they propose 
 to adopt that plan, the claims which have been allowed by the House and which come 
 to us as approved claims shall be stricken out of the bill. In other words, the law has 
 always favored the vigilant. If gentlemen who have claims have gone to the labor and 
 the expense of gathering up their testimony, of laying it before the Secretary of the 
 Interior, of having their claims examined and approved and recommended to Congress, 
 and Congress in its wisdom allows those claims and the bill comes to us with those claims 
 thus allowed, I ask if there is any reason or propriety in striking out all the claims 
 allowed, as found on pages 8, 9, 10, etc., of the bill which comes to us from the House, sim- 
 ply because a provision is made by the Appropriations Committee for a general settle- 
 ment of all such claims? If the claims which are allowed are just in themselves, and the 
 Senator in charge of this bill does not gainsay that proposition ; if they are right why 
 should they be struck out in order to take their place under the general plan of settle- 
 ment when they have already been examined and approved and allowed by the proper 
 committee of the House as just and proper claims ? I can, therefore, see no reason why 
 these claims shall be stricken out, nor do I see any conflict between the claims which are 
 allowed by the House standing as a part of this bill and the proviso which is put in by 
 the Appropriations Committee of the Senate in respect to those claims which are not as 
 yet allowed or have not been sent up by the Secretary of the Interior. 
 
 Mr. President, it is to the interest of the Republic that there be an end of litigation, and 
 if these men have had claims litigated and passed upon and they have been allowed by 
 the House, why'should they be stricken out of the bill by the Senate? Jt is not pretended 
 that they are not just claims. If there was a shadow of suspicion cast on the claims there 
 would be some reason in that, biit there is none. They are admitted to be just, they are 
 admitted to be right, but they are simply stricken out because they may conflict with 
 the plan proposed for future settlements. These claims having been already settled, why 
 should they be relegated to the future to be settled then? I cannot see any reason for 
 that. It does not seem to me to be a fair proposition. 
 
 Mr. Miller of California said : 
 
 What I object to is this practice of the Government of the United States, which is 
 unbecoming a great government, interposing technical objections to shilly-shally around 
 and put off payment in the manner of a bankrupt debtor or a man who is not disposed to 
 pay his debts. That is the position in which the Committee on Appropriations to-day 
 are putting the Government of the United States in relation to the citizens who holcl 
 these claims. That there is an obligation to pay these claims out of the funds held in 
 trust by the Government belonging to the Indians, there can be no doubt; but the Com- 
 mittee on Appropriations or the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs who has 
 charge of this bill seems to desire to put off the payment continually. It is so year after 
 year. This process has been going on for a great many years, and when we are con- 
 fronted by the condition of things then we invent some new scheme, some new plan by 
 which these claims shall be put ofl'; we have not got the report we want, or there is some- 
 thing lacking, and a man who has vigilantly prosecuted his claim and has had it adjudi- 
 cated, and the amount found due shall not be paid because somebody who has not used 
 the time diligently and whose claim has not been adjudicated is not paid, and that fur- 
 nishes a reason why the man who has a just claim which has been adjudicated shall not 
 be paid. That seems to me a strange position to take. I can not see why w^lien a claim 
 
450 
 
 is adjudicated and found to be due this great Government should desire to put off the 
 day of payment, and to bring up technical and other objections to avoid the payment. 
 * "* * ^e have said that these Indian disturbances were not wars, that Indians were 
 not to be regarded as belligerents. They are wards of the nation. The Government of 
 the United States has assumed to take care of them and to protect the frontier against 
 them by placing them on reservations and under the control of the militarv; and 
 they have thus invited people to go on the frontier, risk their lives, and risk their 
 property. 
 
 The Gfovernment has invited them to do that and has placed agents over the Indians ; 
 but for all that they break out and they carry with them the torch ; they burn, pillage, 
 rob, destroy, murder, and carry into captivity ; and when these unfortunate people come 
 to Congress and ask for relief, because every man has not been prepared to bring forward 
 his claim in the mode and manner which is required all others who have done so are to 
 'be relegated to some commission hereafter to be appointed to regulate these things. Sir, 
 that is not just. Let "every tub stand upon its own bottom." If a man has an honest 
 claim let it be brought forward, and if the claims amount to $8,000,000, as the Senator from 
 Wisconsin says, if they are lust claims for depredations committed by these wards of 
 the nation upon the defenseless frontier people in the destruction and robbery of their 
 property, this Government, as an upright and honorable and honest gentlemen would do, 
 ought to pay the last dollar of it if the Indians have not enough money of their own 
 to pay that debt. I assume in the broadest form that position that it would be just and 
 Tight and fair to do it. 
 
 Mr. Cockrell said : 
 
 It is a matter of absolute necessity that we shall sift these claims, that we shall ascer- 
 tain those that are properly chargeable against the nations and tribes that have annui- 
 ties and with whom we have treaty stipulations and whose money we have, so that we 
 can pay the claims. Now, I am for making these Indians pay every solitary dollar due for 
 the actual depredations committed by them, whenever they have any money or whenever 
 they have any lands out of which they can be paid. I want to hold them responsible to 
 tliefullest extent of the law; but I only want to pay what is actually due, the real value 
 of the property destroyed or the real injury done to it, and not mere imaginative dam- 
 ages that may have resulted, and w^hich should never be allowed in any Court of justice. 
 Therefore we put in the amendment, under the head of " Indian depredation claims," at 
 page 47, requiring a thorough investigation of this whole matter. We appropriate 
 1 10,000 for it. The Secretary can take this money and he can have a thorough investiga- 
 tion made; he can report to us all the facts; he "^can show us the evidence upon which 
 these claims are allowed, and the treaties and the funds. Then we can go to work and 
 settle the cases intelligently and honestly and fairly, but we can not do it until we have 
 that information, and it is Idle to undertake to do it. We are simply making fish of one 
 and flesh of another. We are making a favorite of one, and we are doing great injustice 
 and wrong to hundreds of others. 
 
 If it was not the intention of Congress that payment of these claims 
 should be ultimately made by the United States the appropriation of 
 $10,000 at the last session of Congress for the purpose of having such 
 claims investigated and reported upon by the Secretary of the Interior, 
 was a waste of money and useless legislation. I have a right, therefore, to 
 assume that the provision of the Act in question for the examination of 
 such claims and requiring a report of those approved by the Secretary of 
 the Interior to be transmitted to Congress, was for the purpose of providing 
 a basis for an appropriation by Congress at a subsequent session for pay- 
 ment thereof. Congress should treat the report of the Secretary of the 
 Interior as conclusive so far as the claims that are approved are concerned, 
 and appropriate money for their payment. The bill presented by me to 
 authorize suit in the Court of Claims would then be applicable to claims 
 which have been heretofore disallowed by the Department, to claims 
 which have been heretofore filed but have not been examined and reported, 
 and to those which may hereafter be filed. 
 
 I think the Government is morally bound to pay the claims which have 
 been proven under the laws and the rules and regulations prescribed by 
 the Interior Department, approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and 
 reported to Congress. I do not care, however, so much for the manner in 
 which the object I have in view, which is, the payment of these claims, is 
 accomplished as I do that some action shall be taken by Congress now, 
 
451 
 
 without further delay, which will accomplish it. The inaction and indif- 
 ference of Congress in this matter is a disgrace to the Government and an 
 injustice to its citizens which should.be no longer permitted. 
 
 It is because I suppose the bill offered by me to refer claims of this 
 character hereafter to the Court of Claims will not be subject to some of 
 the objections which have been heretofore urged against the payment of 
 these claims, and may therefore find favor with the majority of both 
 Houses of Congress, that I have offered it. 
 
 By reference to the first section of the bill it will be seen that it does not 
 create a new class of claims against" the United States. It provides a more 
 satisfactory method for the examination and determination of a class of 
 claims already recognized. As I have shown, claims for Indian depreda- 
 tions are now considered in the Interior Department upon ex parte affidavits, 
 filed by the claimants, and upon such further information as the agents of 
 the Department are able to gather. When examined in the Department 
 they are reported to Congress, which, instead of treating the approval of the 
 claims by the Secretary of the Interior as conclusive, and making an appro- 
 priation to pay them, either takes no action or delays final action, and post- 
 pones thie day of settlement and payment by expedients like that adopted 
 at the last session, when provision for the payment of certain claims was 
 stricken out of the Indian appropriation bill by the Senate, and an appro- 
 priation of $10,000 made for examination and report upon such claims by 
 the Secretary of the Interior. The truth is that neither the Department of 
 the Interior nor Congress is so situated as properly to examine claims of 
 this character. 
 
 No greater objection has ever been urged to these claims than that the 
 ex parte examination which they have hitherto undergone necessarily fails 
 to separate the good from the bad, and indeed invites fraud. The provis- 
 ions of the present bill answer any such objection. 
 
 In the Court of Claims the Government is represented by the Attorney- 
 General through his assistants. All the machinery of the Department of 
 Justice is at the disposal of the Government in securing evidence. No tes- 
 timony can be taken ex parte, but under the rules governing the Court the 
 Government is present by its counsel at the examination of all witnesses 
 and can call witnesses in defense. The methods of procedure in that Court 
 are simple, and there is no better way of securing an impartial and thor- 
 ough examination and just decision of the claims for Indian depredations 
 than by submitting them to it. The Court is able, as I will presently show, 
 to dispose of a much larger amount of business than is now before it. Prob- 
 ably the passage of this bill would necessitate the appointment of additional 
 counsel to represent the Government in cases brought under it, as the force 
 of attorneys for the Government has not heretofore been large enough. 
 With a slight addition in this respect, cases arising under this bill could be 
 promptly considered and decided. 
 
 Propositions to refer claims of this class to commissioners are open to objec- 
 tions. It would be difficult to obtain commissioners of sufficient learning 
 and experience who would accept temporary official positions and who 
 would dispose of interests so important in a manner acceptable to the claim- 
 ants and the Government. Commissioners would be obliged also to act as 
 counsel for the United States as well as judges. It need not be said that 
 these two positions are incompatible and that a judge so situated is hardly 
 able to render an impartial decision. If this work were done by commis- 
 sioners Congress would be overwhelmed by petitions of unsuccessful claim- 
 ants for relief. This has been the past experience with commissioners and 
 
452 
 
 special tribunals. Suitors against the Government should have the same 
 right to trial in a judicial tribunal as other suitors. 
 
 The sixth and seventh sections of the bill are in harmony with the policy 
 of the Government as expressed by the Act of 1834. It is provided that 
 judgments shall be paid out of Indian annuities, if any exist. An exam- 
 ination of the Indian treaties shows that a large proportion of all the treaties 
 ever made with the Indian tribes contain provisions that claims for depre- 
 dations shall be paid out of the annuities due such tribes. The course of 
 legislation shows that where annuities have existed this has been the uni- 
 form rule from 1796 to the present time. In the absence of treaties espe- 
 cially designating this course the obligation of the Indian tribe is equally 
 strong. A tribe committing depredations cannot expect to receive trust 
 funds from the Government while claims of its citizens arising out of their 
 own misconduct are unpaid. The rights of the Indians are sacred, but no- 
 more sacred than the rights of innocent white citizens. The line must be 
 drawn between justice and sentiment. The white man must be given jus- 
 tice as well as the Indian. 
 
 These principles are carried to their logical and proper extent by this bill 
 by providing that, if there are no annuities and funds become due to the 
 Indians from the sale of their lands, then they must pay out of such funds 
 for their depredations, or out of any appropriations made for their benefit 
 other than for their subsistence, support, and education. Should there be 
 no funds in the hands of the Government due the Indians, it is provided by 
 the bill that the judgment of the Court shall be paid out of the Treasury. 
 This adopts the provisions upon this subject of the Act of 1834, which was 
 only a reenactment of the provisions of the Acts of 1796, 1799, and 1802. 
 The provision is only a discharge by the Government of its just obligations 
 arising out of peculiar relations of the Government, the citizen, and the 
 Indians. 
 
 When the Act of 1870 was passed directing that no claim should be paid 
 out of annuities without the special authority of Congress, there were many 
 annuities due to Indian tribes which have since been fully paid. 
 
 A reference to House Executive Document 5, Forty-first Congress, second 
 session, page 182, shows that for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1870, 
 $4,167,486 36 was appropriated for fulfilling treaties with various Indian 
 tribes. All this sum was, under the laws and treaties, subject to the pay- 
 ment of claims for depredations committed by the Indians to whom annu- 
 ities were due. The Act of 1834 pledged the Government to such payments. 
 But since then very few claims have been paid, while the annuities have 
 been gradually exhausted with the lapse of years, until the Secretary of the 
 Treasury reports in 1884 that the sum of $1,420,150 only is necessary to 
 carry out treaty stipulations for the year ending June 30, 1886. 
 
 The guarantor trustee has paid out the funds without regard to its own 
 obligations as guarantor, and must answer from its own estate. 
 
 Congress has at almost every session passed some bill for the payment 
 of Indian depredation claims, and at every session claims as meritorious as 
 those passed are presented and ignored. The passage of this bill would at 
 once relieve Congress from further consideration of this class of claims. It 
 would remove the objection made to their payment that they are exagger- 
 ated and have not been established with sufficient certainty to justify 
 appropriations, and provide the most satisfactory way of ascertaining the 
 amount of loss sustained by each claimant. While it would entail some 
 expense upon the claimants, they would, I believe, gladly accept its provi- 
 sions and be satisfied with the final adjustment of their claims under it. 
 
453 
 
 The present system of auditing claims of the character under consider- 
 ation is a delusion; it has outlived the purpose for which it was instituted; 
 appropriations no longer follow as a matter of course, either for the payment 
 of these claims, as audited, out of the Treasury, or from annuities due the 
 Indians chargeable with the depredations. 
 
 I have considered the question of the ability of the Court of Claims to 
 dispose of the additional business which would be imposed upon it by this 
 bill should it become a law, and find that it will be able without any addi- 
 tional clerical or other force to dispose of such business. The expense of 
 examining these claims under this bill would be no greater than the expense 
 now caused by the examination of them by the Interior Department. In 
 answer to a letter addressed by me to Hon. William A. Richardson, Chief 
 Justice of the Court of Claims, I received the following: 
 
 Court of Claims Chambers, ) 
 
 Washington, February 23, 1886. j 
 
 My Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the nine- 
 teenth instant, with a copy of Senate bill No. 1407, "in relation to Indian depredations." 
 
 You say that you "have been informed that the impression is prevalent, to some extent, 
 that the Court of Claims would be unable to dispose of any considerable addition to the 
 husiness now before it," and you ask me to inform you whether it would be possible for 
 the Court to dispose promptly of cases which might arise under this bill should it become 
 a law, and whether any changes in existing law would be necessary to enable the Court 
 to determine the causes which might go before it, should the bill be passed by Congress. 
 
 The impression to which you refer is an erroneous one. Although the business of the 
 Court has been largely increased of late, no difficulty has been or is likely to be found in 
 disposing of it as fast as the parties are ready for trial. 
 
 Of course the judges are required to work somewhat harder, but of that they do not 
 complain. They always hold themselves in readiness cheerfully and promptly to do 
 whatever business Congress sees lit to put upon them. 
 
 When the Bowman bill, which became the "Act to afford assistance and relief to Con- 
 gress and the Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands against 
 the Government" (22 Statutes at Large, 485), was before a committee of Congress, the 
 judges made reply to a similar request as follows: 
 
 " The business of the Court has frequently been increased by special matters of juris- 
 diction referred to it by Congress, such as the abandoned and captured property cases, 
 under the Act of March 12, 1863; cases against the District of Columbia, under the Act 
 of June 16, 1880; and numerous cases and classes of cases referred by private Acts. It is 
 found that such cases bring in ijew litigants and new counsel, who prepare and submit 
 their cases while others are in preparation and do not obstruct the general business. 
 Litigants are always promptly heard whenever their cases are ready for submission, and 
 the Court promptly decides them, and the business has never been in arrears; so that the 
 extent of business which the Court may transact can hardly be estimated." 
 
 Further experience with the business of that Act before the Court, has confirmed the 
 views there expressed. 
 
 I have no doubt that the Court, with no additional assistance, would be able to do 
 promptly all the business that would come to it, if the present bill becomes a law. 
 
 I send herewith a copy of the History, Jurisdiction, and Practice of the Court of Claims, 
 from which you will get a full account of the business of the Court. 
 1 am, very truly, yours, etc., 
 
 WILLIAM A. RICHARDSON, 
 Chief Justice. 
 
 Hon. J. N. Dolph, Senator, etc. 
 
 I also addressed a letter to the honorable Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 
 to ascertain the number of depredation claims and their aggregate amount, 
 and received the following reply: 
 
 Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs, ) 
 Washington, D. C, March 3, 1886. j 
 
 Sir: In reply to your interrogatories relative to number, amount, etc., of Indian depre- 
 dation claims pending in this office, I have the honor to inform you that with the forces 
 employed and the amount of other duties devolving upon them, it has been impossible 
 to collect the full and exact data you desire; such facts, however, as the office has been 
 able to collect, and which are believed to be approximately correct, are given. 
 
 There are about forty-five hundred claims on file on account of Indian depredations, 
 dating from 1850 to the present time, and they aggregate in amount $13,000,000. Prior to 
 
454 
 
 the Act of July 15, 1870 (see Revised Statutes, Section 2098), claims against Indians for 
 depredations were paid by United States Indian agents. As to what amount was thus 
 
 Eaid the office has not been able to ascertain. By an examination of the Statutes at 
 arge, beginning with the Act of March 3, 1819 (3 Statutes, page 517), and coming down 
 to the Act of March 3, 1885 (23 Statutes, 498), it will be seen tJiiit Congress has appropri- 
 ated, by special Acts in payment of claims, about the sum of $1,654,530. 
 
 As to what amount of claims has been allowed by and what amount has been rejected 
 by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs or the Secretary of the Interior heretofore, can 
 not be ascertained within the time desired by you, if in fact it could be ascertained at all 
 in a satisfactory manner, as in many instances the same claim has been disallowed by 
 one Secretary of the Interior and allowed by his successor. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 J. D. C. ATKINS, Commissioner. 
 Hon. J. N. Dolph, United States Senate. 
 
 It will be seen that the number of these claims which have been here- 
 tofore filed is about forty-five hundred, and the total amount claimed about 
 $13,000,000. Experience justifies the expectation that when these claims 
 are required to undergo investigation in a Court, and to be presented in 
 accordance with the rule of pleading and established by evidence taken in 
 such manner as to allow the cross-examination of witnesses, many of them 
 will never be presented; and of those which are presented, when the claims 
 without m'erit are winnowed out of the whole, their number and amount 
 will be greatly reduced. I do not believe that the total amount of claims 
 which would be allowed under this bill, should the whole thirteen millions 
 be presented, would exceed $5,000,000. To show the probability of a large 
 reduction in the amount of these claims, if submitted to the Court of 
 Claims under the provisions of this bill, I submit the following statement: 
 
 CLAIMS PEESENTED, ALLOWED, AND DISALLOWED IN VARIOUS CLAIMS TRIBUNALS, SHOWING THE 
 PROPORTIONS OF CLAIMS TO ALLOWANCES. 
 
 I. 
 
 Southern Claims Commission, under Act of March 3, 1871 (16 Stat. L., 524): 
 
 Amount claimed... $00,258,150 44 
 
 Amount allowed 4,630,920 6» 
 
 Amount rejected 55,621,229 75 
 
 (See House Miscellaneous Document No. 30, P"'orty-sixth Congress, second session.) 
 
 II. 
 
 Court of Claims in cases decided from December term, 1867, to December term, 1880: 
 
 Amount claimed.... $80,315,529 20 
 
 Amount allowed 19,770,540 98 
 
 Amount rejected 60,544,988 22 
 
 (See seventeenth volume Court of Claims Reports, page 11.) 
 
 III. 
 
 Claims Commission under convention with Great Britain of February, 1853 (10 Stat. L., 
 988): 
 
 Amount claimed, " millions." 
 
 Amount allowed, about $600,000 00 
 
 (See message of the President communicating the proceedings, printed by the Senate 
 Printer, 1858, page 4.) 
 
 IV. 
 
 Claims Commission under convention with Mexico of July 4, 1868 (15 Stat. L., 679): 
 
 Amount of claims against the United States $86,661,981 15 
 
 Amount allowed in claims against the United States 150,498 41 
 
 Amount rejected in claims against the United States... 86,511,392 74 
 
 Amount of claims against Mexico 470,126,613 40 
 
 Amount allowed in claims against Mexico 4,125,622 20 
 
 Amount rejected in claims against Mexico 466,000,991 20 
 
 (See Senate Executive Document No. 31, Forty-fourth Congress, second session.) 
 
455 
 
 V. 
 
 Claims Commission under convention with France of January 15, 1880 (21 Stat, L., 673) : 
 
 Amount of claims against the United States -. 117,368,151 27 
 
 Amount allowed in claims against the United States 625,566 35 
 
 Amount rejected in claims against the United States 16,742,584 92 
 
 Amount of claims against France. -- 2,427,544 91 
 
 Amount allowed in claims against France, 13,659 francs 14 cent, or about.. 2,732 00 
 
 Amount rejected in claims against France 2,424,812 91 
 
 (See House Executive Document No. 235, Forty-eighth Congress, second session, pages 
 191, 193.) 
 
 VI. 
 
 Claims under the Act of July 4, 1864, filed in the office of the Quartermaster-General : 
 
 Amount claimed $41,107,266 48 
 
 Amount reported to the Third Auditor under the second section of said Act 
 
 with recommendation for settlement up to March 6, 1886 5,750,119 71 
 
 Amount rejected 29,083,554 16 
 
 Amount of claims pending at said date 6,273,592 61 
 
 VII. 
 
 Claims filed in the office of the Commissary-General up to March 10, 1886: 
 
 Amount claimed $4,944,111 14 
 
 Amount recommended to the Third Auditor of the Treasury for settlement 
 
 under said Act to said date.. 429,533 47 
 
 Amount rejected _. 4,509,704 17, 
 
 Amount of claims now pending 4,873 50 
 
 The bill under consideration is designed to provide a tribunal, open to 
 the citizens of all the States and Territories, authorized to hear and deter- 
 mine their claims according to the law and the facts. It is a measure 
 demanded by every principle of justice and good faith on the part of the 
 Government. 
 
 The people of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, in my judgment, have 
 an exceptional claim upon the Government for indemnification for losses 
 occasioned by Indian depredations, growing out of the causes which led 
 to the settlement and occupation of the Oregon Territory by American 
 citizens, the inducements held out by the Government to settlers in that 
 Territory, and the causes which led to Indian hostilities there. 
 
 It is well known that the title to the territory which comprised what is 
 now Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, lying west of the Rocky Mountains, 
 and north of latitude 42° north, was for a long time in dispute. It was 
 claimed at different times by Russia, Spain, Great Britain, and the United 
 States. Russia's claim rested on occupation by fur traders, and its south- 
 ern boundary was undefined. She had established a fur trading post in 
 Northern California at an early day. 
 
 By a treaty ratified by the United States in 1825, the line between the 
 territory claimed by the United States and that claimed by Russia was 
 fixed at 54° 40' north latitude. Great Britain, claiming the territory south 
 of that line, made haste to negotiate a similar treaty, defining 54° 40' north 
 latitude as her northern boundary. 
 
 The claim of Spain to this country rested upon alleged discovery backed 
 by occupation. Spain transferred her interests to France, and in 1803 
 Napoleon sold Louisiana to the United States, and by the Florida purchase 
 latitude 42° north was fixed as the boundary between Spain and the United' 
 States on the Pacific coast, and thereafter the controversy concerning the 
 title to the territory was between the United States and Great Britain. 
 The claim of Great Britain to the country by discovery was indefensible, 
 but as early as 1793 English fur traders, in private employ, pushed into 
 
456 
 
 the Oregon country and established trading posts there, but made no 
 attempts at permanent settlement south of 49° north latitude. 
 
 The claim of the United States rested upon the doubtful claim acquired 
 from Spain, the voyage of Capt. Robt. Gray, of Boston, who in 1792 entered 
 and explored to some distance from its mouth the River Saint Roque, the 
 name of which he changed to Columbia, the name of his ship, and the 
 exploration of Lewis and Clarke, who, under orders from President Jeffer- 
 son, crossed the continent, floated down the Columbia, wintered at Young's 
 River, near the mouth of the Columbia, and explored much of the Oregon 
 country. 
 
 The treaty with Russia fixing, as against the Russian claim to the 
 territory, latitude 54° 40' north as the northern boundary of the possessions 
 of the United States, created in the United States a belief that was our 
 true boundary as against Great Britain, and the Oregon boundary was for 
 many years an absorbing question in the politics of the country. It formed 
 the subject of political platforms and political campaigns; it threatened 
 to involve us in a war with Great Britain; the Monroe doctrine was invoked 
 against allowing Great Britain's claim to any part of the Pacific Coast. It 
 became apparent to the people of the United States and to the Government 
 that the question of title would be eventually determined by actual occu- 
 ^pation. By the Convention of August 6, 1827, the joint occupation of the 
 Oregon country by the United States and Great Britain was continued 
 indefinitely, with a provision that either party might annul and abrogate 
 it upon giving twelve months' notice to the other, and from that time forward 
 until the Northwestern boundary was finally settled by the treaty of 1846, 
 occupation became an important factor in determining the question of title. 
 The condition of the western half of North America at the time Captain 
 Gray discovered and explored the Columbia River is thus graphically 
 described in an article published in the Daily Morning Oregonian of Port- 
 land, January 1, 1886: 
 
 With the anniversary of another century, in the year 1792, exactly three hundred years 
 after Columbus discovered the New Worldj and two hundred and fifty years after the first 
 Spanish navigator sailed up the west shore of Oregon, an American shipmaster discovered 
 the great river of the west. 
 
 Up to that time the western half of North America was so unknown that from the Gulf 
 of California to the icy pole there was scarce a trace of civilization. That little was where 
 Jesuit missions to the far south were striving to bring up from untold ages of vice and 
 degradation the miserable native hordes that peopled the choicest regions of the West. 
 These efforts were only then commenced. If one could have stood on the great divide 
 from whence the melting snows turn westward, the view would have been unbroken by 
 one single touch of enterprise, with not a trace of civilization to mar the perfection of its 
 savagery. The Indian with bow and arrow followed the chase, or with spear and net 
 sought a food supply from the waters. And somewhere, on that vast expanse of wilder- 
 ness, hostile bands were always on the warpath. The warwhoop and the savage yell 
 waked many a scene of night, and flames of torture blazed to mark each victory. The 
 Indian of this far West may have heard some rumor of the white man's coming, but on 
 all the hills and plains and through all the mountain wastes, from Athabasca's snows to 
 California's perennial summer times, the native tribes were, as their fathers had been 
 before them, barbarian and savage beyond recall. 
 
 How great the change that time has wrought ! Immigration has swept 
 across the continent; civilization has taken the place of barbarism, the arts 
 of peace of perpetual warfare; the then wilderness has become the home 
 of millions of intelligent, law abiding, and liberty loving, industrious, and 
 prosperous citizens, and the native hordes which then roamed over that 
 vast territory are confined upon reservations and are kept under Govern- 
 ment control. This change has not taken place, and in the nature of 
 things could not take place, entirely peacefully. The conflict between 
 civilization and savage life is irrepressible. It needs no prophet to foretell 
 
457 
 
 that one or the other must prevail. Civilization or extermination is the 
 fate of the remnant of the Indians. 
 
 The occupation of the territory was favored by the Government. As we- 
 have seen, peaceful occupation by American citizens was provided for in 
 the treaty with Great Britain; Government expeditions were sent to explore 
 the country; Government protection was afforded to immigrants crossing 
 the plains; the patriotism of the people was appealed to, and to induce 
 immigration to aid the settlement of the country Congress passed an 
 Act, approved September 27, 1850, commonly known as the donation law, 
 granting to every settler upon the public lands who was such prior to Sep- 
 tember 1, 1850, a donation of the quantity of a half section, or three hun- 
 dred and twenty acres of land, if a single man, and if married, the quantity 
 of an entire section, or six hundred and forty acres, one half to the hus- 
 band and the other half to the wife in her own right, and to such as should 
 become settlers between September 1, 1850, and December 1, 1855, the 
 quantity of a quarter section to a single man, and, if married, a half sec- 
 tion, one half to the husband and the other half to the wife in her own 
 right. 
 
 Prior to 1830 several unsuccessful attempts were made by American fur 
 companies to establish and maintain posts in the Territory, but they failed 
 on account of the opposition and rivalry of established British companies. 
 Immigration began in 1832, and after 1838 each year there were large addi- 
 tions to the permanent settlements of the country by companies of enter- 
 prising persons, who had braved the perils and endured the hardships of 
 the long and tedious journey across the continent to establish homes for 
 themselves and hold the country for the United States. 
 
 The increasing American immigration added to the perils of joint occu- 
 pation, and it is firmly believed by many that some of the Indian massacres 
 and depredations were incited by those unfriendly to American occupation 
 of the Territory. While it was the policy of Congress to induce the settle- 
 ment of Oregon by the whites, and to continue the joint occupation until 
 the United States should be able, with the aid of the American population 
 of the Territory, to assert and maintain an exclusive right to it, the settlers 
 were from the first left without adequate protection by the Government. 
 The pioneer population of the region suffered greatly at first from the ina- 
 bility of the Government to afford them protection, and afterward from its 
 indifference and inaction. From the commencement of American immi- 
 gration for the purpose of permanent occupation, and from the time it 
 became apparent that Great Britain could not compete with the United 
 States in the settlement of the country, Indian massacres of emigrants 
 commenced. In 1834, on the Umpqua River, a party of thirty white per- 
 sons were treacherously and brutally murdered. This was followed by the 
 massacre of Dr. Whitman and his twenty-seven companions, near Walla 
 Walla, by the Cayuse and Walla Wallas in 1847. These outbreaks were 
 followed by murders of immigrants by bands of Modocs in 1852, by the 
 vSouthern Oregon Indian war in 1853, the Rogue River and Jacksonville 
 wars in 1855 and 1856, raids of marauding bands of Snakes in Eastern 
 Oregon in 1858-59, the marauding massacres, murders, and thefts by the 
 Snakes in Eastern Oregon and Washington in 1865-70, the Modoc outbreak 
 in 1872-73, and the Nez Perce war of 1878. 
 
 In 1858 a committee was appointed by the Legislative Assembly of the 
 Territory of Oregon and directed to examine and report in regard to depre- 
 dations upon immigrants in 1854, the number and dates, places, and names 
 of persons killed by Oregon Indians in time of peace, and those killed in 
 time of war by Indians supposed to be friendly. The committee made a 
 
458 ' 
 
 report February 3, 1858, giving the names and dates of persons killed and 
 names of the tribes doing the killing. The following is taken from the 
 concluding portion of the report: 
 
 It will be seen by the foregoing list that prior to 1851 upward of fifty citizens were mur- 
 dered by Oregon Indians. Since 1851 upward of one hundred and fifty citizens have been 
 murdered by the Indians of Southern Oregon and their immediate allies, and about fifty 
 by the Indians of Northern Oregon and their allies. Many more names could be obtained 
 from papers and living witnesses, but your committee have not time to investigate any 
 further. 
 
 Recapitulation: Killed in 1834, 30; in 1835, 4; in 1846, 1; in 1847, 16; in 1850, 8; in 1851, 
 12; in 1852, 50; in 1853, 11; in 1854, 29; in 1855, 51; in 1856, 45; in 1857, 5. Total, 262. 
 
 Isolated from civilization, neglected by the General Government, sur- 
 rounded by savage foes, the pioneers of Oregon demonstrated to a remarka- 
 ble degree the self-reliance, the undaunted courage, endurance, and capacity 
 for self-government of the American people. It is for these brave men who 
 penetrated the wilderness, took possession of the Oregon Territory and 
 planted civilization there; who defended their hearthstones against savage 
 foes incited by the emissaries of foreign powers; who laid the foundation 
 of prosperous States and Territories that are, and the powerful and wealthy 
 States that are to be, and for the widows and orphans of those who lost 
 their lives by the neglect of the Government, that I plead to-day. I demand 
 for them the same treatment accorded to all the citizens of the Republic 
 for a period of over sixty years from the organization of the Government. 
 The time will come when this demand will be heeded and provision will 
 be made for determining the amounts of their losses by Indian depreda- 
 tions, and for the payment of their claims. How much better it would he 
 to make such provision now, while the evidence can be found to sift the 
 false from the true, and while the money will be available to relieve the 
 necessities of the original claimants. 
 
 If the committee favors the payment of these claims, and the bill offered 
 by me does not provide the best means for ascertaining the amounts thereof, 
 let them devise a better plan and speedily present it to the Senate. If it 
 is proposed to repudiate all liability on the part of the Government for 
 damages for such losses, I hope, nevertheless, a report will speedily be made 
 that the opinion of the Senate may be taken on the question. The present 
 condition of these claims is very unsatisfactory. An occasional bill for 
 relief is passed; other claimants do not understand why the Government 
 should make a distinction between its citizens. They press their claims 
 upon members of Congress at each session; bills are introduced for their 
 relief; Congress takes no action; and the same thing is repeated at the 
 next session. If an obligation on the part of the Government to pay these 
 claims exists, a great injustice is being done to the claimants by the inac- 
 tion of Congress. If there is, in the opinion of Congress, no obligation to 
 pay them, and no intention of paying them, let us say so, and not evade 
 the question longer. But, sir, as I have said, the obligation exists. The 
 people whose cause I present to-day do not come as suppliants for the 
 bounty of the Government, but as suitors for what, by every principle of 
 justice, is theirs. 
 
 I do not beg, I demand for them what the Government justly owes them. 
 I charge Congress with the virtual repudiation of an obligation of the Gov- 
 ernment as sacred as its obligation to pay its outstanding bonds. I charge 
 it with having repudiated this obligation at a time and under circumstances 
 which make a most unjust discrimination against the people of the far 
 West, under circumstances which have the appearance of selfishness upon 
 the part of the majority of Congress, and indifference to its obligation to 
 
459 
 
 the brave and loyal men, by whose enterprise and energy civilization has 
 been extended over the western slope of the continent. Their demand may 
 not be granted; my feeble presentation of their claims may not even dis- 
 turb the Committee on Indian Affairs in the even tenor of their way. The 
 bill under consideration may be consigned, with the others introduced by 
 me, which have preceded it, to the files of the committee, to sleep the sleep 
 of death; but I have done my duty in presenting the cause of as meritori- 
 ous a class of claimants as ever sought relief from Congress. They will 
 never understand why the Government so suddenly changed its policy, and 
 why their claims have been repudiated. They will not cease to demand 
 from Congress what they conceive to be their due ; and if their claims shall 
 be now ignored and relief denied them, let no one imagine that they will 
 cease from troubling Congress. The claims are just. If not paid before, 
 after the present claimants shall have passed from the stage of action, and 
 the claims are represented by their children, and grandchildren, and when 
 the Territories of the West have been admitted to the Union and are rep- 
 resented in both houses of Congress, their united strength, backed by the 
 uniform, practice of the Government for so many years, and the justice of 
 these claims, will succeed in accomplishing what, from their numerical 
 weakness, the delegation in Congress from the remote West is unable to 
 accomplish to-day. 
 
 Mr. President, I now submit as a part of my remarks a list of special 
 appropriations for payment of Indian depredation claims, as follows: 
 
 SPECIAL LEGISLATION. — APPROPRIATIONS FOR INDIAN DEPREDATION CLAIMS. 
 
 The following is a list of special appropriations for payment of Indian depredation 
 claims. In each case it is stated whether payment is to be made from the Treasury or 
 from the Indian annuities. The total of amounts appropriated from the Treasury is 
 $1,604,028 25 ; the total appropriated from Indian annuities is $197,716 37. But these totals 
 do not embrace the sums appropriated from the Treasury by several Acts (March 2, 1827 ; 
 May 31, 1830; June 30, 1834), in which the amounts are not specified. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1819 (Section 5, 3 Statutes, 517), .$4,000 is appropriated from the 
 Treasury to satisfy claims of citizens of the United States for property stolen or destroyed 
 by the Osages. 
 
 By Act of March 2, 1827 (6 Statutes, 361), William Morrison, late contractor for supplies 
 to the Army, is allowed credit (out of the Treasury) for sixty-nine beef cattle taken from 
 near the military post of Prairie Du Chien, in July, 1816, by certain predatory tribes of 
 Indians. 
 
 By Act of March 25, 1830 (6 Statutes, 408), the Secretary of War is directed to pay $6,703 
 from the Treasury to four persons for property taken by the Osage Indians from 1816 to 
 1823. 
 
 By Act of May 31, 1830 (4 Statutes, 428), certain depredation claims are referred to the 
 Third Auditor to be decided according to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of March 
 30, 1802, the money to be paid out of the Treasury. 
 
 By Act of March 2, 1831 (4 Statutes, 470), $1,300 is appropriated from the Treasury for 
 payment of sundry claims for Indian depredations. 
 
 By Act of June "28, 1834 (4 Statutes, 705), $7,800 is appropriated from the Treasury to 
 defray the expense of investigating claims against the Seminoles for property stolen or 
 destroyed by them and for liquidating such as may be satisfactorily established. 
 
 By Act of June 30, 1834 (4 Statutes, 721), payment not exceeding .$250,000 is granted out 
 of the Treasury to citizens of Georgia for claims founded upon the capture and detention 
 or destruction of property by Creek Indians prior to the Act of March 30, 1802. 
 
 By Act of June 30, 1834 (6 Statutes, 581), certain claims for Indian depredations are 
 referred to the Secretary of War, who is directed to pay out of the Treasury all which 
 shall be established. 
 
 By Act of July 1, 1836 (6 Statutes 6.59), $403 is appropriated from the Treasury to James 
 Alexander, and $575 to Ira Nash, for losses sustained and depredations committed by Sac 
 and Fox Indians in 1814. 
 
 By Act of July 2, 1836 (6 Statutes, 671), the Secretary of War is directed to pay to Joseph 
 Bogy $6,000 from the Indian annuities for his merchandise and property taken or destroyed 
 by the Choctaw Indians in 1807. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1837 (5 Statutes, 158-162), the President is directed to report to Con- 
 gress as to depredations committed by the Seminoles and Creeks, before and after the 
 resent Indian war. 
 
460 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1841 (6 Statutes, 822), the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to pay 
 out of the Treasury, to Avery, Saltmarsh & Co., mail contractors, $9,779 for property 
 employed by them in transporting the mail, captured and destroyed by the Creek Indians 
 in May, 1836. 
 
 By Act of June 15, 1844 (6 Statutes, 913), the Secretary of War is directed to pay to George 
 Wallis $3,000 out of the Indian annuities, for the destruction of cattle belonging to the 
 said Wallis, by the Sac and Fox and Iowa Indians. 
 
 By Act of August 9, 1846 (9 Statutes, 24 Private), $1,500 is appropriated from the Indian 
 annuities to pay to the legal representatives of Cyrus Turner for depredations committed 
 by Sioux Indians. 
 
 By Act of March 2, 1847 (9 Statutes, 41 Private), $1,081 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay Elijah White and others for property taken by the Pawnee Indians. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1847 (9 Statutes, 41 Private), $676 91 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay Joseph E. Primeau and Thomas J. Chapman for depredations committed by Yank- 
 ton Indians. 
 
 By Act of August 14, 1848 (9 Statutes, 90 Private), $800 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay Charles N. Gibson for a wagon captured and destroyed by the Seminole Indians in 
 Middle Florida in February, 1839. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1849(9 Statutes, 141 Private), $4,155 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay Thomas Talbot and others for property taken by the Pawnee Indians. 
 
 By Act of August 30, 1852 (10 Statutes, 41, 55), $1,200 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay James M. Marsh for losses for property taken by the Sioux Indians while extending 
 the line of surveys under contract. 
 
 By Act of January 18, 1855 (10 Statutes, 843), $500 is appropriated from the Treasury to 
 pay Moses D. Hogan for cattle taken by the Indians. 
 
 By Act of August 18, 1856 (11 Statutes, 65, 81), the Secretary of the Interior is ordered 
 to investigate claims for depredations by Indians in New Mexico. 
 
 By Act of March 16, 1858 (11 Statutes, 527, the sum of $200, with interest from the first 
 day of June, 1852, was appropriated from the Treasury to pay John Hamilton, of Cham- 
 paign County, Ohio, for his tmie and services during his imprisonment with the Indians 
 m the war of 1812 with Great Britain. 
 
 By Act of June 19, 1860 (12 Statutes, 44, 58^, $16,679 74 is appropriated from th« Treasury 
 to pay for the loss and destruction of property of citizens of Minnesota and Iowa at 
 Spirit Lake in 1857, by Sioux Indians. 
 
 By Act of March 2, 1861 (12 Statutes, 203), $9,640 74 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to indemnify citizens of Iowa and Minnesota for destruction of property at or near Spirit 
 Lake by Inkpadutah's band of Sioux Indians. 
 
 By Act of February 16, 1863 (12 Statutes, 652, 658), provision is made for payment out of 
 their forfeited annuities for damages done by Sioux Indians in Minnesota on the occasion 
 of the Sioux massacre in 1862. 
 
 - By Act of May 28, 1864 (13 Statutes, 92), $928,411 is appropriated from the Treasury to 
 pay the awards of the commission under the act of February 16, 1863, for damages done 
 by the Sioux Indians in 1862, and a further sum of $241,963 is appropriated for additional 
 claims. 
 
 By Act of June 29, 1866 (14 Statutes, 609), $28,175 is appropriated from the Treasury for 
 Elizabeth Woodward and George Chorpenning for destruction of property by Indians in 
 1862, and by the second section of the same Act $26,370 is appropriated from the Indian 
 annuities to pay George Chorpenning for property destroyed oy Indians prior to April 1, 
 1856. 
 
 By Act of March 2, 1868 (15 Statutes, 356), $400 is appropriated from the Treasury to the 
 widow of Maj. Gen. I. B. Richardson for one mule and four horses stolen from him by 
 Apache Indians while on military duty in New Mexico. 
 
 By Act of April 10, 1869 (16 Statutes, 13, 39), $10,906 34 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay for depredations committed by Indians in Northwestern Iowa, in 1857. 
 
 By Act of February 27, 1871 (16 Statutes, 704), $2,5(54 10 is appropriated out of any money 
 appropriated for the benefit of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians, to Lucy A. Smith, for 
 losses by depredations of said Indians in Nebraska. 
 
 By Act of May 7, 1872 (17 Statutes, 395), commissioners are appointed to examine into 
 depredations committed by Indians and Mexicans in Texas. 
 
 By Act of May 21, 1872 (17 Statutes, 661), $14,650 is appropriated from the Treasury to 
 indemnify Charles F. Tracy for depredations committed by Apaches in May, 1870. 
 
 By Act of June 5, 1872 (17 Statutes, 675), $10,000 is appropriated from the Treasury to 
 pay Mrs. Fanny Kelly for property taken and destroved by Sioux Indians in 1864. 
 
 By Act of June 10, 1872 (17 Statutes, 690), $30,000 is' appropriated from the Treasury to 
 pay the heirs of Alexander Watson for property lost, captured, or destroyed in Florida 
 during the Indian hostilities commencing in 1835. 
 
 By Act of June 10, 1872 (17 Statutes, 701), $13,200 is appropriated from the Treasury to 
 Elbridge Gerry for valuable services rendered the Government in 1864, and for all claims 
 for Indian depredations up to the date of the passage of this Act. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1873 (17 Statutes, 766), $2,250 is appropriated from the Treasury to 
 Mrs. Ann Marble, administratrix, for losses by depredations by Cheyenne Indians. 
 
 By Act of April 28, 1874 (18 Statutes, 543), $1,095 37 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay Mrs. Siloma Deck for losses by depredations by Sioux Indians in 1862. 
 
461 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1875 (18 Statutes, 424), $2,500 each is appropriated to Adelaide 
 German and Julia German, two white children captured in Kansas, the same to be with- 
 held from annuities due the Cheyennes. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1877 (19 Statutes, 549), $2,283 92 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay Hans C. Peterson for damages by Sioux Indians in Minnesota in 1862. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1879 (20 Statutes, 39G), $2,915 with interest at 7 per cent is appropriated 
 from any treaty funds of the Kiowa Indians, to the heirs of Abel S. Lee for property 
 taken and destroyed by the Kiowa Indians in 1872. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1879 (20 Statutes, 390), $5,000 is appropriated out of any money 
 hereafter appropriated for the use and benefit of the Cheyenne Indians, to Mrs. Celia C. 
 Short. 
 
 By Act of June 8, 1880 (21 Statutes, 549), $15,867 50 is appropriated to pay Henry Warren 
 for "damages sustained by depredations of Indians in 1871, while Warren was a Govern- 
 ment contractor, the same to be withheld from the annuities due the Indians. 
 
 By Act of June 16, 1880 (21 Statutes, 588), $2,000 is appropriated from the annuities due 
 the Cheyenne or Arapaho Indians to Amanda M. Cook, whose mother was killed and 
 herself captured by the Indians in 1865. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1881 (21 Statutes, (MO), $58,659 46 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay Dodd, Brown & Co., assignees of E. M. Durfee & Co., and others, for depredations 
 committed bv various tribes of Indians, the amounts to be deducted from the annuities. 
 
 By Act of May 17, 1882 (22 Statutes, 86), $9,870 10 is appropriated from unexpended 
 balances of treaty funds to pay various claimants for damages caused by raids of North- 
 ern Chevennes. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1883 (22 Statutes, 804), $12,200 is appropriated from moneys due the 
 Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians to Powers & Newman, and D. and B. Powers for depre- 
 dations committed by these Indians. 
 
 By Act of March 20, 1884 (23 Statutes, 525), $5,400 is appropriated from the Treasury 
 to pay Louisa Boddv for depredations committed by the Modoc Indians. 
 
 By Act of March 3, 1885 (23 Statutes, 498), $46,770 21 is appropriated to pay W. C. Oburn 
 out of annuities for depredations committed by the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians. 
 
462 
 
 List of all Treaties by which the Indians Agree to Allow Payment of Claims against 
 them, out of their annuities, for depredations committed on the property of 
 White Men. 
 
 [The references by pages are to the "Eevision of Indian Ti-eaties," 1873.] 
 
 Tribes. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Article. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Blackfeet 
 
 Calapooias 
 
 Chastas 
 
 Cherokees 
 
 Cherokees 
 
 Chej^ennes and Arapahoes 
 
 North Cheyennes and North Arapahoes. . . 
 
 Chippewas (see note a below) 
 
 Comanches and Wichitas j May 19, 
 
 Comanches, Kiowas, Apaches February 12, 1854 
 
 Comanches, Kiowas August 25, 1868... 
 
 Crows - July 25, 1868 
 
 April 25, 1856.... 
 April 10,1855-... 
 April 10,1855-... 
 January 21, 1795 
 October 2, 1798.. 
 August 19,1868.. 
 August 25, 1868.- 
 May 5,1864 .... 
 
 Dwamish and Squamish 
 
 Flatheads .... 
 
 Kansas (see note b below) 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Kiowas, Katakas, etc. 
 
 Makahs 
 
 Navajos - 
 
 Nes Percys 
 
 Nisquallies, Puyallups 
 
 •Omahas 
 
 Osages (see note c below)... ^ January 7, 1819 
 
 Osages (see noted below) 1 December 30, 1825.- 
 
 Osages (see note e below) March 2, 1839 - 
 
 Oregon, Middle April 19, 1859 
 
 Otoes and Missourias June 21, 1854 
 
 Pawnees , May 26, 1858 
 
 April 11, 1859 
 
 April 18, 1859 
 
 December 30, 1825-.- 
 December30, 1825-.. 
 February 21,1838.... 
 April 18, 1859.- 
 August 12, 1818 
 April 29, 1859.. 
 March 3, 1855. 
 June 21, 1854 
 
 Poncas . 
 
 •Quapaws 
 
 Quinaielts, etc 
 
 Sacs and Foxes 
 
 .S'Klallams 
 
 Snakes 
 
 Sioux, Yanktons 
 
 Sioux, Mendawakanton, Wahpakosta. 
 
 Sioux, Sisseton, Wahpeton 
 
 Sioux, Brul6, Ogallalia 
 
 Shoshones, Eastern and Bannacks ... 
 
 Utahs 
 
 Umpquas and Calapooias 
 
 Utes 
 
 Walla Wallas and Cayuses 
 
 Yakamas 
 
 April 11, 1859 
 
 July 15, 1818 
 
 April 11, 1859 
 
 February 12, 1823., 
 
 April 29, 1859 
 
 July 10, 1866 
 
 February 26, 1859. 
 March 31, 1859 .... 
 March 31, 1859 .... 
 February 24, 1869. 
 February 24, 1869.. 
 December 14, 1864, 
 March 30, 1855.... 
 
 November 6, 1868 
 
 April 11,1859 
 
 April 18, 1859 
 
 11 
 
 6 
 8 
 4 
 9 
 1 
 1 
 4 
 
 3, 5 
 4,108 
 1 
 1 
 9 
 8 
 7 
 
 10 
 3, 5, 7 
 9 
 1 
 8 
 8 
 10 
 
 1, 2 
 9 
 6 
 7 
 9 
 5 
 7 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 22 
 
 25 
 
 32 
 
 35 
 
 130 
 
 136 
 
 255 
 
 304, 305 
 
 310, 311 
 
 319 
 
 328 
 
 381 
 
 388, 389 
 
 412 
 
 413 
 
 456, 457 
 
 463, 464 
 
 528 
 
 537, 538 
 
 563 
 
 567, 568 
 
 575, 576 
 
 580 
 
 584 
 
 627 
 
 640 
 
 653 
 
 664 
 
 717, 718 
 
 725, 726 
 
 738, 739 
 
 803 
 
 805 
 
 861 
 
 88, 89 
 
 907 
 
 914, 915 
 
 932 
 
 972 
 
 980, 981 
 
 983, 984 
 
 992 
 
 1,045 
 
 a The United States agrees to appropriate $100,000 to pay for depredations and forcible exactions. 
 b The United States agrees to pay for all depredations since 1815. 
 
 c Depi-edations committed since 1814 are to be paid by the United States, in consideration of the cession of 
 Indian lands. 
 
 d The United States agrees to pay for all depredations since 1808. 
 e The United States agrees to pay all depredation claims. 
 
468 
 
 List of all Treaties by which the Indians Agree to Use Their Best Efforts to Return 
 Stolen Property or to Punish Offenders, but do not Provide for Payment out of 
 their Annuities. 
 
 [The references by pages are to the "Kevision of Indian Treaties," 1873.] 
 
 Date. 
 
 Article. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Belantse-Etoas, etc 
 
 Chippewas 
 
 Chippewas 
 
 Comanches, lonies, Anadacas, Caddoes, etc 
 
 Crows 
 
 Delawares 
 
 lowas 
 
 Kaskaskias, Peorias 
 
 Klamath, etc 
 
 Kickapoos 
 
 Makahs 
 
 Miamies 
 
 Mandans 
 
 Osages -- - 
 
 Osages 
 
 Otoes and Missourias 
 
 Pawnees 
 
 Poncas 
 
 Ricaras .-. 
 
 Rogue Rivers - 
 
 Sacs and Foxes 
 
 Shawnees 
 
 Sioux, Yanktons, Tetons, Yanktonais 
 
 Sioux, Ogallallas 
 
 Sioux, Oncpapas 
 
 Unipquas 
 
 Winnebagoes — 
 
 February 6, 1826. 
 January 29, 1855 . 
 
 April?, 1855 
 
 March 8, 1847 
 
 February 6, 1826.. 
 February 14, 1805 
 
 July 17, 1854 
 
 August 10, 1854 . . 
 February 17, 1870 
 
 July 17, 1854 
 
 February 6, 1826 . 
 August 4, 1854 ... 
 February 6, 1826 . 
 December 26, 1815 
 January 21, 1867 . 
 February 6, 1826 . 
 February 6, 1826 . 
 February 6, 1826 . 
 February 26, 1826 
 April 12, 1854 .... 
 
 July 17, 1854 
 
 November 2, 1854 
 February 6, 1826 . 
 February 6, 1826 . 
 February 6, 1826 . 
 February 5, 1855 . 
 May 23, '1855 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 14, 15 
 225, 226 
 
 9 
 
 270 
 
 8 
 
 307 
 
 5 
 
 326, 327 
 
 3 
 
 336 
 
 11 
 
 406 
 
 10 
 
 429 
 
 9 
 
 436 
 
 9 
 
 447 
 
 5 
 
 460 
 
 9 
 
 519 
 
 6 
 
 466 
 
 9 
 
 573, 574 
 
 10 
 
 588 
 
 5 
 
 632 
 
 5 
 
 643 
 
 5 
 
 667, 668 
 
 6 
 
 728, 729 
 
 6 
 
 731, 732 
 
 10 
 
 761, 762 
 
 14 
 
 800 
 
 5 
 
 868 
 
 5 
 
 872, 873 
 
 5 
 
 874, 875 
 
 6 
 
 976 
 
 10 
 
 1,010 
 
464 
 
 List of all Treaties by which it is Provided that the Indians shall be Paid by the 
 Government for Depredations Committed on their Property by White Men. 
 
 [The references by pages are to the " Revision of Indian Treaties," 1873.] 
 
 Tribes. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Article. I Page. 
 
 Blackfeet 
 
 Belantse-Etoas .-- 
 
 Cherokees 
 
 Creeks 
 
 Cheyennes and Arapahoes 
 
 Number Cheyennes and number Arapahoes. 
 
 Choctaws and Chickasaws 
 
 Comanches and Wichitas 
 
 Comanches, Kiowas, Apaches.. 
 
 Comanches, Kiowas 
 
 Crows 
 
 Crows 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Kiowas, Katakas, etc. 
 
 Makahs 
 
 Mandans ._ 
 
 Navajoes 
 
 Osages 
 
 Otoes and Missourias 
 
 Pawnees .-. 
 
 Poncas '. 
 
 Quapaws 
 
 Ricaras 
 
 Rogue Rivers 
 
 Sacs and Foxes 
 
 Shawnees' 
 
 Sioux, Yanktons, Tetons, Yanktonais 
 Sioux, Ogallallas 
 
 Sioux, Oncpapas 
 
 Sioux, Ogallallas, Bruits 
 
 Shoshones, Eastern, and Bannacks 
 
 Utahs. 
 
 Umpquas __. 
 
 Utes 
 
 April 25, 1856 
 
 February 6, 1826 .. 
 October 2, 1798.-. 
 August 28, 1856... 
 August 19, 1868... 
 August 25, 1868 ... 
 
 March 4, 1856 
 
 May 19, 1836 
 
 February 12, 1854 . 
 August 25, 1868 ... 
 February 6, 1826 . . 
 
 July 25. 1868 
 
 December 30, 1825. 
 February 21, 1838 . 
 February 6, 1826.. 
 February 6, 1826.. 
 August 12, 1818 ... 
 December 26, 1815. 
 February 6, 1826.. 
 February 6, 1826.. 
 February 6, 1826 . . 
 
 July 15, 1818 
 
 February 26, 1825 . 
 
 April 12, 1854 
 
 February 12, 1823 . 
 November 2, 1854 . 
 February 6, 1826.. 
 February 6, 1826.. 
 February 6, 1826 . . 
 February 24, 1869 _ 
 February 24, 1869 . 
 December 14, 1864. 
 February 5, 1855.. 
 November 6, 1868 . 
 
 9 
 
 18 
 1 
 1 
 
 14 
 3 
 4,108 
 1 
 5 
 1 
 
 10 
 3,5, 7 
 5 
 6 
 1 
 9 
 5 
 5 
 5 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 5 
 
 11 
 5 
 5 
 5 
 1 
 1 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 14, 15 
 
 35 
 
 112 
 
 130 
 
 136 
 
 280 
 
 304 
 
 310, 311 
 
 319 
 
 326, 327 
 
 328 
 
 413 
 
 456, 457 
 
 460 
 
 466 
 
 528 
 
 573, 574 
 
 643 
 
 643 
 
 667, 668 
 
 717, 718 
 
 728, 729 
 
 731, 732 
 
 738, 739 
 
 872, 873 
 
 574, 575 
 
 914, 915 
 
 932 
 
 972 
 
 976 
 
 983, 984 
 
EXHIBITS 
 
 EEBELLION CLAIM. 
 
 30' 
 
EXHIBIT No. 1. 
 
 San Quentin, Cal., December 21, 1879. 
 
 My Dear Captain: I received your letter of the twenty-seventh ultimo 
 some time ago, and although I have twice been in Sacramento, I have been 
 unable to see the General until two days ago. I find he has nothing to do 
 with the matters of the State's war claims. 
 
 By Act of Congress, 1861, the Governors of States are made the agents, 
 or declared the proper parties, to collect claims arising out of the rebel- 
 lion. In accordance with this Act, and an Act of our Legislature, passed 
 soon after Governor Booth became Governor, he appointed as agents for 
 the purpose of making such collections. Judge Hale and Thos. Nosier. 
 They employed me to put the papers in shape, which I did, and all the 
 original vouchers were sent to Washington and are now in the hands of 
 my friend Arthur Denver. These papers have been laying there for over 
 seven years — why I do not know. Arthur Denver can explain the whole 
 matter to you, as the business is in his hands, and he is interested. Of 
 •course, if he could have done anything before this he would have done so. 
 As to the Indian war claims, the State absolutely refuses to recognize them, 
 having outlawed them by Act of the Legislature many years ago. The 
 Act was repudiation, nevertheless our glorious young State did the thing. 
 
 There is money in the civil war claims, the State's claim being just for a 
 large sum of money. See Arthur and if you and he come to the conclu- 
 sion anything can be done at present, I will bring about an arrangement 
 with the agents in your interest. All well. 
 Yours truly, 
 
 JAMES A. JOHNSON. 
 
 Capt. John Mullan. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 2. 
 
 Know all men by these presents, that on the twenty-sixth day of Feb- 
 Tuary, 1881, the Legislature of the State of California did pass the fol- 
 lowing Concurrent Resolution : 
 
 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, NO. 12. 
 
 Whereas, The Legislature of the State of California did, on March 1, 
 1872, pass the following preamble and resolution, to wit : 
 
 Whereas, The Congress of the United States did, on the twenty-seventh of July, 1861, 
 pass the following Act to wit: "Be it enacted," etc., ''that the Secretary of the Treasury 
 DC, and he is hereby directed, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
 ated, to pay the Governor of any State, or his duly authorized agents, the costs, charges, 
 and expenses properly incurred by such State for enrolling, subsisting, clothing, supply- 
 ing, arming, equipping, paying, and transporting its troops employed in aiding to suppress 
 the present insurrection against the United States, to be settled upon, proper vouchers to 
 be filed and passed upon by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury; and whereas, 
 it is believed that, under this Act, a considerable sum of money is due from the General 
 Government to the State of California; therefore, be it 
 
 " Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That the Governor be authorized to con- 
 tract with the agents, to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Act referred 
 
468 
 
 to ; that their compensation for services rendered under said Act shall not exceed in the 
 aggregate ten per cent of the money collected and paid to the State, provided that the 
 State shall, in no event, become liable for any expenses, fees, or salaries of any nature 
 whatever, other than such contingent commission;" and whereas, the Governor did, on 
 the fifteenth day of March, 1872, appoint and commission James E. Hale and Thomas M. 
 Nosier as agents on the part of the State of California to collect, or cause to be collected, 
 such claims, and fixed the amount of the commissions at ten per cent of the sums col- 
 lected; and whereas, the said sum of ten per cent is totally inadequate for the service to 
 be performed, and the necessary expenses to be incurred; therefore, be it 
 
 Resolved, That the Governor is hereby authorized to fix the compensation to be received 
 by the said Commissioners at twenty-five per cent of each of the sums or claims which 
 may be, by them or their agents, collected from the Government of the United States. 
 
 And whereas, the said Commission issued, as recited in the foregoing 
 preamble and resolution, to the said James E. Hale and Thomas M. Nosier,, 
 is as follows : 
 
 Know all men by these presents, that I, Kewton Booth, Governor of the State of Cali- 
 fornia, under and in pursuance of an Act of the Congress of the United States, entitled 
 "An Act to indemnify the States for expenses incurred by them in defense of the United 
 States," approved July 27, 1861, and in pursuance of Senate Concurrent Resolution, No. 
 36, adopted and concurred in by the Assembly at the nineteenth session of the Legisla- 
 ture of the State of California, reciting the said Act of Congress, and resolving that the 
 Governor be authorized to contract with the agents, to be appointed in accordance with 
 the provisions of the Act referred to; that their compensation, for services rendered 
 under said Act, shall not exceed in the aggregate ten per cent of the moneys collected 
 and paid to the State; provided, that the State shall, in no event, become liable for any 
 expenses, fees, or salaries, of any nature whatever, other than such contingent Commis- 
 sion, have nominated, constituted, and appointed, and by these presents do nominate, 
 constitute, and appoint those worthy and trusty citizens, James E. Hale, of the County 
 of Placer, and Thomas M. Nosier, of the City and County of San Francisco, my true and 
 lawful agents and attorneys in fact, for me and in my name, as Governor of the State of 
 California, as aforesaid, aiid in my place and stead as such Governor, and for and in 
 behalf of the State of California, to ask, demand, prosecute to collection, recover, and 
 receive of and from the Government of the United States of America, all and every such 
 sum or sums of money as may have been advanced, disbursed, paid, laid out, or expended 
 by the State of California for enrolling, subsisting, clothing, supplying, arming, equip- 
 ping, paying, and transporting its troops, employed in aiding to suppress the insurrection 
 against the United States, existing and in progress at the time of the passage of said Act 
 ot Congress; and my said agents are, and their said substitute or substitutes, are hereby 
 authorized and empowered to prosecute, either in the name of the State of California or 
 in my name, as the Governor thereof, any and all claims and demands which said State 
 may have against the Government of the United States, for or on account of the costs 
 and expenses incurred, payed, or defrayed, for the purposes before mentioned, under the- 
 Act of Congress, before mentioned, or any other Act of Congress, before the Courts of the 
 United States, or the Congress thereof, or any department of the Government thereof, in 
 such manner as to them, or him or them, shall seem to be for the best interests of said 
 State of California ; and upon the payment thereof, either in whole or in part, proper 
 receipts and acquittances to give, sign, and deliver in my name, as such Governor; also, 
 to sign all orders, vouchers, and all bonds of indemnity, or bonds on appeal, and to 
 indorse all drafts, and orders, and vouchers in my name, as such Governor, either with 
 or without indicating that the same is done by procuration, which may be requisite or 
 necessary in or about the prosecution of said business, or the collection of said claims or ■ 
 demands. Giving and granting unto my said agents and attorneys in fact, and to their 
 substitutes, full power and authority to do and perform all and eVery act or thing what- 
 soever, which may be or become necessary or requisite to be done in and about the 
 premises, as fully, to all intents and purposes, as I, as such Governor, might or could do 
 if personally present; and also one or more agents and attorneys under them to appoint,, 
 employ, and retain, with full x>ower of substitution and revocation, hereby ratifying and 
 confirming all that my said agents and attorneys, or their substitutes, shall lawfully do or 
 cause to be done by virtue hereof; distinctly providing, however, that no expense or obli- 
 gation shall be incurred by them, or him or them, in the prosecution of said business, or 
 the collection of said claims or demands, for which the State of California, or 1, a& such 
 Governor, shall or may, in any event, become liable. The compensation of my said 
 agents and attorneys in fact, and their substitutes, being contingent upon the payment or 
 adjustment of said claims or demands; this power of attorney is intended to include the 
 protection of them and their interests, and compensation for them and their services in 
 the premises, as per agreement of even date herewith, and, therefore, is and shall be: 
 irrevocable. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I hereunto set my hand, and have caused the great seal of State 
 to be affixed, at the City of Sacramento, State of California, this fifteenth day of March, in. 
 the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two. 
 
 [seal of the state of CALIFORNIA.] NEWTON BOOTH, 
 
 Governor of California. 
 
469 
 
 Now, therefore, by virtue of the power vested in me as Governor of the State of Cali- 
 fornia, and by virtue of the said Act of Congress and the said resolution, hereinbefore 
 recited, I hereby reaffirm the said Commission herein recited, with all the powers therein 
 contained, and fix the compensation of the said Commissioners, in accordance with the 
 said resolution, at the sum of twenty-five per cent of each of the sums or claims collected 
 for the State of California from the Government of the United States. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I hereunto set my hand, and have caused the great seal of State 
 to be affixed, at the City of Sacramento, State of California, this first day of March, in the 
 year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-ouK 
 
 [seal of the state of CALIFORNIA.] GEORGE C. PERKINS, 
 
 Governor of California. 
 
 State of California, ) 
 
 Department of State, j * 
 
 I, Thomas L. Thompson, Secretary of State of the State of California, hereby certify 
 that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a Commission and power of attor- 
 ney, duly executed as therein set forth, by George C. Perkins, Governor of the State of 
 California, on the first day of March, A. D. 1871, at the City and County of Sacramento, 
 and caused the great seal of said State to be thereunto affixed, as therein set forth. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I hereunto set my hand, and have hereunto affixed the great 
 seal of State of California, at the City of Sacramento, this ninth (9th) day of February, 
 in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three. 
 
 [SEAL.] THOS. L. THOMPSON, 
 
 Secretary of State of the State of California. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 1V^. 
 
 Hon. 0. Welborn, U. S. H. R. 
 
 February 16, 
 
 Dear Sir: Permit me to call your attention to the fact that the Secre- 
 tary of War in his estimates to Congress asks for $25,000 in order to enable 
 him to execute the Act of Congress, twenty-seventh June, 1882. In exam- 
 ining State claims, I am doing all I can as State Agent for California, 
 Oregon, and Nevada, with our delegations, and because all three of said States 
 are interested therein, and as Texas is also interested therein, may I ask 
 your considerate attention to the matter, believing as I do, that a forcible 
 word from you to the members of the Appropriation Committee having the 
 Sundry Civil Bill in charge, would secure said item in said bill. I shall 
 also give to our Pacific Coast Senators such data in regard thereto as may 
 aid the matter in the Senate. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 State Agent for California, Oregon, and Nevada. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, second session. H. R. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. February 19, 1885 — Referred to the 
 Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed. 
 
 AMENDMENT 
 
 Intended to be proposed by Mr. Dolph to the bill (H. R. — ) making 
 appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal 
 year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty-six, and for other 
 purposes, viz.: Insert the following: 
 
 Examination of State claims under Act of June twenty-seventh, eighteen 
 hundred and eighty-two: For payment of expenses of a Board of three 
 
470 
 
 officers of the army to be detailed to assist the Secretary of War in ex- 
 amining and reporting upon the claims of the States and Territories named 
 in the Act of Jmie twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and eighty-two (chap- 
 ter two hundred and forty-one of the laws of the Forty-seventh Congress, 
 first session), while on such duty, including clerk hire, hotel, traveling, and 
 such other necessary expenses as shall be approved by the Secretary of 
 War; provided, that said officers shall, before proceeding to the discharge 
 of said duties, be sworn that they will carefully examine said claims, and 
 that they will, to the best of their ability, make a just, true, and impartial 
 statement thereof, as required by said Act; this amount to be immediately 
 available, twenty-five thousand dollars. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 3. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. Senate. Mis. Doc. No. 54. 
 
 LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF WAR TO HON. S. B. MAXEY, 
 
 In relation to the claim of the State of Texas, presented under the Act of 
 
 June 27, 1882. 
 
 January 29, 1886 — Referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and 
 ordered to be printed. 
 
 War Department, ] 
 W^ASHiNGTON CiTY, January 17, 1886. j 
 
 Sir: Referring to our recent conversation in regard to the claim of the 
 State of Texas, presented under the Act of June 27, 1882 (22 Stats., Ill, 
 112), I have the honor to inform you that the first installment of the claim 
 (amount, $671,400 29) came before the Department from the Third Aud- 
 itor of the Treasur}^ July 9, 1884, and the action then taken in the matter 
 appears in the letter from this Department to Mr. Dorn, dated July 16, 
 1884, copy herewith. The papers therein mentioned were returned to the 
 agent of the State July 25, 1884. November 2, 1885, the Third Auditor of the 
 Treasury wrote to the Department, transmitting, through Mr. W. H. Pope, 
 agent of the State, the papers in the claim, which papers were received 
 here November 17, 1885, and they are now being stamped and marked. 
 
 In regard to the subject of the State claims mentioned in said Act, I beg 
 to inform you that the great difficulty experienced in disposing of the claim 
 of the State of Kansas, the first one presented thereunder, has caused the 
 Department to delay taking up the other claims pending. While the title 
 of the Act, and the wording of the first section thereof, would seem to con- 
 vey the impression that the claims were to be adjusted by the Secretary 
 of the Treasury, " with the aid and assistance of the Secretary of War," 
 the whole duty of examining and auditing the claims was, by Section 2, 
 imposed upon the Secretary of War, leaving the Treasury Department the 
 simple duty of verifying the computations of the Secretary of War. 
 
 The policy thus indicated differed widely from that prescribed in Section 
 236 of the Revised Statutes, that "all claims and demands whatever by 
 the United States, or against them, and all accounts whatever in which the 
 United States are concerned, either as debtors or as creditors, shall be set- 
 tled and adjusted in the Department of the Treasury," and differs also from 
 the provisions for the adjudication of State claims under the Act of July 
 27, 1861 (12 Stats., page 276), which were "to be settled upon proper vouch- 
 
471 
 
 ers, to be filed, and passed upon by the proper accounting officers of the 
 Treasury." 
 
 The claims arising under the Act are said to amount to $10,000,000 (that 
 of Texas is now stated at $1,842,443 78), and the vast labor of examining 
 the papers, pointing out the evidence required to perfect the vouchers and 
 show the necessity of calling out the militia, whose services are charged 
 for, fixing the rate to be allowed on each voucher, and tabulating the same, 
 many thousand in number, must be performed by the Secretary of War, 
 and no provision has been provided by Congress for this laborious work. 
 
 Two years were consumed in disposing of the claim of the State of Kan- 
 sas, and if the same course is to be pursued with the other claims arising 
 under the Act, it will be some time before the claim of Texas is reached; 
 that of Nevada being next in order of receipt. 
 
 The subject of the claims was brought to the attention of Congress at the 
 last session (see report of Secretary of War for 1884, pages 4, 5, and esti- 
 mates for 1886 on page 206, of House Ex. Doc. No. 5, Forty-eighth Con- 
 gress, second session), and it has again been presented in the Secretary's 
 report' for 1885 (pages 35 and 36) . An estimate to defray the cost of exam- 
 ining the claims will be found on page 225 of House Ex. Doc. No. 5, Forty- 
 ninth Congress, first session. 
 
 I inclose draft of a bill which, if enacted, will enable the Department to 
 dispose of the matter. 
 
 Copies of the above mentioned reports are inclosed. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Hon. S. B. Maxey, United States Senate. 
 
 WM. C. ENDICOTT, 
 
 Secretary of War. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 4. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. S. 1284. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. January 29, 1886. 
 Mr. Maxey introduced the following bill, which was read twice, and 
 referred to the Committee on Appropriations: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To enable the Secretary of War to examine the claims of the States of Texas, 
 Colorado^ Oregon^ California, and Nevada, and the Territories of Wash- 
 ington and Idaho, as directed by the Act approved June twenty-seventh y 
 eighteen hundred and eighty-two, chapter two hundred and forty-one of the 
 laws of the Forty-seventh Congress, first session. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled. That the sum of twenty-five thou- 
 sand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appro- 
 priated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for 
 payment of the expenses of a board of three officers of the army to be 
 detailed to assist the Secretary of War in examining and reporting upon 
 the claims of the States and Territories named in the Act of June twenty- 
 seventh, eighteen hundred and eighty-two (chapter two hundred and forty- 
 one of the laws of the Forty-seventh Congress, first session) , while on such 
 duty, including clerk hire, hotel, traveling, and such other necessary 
 
472 
 
 expenses as shall be approved by the Secretary of War; provided, that 
 said officers shall, before proceeding to the discharge of said duties, be 
 sworn that they will carefully examine said claims, and that they will, to 
 the best of their ability, make a just, true, and impartial statement thereof, 
 as required by said Act; this amount to be immediately available. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 5. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. 9478. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. July 1, 1886 — Referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed. • 
 
 AMENDMENT 
 
 Intended to be proposed by Mr. Maxey to the bill (H. R. 9478) making 
 appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal 
 year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and for 
 other purposes, viz.: Insert the following: 
 
 That the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars, or so much thereof as 
 may be necessary, is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treas- 
 ury not otherwise appropriated, for payment of the expenses of a board of 
 three officers of the army to be detailed to assist the Secretary of War in 
 examining and reporting upon the claims of the States and Territories 
 named in the Act of June twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and eighty- 
 two (chapter two hundred and forty-one of the laws of the Forty-seventh 
 Congress, first session), while on such duty, including clerk hire, hotel, 
 traveling, and such other necessary expenses as shall be approved by the 
 Secretary of War; provided, that said officers shall, before proceeding to 
 the discharge of said duties, be sworn that they will carefully examine 
 said claims, and that they will, to the best of their ability, make a just, 
 true, and impartial statement thereof, as required by said Act; this amount 
 to be immediately available. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 6. 
 
 The reading of the bill was resumed. The next amendment of the Com- 
 mittee on Appropriations was, after line 2160, to insert: 
 
 Examination of claims of certain States and Territories : To enable the Secretary of. War 
 to make examination and report upon the claims of the States and Territories named in 
 the Act of June 27, 1882 (chapter 241 of the laws of the Forty-seventh Congress, first ses- 
 sion), $7,500, said sum to be expended in his discretion. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds. I should like to have the Chairman explain that fully. 
 What are these claims? 
 
 Mr. Allison. These are the Indian hostility claims. An Act was passed 
 June 27, 1882. I wish to amend the amendment by inserting $10,000 in 
 the line 2167 instead of $7,500. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds. I wish the Senator would explain a little more fully 
 what this provision is of 1882. 
 
 Mr. Allison. The Senator has the statutes. It applies to several States 
 and Territories. It applies to Kansas, Texas, Oregon, and, I think, Nevada. 
 The State of Kansas has had her claim settled and paid, and the State of 
 
473 
 
 Texas, I believe, is now having her claims examined. It is necessary for 
 the Secretary of War to have an appropriation for the purpose of enabling 
 the proper officers of the Government to make these examinations. It is 
 merely intended to cover expenditures. 
 
 Mr. Hoar. What are they? 
 
 Mr. Allison. The examinations are made by the regular army officers. 
 
 Mr. Hoar. What is the nature of the claims? 
 
 Mr. Allison. They arise out of Indian wars. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds. It is a pretty broad statute. 
 
 Mr. Allison. So it is. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds. I should be glad to have a little attention given to this. 
 This Act of the twenty-seventh of June, 1882, chapter 241 of the laws of 
 the first session of the Forty-seventh Congress (volume 22, page 111), pro- 
 vides — 
 
 That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed, with the aid and 
 assistance of the Secretary of War— 
 
 Which I suppose implies military assistance by the armies of the United 
 States — 
 
 To cause to be examined and investigated all the claims of the States of Texas, Colorado, 
 Oregon, Nebraska, California, Kansas, and Nevada, and the Territories of Washington 
 and Idaho, against the United States of America for moneys alleged to have been expended 
 and for indebtedness alleged to have been assumed by said States and Territories in 
 organizing, arming, equipping, supplying, clothing, subsisting, transporting, and paying 
 the volunteer and military forces of said States and Territories called into active service 
 by the proper authorities thereof, between the fifteenth day of April, in the year 1861, and 
 the date of this Act. 
 
 Being a period of twenty years in round numbers- 
 
 To repeal invasions and Indian hostilities in said States and Territories and upon their 
 "borders, including all proper expenses necessarily incurred by said States and Territories 
 on accoimt of said forces having been so called into active service as aforesaid, and also 
 all proper claims paid or assumed by said States and Territories for horses and equip- 
 ments actually lost by said forces while in line of duty in active service (excepting and 
 excluding therefrom any claim said State of Oregon may have for money expended and 
 indebtedness assumed or incurred in suppressing Modoc Indian hostilities during the Modoc 
 Indian war, and in defending that State from invasion by said Indians during the years 
 1872 and 1873, which were submitted to and passed upon, by either approval or rejection, 
 by Inspector-Oeneral James A. Hardie, United States Army), Said accounts for and on 
 behalf of said State of Texas shall be confined to claims arising since the twentieth day of 
 October, 1865, and shall include the necessary expenses of defense against Mexican raids 
 or invasions, as well as those for defense against Indian hostilities, and for and on behalf 
 Of said Territories of Idaho and Washington for said claims arising in the years 1877 and 
 
 Then it makes sundry limitations. That Act is four years old and 
 upward, and I should like to ask the Chairman of the committee how much 
 money has been appropriated already for these examinations and reports. 
 
 Mr. Allison. This is the first appropriation, I will say to the Senator 
 from Vermont, for this purpose, but it has been estimated for by every Sec- 
 retary of War since the passage of this Act. Secretary Lincoln estimated 
 $25,000, and the present Secretary estimated $25,000, and wrote to the 
 committee a very urgent letter respecting it, and stated that these claims 
 were being pressed. They are on file in the War Department, and they 
 are being pressed by the States interested, and it is absolutely necessary 
 that he shall have a small fund — he estimated for a fund of $25,000 — to 
 enable him to make a critical and careful examination of these claims. 
 The Committee on Appropriations inserted $7,500, and have instructed me 
 
474 
 
 since that to move to increase it to $10,000. I therefore move that amend- 
 ment to the amendment of the committee. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds. It is a very dangerous law. 
 
 Mr. Alhson. So it is, but it is there. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds. I think we might well hold up a little while and see 
 about that. 
 
 Mr. Allison. It is very difficult to hold up without repealing the law. 
 The Committee on Appropriations on examination of the question felt that 
 it was important to make some provision in order to give the Secretary of 
 War an opportunity to make a careful investigation of these claims. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds. It is no more difficult to hold up than it has been for 
 four years last past, I suppose. There is no gravitation that increases the 
 rapidity of the pressure. 
 
 Mr. Allison. But the Secretary of War has already made some examina- 
 tions. The State of Kansas has had all her claims presented, examined, 
 and paid. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds. Out of what fund was the examination made? 
 
 Mr. Allison. It was made without any additional appropriation. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds. Why can it not be done again? 
 
 Mr. Allison. There was no appropriation made for the examination of 
 those claims; but there has been one appropriation made for the payment 
 of the Kansas claims, an appropriation of $230,000. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds. Do you mean to say $230,000 has been spent in the 
 examination already? 
 
 Mr. Allison. No; I say claims have been examined to the extent of 
 $230,000 of the State of Kansas and have been paid by appropriations 
 under that law. The claims of the State of Texas I think are much larger 
 than the claims of the State of Kansas, and the claims of the other States 
 and Territories are on file in the War Department, and the Secretaryof 
 War desires to make a careful and critical examination of certain of these 
 claims, and he has no fund with which to make that examination. This 
 appropriation is for that purpose. 
 
 The President pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amend- 
 ment of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Allison] to the amendment of the 
 Committee on Appropriations. 
 
 Mr. Dolph. I desire to say in regard to this law that although it was 
 passed before I became a member of this body I have examined it since, 
 and the class of claims payment of which is provided for under the Act 
 referred to by the Senator from Vermont is a class of claims that has always 
 been paid by the General Government. The States have always been 
 reimbursed for expenses in defending themselves against Indian hostilities 
 and against invasions. There is not a precedent to the contrary since the 
 Constitution was formed. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds. Does the Senator mean to say that was the breadth of 
 this Act of 1882. 
 
 Mr. Dolph. Yes, sir, and some Acts have gone further. I took occasion" 
 in making a report on the claim of the State of New York to cite all the 
 Acts that had ever been passed, and many of the reports that had been 
 made on the claims of States — a report I made at the last session of Con- 
 gress, in which I examined the matter thoroughly. 
 
 I say these are a class of claims that have always been paid to the States. 
 The claims of Kansas have been examined and reported upon and paid^ 
 appropriations having been made for them. Now the Secretary of War 
 reports that notwithstanding he details officers of the army to make these 
 examinations and audit these claims, it requires money to pay the expense 
 
475 
 
 of office rent, I think, and clerk hire and some other incidental expenses 
 in the examination of the claims; and he has asked, as the preceding Sec- 
 retary of War, his predecessor, asked, $25,000 for that purpose. 
 
 The senior Senator from Texas [Mr. Maxe}''] introduced a bill at the 
 present session, and I am not sure but it passed the Senate, making an 
 appropriation of $25,000 for that purpose. I am only sorry that he is not 
 in his seat. 
 
 Mr. Plumb. That bill is in the Committee on Appropriations, and has 
 not been passed. 
 
 Mr. Dolph. I know that it has not passed the House. 
 
 Mr. Allison. It has not passed the Senate. It was referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Appropriations. 
 
 Mr. Dolph. This is a small sum, but it will enable the work to be car- 
 ried on. The claims have been presented, but they can not be examined 
 without an appropriation. I am certain the appropriation is a proper one. 
 
 Mr. Plumb. There can not be any doubt in my judgment that the Gov- 
 ernment is committed not by this law, but by precedents that run clear 
 back through the history of all the States in the Union, including the State 
 of Vermont, the State of New York, and all the older States that had to do 
 with the question of defense against Indians and other public enemies, 
 except it may be in regard to the payment for horses. This law is certainly 
 no broader than the bills that have been passed from time to time for the 
 allowance of claims of the various States. 
 
 I had occasion many years ago, when I first introduced a bill on this 
 subject, and which was finally incorporated in the law referred to, to run 
 that question down very thoroughly, and I was very much surprised to 
 find the number of precedents there were for action of that kind at a very 
 early date, the Senator from Oregon says extending through the entire 
 history of the Republic. It is true also, as stated by the Senator from 
 Iowa, that the State of Kansas has gotten its pay, or the largest portion of 
 it, under this law, amounting to about $230,000. • 
 
 I believe that the appropriation ought to be made. While I shall not 
 at all object to making it $10,000 — and I think possibly that under the cir- 
 cumstances that may be the wiser thing to do — I still have a conviction, 
 growing out of an experience which I will not here narrate, that it is a 
 much larger sum than would be really necessary, if we could only apply 
 to the administration of the War Department in this matter the rules that 
 apply in the transaction of ordinary private business. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds. That is to have the officers work. 
 
 Mr. Plumb. This determination will be arrived at upon the judgment 
 of army officers detailed for that purpose ; and while it is true that in the 
 paucity of room which exists in that great building, which has already 
 cost, I think, about $15,000,000, there is not space there to assemble a 
 Board of three officers for this work; the only thing that is necessary to be 
 done is to rent a building in which they can be stored. I think myself 
 that if we could have this matter done as it ought to be done, a thousand 
 dollars would be ample; but I have had experience enough in these mat- 
 ters to know that a thousand dollars does not amount to much in these 
 cases, and, so far as I am concerned, I am entirely willing to accede to the 
 proposed amendment of $10,000. The Secretary wanted $25,000, and as 
 far as I am concerned I am glad to get ofi:' at $10,000. The experience 
 that I have had, as I said, indicates that that is outside the necessities of 
 the situation. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds. This Act of 1882 is broader than Indian hostilities. It 
 includes invasions, and it seems to imply that any State or Territory may, 
 
476 
 
 on its own account, and in its own discretion, proceed to resist invasion, 
 and prepare to suppress it, and to suppress Indian hostilities, and come to 
 the Treasury of the United States to be reimbursed for whatever it has 
 expended on its own account, and in its own way, and in its own discre- 
 tion, for such purposes. 
 
 I was under the impression — I do not remember this law; I was not in 
 the City of Washington at the time the Act passed — I was under the im- 
 pression that it was the mission of the United States itself, as the Govern- 
 ment of the whole people for the whole people, to repress Indian hostilities, 
 and to repress and prevent invasions, and to resist invasions, and that it 
 must be a very rare, and urgent, and extreme case, indeed, in which a 
 State or Territory would be justified in resorting to military force to do 
 either of these things. That is a case extreme and sudden as where the 
 President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief of all its armies 
 and all its militia, had not time in the emergency to act and to bring the 
 force of the Government of the whole people to bear for the objects named 
 in this law. 
 
 It will be an agreeable surprise to the taxpayers of the State of Vermont, 
 who had some experience of this kind during the war that is now called 
 the confederate war, but used to be called the war of the rebellion, in rais- 
 ing troops to resist confederate attacks from the friendly and allied territory 
 of Canada. We had never gotten up to the idea — and probably my peo- 
 ple in Vermont never observed this Act — that the expense to w^hich the 
 State of Vermont went in putting troops on the border when the confed- 
 erate authorities, as they were called, were fomenting invasions from that 
 side of the country, as they had under the laws of war a perfect right to 
 do, and as the English, favoring their side, were perfectly willing they 
 should do, were to be paid for out of the Treasury of the United States. 
 
 It will be rather an agreeable surprise to us that we are to get one or two 
 hundred thousand dollars on the theory of this Act and on this investiga- 
 tion; and that rather leads me from a local motive to be in favor of this 
 investigation; but I am very much afraid (to come back to the philosophy 
 and propriety of the thing) that this Act of 1882 goes altogether too far, 
 and seems to be a continuing authority to the States and to the Territories 
 to go on their own discretion, and in their own way, and do whatever they 
 like, or think fit and proper, to resist any invasion that they may suspect 
 that is about to be made, or any hostilities that are about to break out. I 
 do not think it is a very safe Act. 
 
 Mr. Cockrell. Mr. President, I am very sorry indeed that the aspira- 
 tions of the distinguished Senator from Vermont prevent him from speak- 
 ing of the " war of the rebellion," and that he has got to be so par- 
 ticular, fearing that he may offend the sensibilities of those engaged in 
 that war, that he calls it the war of the confederacy. I hope the Senator 
 will not indulge in that expression any more. Call it by its right name — 
 the war of the rebellion. 
 
 Mr. President, I drew the bill that is under discussion. Sundry bills on 
 this question were referred to me in the Committee on Military Aff"airs, 
 and I prepared this bill to meet all the cases, and I challenge the Senator 
 from Vermont, or any other Senator, to show from 1789 down to this time 
 one solitary law as well guarded, as carefully guarded, as closely guarded 
 as this law is. I examined every solitary Act on this question; I exam- 
 ined all the appropriations that had been made, and I put every provision 
 in this bill that had ever been put in any other bill in covering the expendi- 
 tures to be made under it. 
 
 Read Section 2: 
 
477 
 
 Sec. 2. That no higher rate shall be allowed for the services of said forces, and for sup- 
 plies, transportation, and other proper expenses, than was allowed and paid by the United 
 States for similar services in the same grade and for the same time in the United States 
 Army serving in said States and Territories, and for similar supplies, transportation, and 
 other proper expenses during the same time furnished the United States Army in the 
 same country. 
 
 That did not give the States and Territories any opportunity of making 
 any change over and above what the Army of the United States was at 
 that very time paying in that region of country. Now read further: 
 
 And no allowance shall be made for services of such forces except for the time during 
 which they were engaged in active service in the field; and no allowance shall be made 
 for the services of any person in more than one capacity at the same time, or for any 
 expenditures for which the Secretary of War shall decide there was no necessity at the 
 time and under all the circumstances. 
 
 More complete guards could not be put around any provision. 
 
 Sec. 3. That to enable the said officers to make the examination and investigation 
 herein authorized, the Governors of the said States and Territories, respectively, or their 
 duly authorized agents, shall file with the Secretary of the Treasury abstracts and state- 
 ments of all such claims by said States and Territories, showing the amounts of such 
 expenditures and indebtedness, and the purposes for which they were made, and accom- 
 panied with proper vouchers and evidence. 
 
 Sec 4. That the Secretary of the Treasury shall, at the earliest practicable time, report 
 to Congress for final action the results of such examination and investigation, and the 
 amount or amounts found to have been properly expended for the purposes aforesaid; 
 provided, that whenever the examination of the accounts of any State or Territory here- 
 inbefore mentioned shall have been completed, the same shall be separately reported to 
 Congress, without reference to the final examination of the accounts of any other State 
 or Territory. 
 
 This law provided that the Governors of the States and Territories 
 should file with the Secretary of the Treasury an itemized account of every 
 claim for which they asked reimbursement, accompanied by vouchers and 
 receipts for the sum. This was to be done before any action was taken. 
 Then the officers of the army, the regular officers, and the officers of the 
 Treasury Department, were to examine all these accounts, and the closest 
 scrutiny was required to be given. They were prohibited from allowing 
 these States and Territories any more than the regular army acting in its 
 ordinary capacity was allowing at the same time and place, and they were 
 not allowed to pay these volunteer troops for any time except when they 
 were in active service in the field in pursuit of Indians. 
 
 It is well known to every Senator here that in almost all the Western 
 States and Territories there have been Indian outbreaks where the Indians 
 would have completed their raid and their depredations before the Presi- 
 dent of the United States could have gotten a regular soldier within one 
 hundred miles of the place unless he was stationed there. Look at the 
 raid that was made through Kansas. Its traces remain there, the remains 
 of what was done even before the Governor of the State could get the militia 
 out to meet the raid. So it was in Washington Territory, so it was in Ore- 
 gon, and so it was in other places. 
 
 This law was provided to adjust all these. Each State or Territory was 
 coming in with a separate bill, and these were all taken together, and this 
 bill was provided for that purpose. In many other cases where bills have 
 been passed, the auditing by the Treasury and War Department was an 
 absolute settlement of the claims, and they were paid; but in this case 
 under this law, even after the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the 
 Treasury have both adjudged the claims to be just, they cannot pay a dol- 
 lar of them. They simply examine them and then report them back to 
 
478 
 
 Congress, and it is then in the power of Congress to do just what it pleases — 
 appropriate or not. 
 
 There has only been one State whose claims have been entirely complete 
 and reported to Congress, and that was the State of Kansas; the accounts 
 of that State were in a nearer state of completion than any other, and 
 probably (unless possibly Texas may be as large) Kansas had the largest 
 claims of any State or Territory. There were for years separate bills pend- 
 ing here, and they had been reported favorably, and had passed the Sen- 
 ate once, I believe, for the reimbursement of Kansas alone, appropriating 
 a certain amount of money. At the Congress of 1882, all these bills were 
 put together, and this law was prepared and was passed. There was a 
 report made in the case, quite a lengthy report, giving the whole history 
 of it. 
 
 The bill was prepared and reported, and, after full investigation, became 
 a law, and I assure the Senator from Vermont that if that law is followed 
 there can be no swindling under it, there can be no advantage taken. The 
 Governors have to file the accounts, itemized, with the vouchers and the 
 receipts. Then the Department investigates them, and by the rules there 
 they report what they think ovTght to be allowed, and then Congress deter- 
 mine whether they will pay a dollar or not. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. t think the question before the Senate is not upon the 
 merits of that statute, but the question is whether the United States will 
 examine these papers with a view of either refusing or paying these claims. 
 I have not observed that claims diminish with age. The evidence de- 
 creases but the claim has usually grown. 
 
 One other observation I wish to make to my friend, the Senator from 
 Vermont. He intimated that if the statute had been known to be in force 
 it was possible Vermont might have gained some benefit from this appro- 
 priation for repelling invasions from Canada during the war of the rebellion. 
 This is a little mistake. He will find himself without any benefit under 
 the Act, because there was a payment made to the State of Vermont for 
 expenses incurred in protection against invasions from Canada in 1864, by 
 the Act of June 26, 1866, amounting to $16,463 81, and the amount has 
 been paid. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds. That amount has been paid, but the others have not. 
 
 The President pro tempore. The question is on the amendment proposed 
 by the Senator from Iowa to the amendment of the committee. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I still have the floor. I was only going to add in response 
 to the remark of the Senator from Vermont that that was all Vermont 
 claimed on the fourth of September, 1867, apparently. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds. We had not the Act of 1882 in force at that time. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. No; the Act of 1882 was not in force, but the Senator 
 referred to expenses incurred by Vermont in attempting to protect herself 
 against invasions from Canada during the rebellion, and if Vermont failed 
 to present her bill in 1867 when she had an opportunity under a law for 
 that, she is not a good Yankee State. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds. Probably not a law to this effect unhappily at that time. 
 
 Mr. Maxey. I shall not go over the ground occupied by the Senator from 
 Missouri. I was myself a member of the Committee on Military Affairs 
 at the time the Act of 1882 was prepared by that committee, presented to 
 the Senate, passed through the Senate without, as far as I remember, a 
 single amendment to it, went to the House, passed the House, and became 
 a law. There were various States which had claims, and each of those 
 States had presented a separate bill, Kansas, Nevada, Colorado, Oregon, 
 Texas, and by amendments placed on the bill after it came to the Senate, 
 
479 
 
 on the motion of the late Senator from CaHfornia, Mr. Miller, California 
 was added. There was also the Territory of Washington and there were 
 some other Territories perhaps included. The Committee on Military- 
 Affairs took all those bills and directed a committee bill to be prepared, 
 which was done by the Senator from Missouri, and that bill passed as I have 
 stated. 
 
 Now, the question is, shall the law be carried out? After the passage of 
 this bill in 1882, Mr. Lincoln then being Secretary of War, I went to the 
 War Department and had a conversation with him. He stated to me that 
 there was a necessity for an appropriation to enable him to carry out this 
 law, and after conferring with him in regard to it he sent a special estimate 
 to the Committee on Appropriations, which is on file in the papers of that 
 committee. When I returned to the Senate from the War Department I 
 prepared an amendment to the appropriation bill then pending, sent it to 
 the Committee on Appropriations, and they allowed the appropriation, 
 which was $25,000. It came to the Senate and passed the Senate. No 
 one dissented. It was lost in some way in conference. 
 
 During the present session of Congress I had another conversation with 
 the present Secretary of War, Mr. Endicott, on the same subject. He took 
 the same view as Mr. Lincoln, that this appropriation was necessary in order 
 to the faithful execution of the law. He took the same course that Mr. 
 Lincoln had taken. I proposed the amendment to the Committee on 
 Appropriations. That committee took it up. That was also $25,000, but 
 the committee reported only $7,500, which, in my judgment, is not enough 
 to put the law in operation, according to the views of the Secretary of War; 
 and the amount is now proposed to be increased to $10,000. 
 
 A word now on the subject of precedents. It was not necessary for the 
 Senator from Connecticut to have stopped at the precedent for Vermont. 
 There is a precedent for Minnesota and many other States, all of which 
 were examined by the Committee on Military Affairs before this bill was 
 presented from that committee to the Senate. But there can be no ques- 
 tion whatever, where a State honestly and in good faith has expended 
 money to raise forces to defend her own people when there are not sufficient 
 troops at the command of the Federal Government to give them protection, 
 that it is the bounden duty of the State to provide for the defense of her 
 citizens from the scalping-knife of the Indian or from the raids of the Mex- 
 ican. 
 
 That there were raids across the Rio Grande during a number of years 
 into Texas, accompanied by robbery, arson, and every crime known to the 
 law, is a part and parcel of the history of this country. That continued 
 for years, and the State of Texas as a matter of duty to her own citizens 
 did organize forces and send them to the frontier to protect her citizens. 
 Subsequently the United States Government did send troops there in suffi- 
 cient numbers to furnish defense, and I was informed by the late distin- 
 guished General of the Army, the brother of the present distinguished pre- 
 siding officer of the Senate, that he had placed on the frontier of Texas a 
 quarter of the effective force of the entire army. It was absolutely neces- 
 sary to the defense of that frontier for one thousand two hundred miles, 
 and a large portion of that a wilderness, to place one fourth of the army 
 there. My honored colleague [Mr. Coke] was for a portion of that time 
 Governor of the State, and as a matter of duty he called out forces and 
 did defend the frontier. 
 
 A State has no power to raise and support armies. It is the duty of the 
 Federal Government to provide for the common defense, and, ex necessitate 
 rei, when the duty is temporarily devolved on the States to raise troops, it 
 
480 
 
 is the business of the Government, who ought to exercise that duty, to 
 refund the money thus paid by the State for the common defense. 
 
 So, Mr. President, the attack on this appropriation goes further than that. 
 It is an attack on the majesty of the law. The law is in force on the statute 
 book, and the proper officer, the Secretary of War, declares that he can not 
 execute that law without the aid of this appropriation; and the Appropri- 
 ation Committee has done its duty when it comes forward with the neces- 
 sary appropriation to enable the Secretary of War to discharge that duty. 
 Of all the States which were embraced in that law, the State of Kansas 
 and that only has received the amount to which she was justly entitled. 
 
 That claim went through the War Department and went through the 
 Treasury Department. They came to Congress and the necessary appro- 
 priation was made. Why make fish of one and flesh of another? Why, 
 having paid that claim, lock and bar and bolt the door and say no other 
 State shall be indemnified? That will not do. It is not just and it is not 
 right that the appropriation should be refused. 
 
 If these claims are not just, you have three distinct ways of closing the 
 matter out, I say to the Senator from Vermont. First, if the claims are not 
 just and meritorious, it is the duty of the Secretary of War so to say. Sec- 
 ond, the claims are visaed by the Secretary of War before they are sub- 
 mitted here to Congress, and after all that is done the claims are presented 
 here to this body; and it is for Congress after full investigation to determine 
 whether or not these claims shall be paid. 
 
 De Lolme said that in a certain difficulty between the executive and the 
 legislative department in England the executive could supply a ship of 
 war but Parliament could leave the ship stranded; in other words, he would 
 not make the necessary appropriation to carry out the law of the land. 
 That is a dangerous method of thwarting law, and there is no need for it. 
 If these claims are honest we have here the means of determining the fact, 
 and if they are honest and clear we should pay them. If they are not hon- 
 est claims then Congress can so say and payment be disallowed ; but in the 
 meantime let the law be carried out, furnish the officers of the Government 
 the means of examining and auditing these claims and presenting them in 
 a legal and intelligent form to Congress so that we may act upon them and 
 determine whether or not they should be allowed. 
 
 I hope the amount will be raised to $10,000. I personally believe it is 
 all we can get, but I do not know that the Secretary of War can carry out 
 the Act with that, but he can start with that. 
 
 My State is no more interested in this matter than the State of Ohio, the 
 State of Nevada, the State of California, the State of Colorado, and the Ter- 
 ritories which have no representation in this body; but, sir, in the name of 
 justice and fair dealing and right between man and man it is right that 
 these States if they have a claim should have a fair and just way of pre- 
 senting and asserting that claim, and if the claims are honest Congress 
 should allow them. 
 
 The President pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amend- 
 ment of the Senator from Iowa to the amendment of the Committee on 
 Appropriations. 
 
 The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. 
 
 The amendment as amended was agreed to. 
 
481 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, second session. S. 656. Calendar No., 1000. Report No. 984. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. December 13, 1883. 
 
 Mr. Jones of Nevada, asked and, by unanimous consent, obtained leave 
 to bring in the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
 Committee on Claims. 
 
 January 13, 1885 — Reported by Mr. Dolph with amendments, viz.: Omit 
 the parts struck through and insert the parts printed in italics. 
 
 A BILL 
 
 For the benefit of the States of California, Oregon, and Nevada (and Nevada 
 
 when a Territory). 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That whenever the Secretary of 
 the Treasury and the Secretary of War, in adjusting the claims of the 
 States of California, Oregon, and Nevada (and Nevada when a Territory) 
 arising under the Acts of Congress approved July twenty-seventh, eighteen 
 hundred and sixty-one, and June twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and 
 eighty-two (United States Statutes, volume twelve, page two hundred and 
 seventy-six, and volume twenty-two, page one hundred and eleven), shall 
 find that any original paper relating to the claims of said States as pro- 
 vided for in said Acts shall have been lost, destroyed, or missing, upon 
 proof thereof a copy^ thereof, and copies of all documents and papers relating 
 thereto, may be certified to by the proper State officers of such State having 
 custody of such papers, under their seals of office; and such evidence, and 
 all other competent secondary evidence, when filed with the Secretary of the 
 Treasury or Secretary of War, shall be received by them in lieu of such 
 lost original paper, and used in evidence in the adjustment of their said 
 claims in all respects as said original. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, second session. Senate. Report No. 984. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States, January 13, 1885 — Ordered to be 
 printed. 
 
 Mr. Dolph, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany bill S. 656.] 
 
 The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 656) for 
 the benefit of the States of California, Oregon, and Nevada, and Nevada 
 when a Territory, have duly examined the same, and report the same back 
 to the Senate with amendments. 
 
 By the Act of Congress entitled "An Act to indemnify the States for 
 expenses incurred by them in defense of the United States," approved July 
 27, 1861, the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized and directed " to 
 pay to the Governor of any State, or to his duly authorized agents, the 
 costs, charges, and expenses proi)erly incurred by such State for enrolhng, 
 
 31^^ 
 
482 
 
 subsisting, clothing, 'supplying, arming, equipping, paying, and transport- 
 ing its troops employed in aiding to suppress the present insurrection 
 against the United States, to be settled upon proper vouchers to be filed 
 and passed upon by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury." 
 
 By the first section of an Act of Congress approved June 27, 1882, the 
 Secretary of the Treasury was authorized and directed, with the aid and 
 assistance of the Secretary of War, to cause to be examined and investi- 
 gated all the claims of the States of Texas, Colorado, Oregon, Nebraska, 
 California, and Nevada, and the Territories of Washington and Idaho 
 against the United States for money alleged to have been expended, and 
 for indebtedness alleged to have been assumed, by said States and Terri- 
 tories in organizing, arming, equipping, supplying clothing, subsistence, 
 transporting, and paying the volunteer and military forces of said States 
 and Territories called into active service by the proper authorities thereof 
 between the fifteenth day of April, 1861, and the date of said Act, to repel 
 invasion and Indian hostilities in said States and Territories, and upon 
 their borders, including all proper expenses necessarily incurred by said 
 States and Territories on account of said forces having been so called into 
 active service, and all proper claims paid or assumed by said States and 
 Territories for horses and equipments actually lost by said forces in the 
 line of duty in active service, excepting the claim of the State of Oregon 
 for expenditures in suppressing the Modoc Indian hostilities, the payment 
 for which had already been provided for by Act of Congress. 
 
 By the second section of said Act it was provided that no higher rate for 
 supplies, transportation, and other proper expenses than was allowed and 
 paid by the United States for similar services in the same grade and for 
 the same time in the United States Army serving in said States and Terri- 
 tories, and for similar supplies, transportation, and other proper expenses 
 during the same time furnished the United States Army in the same 
 country, and that no allowance should be made for the services of such 
 forces except for the time during which they were engaged in active service 
 in the field, or for expenditures for which the Secretary of War should 
 decide there was no necessity at the time and under the circumstances. 
 
 The first section of the bill under consideration is intended to authorize 
 the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of War, in adj usting the 
 claims of the said States, under the Acts above mentioned, to receive sec- 
 ondary evidence of the contents of any original paper relating to claims 
 under said Acts which may have been lost or destroyed. When amended, 
 as proposed by your committee, this section seems to be unobjectionable. 
 
 The second section is intended to authorize the accounting officers of the 
 Treasury, in adjusting the claims of said States under said Acts, to credit 
 such of said States and Territories with the amount of money actually 
 expended by them from their respective Treasuries, on account of extra 
 pay, bounty, and relief to troops called into the service of the United 
 States. 
 
 Large amounts were paid by States and municipal corporations for bounty 
 and relief to volunteers during the war of the rebellion. 
 
 Your committee has been unable to find that the United States has yet 
 assumed or paid to any State under the provisions of the Act of July 27, 
 1861, or any other Act, the amounts so paid by such State for bounty or 
 relief, and is unwilling, at this time, to establish a precedent for such pay- 
 ment. 
 
 Your committee, therefore, report the bill back to the Senate, and recom- 
 mend that when the amendments proposed by the committee are made to 
 the bill, it do pass. 
 
483 
 EXHIBIT No. 7. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. S. 71. Report No. 572. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. February 4, 1886 — Read twice, and 
 referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 
 
 February 17, 1886 — Reported with amendments, referred to the House 
 Calendar, and ordered to be printed. Omit the parts struck through, and 
 insert the part printed in italics. 
 
 AN ACT 
 
 For the benefit of the States of Texas, Colorado, Oregon, Nebraska] California, 
 Kansas, and Nevada, and the Territories of Washington and Idaho, and 
 Nevada when a Territory. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That whenever the Secretary of 
 the Treasury and the Secretary of War, in adjusting the claims of the 
 States of Texas, Colorado, Oregon, Nebraska, California, Kansas, and 
 Nevada, and the Territories of Washington and Idaho, and Nevada when 
 a Territory, arising under Acts of Congress approved July twenty-seventh, 
 eighteen hundred and sixty-one, and June twenty-seventh, eighteen hun- 
 dred and eighty-two (United States Statutes, volume twelve, page two 
 hundred and seventy-six, and volume twenty-two, page one hundred 
 and eleven), shall find that any original paper relating to the claims of 
 said States, as provided for in said Acts, shall have been lost, destroyed, 
 or missing, upon proof thereof, a copy thereof may be certified by the 
 proper State officers of such State having custody of such papers, under 
 their seals of office; and such evidence, when filed with the Secretary of the 
 Treasury or Secretary of War, shall be received by them in lieu of such 
 lost original papers, and used in evidence in the adjustment of their said 
 claims in all respects as said original. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to detail three 
 army officers to assist him in examining and reporting upon the claims of the 
 States and Territory named in the Act of June twenty-seventh, eighteen hun- 
 dred and eighty-two, chapter two hundred and forty-one of the laws of the 
 Forty-seventh Congress; and such officers, before entering upon said duties, 
 shall take and subscribe an oath that they will carefully examine said claims, 
 and that they will, to the best of their ability, make a just and impartial 
 statement thereof, as required by said Act. 
 
 Passed the Senate February 3, 1886. 
 Attest' 
 
 ANSON G. McCOOK, Secretary. 
 
 [Public— No. 168.] 
 
 An Act for the benefit of the States of Texas, Colorado, Oregon, Nebraska, Cal- 
 ifornia, Kansas, and Nevada, and the Territories of Washington and Idaho, 
 and Nevada when a Territory. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled. That whenever the Secretary of 
 the Treasury and the Secretary of War, in adjusting the claims of the 
 
484 
 
 States of Texas, Colorado, Oregon, Nebraska, California, Kansas, and 
 Nevada, and the Territories of Washington and Idaho, and Nevada when 
 a Territory, arising under Acts of Congress approved July twenty-seventh, 
 eighteen hundred and sixty-one, and June twenty-seventh, eighteen hun- 
 dred and eighty-two (United States Statutes, volume twelve, page two 
 hundred and seventy-six, and volume twenty-two, page one hundred and 
 eleven), shall find that any original paper relating to the claims of said 
 States, as provided for in said Acts, shall have been lost, destroyed, or 
 missing, upon proof thereof a copy of such paper may be certified by the 
 proper officers of such State or Territory, under their seals of office; or, if 
 such copy cannot be furnished, any other competent secondary evidence of 
 the contents of such paper, when filed with the Secretary of the Treasury 
 or Secretary of War, shall be received by them in lieu of such lost original 
 papers, and used in evidence in the adjustment of their said claims in all 
 respects as said original. 
 
 All provisions of this section applicable to States shall be equally appli- 
 cable to the Territories. 
 
 Sec. 2. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to detail three army 
 officers to assist him in examining and reporting upon the claims of the 
 States and Territory named in the Acts of June twenty-seventh, eighteen 
 hundred and eighty-two, chapter two hundred and forty-one of the laws of 
 the Forty-seventh Congress; and such officers, before entering upon said 
 duties, shall take and subscribe an oath that they will carefully examine 
 said claims, and that they will, to the best of their ability, make a just and 
 impartial statement thereof, as required by said Act. 
 
 Approved August 4, 1886. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 8. 
 
 Special Orders, No. 232. 
 
 Headquarters of the Army, Adjutant-General's Office, 
 Washington, October 6, 1886. 
 
 Extract. 
 ********** 
 
 4. Under the provisions of section two of an Act of Congress, approved 
 August 4, 1886, entitled " An Act for the benefit of the States of Texas, 
 Colorado, Oregon, Nebraska, California, Kansas, and Nevada, and the Ter- 
 ritories of Washington and Idaho, and Nevada when a Territory," the 
 following named officers are, by direction of the Secretary of War, detailed 
 to assist him in examining and reporting upon the claims of the States and 
 Territory named in the Acts of June 27, 1882 : 
 
 Major James Biddle, Sixth Cavalry. 
 
 Major Henry J. Farnsworth, Inspector-General. 
 
 Captain Edward Hunter, First Cavalry. 
 
 The officers named will report in person to the Secretary of War, in this 
 city, at as early a date as practicable. The travel enjoined is necessary 
 for the public service. 
 
 'fi TV ^I^ 'jC ^ *fc TV TV 't* 'T* 
 
 By command of Lieutenant-General Sheridan. 
 
 R. C. DRUM, 
 [Official:] Adjutant-General. 
 
485 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 9. 
 
 Washington, D. C, September 18, 1886. 
 The Secretary of the Treasury : 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to deliver you herewith, to be examined under 
 the Act of June 27, 1882, and Acts amendatory thereof and supplemental 
 thereto, or under such other Acts as may pertain thereto, the claims of the 
 
 *' State of California ^^^ as set forth in — 
 
 Abstract "A," aggregating $204,020 00 
 
 Abstract "B," aggregating 25,827 40 
 
 Abstract "C," aggregating .-. 53,682 69 
 
 Abstract " D," aggregating .'. 74,550 90 
 
 Abstract "E," aggregating 11,945 50 
 
 Abstract "F," aggregating 24,260 00 
 
 Abstract "G," aggregating.. — 9,968 41 
 
 Abstract "H," aggregating 52,992 53 
 
 Abstract " K," aggregating 46,231 15 
 
 Abstracf'L," aggregating 3,253 45 
 
 Abstract "M," aggregating 14,249 36 
 
 Abstract "N," aggregating 23,313 91 
 
 Abstract "0," aggregating 30,984 51 
 
 Abstract " P," first volume $632,095 09 
 
 Abstract "P," second volume 385,715 04 
 
 Abstract "P," third volume 442,344 28 
 
 \ 4g0 154 41 
 
 Abstract " Q," first volume $158,750 00 
 
 Abstract " Q," second volume 123,930 00 
 
 Abstract "Q," third volume 172,650 00 
 
 Abstract " (^," fourth volume. 222,960 00 
 
 Abstract " Q," fifth volume 224,899 50 
 
 903,189 50 
 
 Aggregating a grand total of $2,938,623 72, and all of which abstracts, 
 in twenty-one bound volumes, are now also herewith delivered to you. 
 Abstract " P " containing three, and Abstract " Q" containing five volumes. 
 
 The papers are contained in eight boxes, as follows, to wit: 
 
 Box No. 1, containing the papers relating to Abstract "A," with vouchers 
 from No. 1 to No. 203, inclusive. 
 
 Abstract " B," vouchers from No. 1 to No. 65, inclusive. 
 
 Abstract "C," vouchers from No. 1 to No. 322, inclusive. 
 
 Abstract '' D," vouchers from No. 1 to No. 98, inclusive. 
 
 Abstract " E," vouchers from No. 1 to No. 44, inclusive. 
 
 Abstract " F," vouchers from No. 1 to No. 6, inclusive. 
 
 Abstract " G," vouchers from No. 1 to No. 50, inclusive. 
 
 Abstract " H," vouchers from No. 1 to No. 326, inclusive. 
 
 Abstract " K," vouchers from No. 1 to No. 166, inclusive. 
 
 Abstract " L," vouchers from No. 1 to No. 34, inclusive. 
 
 Abstract "M," vouchers from No. 1 to No. 124, inclusive. 
 
 Abstract " N," vouchers from No. 1 to No. 63, inclusive 
 
 Abstract " 0," vouchers from No. 1 to No. 277, inclusive. 
 
 Box No. 2, containing vouchers from No. 1 to No. 796, inclusive, relating 
 to Abstract " P." 
 
 Box No. 3, containing vouchers from No. 797 to No. 8,408, inclusive, 
 relating to Abstract "P." 
 
 Box No. 4, containing vouchers from No. 8,409 to No. 11,859, inclusive, 
 relating to Abstract " P." 
 
 Box No. 5, containing vouchers from No. 1 to No. 4,399, inclusive, relat- 
 ing to Abstract " Q." 
 
486 
 
 Box No. 6, containing vouchers from No. 4,400 to No. 9,919, inclusive^ 
 relating to Abstract " Q." 
 
 Box No. 7, containing vouchers from No. 9,920 to No. 14,337, inckisive, 
 relating to Abstract " Q." 
 
 Box No. 8, containing vouchers from No. 14,338 to No. 19,580, inclusive, 
 relating to Abstract " Q." 
 
 Also find herewith affidavit that no portion of said claim has been here- 
 tofore ever paid to the State of California by the United States, or by any 
 officer thereof. 
 
 As these claims are being examined from time to time by either the 
 Treasury or War Department, I respectfully request to be kept fully 
 informed of any matter that may be wanting therein, so that I may supply 
 the same upon due notice thereof. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 Agent and Counsel for the State of California. 
 
 , Washington, D. C, 1310 Connecticut Avenue, September 18, 1886. 
 
 [Copy.] 
 
 City of Washington, County of Washington, District of Columbia. 
 
 Office of State Agent for the State of California, | 
 Washington City, D. C, September 18, 1886. j 
 
 John Mullan, on first being duly sworn, says that he is now the State 
 Agent for the State of California, temporarily residing in the City of Wash- 
 ington, District of Columbia, for the purpose, among other things, of pre- 
 senting to the proper departments, bureau authorities, and Congress of the 
 United States, the various claims of the State of California against the 
 United States, and demanding and receiving payment therefor from the 
 United States to said State; that he has read the several abstracts, to wit, 
 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, N, O, P, and Q, and also the several 
 exhibits and vouchers and other papers thereunto pertaining, and in regard 
 to the matter of California's said war claims against the United States and 
 the whole thereof; that all the matters therein contained (errors and 
 omissions excepted) are true of his own knowledge, except as to those 
 matters therein stated upon information and belief, and as to those matters 
 that he believes the same to be true; that he, on oath, declares and certifies 
 that the foregoing abstracts clearly set forth a full, true, and correct state- 
 ment of the claim of the State of California on account of the matters 
 specifically enumerated in said abstracts, and as the same existed on the 
 seventeenth day of September, eighteen hundred and eighty-six; that nO' 
 part or portion thereof has ever heretofore been paid to the State of Cali- 
 fornia by the United States, nor by any officer thereof, and that the amounts 
 stated in said abstracts were due and payable by the United States to the 
 State of California on the seventeenth day of September, eighteen hundred 
 and eighty-six. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 State Agent for California. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this eighteenth day of September^ 
 eighteen hundred and eighty-six. 
 
 JOHN M. LAWTON, 
 Notary Public, District of Columbia. 
 
EXHIBITS 
 
 OF 
 
 CLAIM FOR INTEREST, 
 
EXHIBIT No. 1. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. S. 320. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. December 5, 1883. 
 
 Mr. Miller of California, asked and, by unanimous consent, obtained 
 leave to bring in the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 
 the Committee on Claims: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 Authorizing the payment of interest due to the States of California, Oregon, 
 and Nevada {and Nevada when a Territory). 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the proper accounting officers 
 of the Treasury Department be and they are hereby authorized and directed 
 to liquidate and settle the claims of the States of California, Oregon, and 
 Nevada (and Nevada when a Territory) against the United States, for 
 interest upon loans or moneys borrowed and actually expended by them for 
 the use and benefit of the United States during the late war for suppressing 
 insurrection and rebellion, and also on account of Indian hostilities in said 
 States and Territory. 
 
 Sec. 2. That in ascertaining the amounts of interest as aforesaid due to 
 the States of California, Oregon, and Nevada (and Nevada when a Terri- 
 tory) , the following rules shall be understood as applicable to and governing 
 the cases, to wit: 
 
 First — That interest shall not be computed on any sums which California, 
 Oregon, and Nevada (and Nevada when a Territory) have not expended 
 for the use and benefit of the United States, as evidenced by the amounts 
 refunded or repaid, or to be repaid, to California, Oregon, and Nevada (and 
 Nevada when a Territory) by the United States. 
 
 Second — That no interest shall be paid on any sums on which they have 
 not paid interest. 
 
 Third — That when the principal or any part of it has been paid or refunded 
 by the United States, or money placed in the hands of California, Oregon, 
 and Nevada (and Nevada when a Territory) for that purpose, the interest 
 on the sum or sums so paid or refunded shall cease and not be considered 
 as chargeable to the United States any longer than up to the time of the 
 repayment as aforesaid. 
 
 Sec. 3. That the amounts of interest, when ascertained as aforesaid, 
 shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 2. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 109. Printers No., 109. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 10, 1883 — Read twice, 
 referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
 
490 
 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 Authorizing the payment of interest due to the States of California, Oregon^ 
 and Nevada (and Nevada when a Territory). 
 
 Be it enacted hg the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the proper accounting officers 
 of the Treasury Department be and they are hereby authorized and 
 directed to liquidate and settle the claims of the States of California, Ore- 
 gon, and Nevada (and Nevada when a Territory) against the United 
 States for interest upon loans or moneys borrowed and actually expended 
 by them for the use and benefit of the United States during the late war 
 for suppressing insurrection and rebellion, and also on account of Indian 
 hostilities in said States and Territory. 
 
 Sec. 2. That in ascertaining the amounts of interest as aforesaid due to 
 the States of California, Oregon, and Nevada (and Nevada when a Terri- 
 tory) the following rules shall be understood as applicable to and govern- 
 ing the cases, namely: 
 
 First — That interest shall not be computed on any sums which Califor- 
 nia, Oregon, and Nevada (and Nevada when a Territory) have not expended 
 for the use and benefit of the United States, as evidenced by the amounts 
 refunded or repaid, or to be refunded or to be repaid, to California, Oregon, 
 and Nevada (and Nevada when a Territory) by the United States. 
 
 Second — That no interest shall be paid on any sums on which they have 
 not paid interest. 
 
 Third — That when the principal, or any part of it, has been paid or 
 refunded by the United States, or money placed in the hands of Califor- 
 nia, Oregon, and Nevada (and Nevada when a Territory) for that purpose, 
 the interest on the sum or sums so paid or refunded shall cease, and not 
 be considered as chargeable to the United States any longer than up to 
 the time of the repayment as aforesaid. 
 
 Sec. 3. That the amounts of interest, when ascertained as aforesaid, 
 shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 3. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 2930. Printer's No., 3037. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. January 8, 1884 — Read twice, referred 
 to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Oury introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To reimburse the States and Territories for interest on money heretofore used 
 and expended by them in the suppression of Indian hostilities. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled. That the proper accounting 
 officers of the Treasury Department be and they are hereby authorized 
 and directed to examine, adjust, and settle the claims of the several States 
 
491 
 
 and Territories for interest upon loans or moneys borrowed and heretofore 
 actually expended by said States and Territories, respectively, in the sup- 
 pression of Indian hostilities; provided, that the benefits of this Act shall 
 not extend to any State or Territory which shall not have presented a 
 claim for such interest at the expiration of one year from the date of the 
 passage of this Act. 
 
 Sec. 2. That in ascertaining the amount of interest due to any State or 
 Territory, as aforesaid, the following rules shall be applicable and shall 
 govern the case, to wit : 
 
 First — That interest shall not be computed on any sum which such State 
 or Territory has not heretofore expended in the suppression of Indian 
 hostilities, as evidenced by the amount of money refunded or repaid, or 
 which may hereafter be refunded or repaid, to such States or Territories 
 which have heretofore made such expenditures. 
 
 Second — That no interest shall be paid to any State or Territory on any 
 sum on which said State or Territory shall not have paid or lost interest. 
 
 Third — That when the principal, or any part of it, has been paid or 
 refunded by the United States to any such State or Territory, or placed in 
 the hands of such State or Territory for that purpose, interest on the 
 amount of the sum or sums so paid or refunded shall cease, and not be 
 considered as chargeable to the United States any longer than up to the 
 time of the repayment aforesaid. 
 
 Fourth — That interest in all cases contemplated by this Act shall be 
 computed at the rate of six per centum per annum. 
 
 Sec. 3. That the amount of interest due to any State or Territory, when 
 ascertained as aforesaid, shall be paid to the Governor of such State or 
 Territory, or the duly authorized agent thereof, by the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 4. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. H. R. 2463. Printer's No., 7289. [Report No. 1102.] 
 
 In the House of Representatives.' January 8, 1884 — Read twice, referred 
 to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
 
 April 1, 1884 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
 state of the Union and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Stevens introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To reimburse the several States for interest paid on war loans, and for other 
 
 purposes. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled. That the proper accounting officers 
 of the Treasury Department be and they are hereby authorized and directed 
 to examine, adjust, and settle the claims of the several States of the Union 
 against the United States for interest upon loans or moneys borrowed and 
 actually expended by said States, respectively, for the use and benefit of 
 the United States, under authority of the Act of Congress entitled "An Act 
 to indemnify the States for expenses incurred by them in defense of the 
 United States," approved July twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and sixty- 
 
492 
 
 one, and under the explanatory joint resolution entitled "joint resolution 
 declaratory of the intent and meaning of a certain Act therein named," 
 approved March eighth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and kindred Acts,' 
 providing for the reimbursement of moneys advanced by States to aid in 
 suppressing the rebellion; provided, that the benefits of this Act shall not 
 extend to any State which shall not have presented a claim for such interest 
 at the expiration of one year from the date of the passage of this Act. 
 
 Sec. 2. That in ascertaining the amount of interest due to any State as 
 aforesaid the following rules shall be applicable and shall govern the case, 
 to wit: 
 
 First — That interest shall not be computed on any sum which such State 
 has not expended for the use and benefit of the United States, as evidenced 
 by the amount refunded or repaid, or which may hereafter be refunded or, 
 repaid, to such State, under and by authority of the said Acts of Congress 
 and the explanatory resolution hereinabove referred to. 
 
 Second — That interest shall not be paid to any State on any sum on 
 which such State shall not have paid or lost interest. 
 
 Third — That when the principal, or any part of it, has been paid or 
 refunded by the United States to any State,'^or placed in the hands of such 
 State for that purpose, interest on the amount of such sum or gums so paid 
 or refunded shall cease, and not be considered as chargeable to the United 
 States any longer than up to the time of the repayment aforesaid. 
 
 Fourth — That interest shall in all cases contemplated by this Act be 
 computed at the rate of six per centum per annum. 
 
 Sec. 3. That the amount of interest due to any State, when ascertained 
 as aforesaid, shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
 appropriated. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 5. 
 
 TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAR CLAIMS. 
 
 U. S. House of Representatives. 
 
 The object of H. B. No. 2364, as its language plainly imports, is to pro- 
 vide for the payment of interest by the United States to the several States 
 entitled thereto, not upon the whole amount of their respective advances to 
 the United States, for the purposes mentioned in the Reimbursement Acts 
 of 1861 and 1862; but on that part only, of such advances, as upon which 
 such States ^^ paid or lost interest.^' The words ^' lost interest" being con- 
 strued, always (by the accounting officers of the Treasury), to have the 
 meaning which was given to them in the settlement authorized by the Act 
 March 13, 1832, passed for the benefit of South Carolina, and all subse- 
 quent Acts of similar form and purpose, to wit: moneys derived from the 
 sale or conversion of interest-bearing securities, or withdrawn from invest- 
 ments which, at the time of such conversion or withdrawal, were yielding 
 interest to the State. 
 
 The limitation sought to be fixed by said bill, on the extent to which the 
 United States should admit and discharge her liability for interest, to the 
 individual States so advancing her money, is derived from the practice of 
 the United States in dealing with such cases in the past, more than from 
 any obvious reasons, in justice, why interest should not be paid in all cases 
 where such advances were solicited and received by the General Government, 
 on the whole amount so advanced, at the same rate of interest which the 
 
493 
 
 United States would have been obliged to pay for said moneys, had they 
 been derived from other sources. Said rules, however, having been uni- 
 formly adopted by Congress, and accepted by the individual States from 
 time to time for nearly sixty years, as properly measuring the liability of 
 the United States on account of interest on similar advances, are now pro- 
 posed by the States interested, as forming the correct and reasonable basis 
 for a settlement of the claims arising under the said Reimbursement Acts 
 of 1861 and 1862, and kindred legislation for the same general purpose. 
 
 The Reimbursement Acts last above referred to, provide, " That the 
 Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby directed, out of any money 
 in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay to the Governor of any 
 State, or to his duly authorized agents, cost, charges, and expenses properly 
 incurred by such State, for enrolling, subsisting, clothing, supplying, arm- 
 ing, equipping, paying, and transporting its troops employed in aiding to 
 suppress the present insurrection against the United States, to be settled 
 upon proper vouchers, to be filed and passed upon by the proper accounting 
 officers of the Treasury." 
 
 By the explanatory resolution, passed March 8, 1862, it is declared that 
 the provisions of the above cited Act shall be construed as applying to 
 such expenses incurred, as well after as before the passage of said Act. 
 (See opinion Att'y Genl., Appendix "A.") 
 
 It is reasonable to conclude that the States making advances of money, 
 as contemplated and authorized by said Acts of Congress, understood that 
 they were to be reimbursed the amounts paid by them, respectively, as 
 interest on the moneys so advanced (and which were, perhaps, in every 
 instance, in great part, if not in whole, borrowed by them for the purpose 
 of such advances), for it is seen that many States, upon the passage of said 
 Acts of Congress, proceeded at once to borrow liberally on obligations of 
 their own, and to expend the money thus obtained for the use and benefit 
 of the United States. 
 
 The States, in making such advances and paying interest on the money 
 advanced, did not, it is fair to assume, act on their own construction of 
 said reimbursement Acts alone, but relied on the interpretation placed 
 thereon by the honorable Secretary of the Treasury in his official corre- 
 spondence with the Auditor of the State of Ohio, with reference to this 
 matter of interest. Upon the subject of the liability of the General Gov- 
 ernment on account of such advances, the Hon. Salmon P. Chase, then 
 Secretary of the Treasury, under date of July 29, 1861 (two days after 
 the passage of said reimbursement Act), wrote as follows: "As to the 
 'double discount' of which you speak, if Ohio raises money by loan, at a 
 discount, the United States cannot, of course, refund such discount to the 
 States, but only the amount of debt, with interest, unless Congress specially 
 provide otherwise." (Appendix " B " and " C") The only reasonable con- 
 struction of which language is, that the Government of the United States 
 considered itself authorized, without further legislation, to pay ^'the debt, 
 with interest.'''' Thus, it appears, that at the time when said advances 
 were being made, there seemed to be no doubt entertained, either on the 
 part of the States or the Government, that the scope of the reimbursement 
 Acts aforesaid, then just passed, embraced not only the moneys expended, 
 in conformity therewith, but also the interest paid thereon. 
 
 In pursuance of this construction of said laws, the States continued to 
 advance money, and, in presenting claims for the reimbursement of the 
 same, accounts were presented, containing the item of ^^ interest paid" 
 which said items, however, were not allowed by the accounting officers of 
 the Government. 
 
494 
 
 In order to obtain from the Treasury Department an authoritative, and, 
 
 if possible, a more favorable decision on this point, on the — day of , 
 
 1883, the attorneys for the State of New York presented a formal demand 
 to the honorable Secretary of the Treasury, for the amount of interest 
 which said State claimed to have paid on money advanced for the use of 
 the United States, as aforesaid. 
 
 The opinion of the honorable Attorney-General of the United States, as 
 to the authority for payment of said demand without further legislation, 
 was applied for and obtained by the Secretary of the Treasury, and, in 
 conformity therewith, the payment demanded was declined, upon the 
 ground that it was not specifically authorized. 
 
 In said opinion, however, the honorable Attorney- General, after referring 
 to divers statutes passed by Congress to authorize, specifically, the payment 
 of interest on such advances, uses the following language: " Undoubtedly, 
 the interest paid by the State of New York on money borrowed and applied 
 to the objects specified in the Act of July 27, 1861, forms a part of the 
 burden borne by that State, for the general public defense, and constitutes 
 a just charge against the United States; and the obligation to reimburse 
 for payments of that kind, made under similar circumstances, has fre- 
 quently been recognized by Congress, as appears by statutes above cited." 
 (See Opinion Attorney-General, Appendix "A.") 
 
 By reason of said decision of the Secretary of the Treasury, the States 
 interested are obliged to apply to Congress for the legislation necessary to 
 ^^ expressly authorize" and provide for, the payment of their several claims 
 for the sums by them, respectively, expended as aforesaid. In this con- 
 nection, it is thought appropriate to review briefly the various laws passed, 
 from time to time, to provide for the payment of interest due to the differ- 
 ent States, on advances by them made for the use of the United States, in 
 the prosecution of all the different wars, both foreign and Indian, from 
 the time of the last war with Great Britain in 1812 down to the date of 
 the last Act for the benefit of the State of Maine, approved June 12, 1858, 
 extending through a period of nearly fifty years, and embracing all legis- 
 lation of this character enacted by Congress. 
 
 The first Act to provide for the payment of such interest was passed 
 March 3, 1825, for the benefit of the State of Virginia, and its phraseology 
 was adopted literally, except as to the names of the several beneficiaries, in 
 the enactment of the next succeeding five Acts passed for similar purposes, 
 and which said Acts were of the several dates and for the objects following, 
 to wit: for the benefit of Maryland, May 13, 1826; for Delaware, May 20, 
 1826; for the City of Baltimore, May 20, 1826; for New York, May 22, 1826; 
 and for Pennsylvania, March 3, 1827. (For fall text of said Virginia Act, 
 see Appendix " B.") 
 
 By reference to these last mentioned Acts it will be observed that H. B. 
 No. 2364 is substantially a transcript of them, except that it specifies the 
 rate of interest to be paid (and which rate is the same that has been paid 
 under every Act authorizing the payment of such interest, whether specified 
 in the Act or not), and that it further provides for payment of "interest 
 lost," according to the meaning given to that term as used in the Act of 
 March 13, 1832, and subsequent Acts, as aforesaid. 
 
 The Act of March 13, 1832, was the first that was passed providing for 
 the payment to a State of any interest except such as the State had actu- 
 ally paid; the object of said Act, as set forth in the first section thereof, 
 being to indemnify South Carolina for the loss of interest on money " ex- 
 pended for the use of the United States," etc., "the money so expended 
 having been drawn by the State from a fund upon which she was then 
 
495 
 
 receiving interest.''^ (See Appendix " E " for the first two sections of said 
 Act.) 
 
 The provision pecuhar to said last mentioned Act, and hereinabove 
 referred to, has been reenacted in every statute of later date to provide for 
 the payment of interest to States on advances of the character of those 
 under consideration. 
 
 The next statute upon this subject is that of June 2, 1848, and which, 
 being general in its nature, applied to all the States which under authority 
 of the resolution of March 3, 1847, had furnished troops, etc., for service in 
 the Mexican war. 
 
 This last mentioned statute so amended the said resolution of March 3, 
 1847, as to materially enlarge its scope as to the character of advances 
 which might be reimbursed, and as to the sources from which they might 
 have proceeded, as well as to the circumstances and conditions under which 
 they might have been made. By it provision was also made for the pay- 
 ment of interest on advances made under authority of the resolution 
 amended, and the rate fixed at six per cent per annum. Section 3 of said 
 Act is as follows: ''And be it further enacted, that in refunding moneys 
 under this Act and the resolution which it amends, it shall be lawful to 
 pay interest at the rate of six per centum per annum on all sums advanced 
 by States, corporations, or individuals in all cases when the State, corpora- 
 tion, or individual paid or lost the interest, or is liable to pay it.^^ (See 
 Appendix "F" for full text of Act.) 
 
 Thus it will be observed that under said Act, as amended, reimburse- 
 ment was authorized not only of advances made by States, or under 
 authority of States, but also for advances made by counties, corporations, or 
 individuals, either acting with or without the authority of any State. 
 
 The same principle was observed in the Act of January 26, 1849, ^^au- 
 thorizing the payment of interest upon the advances made by the State of 
 Alabama for the use of the United States Government in the suppression of 
 the Creek Indian hostilities of eighteen hundred and thirty-six and eighteen 
 hundred and thirty-seven, in Alabama" (see Appendix "G"); in the Act 
 of March 3, 1851, " to authorize the Secretary of War to allow the payment 
 of interest to the State of Georgia for advances made for the use of the tlnited 
 States in the suppression of hostilities of the Creeks, Cherokee, and Seminole 
 Indians,^^ etc. (Rev. Stat., vol. 9, p. 626), and in the Act of the same date, 
 " authorizing the payment of interest upon the advances made by the State of 
 Maine for the use of the United States Government in the protection of the 
 Northeastern frontier f^ and the language used in all three of said Acts is 
 adopted in House Bill No. 2463. 
 
 The last mentioned Act was amended by that of August 31, 1852, which 
 amendment extended the operation of said amended Act so as to cover 
 interest for other years, as well as to those provided for originally in said 
 Act; and, again, still further amendment was made to said Act by the Act 
 of June 12, 1858, so that discount suffered as well as ''^interest paid and lost " 
 was authorized to be paid to said State. (Rev. Stat., vol. 9, p. 626.) 
 
 From the foregoing review of the legislation on the subject of the reim- 
 bursement of advances made by the individual States for the use of the 
 United States to aid in the public defense, it will be seen that the action 
 of the General Government has in all such cases been just, even if some- 
 times tardy; and that, according to the peculiar conditions of each case, 
 Congress has always dealt fairly and sometimes even generously with 
 States making such advances. In no known instance has the United 
 States refused to pay the reasonable demands of the States for such interest 
 due them; and while she has never made any effort to narrow or restrict 
 
496 
 
 the operation of laws which authorized reimbursement of moneys so 
 advanced, on the other hand, in order to effect justice, Congress has fre- 
 quently, and according to the circumstances affecting the case, amended 
 Acts authorizing such advances, extending their scope, and liberalizing 
 their provisions for the benefit of the States interested. 
 
 There being abundant precedent for the legislation proposed in H. B. No. 
 2463, and its object being obviously just, there appears no reasonable ground 
 for objection to its present enactment. As has been shown, moneys were 
 borrowed by the States, and by them practically loaned to the United States, 
 under the provisions of laws which were construed by the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, at the time such advances were being made, as covering interest 
 paid hy the States for such moneys. In accordance with the construction 
 held by the interested States, of the laws under which such advances were 
 made, demands for the interest claimed to be due them have been duly 
 presented by such States to " the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
 ury," and payment thereof refused, not because it does not " constitute a 
 just charge against the United States,^^ but for want of the " specific author- 
 ization " which this bill is designed to give. Therefore there can be no 
 relief for the States except such as Congress may give. 
 
 In conclusion, it may be stated that, first, the payment of such interest 
 is but the discharge of an obligation which, in the language of the Attorney- 
 General above cited, "has frequently been recognized hg Congress" in fact, 
 has been invariably so recognized; second, that the rules proposed for gov- 
 erning the computation of such interest are those which have generally 
 been adopted by Congress in similar cases, and propose nothing to which 
 repeated legislative sanction has not been given; and, finally, the rate of 
 interest proposed is not only precisely that which has been authorized in 
 every Act of this character heretofore passed by Congress, but it is the 
 lowest rate which ivas being paid by the United States at the time such 
 moneys were advanced for her use and benefit, and up to the time they were 
 principally refunded, and the rate which (in addition to the discount suf- 
 fered on her bonds) the Government of the United States would have been 
 obliged to pay for said moneys had they not been so advanced by the States. 
 
 All of which is now very respectfully submitted. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 
 State Agent and Counsel for the States of California, Oregon, and Nevada. 
 
 [Copy.] 
 
 Appendix "A." 
 
 Depaktment of Justice, Washington, D. C, July 23, 1883. 
 Hon. Charles J. Folger, Secretary of the Treasury: 
 
 Sir: Your letter of the seventh of June, 1882, and the papers which accompanied it, 
 
 5 resent for my consideration the following question, whether the claim of the State of 
 [ew York for interest paid by that State on money borrowed and expended in enrolling, 
 subsisting, clothing, etc., its troops employed to aid in the suppression of the rebellion, 
 is within the provisions of the Act oi July 27, 18G1, entitled "An Act to indemnify the 
 States for expenses incurred by them in defense of the United States." Delay in answer- 
 ing this question has been occasioned mainly by the demands from time to time, of other 
 business that seemed to require immediate attention. I have now the honor to submit 
 my views thereon : * 
 
 The Act of July 27, 1861, provides: "That the Secretary of the Treasury be and is 
 hereby directed, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay to 
 the Governor of any State, or to his duly authorized agents, the costs, charges, and ex- 
 penses properly incurred by such State for enrolling, subsisting, clothing, supplying, 
 arming, equipping, paying, and transporting its troops employed in aiding to suppjress 
 
497 
 
 the present insurrection against the United States, to be settled upon proper vouchers to 
 be filed and passed upon by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury." 
 
 By a resolution passed March 8, 1862, the above provision is to be construed to apply to 
 expenses incurred as well after as before the date of the approval thereof. 
 
 Under this legislation, the State of New York has already been reimbursed the amount 
 of money which was expended by it for the objects specified in the Act of 1861, exclusive 
 of interest paid on the money so expended, all of which the State was compelled to bor- 
 row. Such interest formed an item in the account rendered by the State, but was not 
 allowed in the adjustment thereof made at the Treasury, the accounting officers not 
 regarding it as admissible under the statute. On the part of the State, however, it is urged 
 that the interest mentioned properly constitutes a part of the "costs, charges, and ex- 
 penses" incurred for the objects above referred to within the meaning of said Act. 
 
 According to the construction originally adopted, and thus far uniformly acted upon, in 
 settling the claims of States under the Act of July 27, 1861, the provisions thereof extend 
 only to such outlay by the State as were made directly and specifically on account of "en- 
 rolling, subsisting, clothing, supplying, arming, equipping, paying, "and transporting its 
 troops," and as payments made by the State on account of interest upon a loan to it of 
 the money thus expended, though the expenses incurred for those objects were indirectly 
 and in a general way augmented thereby are not strictly outlays of the above character, 
 such payments do not come within the scope of the Act. 
 
 This interpretation accords with that which prevailed in the execution of similar pro- 
 visions under which States were reimbursed for advances made by them during the war 
 of 1812, and other subsequent wars. 
 
 By the Act of April 29, 1826, chap. 160, an appropriation was made "for defraying the 
 expenses incurred by calling out the militia, during the late war," in addition to the sums 
 theretofore appropriated to that object, which was applied to the reimbursement of States 
 for advances to meet such expenses. By the Act of March 3, 1817, chap. 86, an appropria- 
 tion was made "for the payment of balances due to certain States on account of disburse- 
 ments for militia employed in the service of the United States during the late war." And 
 by the Act of April 20, 1818, chap. 109, an appropriation was made "for the payment of 
 balances due several States, on an adjustment of their accounts, for expenses incurred by 
 calling out the militia during the war." Although in each of these provisions, very 
 general and comprehensive terms were employed, yet they were not construed to authorize 
 the reimbursement of expenditures made by the States on account of interest, and no 
 claims for such expenditures were allowed thereunder. Congress subsequently provided 
 for these claims by special legislation (thus impliedly recognizing the construction given 
 the general provisions as above), and presented certain rules for their adjustment (see Act 
 of March 3, 1825, chap. 106, May 13, 1826, chap. 39, May 20, 1826, chap. 77, May 22, 1826, 
 chap. 151, March 3. 1827, chap. 79, March 22, 1832, chap. 57), so by the Act of August 11, 
 1842, chap. 127, an amount was appropriated "to the payment and indemnity of the State 
 of Georgia for any money actually paid by said State on account of necessary and proper 
 expenses incurred by said State in calling out her militia," during the Seminole, Cherokee, 
 and Creek campaigns, in the years 1835 to 1838; and by the Act of August 16, 1842, chap. 
 178, the Secretary was directed to audit and adjust the claims of the State of Alabama, 
 "for moneys advanced and paid by said State for subsistence, supplies, and services of 
 local troops called into service by and under the authorities of said States," etc., during 
 Creek and Seminole hostilities. Under neither of these Acts were allowances made for 
 advances on account of interest. But by Act of January 26, 1849, chap. 25, in the case of 
 Alabama, and by Act of March 3, 1851, chap. 35, in the* case of Georgia, Congress made 
 special provision for such allowances, under rules and according to rates there prescribed. 
 
 By a resolution of Congress passed March 3, 1847, provision was made for refunding to 
 the several States, etc., " the amount of expenses incurred by them in organizing, subsist- 
 ing, and transporting volunteers previous to their being mustered and received into the 
 service of the United States" for the Mexican war. This provision, it would seem, was 
 not regarded as authorizing reimbursement for interest paid up on moneys expended for 
 those purposes; since it was apparently deemed necessary, in order to authorize such 
 reimbursements, to provide therefor by further legislation, which is found in the amend- 
 atory Act of June 2, 1848, chap. 60. 
 
 Undoubtedly, the interest paid by the State of New York on money borrowed and 
 applied to the objects specified in the Act of July 27, 1861, forms a part of the burden borne 
 by that State for the general public defense, and constitutes a just charge against the 
 Ifnited States; and the obligation to reimburse for payments of that kind, made under 
 similar circumstances, has frequently been recognized by Congress, as appears by statutes 
 above cited. But to construe the provisions of that Act so as to include such expenditures 
 would be giving them a meaning much broader than that which has in practice been given 
 other legislation of like character and purpose, or that seems to be warranted by any, 
 sound rule of interpretation. When a payment from the Treasury is claimed under a 
 statute, the payment, in order to be allowed, should appear to be authorized either 
 expressly or by very clear implication (9 Opin., 59). The language of the Act under con- 
 sideration, viewed with reference to claims based upon expenditures for interest, does not 
 satisfy that requirement; for while no authority to reimburse the States for interest paid 
 by them is expressly conferred thereby, such authority is not clearly to be implied there- 
 from. Indeed, the absence of any provision in the Act expressly authorizing reimburse- 
 ment for interest rather gives rise to the implication that such reimbursement was not 
 meant to be allowed thereunder; as in other similar cases reimbursement for interest has 
 
 32°* 
 
498 
 
 generally been made the subject of express authorization where Congress intended its 
 allowance. 
 
 I am accordingly of the opinion that the claim of the State of New York, referred to in 
 the question submitted, does not come within the provisions of the Act of July 27, 1861. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER, 
 
 Attorney-General. 
 
 Appendix "B." 
 
 Office of the Auditor of State, Columbus, Ohio, July 25, 1861. 
 
 Hon. S. P. Chase, Secretary, Washington : 
 
 Sir : Yesterday I sent you a dispatch inquiring whether Government would refund to 
 the State a portion of the expenditures for organizing, clothing, subsisting, and equipping 
 troops for Government service without requiring accounts to be audited and allowed, the 
 payment to be subject to future adjustment. The Commissioners of the Sinking Fund 
 have advertised a loan, which, or the greater part of which, may be withdrawn from mar- 
 ket, if the Government can pay the State money on account and hereinafter pass upon 
 items. If the accounts must first be audited and allowed the time necessary for that pur- 
 pose will delay the receipt of money, and make it necessary for the State to obtain it by 
 loan. If possible this should be avoided, and the double discount which will be inevitable, 
 if the State borrows and then the Government to repay the State. Our loan is advertised 
 for August seventh, in New York, at which time it will be necessary that some arrangement 
 for money for immediate use shall have been made. If the Government can, in the way 
 suggested, pay $150,000 to |200,000 per week the State can satisfy the demands upon her 
 without being compelled to borrow, unless temporarily. In case you should be able to 
 refund in advance of audited accounts such vouchers or acknowledgment, as you may 
 desire, will be given. I wish, however, that it be distinctly understood that Ohio will not 
 so press for money as in any sense to embarrass you. I know nothing about the condition 
 of the Treasury, and must not be regarded as importuning you to do what may be incon- 
 sistent with a due regard for more pressing liabilities. 
 I am, very respectfully, 
 
 R. W. TAYLER, Auditor. 
 
 Appendix "C." 
 
 Treasury Department, June 29, 1861. 
 
 My Dear Sir: Yours of the twenty-fifth, making inquiry in regard to the refunding of 
 State expenditures for organizing, clothing, subsisting, and equipping of troops, is received. 
 If you will accept Treasury notes in payment, the expenditures of Ohio will be paid pro 
 rata, as those of Indiana have been, upon the statements of the Governor and State offi- 
 cers, leaving the accounts to be audited hereafter. It will be impossible to advance the 
 coin at present. As to the *' double discount" of which you speak, if Ohio raises money 
 by loan, at a discount, the United States cannot refund such discount to the State, but 
 only the amount of the debt with interest, unless Congress specially provide otherwise. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 S. P. CHASE. 
 
 Hon. R. W. Tayler, Auditor of the State of Ohio. 
 
 Appendix "D." 
 An Act authorizing the payment of interest due to the State of Virginia. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled, That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department be 
 and they are hereby authorized and directed to liquidate and settle the claim of the State 
 of Virginia against the United States, for interest upon loans or moneys borrowed and 
 actually expended by her, for the use and benefit of the United States, during the late war 
 with Great Britain. 
 
 Sec. 2. And be it further enacted. That in ascertaining the amount of interest as 
 aforesaid, due to the State of Virginia, the following rules shall be understood as applica- 
 ble to and governing the case, to wit: 
 
 First — That interest shall not be computed on any sum which Virginia has not expended 
 .for the use and benefit of the United States, as evidenced by the amount refunded or repaid 
 to Virginia by the United States. 
 
 Second — That no interest shall be paid on any sum on which she has not paid interest. 
 
 I'hird — That when the principal or any part of it has been paid or refunded by the 
 United States, or money placed in the hands of Virginia for that purpose, the interest on 
 the sum or sums so paid or refunded shall cease, and not be considered as chargeable to 
 the United States any longer than up to the time of the repayment as aforesaid. 
 
 Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the amount of the interest, when ascertained 
 as aforesaid, shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Approved March 3, 1825. 
 
499 
 
 Appendix " E." 
 
 An Act for the adjustment and settlement of the claims of the State of South Carolina against 
 
 the United States. 
 
 [Approved March 22, 1832.] 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress 
 assembled. That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury be and they are hereby 
 authorized and directed to Hquidate and settle the claim of the State of South Carolina 
 against the United States for interest upon money actually expended by her for military 
 stores for the use and benefit of the United States^ and on account of her militia whilst in 
 the service of the United States, during the late war with Great Britain ; the money so 
 expended having been drawn by the State from a fund upon which she was then receiving interest. 
 
 Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That in ascertaining the amount of interest to be paid 
 as aforesaid to the State of South Carolina, interest shall be computed upon sums expended 
 by the State for the use and benefit of the United States, as aforesaid, and which have 
 been, or shall be, repaid to South Carolina by the United States. 
 
 Appendix " F." 
 
 An Act to refund money for expenses incurred, subsistence, and transportation furnished for the 
 use of volunteers during the present war, before being mustered into the service of the United 
 States. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled, That the provisions of the joint resolution approved March third, eight- 
 een hundred and forty-seven, entitled "A Resolution to refund money to the States, which 
 have supplied volunteers and furnished them transportation, during the present war, 
 before being mustered and received into the service of the United States," be and the same 
 are hereby extended so as to embrace all cases of expenses heretofore incurred, in organiz- 
 ing, subsisting, and transporting volunteers, previous to their being mustered and received 
 into the service of the United States, for the present war, whether by States, counties, cor- 
 porations, or individuals, either acting with or without the authority of the State; provided, 
 however, that proof shall be made, to the satisfaction of the Secretary of War, of the amount 
 thus expended, and that the same was necessary and proper for tlie troops aforesaid. 
 
 Sec 2. And be it further enacted, That an amount sufficient to refund said expenses so 
 incurred be and the same is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not 
 otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That in refunding moneys under this Act, and the 
 resolution which it amends, it shall be lawful to pay interest at the rate of six per centum 
 per annum on all sums advance [advanced] by States, corporations, or individuals, in all 
 cases where the State, corporation, or individual paid or lost the interest, or is liable to pay it. 
 
 Approved June 2, 1848. 
 
 Appendix " G." 
 
 An Act authorizing the payment of interest upon the advances made by the State of Alabama for 
 the use of the United States Government in the suppression of the Creek Indian hostilities of 
 eighteen hundred and thirty-six and eighteen hundred and thirty-seven. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled. That the Secretary of War be and he is hereby directed to pay inter- 
 ests upon the advances made by the State of Alabama for the use of the United States 
 Government for the suppression of hostilities by the Creek Indians, in eighteen hundred 
 and thirty-six and eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, at the rate of six per centum per 
 annum from the time of the advances until the principal sum was paid by the United 
 States to the State of Alabama; and the sum so found to be due to said State to be paid 
 out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Sec 2. ' Be it further enacted. That in ascertaining the amount of interest as aforeaid 
 due to the State of Alabama, the following rules shall govern: That interest shall not be 
 computed on any sum which Alabama has not expended for the use and benefit of the 
 United States, as evidenced by the amount refunded or repaid to the State of Alabama by 
 the United States; second, that no interest shall be paid on any sum on which the said 
 State of Alabama did not either pay or lose interest as aforesaid. 
 
 Approved Januarj^ 26, 1849. 
 
 Appendix "H." 
 
 An Act to authorize the Secretary of War to allow the payment of interest to the State of Georgia 
 for advances made for the use of the United States, in the suppression of the hostilities of the 
 Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee Indians, in the years of eighteen hundred and thirty-six, eighteen 
 hundred and thirty-seven, and eighteevi hundred and thirty-eight. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War be and he is hereby authorized to allow to 
 the State of Georgia, for advances made to the United States for the suppression of the 
 hostilities of the Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee Indians, in the years of eighteen hundred 
 
500 
 
 and thirty-five, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, and 
 eighteen hundred and thirty-eight, interest at the rate of six per cent per annum upon ail 
 sums allowed and paid to the State of Georgia, or that may hereafter he allowed and paid for 
 any moneys advanced by the State for the purpose aforesaid, from the date of such 
 advances until the principal sum or sums were or may be paid by the United States ; pro- 
 vided, that no interest shall be paid on any sum on which the said State of Georgia did not 
 either pay or lose interest. 
 Approved March 3, 1851. 
 
 Appendix "I," 
 
 An Act authorizing the payment of interest upon the advances made by the State of Maine for the 
 use of the United States Government, in the protection of the northeastern frontier. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled, That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury be and they are 
 hereby authorized and directed to liquidate and settle the claim of the State of Maine 
 against the United States for interest upon money borrowed and actually expended by her 
 for the protection of the northeastern frontier of said State, during the years eighteenhun- 
 dred and thirty-nine, eighteen hundred and forty, and eighteen hundred and forty-one ; 
 and the sum so found to be due said State shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury 
 not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Seo. 2. And be it further enacted. That in ascertaining the amount of interest as afore- 
 said due to the State of Maine, the following rules shall govern: First, that interest shall 
 not be computed on any sum which Maine has not expended for the use and benefit of the 
 United States, as evidenced by the amount refunded or repaid to the State of Maine by the 
 United States; second, that no interest- shall be paid on any sum on which the said State 
 of Maine did not either pay or lose interest, as aforesaid. 
 
 Approved March 3, 1851. 
 
 Appendix " K." 
 
 That the foregoing brief and well authenticated statement forms the basis of the State's 
 claim to be reimbursed for interest, and that it is a claim such as the Government of the 
 United States has ever acknowledged and paid, will appear from the following opinions of 
 Attorneys-General and abundant precedents in Acts of Congress. 
 
 Attorney-General Wirt, in construing the Act authorizing the payment of interest to 
 the State of Virginia (Act of March 3, 1825, Stats, at Large, vol. 4, page 132), says : 
 
 "The principle is this: The United States are bound by the relations that subsist 
 between the General and State Governments to provide the means of carrying on war, 
 and as a part of the means of carrying on war, to provide for the defense of the several 
 States. When the United States fail to make such provision, and the States have to 
 defend themselves by means of their own resources, the expenditure thus incurred forms 
 a debt against the United States, which they are bound to reimburse. If the expendi- 
 tures made for such purposes are supplied "from the Treasury of the State, the United 
 States reimburse the principal without interest; but if, being unable itself, from the con- 
 dition of its own finances, to meet the emergency, such State has been obliged to borrow 
 monej^ for the puri)Ose, and thus to incur a debt on which she herself has had to pay 
 interest, such debt is essentially a debt due by the United States, and both the princi- 
 pal and interest are to be paid by the United States. So that where the State has had to 
 pay interest by reason of her taking the place of the United States in time of war, such 
 interest forms a just charge against the United States." (Opinions of Attorneys-General, 
 vol. 1, page 174.) 
 
 Attorney-General Crittenden, in an opinion to the Secretary of War, dated November 
 17, 1851, as to the question of interest under the Act of February 27, 1851 (Statutes at 
 Large, vol. 9, page 573), " for reimbursing the State of Florida," etc., says : 
 
 " Your second question relates to interest which ' the accounting officers decline to 
 allow on the moneys advanced and obligations contracted,' although the State of Florida 
 borrowed the money and paid interest thereon. 
 
 " The question turns upon the true meaning and intention of the Legislature, to be 
 collected from the words of the appropriation of $75,000, 'for reimbursing the State of 
 Florida under such rules and regulations as have heretofore governed the adjustment of 
 similar claims of the several States on the United States, for moneys advanced and paid, 
 and obligations contracted by said State, for subsistence, supplies, and services of local 
 troops called into service during the year 1849, by and under the authorities of said State.' 
 
 " Florida is to be reimbursed for moneys advanced and paid, for expenses incurred and 
 obligations contracted on account of supplies, pay, and subsistence of local troops called 
 into service by the State of Florida in 1849. That reimbursement is to be made under the 
 rules which governed the adjustment of similar claims of the several States against the 
 United States. 
 
 " By an Act approved May 13, 1826 (4 Statutes at Large, page 161, chapter 39), the proper 
 accounting officers of the Treasury are directed to liquidate and settle the claims of the 
 State of Maryland against the United States upon interest of loans of money borrowed 
 and actually expended by her for the use and benefit of the United States during the late 
 war with Great Britain. 
 
 " ' Sec. 2. That in ascertaining the amount of interest as aforesaid the following rules 
 shall be understood as applicable to, and governing the case, to wit: 
 
501 
 
 " ' First — That interest shall not be computed on any sum that Maryland has not 
 expended for the use and benefit of the United States. 
 
 "^Second — That no interest shall be paid on any sums on which she has not paid 
 interest. 
 
 '" Third — That when the principal, or any part of it, has been refunded by the United 
 States, or money placed in the hands of Maryland for that purpose, the interest on the 
 sum or sums so refunded shall cease and not be considered as chargeable to the United 
 States any longer than up to the time of repayment as aforesaid.' 
 
 " Act of March 22, 1832 (4 Stats, at Large, page 499, chap. 51) directed the proper account- 
 ing officers ' to liquidate and settle the claims of the State of South Carolina against the 
 United States for interest upon money actually expended by her for military stores for 
 the use and benefit of the United States during the late war with Great Britain, the money 
 so expended having been drawn by the State from a fund upon which she was then receiv- 
 ing interest. 
 
 " ' Sec. 2. That in ascertaining the amount of interest to be paid as aforesaid to the 
 State of South Carolina, interest shall be computed on the sums expended by the State for 
 the use and benefit of the United States, and which have been, or shall be, repaid to South 
 Carolina by the United States.' 
 
 "By 'An Act to refund money for expenses incurred, subsistence, or transportation 
 furnished for the use of volunteers during the present war before being mustered into 
 the service of the United States,' approved June 2, 1848 (9 Stats, at Large, page 236, chap. 
 60), it was enacted in Section 3 ' that in refunding money under this Act it shall be lawful 
 to pay interest at the rate of six per centum per annum on all sums advanced bv States, 
 corporations, or individuals, in all cases where the State, corporation, or individual has 
 paid or lost interest, or is liable to pay it.' 
 
 "An Act approved January 26, 1849 (Statutes at Large, vol. 9, page 344, chapter 25), 
 directed the Secretary of War to pay to the State of Alabama interest upon the advances 
 made by the State of Alabama for the use of the United States in the suppression of 
 Indian hostilities by the Creek Indians in 1836 and 1837, 'at the rate of six per centum 
 jjer annum from the time of the advance until the principal sum was paid by the United States 
 to the State of Alabama. That no interest shall be paid on any sum on which the State 
 of Alabama did not pay or lose interest.' 
 
 The Act of twenty-seventh February, 1861, is intended to indemnify the State against 
 loss or damage. Reimbursing means repairing the loss or expenses by an equivalent. 
 
 If the State of Florida has contracted obligations bearing interest, or has paid money, 
 with interest, for the use and benefit, in necessary and proper supplies for the troops 
 called into service in 1849, to refund to the State of Florida the principal sum only, with- 
 out the interest, would not reimburse the State, would not save the State from loss and 
 damage, would not be an equivalent for the expense the State has incurred for the United 
 States. 
 
 Moreover, the statute expressly refers to what had been done by the United States for 
 other States in like circumstances. 
 
 The before mentioned statute shows the rules which have heretofore governed the 
 adjustment of similar claims upon the United States. The Acts before cited, and particu- 
 larly that of the second June, 1848, which was a general one, embracing the claims of 
 many States, corporations, and individuals, then to be adjusted, directed that an interest, 
 at the rate of six per cent per annum, be allowed "on all sums advanced by States, corpora- 
 tions, or individuals, when the State, corporation, or individual has paid or lost interest, 
 or is liable to pay it." (Statutes at Large, 1848, vol. 9, page 236, chapter 60.) 
 
 From the beginning of the Government under the Federal Constitution, the public 
 defense, in whole and in all its parts, has been considered as a duty and charge upon the 
 Federal Government. In the adjustment at the Treasury Department of the claims of 
 the several States, for advances, expenditures, and supplies necessary for troops in the 
 exigencies of war, or the suppression of Indian hostilities, there is no public policy, no 
 saving to the public Treasury, no virtue, no laudable end consulted in order to cut down 
 the claims of the several States, in opposition to the intention of Congress and the good 
 faith of the Government, thereby to send the State to Congress to ask further relief by 
 further legislation. 
 
 There is no just cause for not allowing to the State of Florida an interest upon all sums 
 advanced, paid out, and expended for the use of the United States, and obligations by that 
 State contracted for supplies and services of local troops called into service in 1849, by and 
 under authority of said State, when it shall appear that said State has paid or lost inter- 
 est, or is liable to pay interest on that account. 
 
 Interest has always been allowed to the several States for advances made to the United 
 States for military purposes. 
 
 The claims of the several States for advances made during the revolutionary war were 
 adjusted and settled under the provisions of the Acts of Congress of August 5, 1790, and of 
 May 31, 1794. By these Acts interest was allowed to the States, whether they had advanced 
 money on hand in their treasuries or obtained it by loans. 
 
 In respect to the advances by States during the war of 1812-15, a more restricted rule 
 was adopted, to wit: that States should be allowed interest only so far as they themselves 
 had paid it by borrowing, or had lost it by sale of interest-bearing funds. Interest accord- 
 ing to this last rule has been paid to all the States which made advances during the war 
 of 1812-15, except the State oi Massachusetts, which State obtained interest according to 
 the plan of settlement under the Acts of 1790-94. 
 
502 
 
 We cite the cases where interest has been allowed and paid for moneys advanced during 
 the war of 1812-15, as follows : 
 
 Virginia, Act March 3, 1825, 4 Stats, at Large, p. 132. 
 
 Maryland, Act May 13, 1826, 4 Stats, at Large, page 151. 
 
 Delaware, Act May 20, 1826, 4 Stats, at Large, p. 175. 
 
 New York, Act May 22, 1826, 4 Stats, at Large, p. 192. 
 
 Pennsylvania, Act March 3, 1827, 4 Stats, at Large, p. 241. 
 
 South Carolina, Act March 22, 1832, 4 Stats, at Large, p. 499. 
 
 Massachusetts, Act July 8, 1870, 16 Stats, at Large, p. 198. 
 
 For advances for Indian and other wars the same rule has been observed in the follow- 
 ing cases : 
 
 Alabama, Act January 26, 1849, 9 Stats, at Large, p. 344. 
 
 Georgia, Act March 31, 1851, 9 Stats, at Large, p. 626. 
 
 Washington Territory, Act March 3, 1859, 11 Stats, at Large, p. 429. 
 
 New Hampshire, Act January 27, 1852, 10 Stats, at Large, p. 1. 
 
 For claims growing but of the war with Mexico, it was enacted (Act June 2, 1848, 9 Stats, 
 at Large, p. 236. chap. 60, Sec. 3), that in refunding money under this Act it shall be lawful 
 to pay interest at the rate of six per centum per annum on all sums advanced by States, 
 corporations, or individuals, in all cases where the State, corporation, or individual has 
 paid or lost interest, or is liable to pay it. 
 
 Thus, it will be seen, that the precedent for the payment of interest under the rule 
 adopted for the settlement of claims of the war of 1812-15, is well established. 
 
 Florida asks no new rule. She asks only to be placed on an equal footing with her sis- 
 ter States— to be reimbursed for interest she has actually paid, and is now paying. The 
 Indian Trust Fund of the United States now holds seven per cent bonds of the State of 
 Florida amounting, principal and interest, to about three hundred thousand dollars, of which 
 about one hundred and seventy thousand dollars is interest. The State expects of course to 
 take up this debt in the settlement she now desires to make with the United States. 
 
 MARYLAKD. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, 
 in Congress asseinUed, That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department be 
 and they are hereby authorized and directed to liquidate and settle the claim of the 
 State of' Maryland against the United States, for interest upon loans on moneys bor- 
 rowed, and actually expended by her, for the use and the benefit of the United States, 
 during the late war with Great Britain. 
 
 Sec. 2. And be it 'further enacted. That, in ascertaining the amount of interest as 
 aforesaid, due to the State of Maryland, the following rules shall be understood as appli- 
 cable to, and governing the case, to wit: 
 
 First— TYini interest shall not be computed on any sum which Maryland has not expended 
 for the use and benefit of the United States, as evidenced by the amount refunded or 
 paid to Maryland, by the United States. 
 
 Second— Thsit no interest shall be paid on any sum on which she has not paid interest. 
 
 Third— Tha.t when the principal, or any part of it, has been paid, or refunded by the 
 United States, or money placed in the hands of Maryland, for that purpose, the interest 
 on the sum or sums so paid or refunded, shall cease, and not be considered as chargeable 
 to the United States, any longer than up to the time of the repayment, as aforesaid. 
 
 Sec. 3. And be it further enacted. That the amount of the interest, when ascertained, 
 as aforesaid, shall be paid out of anv money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Approved May 13, 1826. 
 
 DELAWARE. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled, That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury De'partment, be 
 and" they are hereby authorized and directed to liquidate and settle the claim of the State 
 of Delaware against the United States, for interest upon loans or moneys borrowed, and 
 actually expended by her, for the use and benefit of the United States during the late war 
 with great Britain. 
 
 Sec 2. And be it further enacted. That in ascertaining the amount of interest as afore- 
 said, due to the State of Delaware, the following rules shall be understood as applicable 
 to and governing the case, to wit: 
 
 First— T\x2ii interest shall not be computed on any sum which Delaware has not expended 
 for the use and benefit of the United States, as evidenced by the amount refunded or 
 repaid to Delaware by the United States. 
 
 Second— T\i2ii no interest shall be paid on any sum on which she has not paid interest. 
 
 r/iirrf— That when the principal, or any part of it, has been paid or refunded by the 
 United States, or moneys placed in the hands of Delaware for that purpose, the interest 
 on the sum or sums so'paid or refunded shall cease and not be considered as chargeable 
 to the United States, any longer that up to the time of the repayment as aforesaid. 
 
 Sec. 3. And belt further enacted, That the amount of the interest, when ascertained as 
 aforesaid, shall be paid out of any monev in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Approved May 20, 1826. 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 
503 
 
 Congress assembled, That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department be 
 and they are hereby authorized and directed to liquidate and settle the claimTof the State 
 of New York against the United States, for interest upon loans on moneys borrowed and 
 actually expended by her for the use and benefit of the United States during the late war 
 with Great Britain. 
 
 Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That in ascertaining the amount of interest as afore- 
 said due to the State of New York, the following rules shall be understood as applicable 
 to and governing the case, to wit: 
 
 First — That interest shall not be computed on any sum which New York has not ex- 
 pended for the use and benefit of the United States, as evidenced by the amount refunded 
 or repaid to New York by the United States. 
 
 Second—That no interest shall be paid on any sum on which she has not paid interest. 
 
 Third — That when the principal, or any part of it, has been paid or refunded by the 
 United States, or money placed in the hands of New York for that 5)urpose, the interest 
 on the sum or sums so paid or refunded shall cease and not be considered as chargeable 
 to the United States any longer than up to the time of the repayment as aforesaid. 
 
 Sec 3. And be it further enacted. That the amount of the interest, when ascertained 
 as aforesaid, shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Approved May 22, 1826. 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress a.<sembled, That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department be 
 and they are hereby authorized and directed to liquidate and settle the claim of the State 
 of Pennsylvania against the United States, for interest upon loans or moneys borrowed 
 and actually expended by her for the use and benefit of the United States during the late 
 war with Great Britain. 
 
 Sec 2. And be it further enacted, That, in ascertaining the amount of interest as afore- 
 said due to the State of Pennsylvania, the following rules shall be understood as applica- 
 ble to and governing the case, to wit: 
 
 i^m^— That interest shall not be computed on any sum which Pennsylvania has not 
 expended for the use and benefit of the United States, as evidenced by the amount re- 
 funded or repaid to Pennsylvania by the United States. 
 
 Second — That no interest shall be paid on any sum on which she has not paid interest. 
 
 Third— That when the principal, or any part of it, has been paid or refunded by the 
 United States, or money placed in the hands of Pennsylvania for that purpose, the inter- 
 est on the sum or sums so paid or refunded shall cease, and not be considered as charge- 
 able to the United States any longer than up to the time of the repayment as aforesaid. 
 
 Sec. 3. And be it further enacted. That the amount of the interest, when ascertained 
 as aforesaid, shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Approved March 3, 1827. 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled. That there be allowed on the claim of the State of Massachusetts, for 
 interest paid by her on money expended by said State on account of the war with Great 
 Britain in eighteen hundred and twelve, to eighteen hundred and fifteen, the sum of six 
 hundred and seventy-eight thousand three hundred and sixty-two dollars and forty-one 
 cents, in full of said claim. 
 
 WASHINGTON TERRITOKY. 
 
 To enable the Secretary of War to pay for the purchase of stores furnished for the use 
 of volunteers engaged in suppressing Indian hostilities in the Territory of Washington 
 during the late Indian hostilities in that Territory, seven thousand dollars, with interest 
 from the time the money was advanced by Governor Douglas for said purchase. 
 
 NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled, That the Second Auditor of the Treasury be and he is hereby author- 
 ized and directed to liquidate and settle the claim of the State of New Hampshire against 
 the United States, for interest upon the military expenses incurred and actually expended 
 by her for the protection of the northeastern frontier of said State, and repelling invasion 
 and suppressing insurrection at Indian Stream, in the county of Coos, in said State, in 
 the years eighteen hundred and thirty-five, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, and eighteen 
 hundred and thirty-seven; and the sum so found to be due to said State, shall be paid out 
 of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated ; provided, that said amount 
 shall not exceed six thousand dollars. 
 
 Sec 2. And be it further enacted, that, in ascertaining the amount of interest, as afore- 
 said, due to the State of New Hampshire, the following rules shall govern: 
 
 First— That interest shall not be computed on any sum which New Hampshire has not 
 expended for the use and benefit of the United States, as evidenced by the amount 
 refunded or repaid to the State of New Hampshire. 
 
 Second — That interest shall not be paid during any time, on any sum larger than the 
 sum the State was paying interest for at such time. 
 
 Approved January 27, 1852. 
 
504 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 5>^. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. Senate 320 and H. R. 109. 
 
 To the honorable Committee on Claims, United States Senate, and to the 
 honorable Committee on War Claims, United States House of Represen- 
 tatives: 
 
 Senate Bill No. 320, introduced in the Senate by Senator Miller of 
 California, December 5, 1883, and referred to the honorable Committee on 
 Claims, and H. R. 109, introduced by Mr. Henley of California, in the 
 House on December 10, 1883, and referred to the honorable Committee on 
 War Claims for action and report, is as follows, to wit: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 Authorizing the payment of interest due to the States of California, Oregon, and Nevada, and 
 
 Nevada when a Territory. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled, That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department be 
 and they are hereby authorized and directed to liquidate and settle the claims of the 
 States of California, Oregon, and Nevada (and Nevada when a Territory) against the United 
 States for interest upon loans or moneys borrowed and actually expended by them for 
 the use and benefit of the United States during the late war for suppressing insurrection 
 and rebellion, and also on account of Indian hostilities in said States and Territory. 
 
 Sec. 2. That in ascertaining the amounts of interest as aforesaid due the States of Cali- 
 fornia, Oregon, and Nevada (and Nevada when a Territory), the following rules shall be 
 understood as applicable to and governing the cases, to wit : 
 
 First — That interest shall not be computed on any sums which California, Oregon, and 
 Nevada (and Nevada when a Territory) have not expended for the use and benefit of the 
 United States, as evidenced by the amounts refunded or repaid, or to be refunded or to be 
 repaid to California, Oregon, and Nevada (and Nevada when a Territory) by the United 
 States. 
 
 Second — That no interest shall be paid on any sums on which they have not paid interest. 
 
 T/wV(^— That when the principal, or any part of it, has been paid or refunded by the 
 United States, or money placed in the hands of California, Oregon, and Nevada (and 
 Nevada when a Territory) for that purpose, the interest on the sum or sums so paid or 
 refunded shall cease, and not be considered as chargeable to the United States any longer 
 than up to the time of the repayment as aforesaid. 
 
 Sec. 3. That the amounts of interest, when ascertained as aforesaid, shall be paid out 
 of Siny money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 The object of these bills, as their language plainly imports, is to provide 
 for the payment of interest by the United States to the States of California, 
 Oregon, and Nevada (and Nevada when a Territory), not upon the whole 
 amount of their respective advances to the United States for the purposes 
 mentioned, but on that part only of such advances upon ivhich such States 
 ^'paid interest." 
 
 The limitation sought to be fixed by said bills on the extent to which 
 the United States should admit and discharge her liability for interest to 
 these States so advancing her money is derived from the practice of the 
 United States in dealing with similar cases in the past. 
 
 Said practice, having been uniformly adopted by Congress and accepted 
 by the individual States from time to time for nearly sixty years, properly 
 measures the liability of the United States on account of interest on simi- 
 lar advances now proposed by these States, and forms the correct and 
 reasonable basis for a settlement of the claims arising under this proposed 
 legislation. 
 
 The reimbursement Acts of 1861 and 1862 provided "that the Secretary 
 of the Treasury be and he is hereby directed, out of any money in the Treas- 
 ury not otherwise appropriated, to pay to the Governor of any State, or to 
 
505 
 
 his duly authorized agents, the costs, charges, and expenses properly incurred 
 by such States for enrolling, subsisting, clothing, supplying, arming, equip- 
 ping, paying, and transporting its troops employed in aiding to suppress 
 the present insurrection against the United States, to be settled upon proper 
 vouchers, to be filed and passed upon by the proper accounting officers of 
 the Treasury." 
 
 By the resolution passed March 8, 1862, it was declared that the provi- 
 sions of the above cited Act shall be construed as applying to such expenses 
 incurred as well after as before the passage of said Act. 
 
 It is reasonable to conclude that these States making advances of money, 
 as contemplated and authorized by said Acts of Congress, understood that 
 they were to be reimbursed the amounts paid by them, respectively, as 
 interest on the moneys so advanced (and which were, in great part, bor- 
 rowed by them for the purpose of such advances), for it is seen that many 
 vStates, upon the passage of said Acts of Congress, proceeded at once to 
 borrow on obligations of their own, and to expend the money thus obtained 
 for the use and benefit of the United States. 
 
 These .States, in making such advances and paying interest on the money 
 advanced, did not act on their own construction of said reimbursement 
 Acts alone, but relied on the interpretation placed thereon by the honorable 
 Secretary of the Treasury in his official correspondence with the Auditor 
 of the State of Ohio with reference to this matter of interest. Upon the 
 subject of the liability of the General Government on account of such 
 advances, the Hon. Salmon P. Chase, then Secretary of the Treasury, under 
 date of July 29, 1861 (two days after the passage of said reimbursement 
 Act), wrote as follows: "As to the 'double discount^ of which you speak, if 
 Ohio raised money by loan at a discount, the United States cannot, of 
 course, refund such discount to the States, hut only the amount of debt, with 
 interest, unless Congress specially provide otherwise." 
 
 The only reasonable construction of this language is that the Govern- 
 ment of the United States considered itself authorized, without further leg- 
 islation, to pay ^Hhe debt with interest.''^ 
 
 Thus it appears that at the time when said advances were being made, 
 there seemed to be no doubt entertained, either on the part of these States 
 or the Federal Government, that the scope of the reimbursement Acts afore- 
 said, then just passed, embraced not only the moneys expended in conform- 
 ity therewith, but also the interest paid thereon. 
 
 In pursuance of this construction of said laws, these States continued to 
 advance money, and in presenting claims for the reimbursement of the 
 same, accounts containing the item of ^Hnterest paid " will not be allowed 
 by the accounting officers of the Government. 
 
 In order to obtain from the Treasury Department an authoritative and, 
 if possible, a more favorable decision on this point, on the seventh day of 
 June, 1882, the attorneys for the State of New York presented a formal 
 demand to the honorable Secretary of the Treasury for the amount of inter- 
 est which said State claimed to have paid on money advanced for the use 
 of the United States as aforesaid. 
 
 And this question, on said date, was referred by the Secretary of the 
 Treasury to the United States Attorney-General for an opinion. 
 
 The opinion of the honorable Attorney-General of the United States as 
 to the authority for the payment of said demand without further legisla- 
 tion was obtained by the Secretary of the Treasury, and in conformity 
 therewith the payment demanded was declined, upon the ground that it 
 was not specifically authorized. 
 
 In said opinion, however, the honorable Attorney-General, after referring 
 
506 
 
 to divers statutes passed by Congress to authorize specifically the payment 
 of interest on such advances, uses the following language: 
 
 Undoubtedly the interest paid by the State of New York on money borrowed and applied 
 to the objects specified in the Act of July 27, 1861, forms part of the burden borne by that 
 State for the general public defense, and constiUites a just charge against the United States; 
 and the obligation to reimburse for payments of that kind, made under similar circum- 
 stances, has frequently been recognized by Congress, as appears by statutes above cited. 
 
 By reason of said decision of the Secretary of the Treasury, these States 
 are obliged to apply to Congress for the legislation necessary to ^^ expressly 
 authorize " and provide for the payment of their several claims for the sums 
 by them respectively expended as aforesaid. In this connection we pass 
 in review, briefly, the various laws enacted from time to time to provide 
 for the payment of interest due to the different States, or advances by them 
 made for the use of the United States in the prosecution of all the different 
 wars, both foreign and Indian, from the time of the war with Great Britain 
 in 1812 down to date. 
 
 Congress has universally paid interest to the States where they have paid 
 interest. We cite the cases where interest has been allowed and paid for 
 moneys advanced during the war of 1812-15, as follows: 
 
 The first Act to provide for the payment of such interest was passed 
 March 3, 1825 (U. S. Stat., vol. 4, p. 132), for the benefit of the State of 
 Virginia; next for the benefit of Maryland, May 13, 1826 (U. S. Stat., vol. 
 4, p. 161); then for Delaware, May 20, 1826 (U. S. Stat., vol. 4, p. 175); 
 then for the City of Baltimore, May 20, 1826 (U. S. Stat., vol. 4, p. 177); 
 then for New York, May 22, 1826 (U. S. Stat., vol. 4, p. 192); and then for 
 Pennsylvania, March 3, 1827 (U. S. Stat., vol. 4, p. 240); next for South 
 Carolina, Act March 22, 1832 (U. S. Stat., vol. 4, p. 499); next Massachu- 
 setts and Maine, July 8, 1870 (U. S. Stat., vol. 16, p. 199). 
 
 For advances for Indian and other wars the same rule has been observed 
 in the following cases: Alabama, Act January 26, 1849 (4 Stat, at L., p. 
 344); Georgia, Act March 31, 1851 (9 Stat, at L., p. 626); Georgia, Act 
 March 3, 1879 (20 Stat, at L., p. 385); Washington Territory, Act March 
 3, 1859 (11 Stat, at L., p. 429); New Hampshire, Act January 27, 1852 
 (10 Stat. atL.,p. 1). 
 
 By reference to these Acts it will be observed that Senate No. 320 and 
 H. R. No. 109 are substantially a transcript of them. 
 
 The Act of March 22, 1832 (U. S. Stat., vol. 4), was the first that was 
 passed providing for the payment to a State of any interest, except such as 
 the State had actually paid; the object of said Act, as set forth in the first 
 section thereof, being to indemnify South Carolina for the loss of interest 
 on money "expended for the use of the United States, etc.; the money so 
 expended having been drawn by the State from a fund upon which she 
 was then receiving interest T 
 
 The provision peculiar to said last mentioned Act, and hereinbefore 
 referred to, has been reenacted in every statute of later date to provide for 
 the payment of interest to States on advances of the character of those 
 under consideration. 
 
 The next statute upon this subject is that of June 2, 1848 (U. S. Stat., 
 vol. 9, p. 236), and which, being general in its nature, applied to all the 
 States which under authority of the resolution of March 3, 1847 (U. S., 
 vol. 9, p. 207), had furnished troops, etc., for service in the Mexican war. 
 
 The last mentioned statute so amended the said resolution of March 3, 
 1847, as to materially enlarge its scope as to the character of advances 
 which might be reimbursed, and as to the sources from which they might 
 
507 
 
 have proceeded, as well as to the circumstances and conditions under which 
 they might have been made. By it provision was also made for the pay- 
 ment of interest on advances made under authority of the resolution 
 amended, and the rate fixed at six per cent per annum. 
 Section 3 of said Act is as follows: 
 
 And be it further enacted, That in refunding moneys under this Act and the resolution 
 which it amends, it shall be lawful to pay interest at the rate of six per centum per annum 
 on all sums advanced by States, corporations, or individuals, in all cases when the State, corpo- 
 ration, or individual paid or lost interest or is liable to pay it. 
 
 Thus, it will be observed,' that under said Act, as amended, reimburse- 
 ment was authorized, not only of advances made by States or under author- 
 ity of States, but also advances by counties, corporations, or individuals, 
 either acting with or ivithout the authority of any State. 
 
 The same principle was observed in the Act of January 26, 1849 (U. S., 
 vol. 9, p. 344), ^^Authorizing the payment of interest upon the advances made 
 by the State of Alabama for the use of the United States Government in the 
 suppression of the Creek Indian hostilities of eighteen hundred and thirty-six 
 and eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, in Alabama^ 
 
 In the Act of March 3, 1851 (U. S., vol. 9, p. 626), " To authorize the 
 Secretary of War to allow the payment of interest to the State of Georgia for 
 advances made for the use of the United States in the suppression of hostilities 
 of the Creeks, Cherokee, and Seminole Indians.''^ 
 
 And in the Act of the same date, ^^Authorizing the payment of interest 
 upon the advances made by the State of Maine, for the use of the United States 
 Government in the protection of the northeastern frontier." (U. S., vol. 9, p. 
 626.) 
 
 The language used in all three of said Acts is adopted in Senate Bill No. 
 320, and in House Bill No. 109. 
 
 The last mentioned Act was amended by that of August 31, 1852 (U. S., 
 vol. 9, p. 109), which amendment extended the operation of said amended 
 Act so as to cover interest for other years, as well as to those provided for 
 originally in said Act; and again, still further amendment was made to 
 said Act by the Act of June 12, 1858 (U. S. Stat., vol. 11, p. 333), so that 
 discount suffered, as well as 'interest paid and lost," was authorized to be 
 paid to said State (U. S. Stat., vol. 9, p. 126); so, too, as late as July 8, 
 1870, Congress (U. S. Stat., vol. 16, p. 197) provided for refunding to the 
 State of Massachusetts the sum of $678,362, for interest paid by said State 
 on money expended by her in 1812 to 1815, one third of which was allowed 
 to the State of Maine, and remaining two thirds was allowed to the State 
 of Massachusetts. 
 
 From the foregoing review of the legislation on the subject of the reim- 
 bursement of advances made by the individual States for the use of the 
 United States, to aid in- the public defense, it will be seen that the action 
 of the General Government has, in all such cases, been uniform and just, 
 though sometimes tardy; and, according to the peculiar conditions of each 
 case, Congress has always dealt fairly, and sometimes even generously, 
 with those States making such advances. In no instance has the United 
 States refused to pay the reasonable demands of the States for such interest 
 due them; and while she has never made any effort to narrow or restrict 
 the operation of laws which authorize reimbursement of moneys so advanced, 
 on the other hand, in order to effect justice. Congress has frequently, and 
 according to the circumstances affecting the case, amended Acts authoriz- 
 ing such advances, extending their scope, and liberalizing their provisions 
 for the benefit of the specific States interested. There being abundant 
 
508 
 
 precedent for the legislation proposed in Senate No. 320 and in H. R. 
 No. 109, and its object being obviously just, there appears no reasonable 
 ground for objection to its present enactment in this case. Moneys were 
 borrowed by these States, and by them practically loaned to the United 
 States, under the provisions of laws which, in the instances cited, were con- 
 strued by the Secretary of the Treasury, at the time such advances were 
 being made, as covering interest paid by the States for such moneys. In 
 accordance with the construction held by these States of the laws under 
 which such advances were made, demands for the interest claimed to be 
 due them will be refused payment, not because it did not " constitute a just 
 charge against Ihe United States" but for want of the ^^ specific authorization" 
 which this bill is designed to give. Therefore, there can be no relief for 
 these States except such as Congress may enact. The payment of such 
 interest will be — first, the discharge of an obligation which, in the language 
 of the Attorney-General, above cited, has ^^ freguently been recognized by Con- 
 gress" in fact has been invariably so recognized: and, second, that the 
 rules proposed for governing the computation of such interest are those 
 which have generally been adopted by Congress in similar cases, and pro- 
 poses nothing to which legislative sanction has not been frequently here- 
 tofore given. Nor is there, nor can there possibly be, any distinction or 
 discrimination in principle made by Congress between those States which 
 made advances out of their own Treasury in the foreign wars between the 
 United States and Mexico in 1846 and 1847, and with Great Britain in 1812 
 and 1815, and during the civil war of 1861 and 1865, and those States which 
 advanced money and assumed an indebtedness in repelling Indian inva- 
 sion and suppressing Indian hostilities within their own respective borders. 
 
 Congress has never yet drawn any distinction between such States when 
 refunding either the principal or the interest in any such cases. That the 
 protection of the several States, and the citizens thereof, from Indian hos- 
 tilities is, and has been from the organization of the Federal Government, 
 a duty and a charge incumbent on the United States, and when, in the 
 absence of such protection, the States themselves have made necessary 
 expenditures for this purpose they should be reimbursed, are principles 
 well founded in law and justice, and fully sanctioned by an unbroken line 
 of precedents. 
 
 Congress has ever recognized its obligations to refund to the several States 
 this class of debts, as shown by the instances hereinbefore referred to, as 
 well as in the other instances that may be cited as follows, to wit: 
 
 By Act approved March 21, 1828, the Secretary of War was required to 
 pay the claims of the militia of the State of Illinois and the Territory of 
 Michigan, called out by any competent authority, on the occasion of the 
 then recent Indian disturbances, and that the expenses incident to the 
 expedition should be settled according to the justice of the claims. (See 
 Laws of United States, vol. 4, p. 258.) 
 
 By Act approved July 2, 1836, Captains Smith, Crawford, Wallis, and 
 Long of the militia of Missouri, and Captain Sigler of the Indiana militia, 
 were paid for services rendered in protection of those States against Indians, 
 and an appropriation of $4,300 was made for that purpose. (See U. S. 
 Stats., p. 71.) 
 
 By Act approved March 1, 1837, an appropriation was made for the pay- 
 ment of the Tennessee volunteers called out by the proclamation of Gov- 
 ernor Cannon on the twenty-eighth of April, 1836, to suppress Indian 
 hostilities; and a direct appropriation was also made to Governor Cannon 
 to reimburse him for moneys expended on account of such volunteers. (See 
 Laws of United States, vol. 5, p. 150.) 
 
509 
 
 By Act approved July 7, 1838, an appropriation was made to the State 
 of New York of such amount as should be found due by the Secretary of 
 War and the accounting officers of the Treasury, out of the appropriation 
 for the prevention of hostilities on the northern frontier, to reimburse the 
 State for expenses incurred in the protection of the frontier to the pay of 
 volunteers and militia called into service by the Governor. (See 5 U. S. 
 Stats., p. 268.) 
 
 By Act approved March 3, 1841, a direct appropriation was made to the 
 City of Mobile for advances of money and expenses incurred in equipping, 
 mounting, and sending to the place of rendezvous two full companies of 
 mounted men, under a call from the Governor of Alabama, at the begin- 
 ning of the hostilities of the Creek Indians. (See Laws, vol. 5, p. 435.) 
 
 By an Act approved June 14, 1842, the State of Maine was reimbursed 
 for the expenses of the militia, called into service by the Governor for the 
 protection of the northeastern frontier. (See 5 U. S. Stats., p. 490.) 
 
 By Act of August 11, 1842, $175,000 was appropriated as a balance for 
 the payment and indemnity of the State of Georgia, for any moneys actu- 
 ally paid by said State on account of expenses in calling out her militia 
 during the Seminole, Cherokee, and Creek campaigns, or for the sup- 
 pression of Indian hostilities in Florida and Alabama. (See Laws, vol. 
 5, p. 504.) By Act approved August 29, 1842, a similar appropriation was 
 made to the State of Louisiana. (See Laws, vol. 5, p. 542.) 
 
 There was appropriated to the State of California, by Act approved 
 August 5, 1854, the sum of $924,259 65, to reimburse the State for expen- 
 ditures " in the suppression of Indian hostilities within the State prior to 
 the first day of January, 1854." (See U. S. Stats, at Large, vol. 10, p. 583.) 
 
 Mr. McDougal, from the House Committee on Military Affairs, which 
 had the bill making said appropriation referred to it, made a report, in 
 which it is said: 
 
 The question remaining for consideration is whether or not the General Government is 
 properly chargeable with their expenditures. 
 
 It is the opinion of this committee that the obligation of the Federal Government to 
 furnish specific and particular defense to each several State is included in its obligation 
 to maintain the "common defense" of the Confederacy. That invasions from abroad, 
 insurrections at home, and aggressions from the savage tribes inhabiting our borders are 
 alike within the protective province of the Federal Government. Congress possesses the 
 exclusive power "to raise and support armies in time of peace," and possesses the power 
 to call forth the militia " to suppress insurrections and repel invasions." In the tenth 
 section of the first article of the Constitution the States stipulate that they will not " keep 
 troops or ships of war in time of peace." 
 
 The conclusion necessarily follows that the General Government is, by the implied, if 
 not by the express terms of the Federal compact, bound to furnish and maintain such 
 military force as the exigencies of the States may demand; and it clearly appears, from 
 the legislative history of Congress, that such has always been the understanding of the 
 Government. 
 
 The question here presented appears to have been distinctly raised in 1831, upon a 
 claim presented by the State of Missouri. By Act approved March third, of that year, 
 Congress made an appropriation for the service of the Missouri militia against the Indians, 
 "provided that the Secretary of War shall, upon full investigation, be satisfied that the 
 United States are liable for the payment of said militia, under the second paragraph of 
 the tenth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States." See U. S. 
 Stats., vol. 4, p. 465.) 
 
 General Cass, then Secretary of "War, examined the subject submitted, and gave the 
 opinion of the Government as to its constitutional obligations, affirming the liability of 
 the Government, and directing payment to be made to the State of Missouri. 
 
 Instances of similar legislation might be cited, but it is believed that but little doubt can 
 exist either as to the constitutional obligation or the exposition given by Congressional 
 legislation. 
 
 By the Act approved June 21, 1860 (it being an army appropriation 
 bill), the sum of $18,988 was appropriated to reimburse the State of Iowa 
 
510 
 
 for the expenses of militia called out by the Governor "to protect the 
 frontier from Indian incursions." (See 12 U. S. Stats., p. 68.) 
 
 By the same Act the sum of $123,544 51 was appropriated to the State 
 of Texas for the " payment of volunteers called out in the defense of the 
 frontier of the State since the twenty-eighth of February, 1855." 
 
 By Act approved February 27, 1861, there was appropriated to reimburse 
 the Territory of Utah " for expenses incurred in suppressing Indian hos- 
 tilities in said Territory in the year 1853" the sum of $53,512. (See 12 
 U. S. Stats., p. 151.) This bill was considered by the House Military 
 Committee, and was reported by Mr. Stanton, who, in his report, says: 
 
 The liability of the Federal Government for necessary expenses incurred by the States 
 and Territories in repelling invasions of their territory by a foreign enemy, or of hostile 
 tribes of Indians within our borders, has been so often recognized that it can no longer 
 be considered an open question. 
 
 The committee also believe that the action of the State and Territorial authorities in 
 calling out their military force and engaging in hostilities furnished at least prima facie 
 evidence of the necessity of their action. 
 
 As there is no evidence before the committee tending to show that these expenses were 
 unnecessarily incurred, the committee feel bound to recognize the liability of the claim. 
 
 By Act approved March 21, 1861, the State of California had appro- 
 priated to her $400,000, of which, on June 25, 1863, $229,981 67 was paid 
 on account to defray the expenses incurred by the State in suppressing 
 Indian hostilities for the years 1854, 1855, 1856, 1858, and 1859. (See 12 
 U. S. Stats., p. 199.) 
 
 Mr. Stanton, from the House Committee on Military Affairs, June 22, 
 1860, reported this bill, and in his report says: 
 
 The liability of the Federal Government to indemnify a State or Territory for expenses 
 necessarily incurred in protecting their citizens against a public enemy in their own 
 midst, has been repeatedly, if not uniformly, recognized by Congress. Your committee, 
 towever, are of opinion that before the Federal Government should assume liabilities of 
 this character it ought to be satisfactorily shown not only that a necessity existed for 
 calling the military forces into service, but that the expenditures have been reasonable in 
 amount, and have not been improvidently incurred. 
 
 By the "Act making appropriations for the sundry civil expenses of the 
 Government for the year ending June, 1864, and for other purposes," an 
 appropriation was made " to pay the Governor of the State of Minnesota, 
 or his duly authorized agent, the costs, charges, and expenses properly 
 incurred by said States in suppressing Indian hostilities within said State 
 and upon its borders in the year 1862, not exceeding $250,000, to be settled 
 upon proper vouchers to be filed and passed upon by the proper accovmting 
 officers of the Treasury." (See 12 U. S. Stats., p. 754.) 
 
 In the sundry civil bill of the following year an appropriation of the sum 
 of $117,000 was made to the same State "to supply a deficiency in the 
 appropriation for the costs, charges, and expenses properly incurred by the 
 State of Minnesota in suppressing Indian hostilities in the year 1862." 
 (See 13 U. S. Stats., pp. 350, 351.) 
 
 By Act approved May 28, 1864, the sum of $928,411 was appropriated 
 for the payment of damages sustained by citizens of Minnesota " by reason 
 of the depredations and injuries by certain bands of Sioux Indians." 
 (See 13 U. S. Stats., p. 92.) 
 
 By Act of January 6, 1883, " to reimburse the States of Oregon and Cali- 
 fornia, and citizens thereof, for moneys paid by said States in the suppres- 
 sion of Indian hostilities during the Modoc war in 1872-73." (U. S. Stats., 
 vol. 22, p. 399.) 
 
 And finally, by the Act of June 27, 1882, "to authorize the Secretary of 
 
511 
 
 the Treasury to examine and report to Congress the amount of all claims 
 of the States of Texas, Colorado, Oregon, Nebraska, California, Kansas, 
 Nevada, and Territories of Washington and Idaho for money expended and 
 indebtedness assumed by said States and Territories in repelling invasions 
 and suppressing Indian hostilities, and for other purposes." (U. S. Stats., 
 vol. 22, page 111.) 
 
 The legislative precedents clearly establish the fact that the United States 
 have uniformly assumed the payment of expenditures made by the States 
 in repelling Indian invasions and suppressing Indian hostilities. 
 
 The United States should therefore refund to the States of California, 
 Oregon, and Nevada, 7mnc pro tunc, the amounts that said States, respect- 
 ively, may have actually expended as interest; an obligation made the 
 more imperative in their cases, due to the fact that their frontiers were 
 exposed to Indian invasion and Indian hostilities, which the United States 
 could not then promptly suppress, owing to the long distances of the seat 
 of war from the seat of the War Department, and the inadequate military 
 force of the United States in those States at the date when such expenses 
 were paid by said States necessarily incurred. 
 
 And this obligation will not be in the least diminished by the further 
 fact that those States had to borrow money at short notice, in order to liqui- 
 date pressing demands and meet their obligations to their own citizens, who 
 had to abandon their lucrative civil employment in order to perform a mil- 
 itary duty, which, under the Constitution of the United States and of said 
 States, the United States had obligated itself to perform, but which the 
 United States failed to perform, due to the causes hereinbefore stated. The 
 principles hereinbefore discussed have also been fully set before you by 
 Hon. John T. Heard, State a^ent for Missouri, and Hon. W. W. Wilshire, 
 State agent for Arkansas, in support of H. R. 2463, which bill, however, is 
 limited to cases arising during the late war of the rebellion. 
 
 Wherefore, in conclusion, I now respectfully request that either of said 
 bills (Senate No. 320 or H. R. No. 109) may be enacted into a law for the 
 benefit of the States therein named. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 
 Agent and Attorney for the States of California, Oregon, and Nevada. 
 
 Appended hereto are some of the more important Acts of Congress relat- 
 ing to this subject, and hereinbefore several times referred to, and given at 
 length in order that your honorable committees may have before them for 
 easy reference this class of legislation, and also full copies of the opinion of 
 the United States Attorney-General, Secretary of the Treasury, and other 
 officials referred to in the foregoing argument, and as follows, to wit : 
 
 [Copy.l 
 Department of Justice, Washington, D. C, July 23, 1883. 
 Hon. Charles J. Folger, Secretary of the Treasury : 
 
 Sir: Your letter of the seventh of June, 1882, and the papers which accompanied it, pre- 
 sent for my consideration the following question, whether the claim of the State of New 
 York for interest paid by that State on money borrowed and expended in enrolling, sub- 
 sisting, clothing, etc., its troops employed to aid in the suppression of the rebellion, is 
 within the provisions of the Act of July 27, 1861, entitled "An Act to indemnify the States 
 for expenses incurred by them in defense of the United States." Delay in answering this 
 question has been occasioned mainly by the demands from time to time of other business 
 that seemed to require immediate attention. I have now the honor to submit my views 
 thereon. 
 
 The Act of July 27, 1861, provides : " That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and is hereby 
 directed, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay to the Gov- 
 
512 
 
 ernor of any State, or to his duly authorized agents, the costs, charges, and expenses, 
 properly incurred by such State for enrolling, subsisting, clothing, supplying, arming, 
 equipping, paying, and transporting its troops, employed in aiding to suppress the present 
 insurrection against the United States, to be settled upon proper vouchers to be filed and 
 passed upon by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury." 
 
 By a resolution passed March 8, 1862, the above provision is to be construed to apply to 
 expenses incurred as well after as before the date of the approval thereof. 
 
 Under this legislation the State of New York has already been reimbursed the amount 
 of monej'^ which was expended by it for the objects specified in the Act of 1861, exclusive 
 of interest paid on money so expended, all of which the State was compelled to borrow. 
 Such interest formed an item in the account rendered by the State, but was not allowed 
 in the adjustment thereof made at the Treasury, the accounting officers not regarding it 
 as admissible under the statute. On the part of the State, however, it is urged that the 
 interest mentioned properly constitutes a part of the costs, charges, and expenses, incurred 
 for the objects above referred to within the meaning of said Act. 
 
 According to the construction originally adopted, and thus far uniformly acted upon in 
 settling the claims of States under the Act of July 27, 1861, the provisions thereof extend 
 only to such outlay by the State as were made directly and specifically on account of " enroll- 
 ing, subsisting, clothing, supplying, arming, equipping, paying, and transporting its 
 troops." And as payments made by the State on account of interest upon a loan to it of 
 the money thus expended, though the expenses incurred for those objects were indirectly 
 and in a general way augmented thereby, are not strictly outlays of the above character. 
 Such payments do not come within the scope of the Act. This interpretation accords 
 with that which prevailed in the execution of similar provisions, under which States were 
 reimbursed for advances made by them during the war of 1812 and other subsequent wars. 
 
 By the Act of April 29, 1816 (chapter 160), an appropriation was made ''for defraying the 
 expenses incurred by calling out the militia during the late war," in addition to the sums 
 theretofore appropriated to that object, which was applied to the reimbursement of States 
 for advances to meet such expenses. By the Act of March 3, 1817 (chapter 86), an appro- 
 priation was made " for the payment of balances due to certain States on account of dis- 
 laursements for militia employed in the service of the United States during the late war." 
 And by the Act of April 20, 1818 (chapter 109), an appropriation was made "for the paj^- 
 ment of balances due several States, on an adjustment of their accounts, for expenses 
 incurred by calling out the militia during the war." Although in each of these provisions 
 very general and comprehensive terms were employed, yet they were not construed to 
 authorize the reimbursements of expenditures made by the States on account of interest,, 
 and no claims for such expenditures were allowed thereunder. Congress subsequently 
 provided for these claims hy special legislation (thus impliedly recognizing the construc- 
 tion given the general provisions as above), and presented certain rules for their adjust- 
 ment (see Act of March 3, 1825, chapter 106; May 13, 1826, chapter 39; Mav 20, 1826, chap- 
 ter 77; May 22, 1826, chapter 151; March 3, 1827, chapter 79; March 22. 1832, chapter 57). 
 So by the Act of August 11, 1842 (chapter 127), an amount was appropriated "to the pay- 
 ment and indemnity of the State of Georgia for any money actuallj'^ paid by said State on 
 account of necessary and proper expenses incurred by said State in calling out her militia 
 during the Seminole, Cherokee, and Creek campaigns, in the years 1835 to 1838." And by 
 the Act of August 16, 1842 (chapter 178), the Secretary was directed to audit and adjust 
 the claims of the State of Alabama "for moneys advanced and paid by said State for sub- 
 sistence, supplies, and services of local troops called into service by and under the author- 
 ities of said States, etc.," during Creek and Seminole hostilities. Under neither of these 
 Acts were allowances made for advances on account of interest. But by Act of January 
 26, 1849 (chapter 25), in the case of Alabama, and by Act of March 3, 1851 (chapter 35), in 
 the case of Georgia, Congress made special provision for such allowances, under rules and 
 according to rates there prescribed. 
 
 By a resolution of Congress, passed March 3, 1847, provision was made for refunding to 
 the several States, etc., "the amount of expenses incurred by them in organizing, subsist- 
 ing, and transporting volunteers previous to their being mustered and received into the 
 service of the United States" for the Mexican war. This provision, it would seem, was 
 not regarded as authorizing reimbursement for interest paid on moneys expended for 
 those purposes, since it was apparently deemed necessary, in order to authorize such reim- 
 bursements, to provide therefor by further legislation, which is found in the amendatory 
 Act of June 2, 1848, chap. 60. Undoubtedly the interest paid by the State of New York on 
 money borrowed and applied to the objects specified in the Act of July 27, 1861, forms a 
 part of the burden borne by that State for the general public defense, and constitutes a 
 just charge against the United States; and the obligations to reimburse for payments of 
 that kind, made under similar circumstances, has frequently been recognized by Congress, 
 as appears by statutes above cited. But to construe the provision of that Act so as to 
 include such expenditures, would be giving them a meaning much broader than that 
 which has in practice been given other legislation of like character and purpose, or that 
 seems to be warranted by any sound rule of interpretation. When a payment from the 
 Treasury is claimed under a statute, the payment, in order to be allowed, should appear 
 to be authorized, either expressly or by very clear implication, (9 Opin., 59). The language 
 of the Act under consideration, viewed with reference to claims based upon expenditures 
 for interest, does not satisfy that requirement; for while no authority to reimburse the 
 States for interest paid by them is expressly conferred thereby, such authority is not 
 clearly to be implied therefrom. 
 
513 
 
 Indeed, the absence of any provision in the Act expressly authorizing reimbursement 
 for interest rather gives rise to the imphcation that such reimbursement was not meant 
 to be allowed thereunder ; as in other similar cases reimbursement for interest has gener- 
 allv been made the subject of express authorization where Congress intended its allowance. 
 t am accordingly of the opinion that the claim of the State of New York, referred to in 
 the question submitted, does not come within the provisions of the Act of July 27, 1861. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER, 
 
 Attorney-General. 
 
 Office of the Auditor of State, Columbus, Ohio, July 25, 1861. 
 Hon. S. P. Chase, Secretary, Washington : 
 
 Sir: Yesterday I sent you a dispatch inquiring whether Government would refund to 
 the State a portion of the expenditures for organizing, clottilng, subsisting, and equipping 
 troops for Government services without requiring accounts to be audited and allowed, the 
 payment to be subject to future adjustment. 
 
 The Commissioners of the Sinking Fund have advertised a loan, which, or the greater 
 part of which, may be withdrawn from market if the Government can pay the State money 
 on account, and hereinafter pass upon items. If the accounts must first be audited and 
 allowed, the time necessary for that purpose will delay the receipt of money and make 
 it necessary for the State to obtain it by loan. If possible this should be avoided, and 
 the double discount which will be inevitable if the State borrows and then the Govern- 
 ment to repay the State. Our loan is advertised for August seventh, in New York, at 
 which time it will be necessary that some arrangement for money for immediate use shall 
 have been made. If the Government can, in the way suggested, pay $150,000 to $200,000 
 per week, the State can satisfy the demands upon her without being compelled to borrow, 
 unless temporarily. In case you should be able to refund in advance of audited accounts, 
 such vouchers or acknowledgment as you may desire will be given, I wish, however, 
 that it be distinctly understood that Ohio will not so press for money as in any sense to 
 embarrass you. 
 
 I know nothing about the condition of the Treasury, and must not be regarded as 
 importuning you to do what may be inconsistent with a due regard for more pressing lia- 
 bilities. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, 
 
 R. W. TAYLER, Auditor. 
 
 Treasury Department, July 29, 1861. 
 
 My Dear Sir: Yours of the twenty-fifth, making inquiry in regard to the refunding of 
 State expenditures for organizing, clothing, subsisting, and equipping of troops, is received. 
 If you will accept Treasury notes in payment, the expenditures of Ohio will be repaid pro 
 rata, as those of Indiana have been, upon the statements of the Governor and State offi- 
 cers, leaving the accounts to be audited hereafter. It will be impossible to advance the 
 coin at present. As to the "double discount" of which you speak, if Ohio raises money 
 by loan, at a discount, the United States cannot refund such discount to the State, but 
 only the amount of the debt, with interest, unless Congress specially provide otherwise. 
 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 S. P. CHASE. 
 
 Hon. R. W. Tayler, Auditor of the State of Ohio. 
 
 AN ACT 
 Authorizing the payment of interest due to the State of Virginia. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled, That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department be 
 and they are hereby authorized and directed to liquidate and settle the claim of the State 
 of Virginia against the United States for interest upon loans or moneys borrowed and 
 actually expended by her for the use and benefit of the United States during the late war 
 with Great Britain. 
 
 Sec. 2. And be it further enacted. That in ascertaining the amount of interest as afore- 
 said due to the State of Virginia, the following rules shall be understood as applicable to 
 and governing the case, to wit: First — That interest shall not be computed on any sum 
 which Virginia has not expended for the use and benefit of the United States, as evidenced 
 by the amount refunded or repaid to Virginia by the United States ; Second— "Y^lmxt no inter- 
 est shall be paid on any sum on which she has not paid interest; Third — That when the 
 principal, or any part of it, has been paid or refunded by the United States, or money 
 placed in the hands of Virginia for that purpose, the interest on the sum or sums so paid, 
 or refunded shall cease and not be considered as chargeable to the United States any longer 
 than up to the time of the repayment as aforesaid. 
 
 Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the amount of the interest, when ascertained as 
 aforesaid, shall be paid out of any money in the Treasurv not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Approved March 3, 1825 ( U. S. Stat., vol. 4, p. 132). 
 
 33 "* 
 
514 
 
 AN ACT 
 
 For the adjustment and settlement of the claims of the State of South Carolina against the United 
 
 States. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatixes of the United States, in Congress 
 assembled, That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury be and they are hereby 
 authorized and directed to liquidate and settle the claim of the State of South Carolina 
 against the United States for interest upon money actually expended by her for military 
 stores for the use and benefit of the United States and on account of her militia whilst in 
 the service of the United States during the late war with Great Britain; the money so 
 expended having been drawn by the State from a fund upon which she was then receiving interest. 
 
 Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That in ascertaining the amount of interest to be paid 
 as aforesaid to the State of South Carolina, interest shall be computed upon sums expended 
 by the State for the use and benefit of the United States as aforesaid, and which have been • 
 or shall be repaid to South Carolina by the United States. 
 
 Approved March 22, 1832 (U. S. Stat., vol. 4, p. 499). 
 
 AN ACT 
 
 To refund money for expenses incurred, subsistence and transportation furnished, for the use of 
 volunteers during the present war before being mustered into the service of the United States. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and Hoxise of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled. That the provisions' of the joint resolution approved March 3, 1847, 
 entitled "A resolution to refund money to the States which have supplied volunteers and 
 furnished them transportation during the present war before being mustered and received 
 into the service of the United States," be and the same are hereby extended so as to em- 
 brace all cases of expenses heretofore incurred in organizing, subsisting, and transporting 
 volunteers previous to their being mustered and received into the service of the United 
 States, for the present war, whether by States, counties, corporations, or individuals, either 
 acting with or without the authority of the State ; provided, however, that proof shall be 
 made to the satisfaction of the Secretary of War of the amount thus expended and that 
 the same was necessary and proper for the troops aforesaid. 
 
 Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That an amount sufficient to refund said expenses so 
 incurred be and the same is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not 
 otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Sec. 3. And be it further enacted. That in refunding moneys under this Act and the reso- 
 lution which it amends, it shall be lawful to pay interest at "the rate of six per centum per 
 annum on all sums advance [advanced] by States, corporations, or individuals, in all cases 
 where the State, corporation, or individual paid or lost the interest, or is liable to pay it. 
 
 Approved June 2, 1848 (U. S. Stat, vol. 9, p. 236). 
 
 AN ACT 
 
 Authorizing the payment of interest upon the advances made by the State of Alabama for the use 
 of the United States Goveriiment in the suppression of the Creek Indian hostilities of eighteen 
 hundred and thirty-six and eighteen hundred and thirty-seven. 
 
 Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled. That the Secretary of War be and he is hereby directed to pay interest 
 upon the advances made by the State of Alabama for the use of the United States Gov- 
 ernment for the suppression of hostilities by the Creek Indians in 1836 and 1837 at the 
 rate of six per centum per annum from the time of the advances until the principal sum 
 was paid by the United States to the State of Alabama; and the sum so found to be due 
 to said State to be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Sec 2. Be it further enacted. That in "ascertaining the amount of interest as aforesaid 
 due to the State of Alabama, the following rules shall govern : That interest shall not be 
 computed on any sum which Alabama has not expended for the use and benefit of the 
 United States, asevidenced by the amount refunded or repaid to the State of Alabama by 
 the United States ; second, that no interest shall be paid on any sum which the said State 
 of Alabama did not either pay or lose interest as aforesaid. 
 
 Approved January 26, 1849 (U. S. Stat., vol. 9, p. 344). 
 
 AN ACT 
 
 To authorize the Secretary of War to allow the payment of interest to the State of Georgia for 
 advances made for the' %ise of the United States in the suppression of the hostilities of the 
 Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee Indians, in the years of 1836, and 1837, and 1838. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War be and he is hereby authorized to allow 
 to the State of Georgia, for advances made to the United States for the suppression of the 
 hostilities of the Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee Indians, in the years 1835, 1836, 1837, and 
 1838, interest at the rate of six per cent per annum upon all sums allowed and paid to the 
 State of Georgia, or that may hereafter be allowed and paid for any moneys advanced by the 
 State for the purpose aforesaid from the date of such advances until the principal sum or 
 
515 
 
 sums were or may be paid by the United States ; provided, that no interest shall be paid 
 on anv sum on which the said State of Georgia did not either jjay or lose interest. 
 Approved March 3, 1851 (U. S. Stat., vol. 9, p. 626). 
 
 AN ACT 
 
 Authorizing the payment of interest upon the advances made by the State of Maine for the use 
 of the United States Government in the protection of the northeastern frontier. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled. That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury be and they are 
 hereby authorized and directed to liquidate and settle the claim of the State of Maine 
 against the agent of the United States for interest upon money borrowed and actually 
 expended by her for the protection of the northeastern frontier of said State during the 
 years 1839, 1840, and 1841, and the sum so found to be due said State shall be paid out of 
 any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Sec. 2. And be it further enacted. That in ascertaining the amount of interest as 
 aforesilid due to the State of Maine, the following rules shall govern: First, that interest 
 shall not be computed on any sum which Maine has not expended for the use and benefit 
 of the United States, as evidenced by the amount refunded or repaid to the State of 
 Maine by the United States ; second, that no interest shall be paid on any sum on which 
 the said State of Maine did not either pay or lose interest as aforesaid. 
 
 Approved March 3, 1851 (U. S. Stat., vol. 9, p. 626). 
 
 AN ACT 
 
 Providing for refunding the interest paid by the State of Massachusetts on money expended by 
 her on account of the war of 1812 to 1815. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and, House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled, That there be allowed on the claim of the State of Massachusetts, for 
 interest paid by her on money expended by said State on account of the war with Great 
 Britain in 1812 to 1815, the sum of $678,362 41, in full of said claim ; and whereas, hj an 
 arrangement made by the said State of Massachusetts and the State of Maine, at the time 
 of their separation in 1820, the said State of Maine becomes the owner of one third of this 
 claim ; and whereas, both of said States have assigned their respective interests in said claim 
 to the European and North American Railway Company of Maine, to aid said company in 
 ■constructing its line of railway, the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and 
 directed to pay one third part of the said claim of $678,362 41 to the State of Maine, and 
 the other two thirds part thereof to the State of Massachusetts, by an issue to each of 
 said States, for the use and benefit of said European and North American Railway Com- 
 pany, of an amount of United States certificates of indebtedness equal to its share in the 
 whole sum allowed and to be paid ; said certificates to be of the denomination of $1,000 
 each, to be made and issued by the Secretary of the Treasury in such form, and signed, 
 attested, and registered as he shall direct, and with or without interest warrants, as he 
 may prefer. Each certificate to run five years from its date, to draw interest payable 
 semi-annually, at the rate of four per centum per annum, and to be payable, both prin- 
 cipal and interest, in lawful money of the United States, to be hereafter appropriated and 
 provided for by Congress. 
 
 Sec. 2. And be it further enacted. That the acceptance by the said States of Massa- 
 chusetts and Maine, and the said European and North American Railway Company of 
 the amount hereby authorized to be paid to each of said States for the use and benefit of 
 said railway company, shall be held and regarded as a full adjustment and payment of 
 any and all claims for interest as aforesaid, and also a complete adjustment, liquidation, 
 and payment of any and all other claims of the said States of Massachusetts and Maine, 
 and of said railway company, or either of them, against the United States for and on 
 account of any matters arising from any money expended by said State of Massachusetts 
 on account of the war with Great Britain in 1812 to 1815, or any interest thereon, or on 
 account of any matters arising out of or accruing from the treaty with Great Britain, 
 known as the Treaty of Washington, or for or on account of any other matters which 
 have been assigned by said States of Massachusetts and Maine to said railway company. 
 
 Approved July 8, 1870 (U. S. Stat., vol. 16, p. 197). 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 6. 
 
 Hon. : 
 
 My Dear Sir: Permit me to ask your attention to the provisions of H. 
 B. 2463, the object of which is to authorize the reimbursement of the dif- 
 ferent States, for the amounts they respectively paid out, as interest, on the 
 moneys they expended for the use of the Government, during the late war. 
 The State of having advanced to the Government for the purposes 
 
516 
 
 above mentioned, the sum of $ , almost every dollar of which she bor- 
 rowed and paid interest on, is, therefore, materially interested in the pas- 
 sage of said bill. 
 
 The character of the proposed legislation is, in no sense, new or unusual; 
 but, on the contrary, it is in perfect accord with the practice of the Govern- 
 ment for more than sixty years, beginning with the Act of March 3, 1825, 
 for the benefit of Virginia, and continuing through numerous Acts, to that 
 of March 3, 1881, for the benefit of California. 
 
 Until recently, the States interested relied on getting their money under 
 the Reimbursement Act of July 27, 1861. 
 
 Said Act provides for reimbursing the States for all '^costs, charges, and 
 expenses incurred,^^ etc., for the purposes therein mentioned; and two days 
 after its passage (July 29, 1861) , Mr. Chase, then Secretary of the Treasury, 
 in an official communication addressed to the State Auditor of Ohio, on the 
 subject of the liability of the Government to the States, under said Act, 
 thus interpreted the same: 
 
 If Ohio raises money by loan at a discount, the United States cannot refund such dis- 
 count to the State, but only the amount of the debt with interest, unless Congress specially 
 provide otherwise. (See report of Auditor of Ohio, 1861, p. — .) 
 
 Relying on this construction of the law, the States did, since the adjourn- 
 ment of the last Congress, make demand for the payment of such interest, 
 selecting the claim of the State of New York, on which to test the question. 
 
 The matter being submitted to the Attorney-General for his opinion, such 
 opinion was announced on July 23, 1883; and while it advised in favor of 
 requiring more specific authority for the payment demanded, it contained 
 the following language: 
 
 Undoubtedly, the interest paid by the State of New York on money borrowed and 
 applied to the objects specified in the Act of July 27, 1861, forms a part of the burden borne 
 by that State for the general public defense, and constitutes a just charge against the 
 United States. 
 
 In thus stating the liability of the Government, he adopts the views of 
 two of his most distinguished predecessors — Attorneys-General Wm. AVirt, 
 and John J. Crittenden. 
 
 Discussing the Act of March 3, 1825, to pay interest to Virginia, Mr. 
 Wirt says: 
 
 The expenditure thus incurred forms a debt against the United States which they are 
 bound to reimburse. If the expenditures made for such purpose are supplied from the 
 Treasury of the State, the United States reimburse the principal without interest; but if 
 being unable itself, from the condition of its own finances, to meet the emergency, such 
 State has been obliged to borrow money for the purpose, and thus to incur a debt on 
 which she herself has had to pay interest, such debt is essentially a debt due by the United 
 States, and both the principal and interest are to be paid by the United States. (See 
 Opinions of Attorneys-General, vol. 1, page 174.) 
 
 Attorney-General Crittenden, in construing the Act of twenty-seventk 
 February, 1851, "for reimbursing Florida," uses the following language: 
 
 The Act of twenty-seventh of February, 1851, is intended to indemnify the State against 
 loss or damage. Reimbursing means repairing the loss or expenses by an equivalent. If 
 the State of Florida has contracted obligations bearing interest, or has paid money, with 
 interest, for the use and benefit, in necessary and proper supplies for the troops called into 
 service in 1849, to refund to the State of Florida the principal sum only, without the 
 interest would not reimburse the State, would not save the State from loss and damage, 
 would not be an equivalent for the expense the State has incurred for the United States. 
 There is no public policy, no saving to the public Treasury, no virtue, no laudable end con- 
 sulted in order to cut down the claims of the several States, in opposition to the intention 
 of Congress and the good faith of the Government, 
 
517 
 
 Among the Acts passed to provide for paying interest on such advances 
 made by the States and Territories in the past, the following may be cited. 
 First, on account of the war of 1812 and 1814, as follows: 
 
 Virginia, Act March 3, 1825, 4 Stat, at Large, p. 132. 
 Maryland, Act of May 13, 1826, 4 Stat, at Large, p. 151. 
 Delaware, Act of May 20, 1826, 4 Stat, at Large, p. 175. 
 New York, Act of May 22, 1826, 4 Stat, at Large, p. 192. 
 Pennsylvania, Act of March 3, 1827, 4 Stat, at Large, p. 241. 
 South "Carolina, Act of March 22, 1832, 4 Stat, at Large, p. 499. 
 Maine, Act of March 31, 1851, 9 Stat, at Large, p. 626. 
 Massachusetts and Maine, Act July 8, 1870, 16 Stat, at Large, p. 198. 
 
 That the same rule has been observed in settling with States for advances 
 made in Indian wars, will be shown by reference to the following cases: 
 
 Alabama, Act January 26, 1849, 9 Stat, at Large, p. 344. 
 Georgia, Act March 31, 1851, 9 Stat, at Large, p. 626. 
 Washington Territory, Act March 3, 1859, 11 Stat, at Large, p, 429. 
 New Hampshire, Act January 27, 1852, 10 Stat, at Large, p. 1. 
 California, Act August 5, 1854, 10 Stat, at Large, p. 582. 
 California, Act August 18, 1856, 11 Stat, at Large, p. 91. 
 California, Act June 23, 1860, 12 Stat, at Large, p. 104. 
 California, Act July 25, 1868, 15 Stat, at Large, p. 175. 
 California, Act March 3, 1881, 21 Stat, at Large, p. 510. 
 
 The payment of advances made for the use of the Government in the 
 Mexican war, was provided for by a general Act, passed June 2, 1848, which 
 contains the following provision with reference to interest: 
 
 That in refunding money under this Act, it shall be lawful to pay interest, at six per 
 centum per annum, on all' sums advanced by States, corporations, or individuals, in all 
 cases where the State, corporation, or individual has paid or lost interest, or is liable to 
 pay it. (9 Stat, at Large, p. 236.) 
 
 Considering the obvious justice of the object proposed by said bill, and 
 the numerous precedents for its enactment, and in view of the large interest 
 which your State has at stake in the matter, it is hoped that you will give 
 to said measure your early and careful attention; and, if consistent with 
 your views of your duty in the premises, your active support. 
 
 Yours, etc., 
 
 JOHN MULLAN, 
 State Agent and Counsel for the States of California, Oregon, and Nevada. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 7. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. House of Representatives. Report No. 1102. 
 
 INTEREST PAID ON WAR CLAIMS. 
 
 April 1, 1884 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
 state of the Union and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Rowell, from the Committee on War Claims, submitted the following 
 
 REPORT. 
 [To accompany Bill H. R. 2463.] 
 The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 
 
518 
 
 '2463) to reimburse the several States for interest paid on war loans, and 
 for other purposes, submit the following report: 
 
 By the Act of July 27, 1861, and the joint resolution of March 8, 1862, 
 the Secretary of the Treasury was directed to pay the Governor of any 
 State, or his duly authorized agents, "the cost, charges, and expenses prop- 
 erly incurred by such States for enrolling, subsisting, clothing, supplying, 
 arming, equipping, paying, and transporting its troops employed in aiding 
 to suppress the present insurrection against the United States, to be settled 
 upon proper vouchers to be filed and passed upon by the proper accounting 
 officers of the Treasury." 
 
 By the joint resolution of March 8, 1862, payments were directed to be 
 made for expenditures made subsequent to as well as before the passage of 
 the Act. Under this Act disbursements have been made to the States 
 amounting to the sum of $43,296,938 22; and there yet remains unsettled 
 or disallowed claims amounting to several millions of dollars. 
 
 Many, if not all, of the States were obliged to borrow money to pay the 
 expenses incurred, but in adjusting and allowing their claims the account- 
 ing officers of the Treasury have rejected all claims for interest paid out by 
 the States, holding that the law did not authorize such payment. 
 
 The bill under consideration provides for reimbursing the States for inter- 
 est paid or lost on account of expenses incurred and repaid under the Act 
 of Jul^ 27, 1861. By its provisions, interest is only to be paid on such 
 sums as have been refunded, or may hereafter be refunded, under the 
 authority of the Act of Congress and explanatory resolution; no interest is 
 to be paid, unless it was actually paid out or lost by the States, and then 
 only up to the time of repayment by the Government; and limited to six 
 per cent. 
 
 Claims for interest have been filed amounting to $3,188,887 25, but these 
 claims are based upon a higher rate of interest than that provided in the 
 bill. Other States have not filed interest claims, owing to the ruling of the 
 Department, but if the bill becomes law they will have proper claims. 
 
 Your committee are of opinion that these interest claims, at a rate such 
 as the General Government was obliged to pay, are a just and proper charge 
 against the Government. Immediately after the passage of the Acts, Mr. 
 Chase, then Secretary of the Treasury, in a communication to the Auditor 
 of the State of Ohio, gave assurances that interest would be paid. Laws 
 were passed after the war of 1812, to reimburse the several States for mon- 
 eys expended in that war, with similar provisos to the law under which the 
 payments herein considered have been made. 
 
 Subsequently Congress passed laws to pay interest as is provided in this 
 bill. A similar bill was passed by Congress to reimburse States for ex- 
 penses incurred on account of the Indian war, with like necessity of sub- 
 sequent legislation to authorize the payment of interest. 
 
 It seems to be the history of all the legislation of Congress for the reim- 
 bursement of States for war expenditures, that the initial statutes have 
 always failed to provide for the payment of interest, but in every instance, 
 previous to 1861, subsequent Acts provided for the payment of interest. 
 
 It may therefore be regarded as the settled policy of Congress to repay 
 to the several States, not only the principal sums expended by them in aid 
 of the General Government in times of war, but also to repay interest 
 actually paid out, not exceeding the rate paid by the General Government 
 during the same period. 
 
 Your committee therefore recommend that the bill do pass. 
 
519 
 EXHIBIT No. 8. 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. S. 2009. Calendar No., 649. [Report No. 590.] 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. April 5, 1884. 
 Mr. Cullom introduced the following bill, which was read twice, and 
 referred to the Committee on Claims. 
 
 May 28, 1884 — Reported by Mr. Hoar without amendment. 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To reimburse the several States for interest paid on war loans^ and for other 
 
 purposes. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the proper accounting offi- 
 cers of the Treasury Department be and they are hereby authorized and 
 directed to examine, adjust, and settle the claims of the several States of 
 the Union against the United States for interest upon loans or moneys 
 borrowed and actually expended by said States respectively for the use 
 and benefit of the United States under authority of the Act of Congress 
 entitled "An Act to indemnify the States for expenses incurred by them in 
 defense of the United States," approved July twenty-seventh, eighteen 
 hundred and sixty-one, and under the explanatory joint resolution entitled 
 "joint resolution declaratory of the intent and meaning of a certain Act 
 therein named," approved March eighth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, 
 and kindred Acts providing for the reimbursement of moneys advanced 
 by States to aid in suppressing the rebellion; provided, that the benefits of 
 this Act shall not extend to any State which shall not have presented a 
 claim for such interest at the expiration of one year from the date of the 
 passage of this Act. 
 
 Sec. 2. That in ascertaining the amount of interest due to any State as 
 aforesaid the following rules shall be applicable and shall govern the case, 
 to wit: 
 
 First — That interest shall not be computed on any sum which such State 
 has not expended for the use and benefit of the United States, as evidenced 
 by the amount refunded or repaid, or which may hereafter be refunded or 
 repaid, to such State under and by authority of 'the said Act of Congress 
 and the explanatory resolution hereinabove referred to. 
 
 Second — That interest shall not be paid to any State on any sum on 
 which such State shall not have paid or lost interest. 
 
 Third — That when the principal, or any part of it, has been paid or 
 refunded by the United States to any State, or placed in the hands of such 
 State for that purpose, interest on the amount of such sum or sums so paid 
 or refunded shall cease, and not be considered as chargeable to the United 
 States any longer than up to the time of the repayment aforesaid. 
 
 Fourth — That interest shall in all cases contemplated by this Act be 
 computed at the rate of six per centum per annum. 
 
 Sec. 3. That the amount of interest due to any State, when ascertained 
 as aforesaid, shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
 appropriated. 
 
520 
 
 Forty-eighth Congress, first session. Senate. Report No. 590. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. May 28, 1884 — Ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Hoar, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany bill S. 2000.] 
 
 The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2000) to 
 reimburse the several States for interest paid on war loans, and for other 
 purposes, have considered the same, and respectfully report: 
 
 The policy of the United States to refund to the States interest on money 
 expended by them in aid of the General Government for military purposes 
 in time of war is settled. It has been applied to all such expenditures 
 incurred by the States in aid of the war of 1812 (see Virginia, Act March 
 3, 1825, 4 Stat, at Large, p. 132; Maryland, Act of May 13, 1826, 4 Stat, at 
 Large, p. 151; Delaware, Act of May 20, 1826, 4 Stat, at Large, p. 175; 
 New York, Act of May 22, 1826, 4 Stat, at Large, p. 192; Pennsylvania, 
 Act of March 3, 1827, 4 Stat, at Large, p. 241; South Carolina, Act of 
 March 22, 1832, 4 Stat, at Large, p. 499; Maine, Act of March 31, 1851, 9 
 Stat, at Large, p. 626; Massachusetts and Maine, Act July 8, 1870, 16 
 Stat, at Large, p. 198); in aid of various Indian wars (see Alabama, Act 
 January 26, 1849, 9 Stat, at Large, p. 344; Georgia, Act March 31, 1851, 9 
 Stat, at Large, p. 626; Washington Territory, Act March 3, 1859, 11 Stat, 
 at Large, p. 429; New Hampshire, Act January 27, 1852, 10 Stat, at Large, 
 p. 1; California, Act August 5, 1854, 10 Stat, at Large, p. 582; California, 
 Act August 18, 1856, 11 Stat, at Large, p. 91; California, Act June 23, 
 1860, 12 Stat, at Large, p. 104; CaKfornia, Act July 25, 1868, 15 Stat, at 
 Large, p. 175; CaKfornia, Act March 3, 1881, 21 Stat, at Large, p. 510); 
 and in aid of the Mexican war. See statute of June 2, 1848, which is as 
 follows: 
 
 AN ACT 
 
 To refund money for expenses incurred, subsistence mid transportation fxtrnished for the use of 
 volunteers during the present war before being mustered into the service of the United States. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled, That the provisions of the joint resolution approved March 3, 1847, 
 entitled "A resolution to refund money to the States which have supplied volunteers and 
 furnished them transportation during the present war, before being mustered and received 
 into the service of the United States," be and the same are hereby extended so as to em- 
 brace all cases of expenses heretofore incurred in organizing, subsisting, and transporting 
 volunteers, previous to their being mustered and received into the service of the United 
 States, for the present war, whether by States, counties, corporations, or individuals, either 
 acting with or without the authority of the State; provided, however, that proof shall be 
 made, to the satisfaction of the Secretary of War, of the amount thus expended, and thai 
 the same was necessary and proper for the troops aforesaid. 
 
 Sec. 2. And be it further enacted. That an amount sufficient to refund said expenses 
 so incurred, be and the same is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not 
 otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Sec. 3. And be it further enacted. That in refunding moneys under this Act and the 
 resolution which it amends it shall be lawful to pay interest at the rate of six per centum 
 per annum on all sums advance [advanced] by States, corporations, or individuals, in all 
 cases where the State, corporation, or individual paid or lost the interest, or is liable to pay it. 
 
 Approved June 2, 1848. 
 
 Mr. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, recognized the obligation imposed 
 by these precedents, in a communication to the State Auditor of Ohio, in 
 the following language: 
 
 If Ohio raises money by loan at a discount, the United States cannot refund such dis- 
 count to the State, but only the amount of the debt with interest, unless Congress specially 
 provide otherwise. 
 
521 
 
 This was two days after the passage of the statute of July 27, 1861, 
 which is as follows: 
 
 That the Secretary of the Treasury be and is hereby directed, out of any money in the 
 Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay to the Governor of any State, or to his duly 
 authorized agents, the costs, charges, and expenses properly incurred by such State for 
 enrolling, subsisting, clothing, supplying, arming, equipping, paying, and transporting its 
 
 ippress the present insurrection again 
 
 troops employed in aiding to suppress the present insurrection against the United States 
 to be settled upon prop* 
 officers of the Treasury 
 
 to be settled upon proper vouchers to be filed and passed upon by the proper accounting 
 - - ^j 
 
 By a resolution passed March 8, 1862, the above provision is to be con- 
 strued to apply to expenses incurred as well after as before the date of the 
 approval thereof. 
 
 It is held by the accounting officers of the Treasury that they are not 
 warranted in the allowance of interest to the States by the existing law. 
 This question was submitted to the present Attorney-General, who says, in 
 his opinion, July 23, 1883: 
 
 Undoubtedly the interest paid by the State of New York on money borrowed and applied 
 to the objects specified in the Act of July 27, 1861, forms a part of the burden borne by that 
 State for the general public defense, and constitutes a just charge against the United 
 States ; and the obligation to reimburse for payments of that kind, made under similar 
 circumstances, has frequently been recognized by Congress, as appears by statutes above 
 cited. 
 
 This opinion is in accord with that of his predecessors, Mr, Wirt and 
 Mr. Crittenden. Mr. Wirt says: 
 
 The expenditure thus incurred forms a debt against the United States which they are 
 bound to reimburse. If the expenditures made for such purpose are supplied from the 
 Treasury of the State, the United States reimburse the principal without interest; but if, 
 being unable itself, from the condition of its own finances, to meet the emergency, such 
 State has been obliged to borrow money for the purpose, and thus to incur a debt on" which 
 she herself has had to pay interest, such debt is essentially a debt due by the United 
 States, and both the principal and interest are to be paid by the United States. (See 
 Opinions of Attorneys-General, vol. 1, page 174.) 
 
 Mr^ Crittenden says: 
 
 The Act of twenty-seventh of February, 1851, is intended to indemnify the State against 
 loss or damage. Reimbursing means repairing the loss or expenses by an equivalent. If 
 the State of Florida has contracted obligations bearing interest, or has paid money, with 
 interest, for the use and benefit, in necessary and proper supplies for the troops called 
 into service in 1849, to refund to the State of Florida the principal sum only, without the 
 interest, would not reimburse the State, would not save the State from loss and damage, 
 would not be an equivalent for the expense the State has incurred for the United States. 
 There is no public policy, no saving to the public Treasury, no virtue, no laudable end con- 
 sulted in order to cut down the claims of the several States, in opposition to the intention 
 of Congress and the good faith of the Government. 
 
 We append, for the information of the Senate, House Report No. 1102, 
 made at the present session, and recommend the passage of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Rowell, from the Committee on War Claims, submitted the following report to 
 accompany bill H. R. 2463: 
 
 The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2463) to reimburse 
 the several States for interest paid on war loans, and for other purposes, submit the fol- 
 lowing report: 
 
 By the Act of July 27, 1861, and the joint resolution of March 8, 1862, the Secretary, of 
 the Treasury was directed to pay to the Governor of anj^ State, or his duly authorized 
 agents, '' the costs, charges, and expenses properly incurred by such States for enrolling, 
 subsisting, clothing, supplying, arming, equipping, paying, and transporting its troops 
 employed in aiding to suppress the present insurrection against the United States, to be 
 settled upon proper vouchers to be filed and passed upon by the proper accounting officers 
 of the Treasury." 
 
522 
 
 By the joint resolution of March 8, 1862, payments were directed to be made for exj)end- 
 itufes made subsequent to as well as before the passage of the Act. Under this Act 
 disbursements have been made to the States amounting to the sum of 143,29(5,938 22; and 
 there yet remain unsettled or disallowed claims amounting to several millions of dollars. 
 
 Many, if not all, of the States were obliged to borrow money to pay the expenses 
 incurred, but in adjusting and allowing their claims the accounting officers of the Treas- 
 ury have rejected all claims for interest paid out by the States, holding that the law did 
 not authorize such payment. 
 
 The bill under consideration provides for reimbursing the States for ijiterest paid or 
 lost on account of expenses incurred and repaid under the Act of July 27, 1861. By its 
 provisions, interest is only to be paid on such sums as have been refunded or may here- 
 after be refunded under the authority of the Act of Congress and explanatory resolution : 
 no interest is to be paid, unless it was actually paid out or lost by the States, and then 
 only up to the time of repayment by the Government, and limited to six per cent. 
 
 Claims for interest have been filed" amounting to $3,188,887 25, but these claims are based 
 upon a higher rate of interest than that provided in the bill; other States have not filed 
 interest claims, owing to the ruling of the department, but if the bill becomes a law 
 they will have proper claims. 
 
 Your committee are of opinion that these interest claims, at a rate such as the General 
 Government was obliged to pay, are a just and proper charge against the Government. 
 Immediately after the passage of the Acts, Mr. Chase, then Secretary of the Treasury, in 
 a communication to the Auditor of the State of Ohio, gave assurances that interest would 
 be paid. Laws were passed after the war of 1812 to reimburse the several States for 
 moneys expended in that war, with similar provisos to the law under which the payments 
 herein considered have been made. 
 
 Subsequently Congress passed laws to pay interest, as is provided in this bill. A sint- 
 ilar bill was passed by Congress to reimburse States for expenses incurred on account of 
 the Indian war, with like necessity of subsequent legislation to authorize the payment of 
 interest. 
 
 It seems to be the history of all the legislation of Congress for the reimbursement of 
 States for war expenditures that the initial statutes have always failed to provide for the 
 payment of interest, but in every instance previous to 1861 subsequent Acts provided for 
 the payment of interest. 
 
 It may therefore be regarded as the settled policy of Congress to repay to the several 
 States not only the principal sums expended by them in aid of the General Government 
 in times of war, but also to repay interest actually paid out not exceeding the rate paid 
 by the General Government during the same period. 
 
 Your committee therefore recommend that the bill do pass. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. Sy2. 
 
 Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 25 (adopted March 5, 1885). 
 
 Whereas, The law of July 27, 1861, and the "joint and declaratory 
 resolution" of March 8, 1862, provided for the reimbursement to the States 
 of all sums by them expended in defense of the United States; and whereas, 
 under the interpretation of said original Act of 1861, made two days after 
 its passage by the Secretary of the Treasury, the States were led to believe 
 that if they, respectively, borrowed money on their own account and ad- 
 vanced it to the United States, under the conditions mentioned in said 
 law, that said sums, together with the interest paid thereon, would be 
 refunded to them, that having been the practice of the United States in 
 such cases for more than sixty years; and whereas, acting under this 
 impression and belief, many of the States did borrow moneys and advance 
 them to the United States, and paid interest thereon from their own re- 
 sources; and whereas, the principal has, in a great measure, been refunded 
 by the United States to the States advancing said moneys, still the interest 
 paid by such States, as aforesaid, has not been refunded; and whereas, it 
 is held by the Treasury Department, through which such reimbursement 
 settlements are made, that specific legislation will be required to justify 
 the payment of such interest; and whereas. Congress has always hereto- 
 fore provided, specifically, for the payment of interest on such advances 
 made in any war, either foreign or Indian, beginning with the Act of March 
 3, 1825, to reimburse Virginia for interest on advances made during the 
 
523 
 
 war of 1812, to that of March 3, 1881, to reimburse CaHfornia on account 
 of similar expenditures made in one of her Indian wars; and whereas, 
 during the late war, and under authority of said "reimbursement" Acts 
 of 1861 and 1862, the State of California advanced to the United States 
 money which she borrowed, and on which she paid interest, and which 
 interest has in no part been refunded by the United States, but is now 
 justly due the State; and whereas, there are now pending, in both branches 
 of the present Congress, measures designed to authorize the settlement of 
 the claims of the several States for such interest (being S. 2000, and H. R. 
 2463) , and which said measures have been reported on by the committees 
 to which they were referred, in both Houses, in unanimously favorable 
 reports; therefore, 
 
 Be it resolved by the Senate^ the Assembly concurring^ That our Senators 
 and Representatives in Congress be and they are hereby requested to give 
 their active support to said bills, or to others having the same object in 
 view, and to use their best endeavors, in cooperation with the agent of this 
 State, and in support of his efforts, to thus secure to the State the amounts 
 by her expended, as aforesaid. 
 
 Be it further resolved^ That a copy of the above preamble and resolution 
 be sent by the Governor of this State to our Senators and Representatives 
 in Congress, and to our State agent. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 9. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. 152. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 21, 1885 — Read twice, 
 referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To reimburse the several States for interest paid on war loans, and for other 
 
 purposes. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the proper accounting 
 officers of the Treasury Department be and they are hereby authorized 
 and directed to examine, adjust, and settle the claims of the several States 
 of the Union against the United States for interest upon loans or moneys 
 borrowed and actually expended by said States, respectively, for the use 
 and benefit of the United States, under authority of the Act of Congress 
 entitled " An Act to indemnify the States for expenses incurred by them in 
 defense of the United States," approved July twenty-seventh, eighteen 
 hundred and sixty-one, and under the explanatory joint resolution entitled 
 " Joint resolution declaratory of the intent and meaning of a certain Act 
 therein named," approved March eighth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, 
 and kindred Acts, providing for the reimbursement of moneys advanced by 
 States to aid in suppressing the rebellion; provided, that the benefits of this 
 Act shall not extend to any State which shall not have presented a claim 
 for such interest at the expiration of one year from the date of the passage 
 of this Act. 
 
 Sec. 2. That in ascertaining the amount of interest due to any State as 
 
524 
 
 aforesaid, the following rules shall be applicable and shall govern the case, 
 to wit : 
 
 First — That interest shall not be computed on any sum which such 
 State has not expended for the use and benefit of the United States, as 
 evidenced by the amount refunded or repaid, or which may hereafter be 
 refunded or repaid, to such State, under and by authority of the said Acts 
 of Congress and the explanatory resolution hereinabove referred to. 
 
 Second — That interest shall not be paid to any State on any sum on 
 which such State shall not have paid interest, or lost the same by the dispo- 
 sition of interest-bearing securities held by the State. 
 
 Third — That when the principal, or any part of it, has been paid or 
 refunded by the United States to any State, or placed in the hands of such 
 State for that purpose, interest on the amount of such sum or sums so paid 
 or refunded shall cease, and not be considered as chargeable to the United 
 States any longer than up to the time of the repayment aforesaid. 
 
 Fourth — That interest shall in all cases contemplated by this Act be 
 computed at the rate paid by the State, not exceeding six per centum per 
 annum. 
 
 Sec. 3. That the amount of interest due to any State, when ascertained 
 as aforesaid, shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
 appropriated. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. 163. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. December 21, 1885 — Read twice, 
 referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To reimburse the States and Territories for interest on money heretofore used 
 and expended by them in the suppression of Indian hostilities. 
 
 Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the proper accounting officers 
 of the Treasury Department be and they are hereby authorized and directed 
 to examine, adjust, and settle the claims of the several States and Terri- 
 tories for interest upon loans or moneys borrowed and heretofore actually 
 expended by said States and Territories, respectively, in the suppres- 
 sion of Indian hostilities; provided, that the benefits of this Act shall not 
 extend to any State or Territory which shall not have presented a claim for 
 such interest at the expiration of one year from the date of the passage of 
 this Act. 
 
 Sec. 2. That in ascertaining the amount of interest due to any State or 
 Territory, as aforesaid, the following rules shall be applicable, and shall 
 govern the case, to wit: 
 
 First — That interest shall not be computed on any sum which such State 
 or Territory has not heretofore expended in the suppression of Indian hos- 
 tilities, as evidenced by the amount of money refunded or repaid, or which 
 may hereafter be refunded or repaid to such States or Territories which 
 have heretofore made such expenditures. 
 
 Second — That no interest shall be paid to any State or Territory on any 
 sum on which said State or Territory shall not have paid or lost interest. 
 
 Third — That when the principal, or any part of it, has been paid or 
 refunded by the United States to any such State or Territory, or placed in 
 
525 
 
 the hands .of such State or Territory for that purpose, interest on the 
 amount of the sum or sums so paid or refunded shall cease, and not be 
 considered as chargeable to the United States any longer than up to the 
 time of the repayment aforesaid. 
 
 Fourth — That interest in all cases contemplated by this Act shall be 
 computed at the rate of six per centum per annum. 
 
 Sec. 3. That the amount of interest due to any State or Territory, when 
 ascertained as aforesaid, shall be paid to the Governor of such State or 
 Territory, or the duly authorized agent thereof, by the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. S. 59. Calendar No. 8. Report No. 2. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. December 8, 1885 — Mr. Cullom 
 introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
 Committee on Claims. 
 
 December 16, 1885 — Reported by Mr. Hoar, with amendments, viz.: 
 Omit the parts struck through and insert the parts printed in italics. 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To reimburse the several States for interest paid on war loans, and for other 
 
 purposes. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That the proper accounting officers 
 of the Treasury Department be and they are hereby authorized and directed 
 to examine, adjust, and settle the claims of the several States of the Union 
 against the United States for interest upon loans or moneys borrowed and 
 actually expended by said States, respectively, for the use and benefit of 
 the United States, under authority of the Act of Congress entitled "An Act 
 to indemnify the States for expenses incurred by them in defense of the 
 United States," approved July twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and sixty- 
 one, and under the explanatory joint resolution entitled " Joint Resolution 
 declaratory of the intent and meaning of a certain Act therein named," 
 approved March eighth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and kindred Acts 
 providing for the reimbursement of moneys advanced by States to aid in 
 suppressing the rebellion; provided, that the benefits of this Act shall not 
 extend to any State which shall not have presented a claim for such interest 
 at the expiration of one year from the date of the passage of this Act. 
 
 Sec. 2. That in ascertaining the amount of interest due to any State as 
 aforesaid the following rules shall be applicable, and shall govern the case^ 
 to wit: 
 
 First — That interest shall not be computed on any sum which such 
 State has not expended for the use and benefit of the United States, as 
 evidenced by the amount refunded or repaid, or which may hereafter be 
 refunded or repaid to such State, under and by authority of the said Acts 
 of Congress and the explanatory resolution hereinabove referred to. 
 
 Second — That interest shall not be paid to any State on any sum on 
 which such State shall not have paid interest, or lost the same by the dispo- 
 sition of interest-bearing securities held by the State. 
 
 Third — That when the principal, or any part of it, has been paid or 
 refunded by the United States to any State, or placed in the hands of such 
 State for that purpose, interest on the amount of such sum or sums so paid 
 
526 
 
 or refunded shall cease, and not be considered as chargeable to the United 
 States any longer than up to the time of the repayment aforesaid. 
 
 Fourth — That interest shall in all cases contemplated by this Act be 
 computed at the rate paid hy the State, not exceeding six per centum per 
 annum. 
 
 Sec. 3. That the amount of interest due to any State, when ascertained 
 as aforesaid, shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
 appropriated. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 10. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. Senate. Report No. 2. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. December 16, 1885 — Ordered to be 
 printed. 
 
 Mr. Hoar, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany bill S. 59.] 
 
 The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 59) to reim- 
 burse the several States for interest paid on war loans, and for other pur- 
 poses, have considered the same, and respectfully report: 
 
 The policy of the United States to refund to the States interest on money 
 expended by them in aid of the General Government for military purposes 
 in time of war is settled. It has been applied to all such expenditures 
 incurred by the States in aid of the war of 1812 (see Virginia, Act March 
 3, 1825, 4 Stat, at Large, p. 132; Maryland, Act of May 13, 1826, 4 Stat, at 
 Large, p. 151; Delaware, Act of May 20, 1826, 4 Stat, at Large, p. 175; 
 New York, Act of May 22, 1826, 4 Stat, at Large, p. 192; Pennsylvania, 
 Act of March 3, 1827, 4 Stat, at Large, p. 241; South Carolina, Act of 
 March 22, 1832, 4 Stat, at Large, p. 499; Maine, Act of March 31, 1851, 9 
 Stat, at Large, p. 626; Massachusetts and Maine, Act July 8, 1870, 16 
 Stat, at Large, p. 198); in aid of various Indian wars (see Alabama, Act 
 January 26, 1849, 9 Stat, at Large, p. 344; Georgia, Act March 31, 1851, 9 
 Stat, at Large, p. 626; Washington Territory, Act March 3, 1859, 11 Stat, 
 at Large, p. 429; New Hampshire, Act January 27, 1852, 10 Stat, at Large, 
 p. 1; California, Act August 5, 1854, 10 Stat, at Large, p. 582; California, 
 Act August 18, 1856, 11 Stat, at Large, p. 91; California, Act June 23, 
 1860, 12 Stat, at Large, p. 104; California, Act July 25, 1868, 15 Stat, at 
 Large, p. 175; California, Act March 3, 1881, 21 Stat, at Large, p. 510); 
 and in aid of the Mexican war. See statute of June 2, 1848, which is as 
 follows: 
 
 AN ACT 
 
 To refund money for expenses incurred, subsistence and transportation furnished for the iise of 
 volunteers during the present war before being mustered into the service of the United States. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
 Congress assembled, That the provisions of the joint resolution approved March 3, 1847, 
 entitled "A resolution to refund money to the States which have supplied volunteers and 
 furnished them transportation during the present war, before being mustered and received 
 into the service of the United States," be and the same are hereby extended so as to 
 embrace all cases of expenses heretofore incurred in organizing, subsisting, and trans- 
 porting volunteers, previous to their being mustered and received into the service of the 
 United States, for the present war, whether by States, counties, corporations, or indi- 
 viduals, either acting with or without the authority of the State; jnovided, however, that 
 proof shall be made, to the satisfaction of the Secretary of War, of the amount thus 
 expended, and that the same was necessary and proper for the troops aforesaid. 
 
527 
 
 Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That an amount suflBcient to refund said expenses 
 so incurred be and the same is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not 
 otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Sec 3. And be it further enacted, That in refunding moneys under this Act, and the 
 resolution which it amends, it shall be lawful to pay interest at the rate of six per centum 
 per annum on all sums advance [advanced] by States, corporations, or individuals, m all 
 cases where the State, corporation, or individual paid or lost the interest, or is liable to pay it. 
 
 Approved Jnne 2, 1848. 
 
 Mr. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, recognized the obligation imposed 
 by these precedents, in a communication to the State Auditor of Ohio, in 
 the following language : 
 
 If Ohio raises money by loan at a discount, the United States cannot refund such dis- 
 count to the State, but only the amount of the debt with interest, unless Congress specially 
 provide otherwise. 
 
 This was two days after the passage of the statute of July 27, 1861, 
 which is as follows: 
 
 That the Secretary of the Treasury be and is hereby directed, out of any money in the 
 Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay to the Governor of any State, or to his duly 
 authorized agents, the costs, charges, and expenses properly incurred by such State for 
 enrolling, subsisting, clothing, supplying, arming, Equipping, paying, and* transporting its 
 troops employed in aiding to suppress the present insurrection against the United States, 
 to be settled upon proper vouchers to be filed and passed upon by the proper accounting 
 oflBcers of the Treasury. 
 
 By a resolution passed March 8, 1862, the above provision is to be con- 
 strued to apply to expenses incurred as well after as before the date of the 
 approval thereof 
 
 It is held by the accounting officers of the Treasury that they are not 
 warranted in the allowance of interest to the States by the existing law. 
 This question was submitted to Attorney-General Brewster, who says, in 
 his opinion, July 23, 1883: 
 
 Undoubtedly the interest paid by the State of New York on money borrowed and applied 
 to the objects specified in the Act of July 27, 1861, forms a part of the burden borne by that 
 State for the general public defense, and constitutes a just charge against the United 
 States; and the obligation to reimburse for payments of that kind, made under similar 
 circumstances, has frequently been recognized by Congress, as appears by statutes above 
 cited. 
 
 This opinion is in accord with that of his predecessors, Mr. Wirt and 
 Mr. Crittenden. Mr. Wirt says: 
 
 The expenditure thus incurred forms a debt against the United States which they are 
 bound to reimburse. If the expenditures made for such purpose are supplied from the 
 Treasury of the State, the United States reimburse the pnncipal without interest; but if, 
 being unable itself, from the condition of its own finances, to meet the emergency, such 
 State has been obliged to borrow money for the purpose, and thus to incur a debt on which 
 she herself has had to pay interest, such debt is essentially a debt due by the United 
 States, and both the principal and interest are to be paid by the United States. (See 
 Opinions of Attorneys-General, vol. 1, page 174.) 
 
 Mr. Crittenden said: 
 
 The Act of twenty-seventh of February, 1851, is intended to indemnify the State against 
 loss or damage. Reimbursing means repairing the loss or expenses by an equivalent. If 
 the State of Florida has contracted obligations bearing interest, or has paid money, with 
 interest, for the use and benefit, in necessary and proper supplies for the troops called 
 into service in 1849, to refund to the State of Florida the principal sum only, without the 
 interest, would not reimburse the State, would not save the State from loss and damage, 
 would not be an equivalent for the expense the State has incurred for the United States. 
 There is no public policy, no saving to the public Treasury, no virtue, no laudable end con- 
 sulted in order to cut down the claims of the several States, in opposition to the intention 
 of Congress and the good faith of the Government. 
 
528 
 
 We append, for the information of the Senate, House Report No. 1102, 
 made at the last session, and recommend the passage of the bill, with 
 sundry amendments. 
 
 Mr. Rowell, from the Committee on War Claims, submitted the following report to 
 accompany bill H. R. 24G3 : 
 
 The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R, 2463) to reimburse 
 the several States for interest paid on war loans, and for other purposes, submit the fol- 
 lowing report : 
 
 By the Act of July 27, 1861, and the joint resolution of March 8, 1862, the Secretary of 
 the Treasury was directed to pay to the Governor of any State, or his duly authorized 
 agent, " the costs, charges, and expenses properly incurred by such States for enrolling, 
 subsisting, clothing, supplying, arming, equipping, paying, and transporting its troops 
 employed in aiding to suppress the present insurrection against the United States, to be 
 settled upon proper vouchers to be filed and passed upon by the proper accounting officers 
 of the Treasury." 
 
 By the joint resolution of March 8, 1862, payments were directed to be made for expen- 
 ditures made subsequent to as well as before the passage of the Act. Under this Act dis- 
 bursements have been made to the States amounting to the sum of $43,296,938 22; and 
 there yet remain unsettled of disallowed claims amounting to several millions of dollars. 
 
 Many, if not all, of the States were obliged to borrow money to pay the expenses incurred, 
 but in adjusting and allowing their claims the accounting officers of the Treasury have 
 rejected all claims for interest paid out by the States, holding that the law did not authorize 
 such payment. 
 
 The bill under consideration provider for reimbursing the States for interest paid or lost 
 on account of expenses incurred and repaid under the Act" of July 27, 1861. By its provi- 
 sions, interest is only to be paid on such sums as have been refunded or may hereafter be 
 refunded under the authority of the Act of Congress and explanatory resolution ; no inter- 
 est is to be paid, unless it w.'is actually paid out or lost by the States, and then only up to 
 the time of repayment by the Government, and limited to six per cent. 
 
 Claims for interest have been filed amounting to $3,188,887 25, but these claims are based 
 upon a higher rate of interest than that provided in the bill ; other States have not filed 
 interest claims, owing to the ruling of the department, if the bill becomes a law they will 
 have proper claims. 
 
 Your committee are of opinion that these interest claims, at a rate such as the General 
 Government was obliged to pay, are a just and proper charge against the Government. 
 Immediately after the passage of the Acts, Mr. Chase, then Secretary of the Treasury, in 
 a communication to the Auditor of the State of Ohio, gave assurances that interest would 
 be paid. Laws were passed after the war of 1812 to reimburse the several States for 
 moneys expended in that war, with similar provisos to the law under which the payments 
 herein considered have been made. 
 
 Subsequently Congress passed laws to pay interest, as is provided in this bill. A sim- 
 ilar bill was passed by Congress to reimburse States for expenses incurred on account of 
 the Indian war, with like necessity of subsequent legislation to authorize the payment of 
 interest. 
 
 It seems to be the history of all the legislation of Congress for the reimbursement of 
 States for war expenditures that the initial statutes have always failed to provide for the 
 payment of interest, but in every instance previous to 1861 subsequent Acts provided for 
 the payment of interest. 
 
 It may therefore be regarded as the settled policy of Congress to repay to the several 
 States not only the jjrincipal sums expended by them in aid of the General Government 
 in times of war, but also to repay interest actually paid out not exceeding the rate paid by 
 the General Government during the same period. 
 
 Your committee therefore recommend that the bill do pass. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 11. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. Senate. Report No. 183, 
 
 In the Senate of the United States. March 3, 1886 — Ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Hampton, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the 
 following 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany bill S. 1729.] 
 
 The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred bill (S. 1293) 
 "to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to settle and pay the claim of 
 
529 
 
 the State of Florida on account of expenditures made in suppressing In- 
 dian hostilities, and for other purposes," have considered the same, and 
 they beg leave to report : 
 
 That in the Forty-eighth Congress they had under consideration the 
 same subject, and they reported by bill to the Senate. A report accompa- 
 nied the bill, and this report, now annexed, is adopted. They recommend 
 the indefinite postponement of Bill 1293, and the substitution of a bill 
 hereby reported, that being the bill reported favorably by the committee in 
 the Forty-eighth Congress. 
 
 [Senate Report No. 109, Forty-eighth Congress, first session.] 
 
 The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 230) "to authorize 
 the Secretary of the Treasury to settle the claim of the State of Florida on account of 
 expenditures made in suppressing Indian hostilities," beg leave to submit the following 
 report: 
 
 In accordance with the requirements of the joint resolution of Congress approved 
 March 3, 1881, the Secretary of War has investigated, audited, and made a report to Con- 
 gress, May 22, 1882, of the amount due the State of Florida for expenditures made in sup- 
 pressing Indian hostilities in that State between the first day of December, 1855, and the 
 first day of January, 1860. (Ex. Doc. 203,47th Congress, first session.) 
 
 The expenditures grew out of the Seminole war of 1855, 1856, and 1857, the State author- 
 ities being compelled, in the presence of an anticipated and subsequently actual outbreak 
 of the Indians, to call forth the militia of the State, the force of United States troops 
 then on duty being inadequate to the protection of the people. The report of the Secre- 
 tary of War (Ex. Doc. 203) fully sets forth in detail the items of expenditure allowed and 
 disallowed, the total amount found due the State being the sum of $224,648 09. 
 
 It is established that the funds at the command of the Executive of the State of Flor- 
 ida in the years referred to were insufficient to equip, supply, and pay the troops in the 
 field, and, relying upon the approval given by the President of the United States and the 
 Secretary of War, on the twenty-first day of May, 1857, of the services of these volun- 
 teers, the State Legislature, in order to provide their eqiiipment and maintenance, author- 
 ized the issue of seven per cent bonds. 
 
 A portion of the bonds, amounting to $132,000, was sold by the Governor to the Indian 
 Trust Fund of the United States, and the proceeds of such sale were disbursed by the 
 Treasurer of the State for the "expenses of Indian hostilities,'' as appears from his report 
 to the Legislature for the year ending October 31, 1857. Another portion was hypothe- 
 cated to the banks of South Carolina and Georgia as security for a loan of |222,6l5, and 
 $192,331 of this loan was disbursed directly by a disbursing agent of the State in payment 
 of "expenses of Indian hostilities," including pay of volunteers. 
 
 The portion of the bonds sold to the United States for the " Indian Trust Fund " is still 
 held by that fund, and accrued interest since 1857. 
 
 The State of Florida paid out through a disbursing agent, as shown by War 
 
 Department report... $193,330 16 
 
 And through warrants from State Treasurer 78,056 11 
 
 Total ....$271,386 27 
 
 Interest on this sum from January 1, 1857, to April 1, 1883 498,672 27 
 
 Total cost to the State to date $770,058 54 
 
 We quote from a statement made by the United States Treasurer of the State 
 indebtedness to the "Indian Trust Fund," June 12, 1882, as follows: 
 
 Loan on seven per cent bonds of the State of Florida $132,000 
 
 Coupons due and unpaid January 1, 1877 138,040 
 
 Interest to July 1, 1882, from January 1, 1857 50,820 
 
 Interest from July 1, 1882, to April 1, 1883 6,930 
 
 327,790 00 
 
 Due the State $442,268 54 
 
 There appears, therefore, lawfully due the State of Florida, according to the State Treas- 
 urer's account, the sum of $770,058 54, being the principal and interest of the sums which 
 she borrowed and expended on behalf of the United States. 
 
 If from this sum be deducted the amount loaned the State bj'- the Indian Trust Fund, 
 principal and interest, $327,790, there still remains due the State the sum of $442,268 54. 
 
 In auditing the accounts of the State, however, the Secretary of War has disallowed 
 many items under the rules and regulations governing payments to the regular forces, 
 
 34"^ 
 
530 
 
 and yet, with all his disallowances, after an exhaustive examination, he finds due $324,- 
 648 09. Now, if we add the interest on this sum from January 1. 1857, to April 1, 1883, to 
 wit, $412,790 86, we have $637,438 95. Now, if we deduct the amount due the Indian Trust 
 Fund, to wit, $327,790, there is still due the State the sum of $309,648 95. 
 
 This case is one where the Government, through the President of the United States 
 and Secretary of War, promised to pay these troops when mustered into the United States 
 service, and they would have been long since paid by the Government, if so mustered, but 
 the mustering officer arrived in the State after they had been mustered out, and the State 
 was compelled to borrow money with which to pay them. 
 
 Congress has universally paid interest to the States where they have paid interest. We 
 cite the cases where interest has been allowed and paid for moneys advanced during the 
 war of 1812-15, as follows: Virginia, Act March 3, 1825 (4 Stat, at L., p. 132); Maryland, 
 Act May 13, 1826 (4 Stat, at L., p. 161)- Delaware, Act May 20, 1826 (4 Stat, at L., p. 175); 
 New York, Act Mav 22; 1826 (4 Stat, af L., p. 192); Pennsylvania, Act March 3, 1827 (4 Stat, 
 at L., p. 241); South Carolina, Act March 22, 1832 (4 Stat, at L., p. 499); Massachusetts, 
 July 8, 1870 (16 Stat, at L., p. 198). 
 
 For advances for Indian and other wars the same rule has been observed in the follow- 
 ing cases: Alabama, Act January 26, 1849 (4 Stat, at L., p. 344); Georgia, Act March 31, 
 1851 (9 Stat, at L., p. 626); Georgia, Act March 3, 1879 (20 Stat, at L., p. 385); Washington 
 Territorv, Act March 3, 1859 (11 Stat, at L., p. 429); New Hampshire, Act January 27; 1852 
 (10 Stat.'at L., p. 1). 
 
 Thus it will be seen that the precedent for the payment of interest under the rule 
 adopted for the settlement of claims of war of 1812-15 is well established. 
 
 The committee are of the opinion that the urgent necessity for the services of these 
 troops and the action of the President and the Secretary of War create an equitable obli- 
 gation on the part of the General Government; and as the State of Florida not only bor- 
 rowed money from the Indian Trust Fund, but also from the banks of the States of 
 Georgia and South Carolina, for their payment, upon which the State has since paid inter- 
 est, your committee have concluded to recommend the sum of $92,f)48 09 as a full payment 
 to the State of all Indian war claims, this being the difference after deducting the sum 
 borrowed by the State from the Indian Trust Fund ($132,000) from the amount found due 
 the State by the Secretary of War ($224,648 09), and to further recommend the delivery to 
 the State of all bonds and coupons held by the trustee of the Indian Trust Fund. 
 
 The committee have amended the bill in accordance with the views expressed in this 
 report, and they recommend the passage of the bill as thus amended. Accompanying 
 the report is a communication from the Secretary of War, explaining- the origin and"^ the 
 present condition of the claim of the State of JFlorida against the Government of the 
 United States. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 12. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. House of Representatives. Report No. 1560. 
 
 REIMBURSING INTEREST ON WAR LOANS. 
 
 April 6, 1886 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
 the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Perry, from the Committee on War Claims, submitted the following 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany bill H. R. 152.] 
 
 The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 
 152) to reimburse the several States for interest paid on war loans, and for 
 other purposes, having carefully considered the same and accompanying 
 papers, submit the following report: 
 
 By the Act of July 27, 1861, and the joint resolution of March 8, 1862, 
 the Secretary of the Treasury was directed to pay to the Governor of any 
 State or his duly authorized agents " the costs, charges, and expenses 
 properly incurred by such States for enrolling, subsisting, clothing, supply- 
 ing, arming, equipping, pa3dng, and transporting its troops employed in 
 aiding to suppress the present insurrection against the United States, to be 
 settled upon proper vouchers to be filed and passed upon by the proper 
 accounting officers of the Treasury." 
 
581 
 
 By the joint resolution of March 8, 1862, payments were directed to be 
 made for expenditures made subsequent to, as well as before, the passage 
 of the Act. 
 
 Under this Act disbursements have been made to the States amounting 
 to the sum of $43,296,938 22, and there yet remain unsettled or disallowed 
 claims amounting to several millions of dollars. 
 
 Many, if not all, of the States were obliged to borrow money to pay the 
 expenses incurred, but in adjusting and allowing their claims the account- 
 ing officers of the Treasury have rejected all claims for interest paid out 
 by the States, holding that the law did not authorize such payment. An 
 examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the decision 
 of the Department was correct. Your committee therefore recommend 
 that the bill do not pass. 
 
 VIEWS OF THE MINORITY. 
 
 A similar bill was introduced in the Forty-eighth Congress, and referred 
 to the Committee on War Claims, which, "through Mr. Rowell, presented 
 the following report, to wit: 
 
 By the Act of July 27, 1861, and the joint resolution of March 8, 1862, the Secretary of 
 the Treasury was directed to pay to the Governor of any State, or his duly authorized 
 agents, " the costs, charges, and expenses properly incurred by such States, for enrolling, 
 subsisting, clothing, supplying, arming, equipping, paying, and transporting its troops 
 employed in aiding to suppress the present insurrection against the United States, to be 
 settled upon proper vouchers to be med and passed upon by the proper accounting officers 
 of the Treasury." 
 
 By the joint resolution of March 8, 1862, payments were directed to be made for expen- 
 ditures made subsequent to as w^ell as before the passage of the Act. Under this Act 
 disbursements have been made to the States amounting to the sum of $43,296,938 22; and 
 there yet remain unsettled or disallowed claims amounting to several millions of dollars. 
 
 Many, if not all, of the States were obliged to borrow money to pay the expenses 
 incurred, but in adjusting and allowing their claims the accounting officers of the Treas- 
 ury have rejected all claims for interest paid out by the States, holding that the law did 
 not authorize such payment. 
 
 The bill under consideration provides for reimbursing the States for interest paid or 
 lost on account of expenses incurred and repaid under the Act of July 27, 1861. By its 
 provisions, interest is only to be paid on such sums as have been refunded or mav here- 
 after be refunded under the authority of the Act of Congress and explanatory resolution ; 
 no interest is to be paid, unless it was actually paid out or lost by the States, and then 
 only up to the time of repayment by the Government, and limited to six per cent. 
 
 Claims for interest have been filed amounting to $3,188,887 25, but these claims are 
 based upon a higher rate of interest than that provided in the bill; other States have not 
 filed interest claims, owing to the ruling of the Department, but if the bill becomes law 
 they will have proper claims. 
 
 Your committee are of opinion that these interest claims, at a rate such as the General 
 Government was obliged to pay, are a just and proper charge against the Government. 
 Immediately after the passage of the Acts, Mr. chase, then Secretary of the Treasury, in 
 a communication to the Auditor of the State of Ohio, gave assurances that interest would 
 be paid. Laws were passed after the war of 1812 to reimburse the several States for 
 moneys expended in that war, with similar provisos to the law under which the payments 
 herein considered have been made. 
 
 Subsequently Congress passed laws to pay interest, as is provided in this bill. A simi- 
 lar bill was passed by Congress to reimburse States for expenses incurred on account of 
 the Indian wars, with like necessity of subsequent legislation to authorize the payment 
 of interest. 
 
 It seems to be the history of all the legislation of Congress for the reimbursement of 
 States for war expenditures that the initial statutes have always failed to provide for the 
 payment of interest, but in every instance, previous to 1861, subsequent Acts provided 
 for the payment of interest. 
 
 It may therefore be regarded as the settled policy of Congress to repay to the several 
 States, not only the principal sums expended by them in aid of the General Government 
 in times of waV, but also to repay interest actually paid out, not exceeding the rate paid 
 by the General Government during the same period. 
 
 Your committee therefore recommend that the bill do pass. 
 
 The minority cannot but think that, in view of the numerous precedents 
 set out in the foregoing report of Mr. Rowell, and in view of the well 
 
532 
 
 established policy of the Government, and in view of the assurances of 
 the governmental authorities when the States assumed these obligations, 
 and in view of what the minority believes to be but equal justice to all the 
 States, the bill should pass. 
 
 This was as much a necessary expenditure as though the money had 
 been paid for arms or ammunition. Had the States, generally the new 
 Western States, which had not plethoric Treasuries, refused to borrow 
 the money with which to organize and equip their quotas of troops, the Fed- 
 eral Government must necessarily have done so; and since these new and 
 financially poor States came patriotically to the rescue of the depleted 
 National Treasury in the hour of the Nation's peril, and pledged their own 
 credit for its salvation, no good reason exists why they should not be reim- 
 bursed their whole expenditure, the same as has been done for the more 
 fortunate and wealthy States. Equal justice to all should be our motto. 
 
 But not only has the Government made similar r^mbursements after all 
 wars previous to the last civil war, but this Congress has evinced a deter- 
 mination to perpetuate the same policy. The bill H. R. 3877 was on the 
 eighteenth day of January, 1886, introduced in this House, and referred to 
 the Committee on Claims. This is an Act for the relief of the State of 
 Florida, and among other things authorizes the repayment of interest paid 
 by Florida on interest-bearing securities issued by said State for the pur- 
 pose of raising money with which to equip troops for different Indian wars. 
 On the third of February last said committee reported said bill back with 
 the recommendation that it do pass, and the same is now on the calendar 
 of this House. The report is No. 303, and is as follows: 
 
 The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 3877) to authorize the 
 Secretary of the Treasury to settle the claim of the State of Florida on account of expend- 
 itures made in suppressing Indian hostilities, beg leave to submit the following report: 
 
 In accordance with the requirements of the joint resolution of Congress, approved 
 March 3, 1881, the Secretary of War hiis investigated, audited, and made a report to Con- 
 gress, May 22, 1882, of the amount due the State of Florida for expenditures made in sup- 
 pressing Indian hostilities in that State between the first day of December, 1855, and the 
 first day of January, 1860 (Ex. Doc. 203, Forty-seventh Congress, first session). 
 
 The expenditures grew out of the Seminole war of 1855, 1856, and 1857, the State author- 
 ities being compelled, in the presence of an anticipated and subsequently actual outbreak 
 of the Indians, to call forth the militia of the State, the force of the United States troops 
 then on duty being inadequate to the protection of the people. The report of the Secre- 
 tary of War (Ex. Doc. 203) fully sets forth in detail the items of expenditure allowed and 
 disallowed, the total amount found due the State being the sum of $224,648 09. 
 
 It is established that the funds at the command of the Executive of the State of Florida 
 in the years referred to were insufficient to equip, supply, and pay the troops in the field, 
 and relying upon the approval given by the President of the United States, through the 
 Secretary of War, on the twenty-first day of May, 1857, of the services of these volunteers, 
 the State Legislature, in order to provide their equipment and maintenance, authorized 
 the issue of seven per cent bonds. 
 
 A portion of the bonds, amounting to $132,000, was sold by the Governor to the Indian 
 Trust Fund of the United States, and the proceeds of such sale were disbursed by the 
 Treasurer of the State for the "expenses of Indian hostilities," as appears from his report 
 to the Legislature for the year ending October 31, 1857 (Ex. Doc. 203, Forty-seventh Con- 
 gress, first session). Another portion was hypothecated to the banks of South Carolina 
 and Georgia as security for a loan of $222,015, and $192,331 of this loan was disbursed 
 directly by a disbursing agent of the State in payment of "expenses of Indian hostilities," 
 including pay of volunteers (Ex. Doc. 203, Forty-seventh Congress, first session). 
 
 This case is one where the Government, through the President of the United States by 
 the Secretary of War, promised to pay these troops when mustered- into the United States 
 service, and they would have been long since paid bv the Government if so mustered, but 
 the mustering officer arrived in the State after they had been mustered out, and the State 
 was compelled to borrow money with which to pay them (see letter of Secretary of War, 
 hereto appended). 
 
 Congress has universally paid interest to the States where they have paid interest. We 
 cite the cases where interest has been allowed and paid for moneys advanced during the 
 war of 1812-15, as follows : Virginia, Act March 3, 1825 (4 Stat, at L., p. 132); Marvland, Act 
 
 May 13, 1826 (4 Stat, at L., p. 161); Delaware, Act May 20, 1826 (4 Stat, at L., p. 175); New 
 May 22, 1826 (4 Stat, at L., p. 192); Pennsylvania, Act March 3, 1827 (4 Stat. 
 
533 
 
 L., p. 241); South Carolina, Act March 22, 1832 (4 Stat, at L., p. 499); Maine, Act of March 
 31, 1851 (9 Stat, at L., p. 626); Massachusetts and Maine, Act of July 8, 1870 (16 Stat, at L., 
 p. 198). 
 
 For advances for Indian and other wars the same rule has been observed in the following 
 cases : Alabama, Act January 26 (4 Stat, at L., p. 344); Georgia, Act March 31, 1851 (9 Stat, 
 at L., p. 626) ; Georgia, Act March 3, 1879 (20 Stat, at L., p. 385) ; Washington Territory, Act 
 March 3, 1859 (11 Stat, at L., p. 429); New Hampshire, Act January 27, 1852 (10 Stat, at L., 
 p. 1); California, Act of August 5, 1854 (10 Stat, at L., p. 582); California, Act August 18, 
 1856 (11 Stat, at L., p. 91); California, Act June 23, 1860 (12 Stat, at L., p. 104); California, 
 Act July 25„ 1868 (15 Stat, at L., p. 175); California, Act March 3, 1881 (21 Stat, at L., p. 510); 
 and in aid of the Mexican war (see statute of June 2, 1848). 
 
 Attorney-General Wirt, in his opinion on an analogous case, says: 
 
 "The expenditure thus incurred forms a debt against the United States which they are 
 bound to reimburse. If the expenditures made for such purpose are supplied from the 
 Treasury of the State, the United States reimburse principal without interest; but if, being 
 unable itself, from the condition of its own finances, to meet the emergency, such State 
 has been obliged to borrow money for the purpose, and thus to incur a debt on which she 
 herself has had to pay interest, such debt is essentially a debt due bj^ the United States, 
 and both the principal and interest are to be paid by the United States (see Opinions of 
 Attornej's-General, vol. 1, p. 174)." 
 
 Thus it will be seen that the precedent for the payment of interest, under the rule adopted 
 for the settlement of claims of war of 1812-15, and Indian wars above cited, is well estab- 
 lished. 
 
 The committee are of the opinion that the urgent necessity for the services of these 
 troops, and the action of the President and the Secretary of War, are well established, and 
 create an equitable obligation on the part of the General Government, and as it is clearly 
 shown by Ex. Doc. 203, Forty-seventh Congress, that the State of Florida not only bor- 
 rowed money from the Indian Trust Fund, but also from the banks of the States of 
 Georgia and South Carolina, for their payment, upon which the State has since paid inter- 
 est, your committee have concluded to recommend the passage of the bill with the follow- 
 ing amendments: 
 
 In line 18 of Section 1, after the word "it," insert the words "upon said claim or claims." 
 
 In line 8 of Section 2, strike out the words " and to pay such sum so ascertained due 
 the said State," and insert the words, " and shall adjust and settle the claim of the State 
 therefor, and shall pay such sum as may be ascertained to be due the State thereon," 
 
 War Department, Washington, D. C, May 21, 1857. 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the eighth instant, 
 asking an approval of the services of certain volunteers called out by you, and in reply to 
 inform you that the explanations as to the necessity of their services is satisfactory, and 
 orders have been issued to the officer commanding in Florida to muster them in and out 
 of the service of the United States. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN B. FLOOD, Secretary of War. 
 
 His Excellency James E. Broome, Governor of Georgia. 
 
 But again, on March 3, 1886, a bill (S. 1729) of substantially the same 
 import as the last mentioned House bill, was introduced into the Senate 
 and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, which committee has 
 since made the following report, to wit: 
 
 The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1293) "to authorize 
 the Secretary of the Treasury to settle and pay the claim of the State of Florida on 
 account of expenditures made in suppressing Indian hostilities, and for other jjurposes," 
 have considered the same, and they beg leave to report: 
 
 That in the Forty-eighth Congress thej'^ had under consideration the same subject, and 
 they reported by bill to the Senate. A report accompanied the bill, and this report, now 
 annexed, is adopted. They recommend the indefinite postponement of bill 1293, and the 
 substitution of a bill hereby reported, that being the bill reported favorably by the com- 
 mittee in the Forty-eighth Congress. 
 
 [Senate Report, No. 109, Forty-eighth Congress, first session.] 
 
 The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 230) to authorize 
 the Secretary of the Treasury to settle the claim of the State of Florida on account of 
 expenditures made in suppressing Indian hostilities, beg leave to submit the following 
 report : 
 
 In accordance with the requirements of the joint resolution of Congress approved 
 March 3, 1881, the Secretary of War has investigated, audited, and made a report to Con- 
 gress, May 22, 1882, of the amount due the State of Florida for expenditures made in sup- 
 
534 
 
 I)ressmg Indian hostilities in that State between the first day of December, 1855, and the 
 first day of January, 18G0. (Ex. Doc. 203, Forty-seventh Congress, first session.) 
 
 The expenditures grew out of the Seminole war of 1855, 1856, and 1857, the State 
 authorities being compelled, in the presence of an anticipated and subsequently actual 
 outbreak of the Indians, to call forth the militia of the State, the force of United States 
 troops then on duty being inadequate to the protection of the people. The report of the 
 Secretary of War' (Ex. Doc. 203) fully sets forth in detail the items of expenditure 
 allowed and disallowed, the total amount found due the State being the sum of $224,()48 09. 
 
 It is established that the funds at the command of the Executive of the State of Florida 
 in the years referred to were insufficient to equip, supply, and pay the troops in the field, 
 and, relying upon the approval given by the President of the United States and the Sec- 
 retary of War, on the twenty-first day of May, 1857, of the services of these volunteers, 
 the State Legislature, in order to provide their equipment and maintenance, authorized 
 the issue of seven per cent bonds. 
 
 A portion of the bonds, amovinting to $132,000, was sold by the Governor to the Indian 
 Trust Fund of the United States, and the proceeds of such sale were disbursed by the 
 Treasurer of the State for the "expenses of Indian hostilities," as appears from his 
 report to the Legislature for the year ending October 31, 1857. Another portion was 
 hypothecated to the banks of South Carolina and Georgia as security for a loan of $222,- 
 0i5, and $192,331 of this loan was disbursed directly by a disbursing agent of the State in 
 payment of "expenses of Indian hostilities," including pay of volunteers. 
 
 The portion of the bonds sold to the United States for the " Indian Trust Fund " is still 
 held by that fund and accrued interest since 1857. 
 
 The State of Florida paid out through a disbursing agent, as shown by War 
 
 Department report $193,330 16 
 
 And through warrants from State Treasurer. _ 78,056 11 
 
 Total $271,386 27 
 
 Interest on this sum from January 1, 1857, to April 1, 1883 498,672 27 
 
 Total cost to the State to date $770,058 54 
 
 We quote from a statement made by the United States Treasurer of the 
 State indebtedness to the "Indian Trust Fund," June 12, 1882, as follows : 
 
 Loan on seven per cent bonds of the State of Florida $132,000 
 
 Coupons due and unpaid January 1, 1857 138,040 
 
 Interest to July 1, 1882, from January 1, 1857 50,820 
 
 Interest from ^uly 1, 1882, to April 1, 1883-.. 6.930 
 
 327,790 00 
 
 Due the State $442,268 54 
 
 There appears, therefore, lawfully due the State of Florida, according to the State 
 Treasurer's account, the sum of $770,058 '54, being the principal and interest of the sums 
 which she borrowed and expended on behalf of the United States. 
 
 If from this sum be deducted the amount loaned the State by the Indian Trust Fund, 
 principal and interest, $327,790, there still remains due the State the sum of $442,268 54. 
 
 In auditing the accounts of the State, however, the Secretary of War has disallowed 
 many items under the rules and regulations governing payments to the regular forces, 
 and yet, with all his disallowances, after an exhaustive examination, he finds due $224,- 
 648 09. Now, if we add the interest on this sum from January 1, 1857, to April 1, 1883, to 
 wit, $412,790 86, we have $637,438 95. Now, if we deduct the amount due the Indian Trust 
 Fund, to wit, $327,790, there is still due the State the sum of $309,(548 95. 
 
 This case is one where the Government, through the President of the United States 
 and the Secretary of War, promised to pay these troops when mustered into the United 
 States service, and they would have been long since paid by the Government, if so mus- 
 tered, but the mustering officer arrived in the State after they had been mustered out, 
 and the State was compelled to borrow money with which to pay them. 
 
 Congress has universally paid interest to the States where they have paid interest. 
 We cite the cases where interest has been allowed and paid for moneys advanced during 
 the war of 1812-15, as follows : Virginia, Act March 3, 1825 (4 Stat, at L., p. 132) ; Mary- 
 land, Act May 13, 1826 (4 Stat, at L., p. 161); Delaware, Act May 20, 1826 (4 Stat, at L., p. 
 175); New. York, Act May 22, 1826 (4 Stat, at L., p. 192); Pennsylvania, Act March 3, 1827 
 (4 Stat, at L., p. 241): South Carolina, Act March 22, 1832 (4 Stat, at L., p. 499) ; Massachu- 
 setts, July 8, 1870 (16 Stat, at L., p. 198). 
 
 For advances for Indian and other wars the same rule has been observed in the fol- 
 lowing cases : Alabama, Act January 26, 1849 (4 Stat, at L., p. 344) ; Georgia, Act March 31, 
 
 1851 (9 Stat, at L., p. 626); Georgia, Act March 3, 1879 (20 Stat, at L., p. 385); Washington 
 Territory, Act March 3, 1859 (11 Stat, at L., p. 429); New Hampshire, Act January 27, 
 
 1852 (10 Stat, at L., p. 1). 
 
 Thus it will be seen that the precedent for the payment of interest under the rule 
 adopted for the settlement of claims of war of 1812-15 is well established. 
 
 The committee are of the opinion that the urgent necessity for the services of these 
 troops and the action of the President and the Secretary of War create an equitable obli- 
 gation on the part of the General Government ; and as the State of Florida not only bor- 
 rowed money from the Indian Trust Fund, but also from the banks of the States of 
 
535 
 
 Georgia and South Carolina, for their payment, upon which the State has since paid 
 interest, your committee have concluded to recommend the sum of $92,048 09 as a full 
 payment to the State of all Indian war claims, this being the difference after deducting 
 the sum borrowed by the State from the Indian Trust Fund ($132,000) from the amount 
 found due the State by the Secretary of War ($224,628 09), and to further recommend 
 the delivery to the State of all bonds and coupons held by the trustees of the Indian 
 Trust Fund. 
 
 The committee have amended the bill in accordance with the views expressed in this 
 report and they recommend the passage of the bill as thus amended. Accompanying the 
 report is a communication from the Secretary of War, explaining the origin and the 
 present condition of the claim of the State of Florida against the Government of the 
 United States, 
 
 This bill is now on the Senate calendar. 
 
 It does not now seem just, or in accordance with the requirements of 
 national honor, that after so treating all the States making expenditures in 
 all our previous wars, such as are hereinbefore set out, that now we should 
 refuse such reimbursement to the loyal States who came to the rescue of the 
 Government at a time when it was more in need of aid and support than 
 at any other period of its history. 
 
 J. LYMAN, 
 For Minority of Committee on War Claims. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 13. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. House of Representatives. Report No. 303. 
 
 CLAIM OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. 
 
 February 3, 1886 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
 the state of Union and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Dougherty, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany bill H. R. 3877 ] 
 
 The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 3877) to 
 authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to settle the claim of the State of 
 Florida on account of expenditures made in suppressing Indian hostilities, 
 beg leave to submit the following report: 
 
 In accordance with the requirements of the joint resolution of Congress, 
 approved March 3, 1881, the Secretary of War has investigated, audited, 
 and made a report to Congress May 22, 1882, of the amount due the State 
 of Florida for expenditures made in suppressing Indian hostilities in that 
 State between the first day of December, 1855, and the first day of January, 
 1860 (Ex. Doc. 203, Forty-seventh Congress, first session). 
 
 The expenditures grew out of the Seminole war of 1855, 1856, and 1857, 
 the State authorities being compelled, in the presence of an anticipated and 
 subsequently actual outbreak of the Indians, to call forth the militia of the 
 State, the force of United States troops then on duty being inadequate to 
 the protection of the people. The report of the Secretary of War (Ex. Doc. 
 203) fully set forth in detail the items of expenditure allowed and dis- 
 allowed, the total amount found due the State being the sum of $224,648 09. 
 
 It is established that the funds at the command of the Executive of the 
 State of Florida, in the years referred to, were insufficient to equip, supply, 
 and pay the troops in the field, and relying Upon the approval given by the 
 
536 
 
 President of the United States, through the Secretary of War, on the twenty- 
 first day of May, 1857, of the services of these volunteers, the State Legis- 
 lature, in order to provide their equipment and maintenance, authorized 
 the issue of seven per cent bonds. 
 
 A portion of the bonds, amounting to $132,000, was sold by the Governor 
 to the Indian Trust Fund of the United States, and the proceeds of such 
 sale were disbursed by the Treasurer of the State for the " expenses of 
 Indian hostilities," as appears from his report to the Legislature for the year 
 ending October 31, 1857 (Ex. Doc. 203, Forty-seventh Congress, first ses- 
 sion). Another portion was hypothecated to the banks of South Carolina 
 and Georgia, as security for a loan of $222,015, and $192,331 of this 
 loan was disbursed directly by a disbursing agent of the State, in pay- 
 ment of " expenses of Indian hostilities," including pay of volunteers (Ex. 
 Doc. 203, Forty-seventh Congress, first session). 
 
 This case is one where the Government, through the President of the 
 United States, by the Secretary of War, promised to pay these troops when 
 mustered into the United States service, and they would have been long 
 since paid by the Government if so mustered, but the mustering officer 
 arrived in the State after they had been mustered out, and the State was 
 compelled to borrow money with which to pay them (see letter of Secre- 
 tary of War, hereto appended). 
 
 Congress has universally paid interest to the States where they have 
 paid interest. We cite the cases where interest has been allowed and paid 
 for moneys advanced during the war of 1812-15, as follows : Virginia, 
 Act March 3, 1825 (4 Stat, at L., p. 132); Maryland, Act May 13, 1826 
 (4 Stat, at L., p. 161); Delaware, Act May 20, 1826 (4 Stat., at L., 
 p. 175) ; New York, Act May 22, 1826 (4 Stat, at L., p. 192) ; Pennsylvania, 
 Act March 3, 1827 (4 Stat, at L., p. 241); South Carolina, Act March 22, 
 1832 (4 Stat, at L., p. 499); Maine, Act of March 31, 1851 (9 Stat, at L., 
 p. 626); Massachusetts and Maine, Act of July 8, 1870 (16 Stat, at L., 
 p. 198). 
 
 For advances for Indian and other wars the same rule has been observed 
 in the following cases : Alabama, Act of January 26 (4 Stat, at L., p. 344) ; 
 Georgia, Act March 31, 1851 (9 Stat, at L., p. 626); Georgia, Act March 
 3, 1879 (20 Stat, at L., p. 385); Washington Territory, Act March 3, 1859 
 (11 Stat, at L., p. 429); New Hampshire, Act of January 27, 1852 (10 
 Stat, at L., p. 1) ; California, Act of August 5, 1854 (10 Stat, at L., p. 582) ; 
 California, Act August 18, 1856 (11 Stat, at L., p. 91) ; California, Act June 
 23, 1860 (12 Stat, at L., p. 104); California, Act July 25, 1868 (15 Stat, at 
 L., p. 175); California, Act March 3, 1881 (21 Stat, at L., p. 510); and in 
 aid of the Mexican war (see statute of June 2, 1848). 
 
 Attorney-General Wirt, in his opinion on an analogous case, says : 
 
 The expenditure thus mcurred forms a debt against the United States which they are 
 bound to reimburse. If the expenditures made for such purpose are supphed from the 
 Treasury of the State, the United States reimburse the principal without interest ; but if 
 being unable itself, from the condition of its own finances, to meet the emergency, such 
 State has been obliged to borrow money for the purpose, and thus to incur a debt on 
 which she herself has had to pay interest, such debt is essentially a debt due by the United 
 States, and both the principal and interest are to be paid by the United States (see Opin- 
 ions of Attorneys-General, vol. 1, p. 174). 
 
 Thus it will be seen that the precedent for the payment of interest, 
 under the rule adopted for the settlement of claims of war of 1812-15, 
 and Indian wars above cited, is well established. 
 
 The committee are of the opinion that the urgent necessity for the 
 services of these troops, and the action of the President and Secretary of 
 
537 
 
 War, are well established, and create an equitable obligation on the part 
 of the General Government, and as it is clearly shown by Ex. Doc. 203, 
 Forty-seventh Congress, that the State of Florida not only borrowed money 
 from the Indian Trust Fund, but also from the banks of the States of 
 Georgia and South Carolina, for their payment, upon which the State has 
 since paid interest, your committee have concluded to recommend the 
 passage of the bill, with the following amendments : 
 
 In line eighteen, of Section 1, after the word " it," insert the words " upon 
 said claim or claims." 
 
 In line eight, of Section 2, strike out the words, " and to pay such sum 
 so ascertained due the said State," and insert the words, '' and shall adjust 
 and settle the claim of the State therefor, and shall pay such sum as may 
 be ascertained to be due the State thereon." 
 
 Wab Department, Washington, D. C, May 21, 1857. 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the eighth instant, 
 asking an approval of the services of certain volunteers called out by you, and in reply to 
 inform you that the explanation as to the necessity of their services" is satisfactory, and 
 orders haye been issued to the officer commanding in Florida to muster them in and out 
 of the service of the United States. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN B. FLOYD, Secretary of War. 
 His Excellency James E. Broome, Governor of Florida. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. House of Kepresentatives. Report No. 518. 
 
 ADVANCES MADE TO UNITED STATES BY MARYLAND AND 
 
 VIRGINIA. 
 
 February 13, 1886 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House 
 on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Shaw, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany bill H. R. 1065.] 
 
 The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred House bill 1065, sub- 
 mit the following report: 
 
 Bills similar in all respects to that referred to this committee have been 
 before Congress since the Thirty-first Congress. The records of Congress 
 show the following reports recommending the passage of bills for the pay- 
 ment of these claims: 
 
 September 16, 1850, Thirty-first Congress, first session, H. R. 494, by 
 Mc Daniel, from Committee on Claims. 
 
 May 29, 1850, same Congress and session, from the Senate Committee 
 on Claims, by Senator Underwood. 
 
 January 6, 1852, Thirty-second Congress, first session, H. R. 2, by Mr. 
 Rantoul, from Committee on Claims. 
 
 January 30, 1852, Thirty-second Congress, first session, S. R. 59, by Mr. 
 Brodhead. 
 
 , 1853, Thirty-second Congress, first session, S. R. 278, by Mr. Kerr, 
 
 from Committee on the Judiciary. 
 
 May 20, 1884, Forty-eighth Congress, first session, H. R. 1563, by Mr. 
 Mayberry, from Committee on the Judiciary. 
 
538 
 
 This bill was before the Committee on the Judiciary of the House for the 
 Forty-eighth Congress; was then fully considered and favorably reported 
 and placed on the calendar of the Committee of the Whole House. Your 
 committee have reexamined all the reports, documents, and State papers, 
 as well as the contemporaneous history relating hereto, and again recom- 
 mend the passage of the bill, and adopt the report of the Committee on 
 the Judiciary of the Forty-eighth Congress, with some additions thereto. 
 
 During the Revolution the Congress assembled in places which were ren- 
 dered available by the varying circumstances of the war then being waged. 
 Philadelphia, Lancaster, and York, in Pennsylvania; Princeton and Tren- 
 ton, in New Jersey; Annapolis, in Maryland, and New York City were sev- 
 erally honored by the meetings of this assemblage. Before the treaty of 
 peace, Philadelphia became and continued the seat of government until 
 June, 1873. The mutiny of the Pennsylvania line, on account of arrear- 
 ages of pay, compelled an adjournment of the sitting of Congress to Prince- 
 ton, New Jersey. The causes which led to this sudden and unexpected 
 adjournment of the Federal Congress from its established seat made the 
 subject of a Federal Capital a fruitful source of discussion, continuing 
 through the period intervening from 1783 to 1790. On the seventh of Octo- 
 ber, 1783, Mr. Gerry, then a member of the House of Representatives, gave 
 definite shape to the discussion by proposing that the Federal buildings be 
 provided on or near the banks of the Delaware or Potomac Rivers, with a 
 vested right in the soil and exclusive jurisdiction for all governmental pur- 
 poses in the Government of the United States. This proposition of Mr. 
 Gerry received the approval of Congress at that time, but no definite steps 
 were taken to further conclude the matter. On April 26, 1784, the action 
 of Congress approving the proposition of Mr. Gerry was repealed without 
 the assignment of any special reasons therefor. 
 
 On the thirtieth of October, 1784, three Commissioners were appointed 
 by Congress to select and lay out a Federal District for the purposes of the 
 Government, near the falls and on either side of the Delaware River. The 
 Commissioners were authorized and empowered to purchase the land and 
 to erect the necessary public buildings thereon. On account of the failure 
 of Congress to make an appropriation, the purposes contemplated in the 
 Act creating the Board of Commissioners were not carried into effect. On 
 the thirteenth of February, 1 785, an eftbrt was made to substitute the Poto- 
 mac for the Delaware River as a proposed site, which effort finally failed. 
 
 On the tenth day of May, 1787, Mr. Lee of Virginia, introduced a reso- 
 lution providing for the erection of public buildings in Georgetown, on the 
 Potomac. This resolution, like its predecessors, failed of adoption. The 
 Constitution, adopted in 1787, provided for a Federal District, not exceeding 
 ten miles square, for the permanent seat of Government. Action was not 
 taken to give effect to this provision of the Constitution until the twenty- 
 third of December, 1788, when Maryland passed an Act to cede to the 
 United States a district of ten miles square, the Act leaving with Congress 
 to decide where the exact site should be selected. 
 
 On the third of December, 1789, the State of Virginia passed an Act for 
 the cession of a district ten miles square, and suggesting the selection of a 
 site on the Potomac River, where "the States of Pennsylvania, Maryland, 
 and Virginia may participate in such location." (Davis' Laws, District of 
 Columbia, page 60.) 
 
 No action was taken by Congress upon either of these Acts until Septem- 
 ber 5, 1789, when a resolution passed the House of Representatives, estab- 
 lishing the seat of Government on the Susquehanna River. In the debates 
 which ensued on that resolution, the word " Susquehanna " was struck out 
 
539 
 
 and that of " Germantown " inserted. This resolution, which then took 
 the form of a bill, passed the House, but failed to pass the Senate. 
 
 On the thirty-first of May, .1790, a bill was introduced in the Senate " to 
 determine the permanent seat of Congress and the Government of the 
 United States." Baltimore, Georgetown, Patapsco, and Havre de Grace 
 were mentioned as desirable places for the Capital of the country. But, 
 finally, the Act establishing "the temporary and permanent seat of Gov- 
 ernment for the United States" was passed July 16, 1790, fixing the banks 
 of the Potomac River as the most desirable site. In compliance with this 
 Act, President Washington visited Williamsport, Washington County, 
 Maryland, but not liking the situation selected the present location, and 
 upon his report the Act of March 3, 1791, was passed, amending that of 
 July 16, 1790, and authorized the President to include Hunting Creek and 
 the town of Alexandria in the Federal District. Thus the present District 
 of Columbia was located. 
 
 It is shown by an Act of the General Assembly of Virginia, passed 
 December 3, 1789 (13 Henning, page 33), that the establishment of a "sit- 
 uation for the seat of the General Government, central and convenient to 
 the citizens of the United States at large, having due regard to population, 
 extent of territory, and a free navigation of the Atlantic Ocean, through 
 the Chesapeake Bay, as well as ready communication with our fellow cit- 
 izens on the western frontier," engaged the attention of the said General 
 Assembly, and on the tenth of December that General Assembly passed 
 the following: 
 
 Resolved by the General Assembly of Virginia, That a copy of the foregoing Act of the third 
 of December, 1789, be transmitted to the General Assembly of Maryland without delay, 
 and that it be proposed to the said Assembly to unite with this Legislature in an applica- 
 tion to Congress, that in case Congress shall deem it expedient to establish the permanent 
 seat of Government of the United States on the banks of the Potomac, so as to include the 
 cession of either State, or a part of the cession of both States, this Assembly will pass an 
 Act for advancing a sum of money, not exceeding $120,000, to the use of the General Gov- 
 ernment, to be applied in such manner as Congress shall direct, towards erecting public 
 buildings, the said Assembly of Maryland on their part advancing a sum not less than 
 two fifths of the sum advanced by this State for the like purposes. (See Journal of the 
 House of Delegates, p. 115.) 
 
 The foregoing resolution was prepared and introduced into the General 
 Assembly of Virginia by Hon. John Marshall, then a member thereof, and 
 afterwards Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 
 
 At the November session, 1790, the General Assembly of Maryland 
 passed the following resolution: 
 
 Whereas, By a resolution of the General Assembly of Virginia, passed on the tenth day 
 of December, 1789, it was proposed to the General Assembly of Maryland that the General 
 Assembly of Virginia will pass an Act for advancing a sum of money, not less than $120,- 
 000, to the use of the General Government, and to be applied in such manner as Congress 
 shall direct, toward erecting public buildings, the Assemblv of Maryland on their part 
 advancing a sum not less than three fifths of the sum advanced by the said General 
 Assembly of Virginia; which resolution came so late to the last General Assembly of 
 Maryland that it could not be acted upon, and was, therefore, referred to this present ses- 
 sion ; and whereas, this General Assembly doth highly approve of the object of said reso- 
 lution, and is desirous of doing everything required on the part of Maryland for carrying 
 the same into effect, on a second reading of said resolution. 
 
 Resolved, That this House doth accede to the proposition contained in said resolution of 
 the Assembly of Virginia, and will advance to the President of the United States, for the 
 purposes mentioned in said resolution, the sum of $72,000, payable to his order in three 
 equal yearly payments. 
 
 On the twenty-fourth of December, 1790, the General Assembly of Vir- 
 ginia passed the following: 
 
540 
 
 AN ACT 
 Concerning an advance of money to the Government of the United States for public buildings. 
 
 Whereas, The General Assembly of Maryland have acceded to a proposition of the 
 General Assembly of this commonwealth, contained in their resolution of the tenth day 
 of December, 1789, concerning an advance of money to the General Government to be 
 applied towards erecting public buildings at the permanent seat of the Government of the 
 United States, should the Congress deem it expedient to fix it on the bank of the Poto- 
 mac; and whereas. Congress has passed an Act for establishing the said seat of Govern- 
 ment on the Potomac ; 
 
 Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That $120,000 shall be advanced by this common- 
 wealth to the General Government, payable in three equal yearly payments, and to be 
 applied towards erecting public buildings at the permanent seat of the Government of the 
 United States on the bank of the Potomac, and the auditor of public accounts is hereby 
 directed to issue his warrants on the Treasurer to the amount of $120,000, payable in the 
 manner hereinbefore directed, to the order of the President of the United States. (See 13 
 Henning, p. 125.) 
 
 The records of the Treasury Department of Virginia show, by certified 
 copies, that the first payment of this advance to the United States was 
 made April 15, 1791, and the last on January 8, 1795, and making, on the 
 whole, the sum of $120,000. And by the eleventh section of the Act of 
 Maryland, passed December 19, 1791, it was — 
 
 Resolved, That the Treasurer of the Western Shore be empowered and required to pay 
 the $72,000 agreed to be advanced to the President by resolution of the last session of 
 Assembly, in sums as the same may come to his hands as the appointed funds, without 
 waiting for the day appointed for the payment thereof. (See Davis' Laws District of 
 Columbia, p. 70.) 
 
 At the same time, to secure the prompt payment of the sum advanced, 
 the Treasurer of the Western Shore was authorized to sell the "reserved 
 lands to the westward of Fort Cumberland," and also "the lands lying in 
 Dorcester County, and now in the possession of the tribe of Choptank 
 Indians, to sell and convey the right of this State to one hundred acres of 
 land at Fort Frederick, in Washington County." (See second volume 
 Scharf s History of Maryland, p. 566.) 
 
 In the Act of neither State is allusion made to the site of the seat of 
 Government being a necessary condition of the advance of money, except 
 as may be inferred from the use of the words, " in case Congress shall deem 
 it expedient to establish," etc., and these would have included and applied 
 to the proposed location, which embraced Pennsylvania as well as Mary- 
 land and Virginia. 
 
 It is an established fact of history that very deep feeling was engendered 
 in the discussion leading to the location of the seat of Government. The 
 question became largely sectional, and at one time threatened to lead to a 
 rupture of the Union. To ward off" such deplorable consequences a loca- 
 tion was sought at a point which would be considered central to territory 
 and population, accessible to navigation, and convenient to the western 
 frontier. 
 
 No contemporaneous authority has been produced or can be found which 
 intimates that the Congress was influenced by the advances of Virginia 
 and Maryland in locating the permanent seat of Government on the Poto- 
 mac, nor can any line of history be shown that "in the then impoverished 
 condition of the country a pecuniary argument of this sort had any influ- 
 ence on the question of location " of the Capital. 
 
 Chief Justice Marshall, writing the life of General Washington (volume 
 5, chapter iv, page 259), says : 
 
 At length a compact respecting the temporary and permanent seat of Government was 
 entered into between the friends of Philadelphia and the Potomac, whereby it was stipu- 
 
541 
 
 lated that Congress should adjourn to and hold their session in Philadelphia for ten years, 
 during which time the buildings for the accommodation of the Government should be 
 erected at some place to be selected on the Potomac, to which the Government should 
 remove at the expiration of the term. 
 
 This compact having united the representatives of Pennsylvania and Delaware with the 
 friends of the Potomac in favor of both the temporary and permanent residence which 
 had been agreed on between them, a majority was produced in favor of the two situations, 
 and a bill was brought into the Senate in conformity with the previous arrangement and 
 passed both Houses by small majorities. This Act was immediately followed by an 
 amendment to the bill then depending before the Senate for funding the debt of the 
 nation. * * * When the question was taken in the House two members representing 
 districts on the Potomac, who in all previous stages of the business had voted against the 
 assumption, declared themselves in its favor, and thus the majority was changed. 
 
 Not one word is said about " a pecuniary argument," Chief Justice 
 Marshall's authority is selected because of all the public men of the times 
 he best understood the motives underlying the action of Virginia in the 
 matter of these advances. He had been a member of the Virginia House 
 of Delegates from 1788 to 1793, when these advances were proposed. He 
 knew that the title of the Act making the advance had been amended on 
 final passage by changing the word "grant" to "advance," and his pro- 
 fessional- eminence at that early day precludes the supposition that he 
 would in a public statute use the word " advance " to convey a gift or 
 donation. 
 
 The location of the Federal Capital at its present site was the " sugar 
 plum " which Mr. Jefferson said was given to the South for their adoption 
 of the "Assumption Bill," which was a " bitter pill " to those States, and 
 that it was necessary that some one consistent measure should be adopted 
 to sweeten it a little to them. (Jefferson's Works, vol. iv, p. 448.) 
 
 The present location of the Federal Capital was a compromise settled 
 upon higher considerations than would be involved in any advance of 
 money which Virginia and Maryland could have offered. 
 
 In the fourth section of the Act of July 16, 1790, authority was given to 
 the President to accept "grants of money," to be used in defraying the 
 expenses of purchasing the site and erecting public buildings thereon. And 
 it is contended that to this acceptance of grants his authority was clearly 
 limited. It is further contended that the authorities of Virginia and Mary- 
 land were presumed to know and understand the provisions of this law; 
 and it is further insisted that, despite the use of the word "advance," the 
 moneys paid over by these States to the Government of the United States 
 were paid in consideration of the location of the seat of Government at this 
 point, assuming that from the present location benefits would accrue to the 
 neighboring States sufficient to constitute a valuable consideration for their 
 offerings. 
 
 As to the first objection, that the President was authorized to accept 
 grants of money only, we may appeal with confidence to the words of 
 President Washington in explanation of his understanding of the authority 
 conferred upon him and of the action of the States in the premises. In a 
 letter addressed to the Commissioners of the Federal District, written from 
 Philadelphia under date of August 29, 1793, President Washington asks: 
 
 In what manner would it be proper to state the account with the States of Virginia and 
 Maryland, they having advanced money which has not been all expended on the objects 
 for which it was appropriated? (Letter on file in the State Department and cited in Rep. 
 H. R. 494, Thirty-first Congress, first session ; and in Report 5, Thirty-second Congress, 
 first session.) 
 
 From this clause there is a clear inference that President Washington 
 regarded this money as an advance, rendering necessary an account of it 
 to be kept with those States. 
 
542 
 
 It will not be seriously contended that the receiver of another's money 
 will be permitted to assume the character of a beneficiary, when, by the 
 express terms under which he has been made the receiver, a contrary 
 intention is expressed. 
 
 While it is contended that it was the duty of the States to know the 
 authority conferred upon the President to accept grants only, it may be 
 contended with like force that it was the duty of the Government and its 
 agents to take notice of the nature and provisions of the grant as expressed 
 in the public Acts of the States, and in which they have carefully guarded 
 their rights in the premises. 
 
 Again, Congress having failed to carry into effect the prior resolutions 
 establishing the seat of Government, solely on account of its poverty and 
 consequent inability to make the necessary appropriations therefor, it may 
 be fairly urged on behalf of the claimants that the money advanced to 
 the use of the Government was intended to avoid a repetition of previous 
 failures. In confirmation of this intention to advance or lend, and not to 
 grant their moneys, the historical fact is urged on behalf of the State of 
 Virginia that an offer was made by the General Assembly of Virginia on 
 the twenty-eighth of May, 1783, in the following words: 
 
 That if the honorable Congress should esteem the city of Williamsburg a fit place for 
 their session, the Assembly will present them, on their removal thereto, and during their 
 continuance therein, with the palace, the capitol, and all public buildings, and three hun- 
 dred acres of land adjoining the said city, together with a sum of money not exceeding 
 $100,000 of this State's currency. 
 
 To this resolution is attached the following proviso: 
 
 Provided always, That should Congress thereafter remove from the city of Williamsburg, 
 or from the land mentioned, that in such case the land so ceded, with the buildings, shall 
 revert to the commonwealth. 
 
 It seems that this clearly demonstrates that when Virginia intended a 
 present, she so expressed herself; and that when her intention was only to 
 advance money to the use of the Government, she was equally guarded 
 and explicit in her language. The journals of the House of Delegates 
 clearly show that the use of the word " advance " was with peculiar deliber- 
 ation, for one of the last acts in the final adoption of the Act was to amend 
 the title by substituting the word " advance " for the word " grant," thereby 
 causing an agreement between the title and the body of the Act. The Act 
 of the State of Maryland follows strictly that of Virginia. 
 
 It is unnecessary to enlarge upon the use of the word " advance " as 
 contained in these several Acts and resolutions; it has but one interpreta- 
 tion, which is that of a right of reimbursement. To interpret this word as 
 used in the resolutions of Maryland and Virginia as originating a gift is 
 forced and extraordinary. It is clearly used as implying and anticipating 
 an accounting between the parties, and familiar instances of its use in this 
 relation in commercial transactions will readily occur to the mind. It 
 may tend to throw light upon the intention of the States in the premises to 
 refer to the system of raising revenue prior to the adoption of the Constitu- 
 tion, which was by requisition upon the several States; and, although that 
 system had been superseded by the mode now in use, yet it was at a period 
 so very recent after the adoption of the present mode that habits and ideas 
 growing out of the former system would still have their force and effect. 
 How natural was it, then, that in making a loan to the General Govern- 
 ment the States of Virginia and Maryland should make use of terms to 
 
543 
 
 which they had become famUiar under the Government, which had been 
 so recently changed. 
 
 The advance of $192,000 by Virginia and Maryland enabled President 
 AVashington to begin the actual construction of the public buildings, which 
 gave a value to lands theretofore valueless. The building of the Capital 
 converted a wilderness into city lots, the proceeds of the subsequent sales 
 of which enabled the Commissioners to continue the work on the public 
 buildings until 1798, when the first appropriation from the Federal Treasury 
 was available. 
 
 In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, dated March 31, 
 1791, General Washington says: 
 
 The terms entered into by me on the part of the United States with the landholders of 
 Georgetown and Carrollsburg are, that all the land from Rock Creek along the river to 
 the Eastern Branch, and so upwards to or above the ferry, including a breadth of about 
 one and one half miles, the whole containing from three thousand to five thousand acres, 
 is ceded to the public on condition that when the whole shall be surveyed and laid off as 
 a city (which Major L'Enfant is now directed to do), the present proprietors shall retain 
 every other lot ; and for such part of the land as may be taken for public use for squares, 
 walks, etc., they shall be allowed at the rate of £25 (|66 67) per acre, the public having the 
 right to reserve such parts of the wood on the land as may be thought necessary to be 
 preserved for ornament; the landholders to have the use and profits of all the ground 
 until the city is laid off into lots, and sale is made of these lots, which by this agreement 
 become public property. Nothing is allowed for the ground which is occupied as streets 
 and alleys. (See Sparks, x, p. 147.) 
 
 Mr. Jefferson, replying under date of April tenth, says: 
 
 The acquisition of ground is really noble, considering that only £25 an acre is to be paid 
 for any ground taken for the public, and the streets not to be considered, which will in fact 
 reduce it to about £19 per acre. (Varnum, p. 27.) 
 
 In the report of Thomas Monroe, Superintendent of Public Buildings, 
 dated February 27, 1816, and embracing the receipts and expenditures in 
 relation to the public buildings from 1791 to 1816, the moneys advanced 
 by Virginia and Maryland are carried into the general accounts of receipts, 
 with appropriations from the Federal Treasury and with the proceeds of the 
 sales of lots and other property. In the report of the Committee on Public 
 Buildings, made to the House of Representatives on February 16, 1820, the 
 following language is used: 
 
 Before closing their report the committee think it proper to observe that in so far as the 
 
 Sublic buildings have advanced, the unexpected expenses of their repairs, since their con- 
 agration, inclusive, the appropriations heretofore made, and to be made, until they are 
 completed, can only be considered for the most part as advances made at the Federal 
 Treasury, which will be reimbursed by the sales of the public property in the city of Wash- 
 ington, which has cost the Government but litte. At the time of the cession of this prop- 
 erty as the seat of government, it, the property, was considered as a source of revenue 
 which would be amply sufficient for the erection of the public buildings, and if the docu- 
 ment herewith presented, marked D, is not unreasonable, it will yet be sufficient to com- 
 plete such as are undertaken. But for their destruction, there is no doubt of the correctness 
 of the calculation made many years since of the sufficiency of the funds for its object. 
 
 Document D, referred to, concludes that — 
 
 If this expectation should be realized, it will appear that the public buildings have been 
 erected from the proceeds of property created by locating the seat of government in this 
 place, and that a fund will remain for further improvements. 
 
 Mr. Meigs, in a report from the Committee on the Expenditures upon the 
 Public Buildings, made to the House of Representatives March 21, 1820, 
 remarks that — 
 
544 
 
 It appears that the valuation of the public lots and actual amount of sales, added to the 
 donations from the States of Virginia and Maryland, exceed the national expenditure 
 upon public buildings by nearly $400,000. (See American State Papers, vol. 11, Miscella- 
 neous.) 
 
 Thus it appears from reports of commissioners and committees that the 
 Government has reahzed more from the sales of lots than it paid from the 
 Treasury, as well as a large sum in excess of the amount advanced to its 
 use by the States of Virginia and Maryland. 
 
 The land obtained by President Washington would have remained of lit- 
 tle value but for the action of Virginia and Maryland advancing $192,000, 
 which, giving a fixity and permanence, by actual construction of the public 
 buildings, to the national capital, and imparted to the wilderness the qual- 
 ity of city lots. This $192,000 not only started the public buildings, but it 
 also augmented the value of the public property obtained from the land- 
 holders, by making the construction of the public buildings certain, which, 
 without that action by these States, could not have been begun, as the 
 Congress had not appropriated any money for the public buildings. In this 
 double light, first, of enabling the commissioners to go on with the public 
 buildings, and, secondly, of the value imparted to the city lots, must the 
 action of these States be reviewed. So far from being a mere selfish act to 
 secure the benefits of adjacency to the Federal Capital, this advance by 
 these States was the means of making valuable the whole property acquired 
 by President Washington for the Government. The site of the Capital on 
 the Delaware had been abandoned for want of money to commence the 
 public buildings. A like fate overhung that on the Potomac, and would 
 probably have overtaken it had not Virginia and Maryland furnished the 
 first money that gave impetus and life to the young Capital. 
 
 It is inconceivable that any two States of the Union would, for nearly 
 fifty years, by joint resolutions of their General Assemblies, unanimously 
 adopted, persistently instruct their Senators and request their Representa- 
 tives to urge upon the Congress the payment of an improper claim. 
 
 The General Assembly of Maryland, by joint resolution in 1842, and by 
 the testimonials of her agents in 1832, and by joint resolutions of February 
 20, 1878, and again by joint resolutions of 1882, and the State of Virginia 
 by joint resolutions of 1850, and subsequently, have urged upon the Con- 
 gress the payment of these advances. 
 
 It is not possible that Legislature after Legislature in two States, from 
 1842 to 1884, could have been so constituted as not to have contained a 
 single member in either house who would not have questioned and denied 
 the right of the States to a return of this money, if the law and the facts of 
 history had not, in the opinion of the Legislatures of these States, fully 
 established these transactions to have been advances, and not grants, gifts^ 
 or donations. It is contended that these States have slept upon their rights 
 in the matter of their claims, but it must be remembered that the Govern- 
 ment has not always been in condition to meet these demands, not being 
 out of debt until 1837; and it can be justly urged that the Government, 
 being the recipient of the favor, should have made the first movement 
 towards its repayment. 
 
 The long delay, the very "staleness of this claim," is consonant with 
 the very spirit of the transaction and with the very essence of an advance. 
 These States designed that the infant Government of the United States, 
 then without money or credit, should enjoy the use of their money so long 
 as the United States was bvirdened with debt and unable to repay without 
 embarrassment. In that spirit no demand for repayment was made while 
 the revolutionary debt and the debt of the war of 1812-15 were unpaid. 
 
545 
 
 The first surplus of any amount in the United States Treasury was reported 
 in 1836, and was distributed that Winter. The panic of 1837 so prostrated 
 all kinds of business that only three fourths of the surplus was distributed; 
 the remaining fourth never was distributed. There was no surplus again 
 reported until 1841, and Maryland made her demand in 1842, and Vir- 
 ginia in 1850. Thus early these States instituted steps for the collection of 
 these advances; their applications have been favorably considered by com- 
 mittees of the House and Senate, and upon two occasions bills for their 
 relief have passed the Senate but failed to be reached in the House. 
 
 The Government has neglected its duty in this regard, and the States, 
 after a lapse of nearly half a century, and embarrassed in their own finan- 
 cial affairs, and when in the meantime the Government had become pros- 
 perous and wealthy, sought, and have been constantly seeking, to reclaim 
 these advances. In a transaction marked with such patriotic devotion, it 
 was not unbecoming in the States to wait long and patiently in expectation 
 that the money advanced would be tendered without the embarrassment of 
 a demand. 
 
 The States of Maryland and Virginia now, through their respective Leg- 
 islatures, request the repayment of their advances, and by such request 
 have placed a construction upon the acts of their States which it would be 
 unjust and ungrateful for the Government as a beneficiary to reject or deny. 
 
 It may not be without propriety to close this report with the remarks of 
 distinguished Senators upon a bill similar to that referred to this com- 
 mittee. In the debate in the Forty-third Congress on a bill for the relief 
 of the State of Virginia — 
 
 Mr. Seward of New York. Mr. President: The State of Virginia, beyond all doubt, 
 contributed to the erection of this Capitol and of those public edifices which we now use 
 for the Government of the United States the sum here specified. She either advanced that 
 money as a loan to be repaid at some future time, or she gave it to the Government of the 
 United States. If this money was advanced as a loan, the advance created a debt which 
 it is now the duty of the Government to discharge. If, however, the money was con- 
 tributed by way of gift or donation to the Government of the United States, I do not 
 see that it materially alters the case. In the one case there would be an obligation already 
 existing, a debt already to be paid for money which has been borrowed. In the other 
 case there is an advance which is the basis of a moral obligation which the Government 
 may at any time recognize and assume, and that creates the debt. * * * This moral 
 obligation strikes me as peculiarly appealing to the sense of honor of the Government of 
 the United States. We are here occupying an edifice which was in part built for us by 
 the State of Virginia; she is comparatively poor; we are only too rich. I think it does 
 not comport with the pride and dignity of the United States that Congress and the execu- 
 tive departments should occupy halls for which they are indebted in whole or in part to 
 the generosity of the States. * * * I am for discharging this obligation and securing 
 to ourselves the right to feel that this Government owes nothing but gratitude to these 
 States. 
 
 Mr. Fish of New York. Mr. President: I shall vote for the appropriation of this money 
 with great pleasure. I do not care to consider the question whether this money was origi- 
 nally loaned or granted. It is enough for me that the States now claim it as a loan, and I 
 am willing to vote to pay them. * * * 1 vote for this bill on the pure merits of the 
 claim. 
 
 Mr. Wade of Ohio. The language connected with the original grant — it being some- 
 times called a gift, sometimes a donation, sometimes an advance, sometimes one thing 
 and sometimes another— would seem to imply that perhaps it was not then expected the 
 money would be repaid. All these considerations, however, did not satisfy me that we 
 ought not to repay the money. I care but little what the expectation was at that time. 
 If these States, actuated by magnanimity, and for the purpose of advancing the public 
 good, gave us money to erect the public buildings at that day, when our Treasury was 
 comparatively empty, and when it was really an object to have such a donation, I would 
 repay them. * * * The great stubborn fact still stands out, that while the nation was 
 poor we availed ourselves of the generosity of those States and took the monej'^ which 
 they offered. Whether by way of gift or loan I care not. At all events, those who had 
 the right to say on what conditions they granted the money, now say it was by way of 
 advancement, to be repaid at some convenient time in the future. On this question I 
 will not stand here to contend with a sovereign State. When she has made an advance- 
 ment or loan, or even a donation, if you please to call it so, and we have availed ourselves 
 
 35'" 
 
546 
 
 of its benefits, I will not, when she asks to be repaid, and when we have an overflowing 
 Treasury, stand here to say that the money was a gift, and therefore ought not to be paid. 
 * * * I do not wish to have this Government indebted to any State in this Union or to 
 anybody. I shall feel that it is under an obligation to the States of Maryland and Vir- 
 ginia until this money shall have been paid. In my judgment, the money ought to be 
 repaid. * * * It was a noble, generous act, and we ought now to respond to it in the 
 same spirit. 
 
 Upon the question of interest to be computed in cases like those pending, 
 not only does simple justice demand such computation, since a repayment 
 of the money was first demanded by the States, but numerous precedents 
 sanction this course. 
 
 Among the Acts passed to provide for paying interest on such advances 
 made by the States and Territories in the past may be cited those on 
 account of the war of 1812 and 1814, for the Indians wars, and for the 
 Mexican war. 
 
 The payment of advances made for the use of the Government in the 
 Mexican war was provided for by a general Act passed June 2, 1848, which 
 contains the following provision with reference to interest: 
 
 That in refunding money under this Act it shall be lawful to pay interest at six per 
 centum per annum on all sums advanced by States, corporations, or individuals, in all 
 cases where the State, corporation, or individual has paid or lost interest, or is liable to 
 pay it. (9 Stat. L., p. 236.) 
 
 In the report of the Committee on Claims of the Senate (Report No. 
 8, Forty-ninth Congress, first session), reported January 6, 1886, the ques- 
 tion of the payment of interest by the United States Government is fully 
 and elaborately discussed, and fifty-three statutes from the Statutes at 
 Large are quoted showing it to have been the practice of the Congress to 
 allow interest. 
 
 Reference is particularly made to that report for the discussion of the 
 general question of paying interest, and to the following examples selected 
 from said Senate report on payment of interest on "advances:" 
 
 5. An Act approved May 3, 1802, provided that there be paid Fulwar Skipwith the sum 
 of $4,550, advanced by him for the use of the United States, with interest at the rate of six 
 per cent per annum' from the first of November, 1795, at which time the advance was 
 made. (6 Stat. L., p. 48.) 
 
 27. An Act approved May 5, 1824, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to 
 Amasa Stetson the sum of .$6,215, "being for interest on moneys advanced by him for the 
 use of the United States, and on warrants issued in his favor in the years 1814 and 1815 
 for his services in the Ordnance and Quartermaster's Department, for superintending the 
 making of army clothing, and for issuing the public supplies." (6 Stat. L., 298.) 
 
 41. An Act approved February 17, 1836, directed the payment of the sum therein named 
 to Marinus W. Gilbert, being the interest on money advanced by him to pay off troops in 
 the service of the United States, and not repaid when demanded. (6 Stat. L., 622.) 
 
 45. An Act approved July 7, 1838, provided that the proper officers of the Treasury be 
 directed to settle the accounts of Richard Harrison, formerly consular agent of the United 
 States at Cadiz, Spain, and to allow him, among other items, the interest on the money 
 advanced, under agreement with the Minister of the United States in Spain, for the relief 
 of destitute and distressed seamen, and for their passages to the United States, from the 
 time the advances respectively were made to the time at which the said advances were 
 reimbursed. (6 Stat. L., 734.) 
 
 That report further says that — 
 
 The prevalent idea that "the Government never pays interest" has ^rown up from the 
 practice of the departments which do not allow interest except where it is specially pro- 
 vided for in cases of contracts or expressly authorized by law. But this usage and custom 
 of the executive departments cannot be properly regarded as the settled rule and policy 
 of the Government, for its action upon the subject of interest has not from the earliest 
 time conformed to such usage. On the contrary, it will be found, upon an examination of 
 the precedents where Congress has passed Acts for the relief of private citizens, that in 
 almost every case, except those growing out of the late war, Congress has directed the 
 
547 
 
 payment of interest where the United States had withheld a sum of money which had 
 "been decided hy comT)etent authority to be due, or where the amount due was ascertained, 
 fixed, and certain. The highest Court of the country has also affirmed this to be not only 
 the practice of the Government, but the measure of its duty. Thus, in 15 Wallace, p. 
 77, where the suit was against a United States Collector for the recover}'- of taxes illegally 
 collected, the Supreme Court used the following language upon the subject of interest 
 allowed on the claim, viz. : 
 
 " The exception is to the instruction that if the jury found for plaintiff they might add 
 interest. This was not contested upon the argument, and we think it clearly correct. 
 The ground for the refusal to allow interest is the presumption that the Government is always 
 ready and willing to pay its ordinary debts. Where an illegal tax has been collected, the 
 citizen who has paid and has been obliged to bring suit against the Collector, is entitled 
 to interest in the event of recovery from the time of the alleged execution." 
 
 The Senate report from which the above extracts are taken forcibly states 
 that: 
 
 Your committee have directed attention to these numerous precedents for the purpose 
 of exposing the utter want of foundation of the often repeated assumption that " the 
 Government never pays interest." It will really be admitted that there is no statute law 
 to sustain this position. The idea has grown up from the custom and usage of the 
 accounting officers and departments refusing to allow interest generally in their accounts 
 with disbursing officers, and in the settlement of unliquidated domestic claims arising out 
 of dealings with the Government. It will hardly be pretended, however, that this custom 
 or usage is so " reasonable," well known, and " certain " as to give it the force and effect of 
 law, and to override and trample under foot the law of nations, and also the well settled 
 practice of the Government itself in its intercourse with other nations. 
 
 A great Government like ours, with unlimited resources and revenues at its command, 
 should above all things deal justly with its citizens, and certainly with the States, and 
 particularly when the States have dealt so liberally and generously with the Government, 
 as Maryland and Virginia did when they advanced the money to construct the public 
 buildings at Washington. 
 
 Senator Sumner (Report No. 4, Forty-first Congress, first session, p. 10) 
 remarks that: 
 
 If the claim is just, the precedent of paying it is one which our Government should 
 wish to establish. " Honesty and justice are not precedents of which either governments 
 or individuals should be afraid. 
 
 Your committee therefore recommend the passage of the accompanying 
 bill. 
 
 VIEWS OF THE MINORITY. 
 
 The undersigned, from the Committee on Claims, cannot concur in the 
 report of the majority on the bill (H. R. 2504) to provide for paying cer- 
 tain advances made to the United States by the States of Maryland and 
 Virginia. The proposition embodied in the bill seems to have been before 
 Congress in one stage or another for at least thirty years. In the Forty- 
 eighth Congress, first session, the bill was referred to the Judiciary Com- 
 mittee, and the views of the minority thereon were as follows: 
 
 VIEWS OF THE MINORITY OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 The undersigned, members of the Committee on the Judiciary, are of opinion that the 
 States of Virginia and Maryland have no claim to be reimbursed by the United States for 
 the sums furnished by those States toward the erection of the first National public build- 
 iiigs at Washington. 
 
 It is well known that both before and after the adoption of the Federal Constitution 
 there was a serious conflict of opinion as to the proper location of the National Capital. 
 A great number of places were claimants for it, and a great variety of considerations 
 entered into the question. Some might be called general, or between the different sec- 
 tions of the country, but to a large extent it was a strife between particular localities, 
 governed by the ordinary selfish reasons of benefit to their locality and special advance- 
 ment. The special advantages of such location within a State, or in immediate proximity 
 to it, were far greater at that day, when the facilities for travel and communication were 
 so slow and tedious, than they would be now when railroad and telegraph lines have 
 nearly obliterated time and distance. That Virginia and Maryland should have felt a 
 
548 
 
 great anxiety to have the National Capital located upon the banks of the great navigable 
 river flowing between them was very natural, and that to secure such great advantages 
 they should be willing to bear something more than their share of the expense, and use 
 that as an argument in favor of their location, was also natural and probable. 
 
 In the then impoverished condition of the country a pecuniary argument of this sort 
 would have an influence on the question of location that at this day can hardly be imag- 
 ined. So long a time has elapsed, and the records of that time are so meager, that the 
 purposes and motives of the actors in these early transactions must be determined very 
 much by what seems reasonable and probable. 
 
 The State of Virginia, in 1789 (and before the Act of Congress of July, 1790, fixing the 
 permanent seat of government), passed a resolution proposing to advance $120,000 to be 
 applied toward the erection of public buildings, " in case Congress shall deem it expedient 
 to establish the permanent seat of government of the United States on the banks of the 
 Potomac," and also that "the Assembly of Maryland should, on their part, advance a sum 
 not less than two fifths of the sum advanced by this State for the same purpose." 
 
 After this action by Virginia Congress passed the Act of July, 1790, fixing the seat of 
 government on the banks of the Potomac. 
 
 The fourth section of that Act authorized the President to accept "grants of money" 
 to be used in defraying the expense of purchasing a site and erecting public buildings 
 thereon. 
 
 In our judgment there is no room for doubt that this provision was inserted in view of 
 the action of Virginia and the expected action of the State of Maryland, and shows, in 
 the clearest possible manner, that Congress understood the proposition to be one of a gift 
 of money by those States, and not a proposition to make a loan. 
 
 Two considerations seem to the undersigned quite conclusive that the proposition was 
 intended as one of gift and not of loan: 
 
 First— That the proposition to loan such a sum of money, to be repaid, should be offered, 
 conditioned upon a certain location. Upon its very face it appears that the offer was 
 expected to influence the location, and if it was only an offer of a loan, it seems trifling. 
 
 Second— II the affair was only a loan it seems singular that such offer should be on con- 
 dition that Maryland should also make a lesser, but proportional loan. Treated as a grant 
 or gift these conditions are harmonious and reasonable; but on the theory of a loan of 
 money, to be repaid, they seem trivial. The majority report assumes that the word used 
 in the resolutions of both States, advance, imports a loan. 
 
 We deny this. That is not either the legal or ordinary use of the word. In the case of 
 a loan of money, to be repaid, the word is never used. A factor or consignee of goods for 
 sale advances a part of the price to the owner, for which he holds a lien on the goods to be 
 taken from the proceeds of the sale. A man advances money to the contractor who has 
 contracted to build his house, to be reckoned as a part of the contract price. 
 
 A parent advances money to his child, to be reckoned as a portion of the child's share 
 in his estate when divided. But on a loan of money, which creates a debt, to be repaid, 
 we know of no such use of the word, and we think it does not import a loan. 
 
 The word might be used so that in connection with the surrounding circumstances it 
 might establish a loan ; but its use in this case, connected with the circumstances under 
 which it was used, proves quite the contrary. 
 
 But whatever may be the construction or legal meaning of the word "advance," as used 
 by Virginia and Maryland in their resolutions, there is no doubt or dispute as to the Act 
 of Congress under which the money was paid. The President was authorized to accept 
 "grants of money." He was not authorized to borrow money or accept loans of money. 
 
 The majoritv of the committee argue that if a party accepts money of another, he accepts 
 it as offered, and that he cannot change the character of the transaction by saying he 
 accepts it for a different purpose or upon other terms. This may be true as between indi- 
 viduals, but when a party pays money to a public officer who has been authorized by law 
 to receive it for a particular purpose, and upon special terms, he must be held to accept 
 those terms, because otherwise the officer has no official authority to receive the money. 
 
 The reference to the letter of General Washington, we think, proves nothing in favor of 
 the proposition that this was a loan to be repaid. The Government was bound to use the 
 money for the purpose for which it was given. The commissioners to expend the money 
 were bound to keep an account of all moneys received and expended by them from what- 
 ever source the money came. 
 
 When General Washington's letter was written, in 1793, it appeared that the money 
 received from Virginia and Maryland had not all been expended on the objects for which 
 it was appropriated. It was this state of things to which General Washington was 
 referring, and not at all to any obligation to repay a loan. If it was a loan, and to be 
 repaid at all events, it was not of much consequence what were the details of the expendi- 
 tures. 
 
 The report of Mr. Meigs, referred to in the majority report, speaks of these moneys as 
 " the donations of Virginia and Maryland." Nothing appears in all the early history of this 
 matter, in our judgment, to show that anybody then thought of any repayment of this 
 money, or that it was anything but a donation or gift. 
 
 The benefits derived by the Government from the arrangement with the land owners, 
 by which the lots of the new city were divided between them, does not seem to have any- 
 thing to do with the question. This was a contract with private parties, and not with 
 Virginia or Maryland. 
 The undersigned, notwithstanding the staleness of this claim, would not suggest that as 
 
549 
 
 any bar to its allowance, if they could feel there was ever a just claim. It was fifty years 
 before Maryland set up any claim to have this money repaid, and nearly sixty years 
 before Virginia waked up to her rights in this respect. It is said that during this time the 
 National Government was poor, and these States acted the ordinary part of a rich and 
 lenient creditor to a poor debtor. But years before either State made any claim to have 
 this money repaid, the Treasury of the "United States had become so plethoric that they 
 had to resort to the doubtful relief of distributing its surplus to the States. We think it 
 may at least be suggested that the long delay to assert this claim by these States arose 
 from a consciousness that no such claim existed. A word as to the action of a former 
 Senate, and the debate on this claim by former eminent Senators, will conclude all we 
 desire to say. 
 
 Each of the Senators who participated in that debate stated that, in his judgment, it 
 made no difference whether this money, advanced by these States, was as a gift or a loan, 
 that in either view it ought to be repaid. We do not agree at all with those eminent Sen- 
 ators. If the Government borrowed this money, and has not paid it, it ought to do so; 
 hut if the money was given by these States to the United States, and especially if it was 
 given in view of securing greater benefits to themselves thereby, as we think it was, then 
 there is no obligation on the part of the United States to return the money, and there is 
 no more justice in returning it, or constitutional power to return it, than to make a gift 
 to any other State or person. 
 
 The books of the Treasury Department do not show that this claim was ever recognized 
 as an obligation of the Government, in any form or in any sense. But it does appear that 
 within a few years after the National Capital was located at Washington the United States 
 borrowed several hundred thousand dollars from the State of Maryland, which was to be 
 paid in four annual installments, and that the same was paid in installments as agreed. 
 
 If this claim now made by Maryland was then understood to have been a loan, it is 
 very singular that it should not have been presented and adjusted. This fact furnishes 
 another quite conclusive reason to our minds that this money was understood to be a 
 donation, and not a loan. 
 
 LUKE P. POLAND. 
 
 S W. MOULTON. 
 
 M. A. McCOID. 
 
 THOMAS M. BROWNE. 
 
 E. B. TAYLOR. 
 
 T. B. REED. 
 
 H. BISBEE, Jr. 
 
 While admitting that the word advance sometimes imports a loan, yet 
 because of the remaining reasons set forth in the " views " above recited, 
 the undersigned cannot concur with the majority. As to the allowance 
 for interest, it may be observed that there was no evidence produced 
 showing that the State of Virginia ever paid any interest upon the specific 
 sum. Maryland seems to have disposed of some of her public domain to 
 raise her amount. Another consideration ought not to be lost sight of. 
 The Government of the United States is now the holder of a large number 
 of bonds of the State of Virginia, upon which remains unpaid large arrears 
 of interest. There is also charged against the State of Virginia upon the 
 books of the Treasury Department for unpaid taxes, under the Direct Tax 
 Act of 1861, the sum of $213,501 30. Not only is no provision made in 
 the bill for the offsetting of either of these items, but the bill expressly 
 authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the Treas- 
 urers of the States of Maryland and Virginia the amounts found to be due 
 them, respectively, under the provisions of this Act. 
 
 JAMES BUCHANAN. 
 WM. WARNER. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. House of Representatives. Report No. 519. 
 
 CLAIM OF CERTAIN STATES AND THE CITY OF BALTIMORE. 
 
 February 13, 1886 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House 
 on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. 
 
550 
 Mr. Trigg, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following 
 
 REPORT. 
 [To accompany Bill H. R. 2948, with amendment.] 
 
 The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2948) 
 directing the Secretary of the Treasury to examine and settle the accounts 
 of certain States and the City of Baltimore, growing out of moneys expended 
 by said States and the City of Baltimore for military purposes during the 
 war of 1812, have had the same under consideration, and ask leave to sub- 
 mit the following report: 
 
 During the war of 1812-14 with Great Britain, the States of Massa- 
 chusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South 
 Carolina, and the City of Baltimore, expended certain moneys for military 
 purposes. After many years the United States, acknowledging the debt to 
 be just and payable with interest, refunded the money with interest; but 
 the rule of casting interest that was applied was to compute interest on the 
 sum advanced by the State from the date of advancement up to the time 
 of refunding to the State by the United States any portion of the sum 
 advanced, deduct the sum refunded from the advancement, and then com- 
 pute interest on the balance ; and so on until the final payment of the prin- 
 cipal. The aggregate of the interest column so computed was the amount 
 of interest paid (see Second Auditor's Report of October 30, 1858). In 
 other words, the payments were applied first to the payment of the princi- 
 pal, and after the principal was wholly extinguished, then to the several 
 items in the column of interest. 
 
 Against this mode of computing interest the States formally protested 
 (S. Doc, second session Twenty-second Congress, 1832-33). It was a plain 
 neglect and refusal of the United States to refund the whole amount bor- 
 rowed. To illustrate: Suppose, in the emergency of war, Virginia, one of 
 the States, should borrow a million of dollars at six per cent, and advance 
 the amount to the United States. Sixteen years afterward, when the inter- 
 est would about equal the principal, the United States should refund a 
 million, but insist that it shall be applied to the payment of the principal. 
 Sixteen years afterward another million is refunded, and it is applied to 
 the payment of the item of interest; the interest not bearing interest, the 
 whole debt, principal and interest, would be paid, according to this mode 
 of adjustment. Meanwhile Virginia has paid her creditors one million of 
 interest during the first sixteen years, another million during the second 
 period of sixteen years, and still owes the million of principal. Virginia, 
 in the case supposed, paid out a million dollars more than the United 
 States refunded. If one borrowed a thousand at six per cent to lend a 
 friend in distress, and after sixteen years the friend should repay a thou- 
 sand dollars, but compel the lender to accept it in full of the principal, and 
 sixteen years afterward should pay another thousand dollars in full of the 
 interest, leaving his friend still in debt for the principal, what Court would 
 sanction such a settlement, and what justice would there be in it? Yet 
 such is the treatment received by the States that made advances to the 
 United States in the war of 1812-14. It is evident that the United States 
 have not refunded in full the advances made by the States embraced in 
 this bill. 
 
 It was not until the Act of March 3, 1857, that partial redress was 
 obtained. By that Act a reexamination and readjustment of the account 
 
551 
 
 of the State of Maryland was directed to be made, and it was provided 
 that in the calculation of interest the following rules should be observed: 
 
 Interest shall be calculated up to the time of any payment made. To this interest the 
 payment shall be first applied, and, if it exceeds the interest due, the balance shall be 
 applied to diminish the principal ; if the payment fall short of the interest, the balance of 
 interest shall not be added to the principal so as to produce interest. Second, interest 
 shall be allowed on such sums only on which the State either paid interest or lost interest 
 by the transfer of an interest-bearing fund. 
 
 Under this Act Maryland received the additional sum of $275,770 23, 
 and on the eighth of July, 1870, an Act was passed directing the accounts 
 between the United States, and Massachusetts and Maine, to be reopened 
 and readjusted, and Massachusetts received the sum of $678,362 42, of 
 which one third was allotted to the State of Maine as an integral part of 
 Massachusetts when the advances were made. 
 
 Previously to this period, however, the account between the United States 
 and the State of Alabama had been settled on the basis of the Maryland 
 settlement. Indeed the bill now under consideration passed the Senate of 
 the United States by a vote of thirty -three yeas to nineteen nays, on the 
 
 day of , 1857. It went to the House of Representatives, 
 
 which substituted for this bill the following, which was subsequently con- 
 curred in by the Senate, and stands as the ninth section of the Act of that 
 session: 
 
 And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury be instructed to report to 
 Congress at its next regular session, all applications made by State authority of the States 
 and cities for the reopening and reexamination of the settlements heretofore made with 
 such States and cities, and upon the principle of readjustment upon which such claims 
 are based, and the amount thereof; and the Secretary of the Treasury is further instructed 
 to report to Congress, at its next regular session, the gross amount that will be required 
 to pay such claims to the States and cities of .the United States. (11 Stat, at Large, p. 326, 
 an Act making appropriations for civil service, approved June 12, 1858.) 
 
 The Secretary of the Treasury made his report at the next session of 
 Congress, showing an aggregate, computing interest down to the date of his 
 report, of $1,588,521 69, as follows: 
 
 South Carolina. $201,230 90 
 
 Virginia 1,076,683 35 
 
 Delaware 18,540 97 
 
 New York 48,896 21 
 
 Pennsylvania 218,507 71 
 
 City of Baltimore 23,662 55 
 
 Total $1,588,521 69 
 
 (See Ex. Docs., second session Thirty-fifth Congress, vol. 5.) 
 
 But, according to the same report, the following amounts only are due in 
 principal to the several States: 
 
 South Carolina... $78,996 41 
 
 Virginia 734,069 60 
 
 Delaware 6,341 99 
 
 New York 27,361 81 
 
 Pennsylvania 71,411 19 
 
 City of Baltimore... 8,027 55 
 
 The principal amount due Virginia in the above report is evidently a 
 mistake against the Government of the United States. The amount 
 claimed by the State as approximately correct, is $339,212. 
 
 These are the States embraced in this bill. None others have unsettled 
 
552 
 
 accounts with the Government of the United States growing out of moneys 
 expended during the war of 1812. 
 
 This bill proposes to apply to the above States that made similar advances 
 the same rule of computing interest which was applied in the case of Mary- 
 land — a rule which has been long and firmly established by the decisions 
 of the Supreme Court of the United States, by the practice of every State 
 in the Union, and adopted for many years past by the accounting officers 
 of the Treasury. 
 
 The bill gives simple (not compound) interest on any balance of princi- 
 pal that may be found unpaid, upon the proposed basis of settlement, until 
 its payment by the United States. It provides for any and all proper off- 
 sets which the United States may have against any of the States hereby 
 entitled. 
 
 In this particular your committee deem it proper to recommend and 
 report an amendment to the bill referred to them, providing for the deduc- 
 tion of any balance due from any of said States on account of the direct 
 tax apportioned by the Act of August 5, 1861, unless some general Act is 
 passed otherwise disposing of the matter, and also providing that any unma- 
 tured bonds of any of said States held by the United States shall, with the 
 interest due and unpaid to July 8, 1870, be credited and deducted in said 
 settlement as of that date. The Government holds the bonds of the State 
 of Virginia issued in 1860 to the amount of $581,800, which will not mature 
 until the year 1894, and also holds similar bonds of the State of South 
 Carolina. 
 
 This date (July 8, 1870) was adopted by your committee because it 
 seemed to them equitable and just. 
 
 On the first day of January, 1859, as shown by the report of the Secretary 
 of the Treasury hereinbefore referred to, there was due the State of Virginia 
 over $1,000,000, of which more than two thirds was interest. She had 
 been demanding a settlement and payment for years. Not being able to 
 obtain what she asked, it is claimed that in her extremity she borrowed 
 from the Government the amount represented by the aforesaid bonds. To 
 require these bonds not yet due to be now paid with the interest due thereon, 
 seems unjust, as it would in effect allow the Government in 1860, with a 
 fund that should have paid a portion of the interest she then owed, to cre- 
 ate an interest-bearing fund which would, if she should arbitrarily delay 
 the settlement long enough, absorb the larger debt she justly owed the State. 
 It was insisted that the bonds should be applied as a payment, or set-off, as 
 of their date in 1860, but your committee, as before stated, adopted July 8, 
 1870, because that seemed to them equitable and just, and because at that 
 time a similar bill for the relief of the State of Massachusetts was passed, 
 and there seems no valid reason why the settlement should not then have 
 been made with the other States. 
 
 In conclusion, the committee recommend a settlement of the accounts of 
 the United States with the other States by the same rule of computing 
 interest that was applied in the case of Maryland. It makes this recom- 
 mendation because the rule itself is just and equitable; because, otherwise, 
 the money advanced will not be fully repaid; because the rule has been 
 applied to some of the States, and if applied to one Should be applied to all; 
 and because the rule has been repeatedly approved by the Supreme Court of 
 the United States and sanctioned by the practice of every State in the 
 Union, and for many years past followed in similar cases by the accounting 
 officers of the Treasury. 
 
 Therefore, the committee report the accompanying bill with the follow- 
 
553 
 
 ing amendment: At the end of said bill, in the twenty-fourth line, after the 
 word "required," add the following, viz.: 
 
 Also making a deduction as of the eighth day of Jtdy, 1870, of the amount 
 of principal and. interest due at that date upon any bonds of the said States, 
 matured or unmatured, held by the United States, surrendering said bonds so 
 far as they are included in said settlement; provided, also, that the balance 
 remaining due of the direct tax apportioned to the State of Virginia by the 
 Direct Tax Act of August 5, 1861, be held and treated as a proper set-off against 
 the claims of the State of Virginia in the adjustment herein required, unless 
 Congress shall otherwise provide by general law, releasing all claims for said 
 direct tax or refunding all payments of such tax heretofore paid. 
 
 And respectfully recommend its passage, and ask leave to submit as a 
 part of this report, the following extracts from debate in the United States 
 Senate on this subject (see Congressional Globe, volume 36, part 3, page 
 2540, first session Twenty-fifth Congress) : 
 
 In Senate, May 31, 1858. 
 
 Mr. Iverson. No, sir; no more than was the case of the State of Maryland. The Act 
 in relation to Maryland directs that " the proper accounting officers of the Treasury be 
 and they are hereby authorized and directed to reexamine the accounts between the 
 United States and the State of Maryland, as the same was from time to time adjusted 
 under the Act," etc. 
 
 That proposed a reexamination of an account which had been adjusted, did it not ? Pre- 
 cisely. Whether the account had been closed or not, whether it had been adjusted or not, 
 whether it was still in existence or not, this Act directed the accounting officers to reex- 
 amine the account for interest, and make the computation on a particular basis. It was 
 done in the case of Alabama. I desire to apply the same rule to all the States. It is just, 
 equitable, and proper, if you apply it to two States, that you should give it to all. I do 
 not know that my State is interested to any great extent. The State of South Carolina is 
 interested, and her account has not been settled. The Controller of that State, in his 
 report to the Governor, made a few years ago, states the difficulties between the account- 
 ing officers of the United States and himself. That account is still lying open. The State 
 of South Carolina protested against the settlement by its officers at that time. This 
 amendment will meet that case, and authorize the accounting officers to readjust the 
 accounts of South Carolina on the basis applied to the State of Maryland. This amend- 
 ment simply directs that the provisions and principles applied under the twelfth section of 
 the Act of 1857, to Maryland, shall be applied to all the States. It does not reopen 
 accounts. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin. Will the Senator from Georgia give us some information on one or two 
 points suggested by his amendment? First— In what way this matter comes before the 
 committee of which he is the organ? Is there a claim from the States? Has it been 
 referred to the committee on behalf of the States ? 
 
 Mr. Iverson. Yes, sir; a memorial from the State of South Carolina was referred to the 
 Committee on Claims, and it was upon that memorial that the committee have predicated 
 their amendment. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin. A general section. 
 
 Mr. Iverson. Yes, a general section, believing that it was equitable to apply the rule to 
 all the States. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin. The next question I would desire to ask the Senator is : If he has any 
 idea what the amount involved in this appropriation will be? 
 
 Mr. Iverson. I have no idea. The Comptroller of the State of South Carolina alleges 
 in his report to the Governor of that State, which I have in my hand, that in the settle- 
 ment between him and the accounting officers of the United States, the State of South 
 Carolina lost $55,000 in interest. That is the difference between the mode of computation 
 of the accounting officers and the mode of accounting as regulated by the Act in relation 
 to Maryland. I do not know how other States may be affected. I do not suppose the 
 amounts are very large. I expect that the amount of the State of South Carolina is 
 larger than that of any other State. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin. It does not seem to me that this section is liable to the objection made 
 by the Senator from Virginia. This is not to pay a private claim of the State of South 
 Carolina. It is a general rule bj^ which the Treasury is to be guided in its settlements 
 with the States; and we have already sanctioned the payments to some of the States on 
 this basis ; this section provides that even in cases which have already been closed by the 
 Comptroller of the Treasury, not to the satisfaction of the State, as the Senator from Vir- 
 ginia suggests, but to the dissatisfaction of the State, the account shall be reopened and 
 examined, and settled according to principles which we have declared to be just. The 
 idea of applying a payment made at any time by the Government of the United States to 
 the extinction of a part of the capital of the debt due to a State whilst there remains 
 
554 
 
 interest unsatisfied, is contrary to all principle, to every rule by which computation of 
 payments is made. The State of South Carolina having presented this memorial, if the 
 proposition of the Senator from Georgia, now, was to pay that claim, 1 admit it would be 
 a private claim; but the committee, instead of treating this as a private claim, preferred 
 to report a section which amounts to a general law, for the verj'- reason that they are not 
 willing to act upon the claim of one State as a private claim. My State has no interest in 
 this question; but I do think that justice requires that the adjustment of these accounts 
 with the States should be made all upon the same footing; and, as it has already been 
 made on this footing with the States of Alabama and Maryland, I cannot conceive why 
 South Carolina should be made an exception, or any other State which has had accounts 
 to adjust with the General Government. It is a general rule now provided by Congress 
 for the settlement of accounts with States, and the mode of adjusting the interests that 
 arise in accounts with States. It is not an appropriation for the benefit of the State of 
 South Carolina. The committee, it appears to me, have carefully avoided reporting a pri- 
 vate claim, and have ex industria changed the legislation into a general law. I do not see 
 that it comes under the rule of the Senate which has been cited, and I shall vote for the 
 amendment. 
 
 The Presiding Officer. Inasmuch as authority is given by the rules to take the opinion 
 of the Senate on questions of this sort, and inasmuch as the facts in this case are dis- 
 puted, the Chair will submit the question of order to the people. 
 
 Mr. Hamlin. I think the matter has been so clearly and so well stated by the Senator 
 from Louisiana that really there can be no doubt about it. Certainly there is none in my 
 mind; and I have only risen for the purpose of inviting the attention of the Senate to its 
 action on other cases which I think are very similar, if not entirely parallel to this. We 
 pass pension laws in which we prescribe the time of service; we prescribe the rules which 
 shall entitle the person to a pension. We find, outside of that class of pensions, a very 
 large class of cases that come very nearly up to the rules we have prescribed; they come 
 here, and what is done ? Our Committee on Pensions recommend this special case, and 
 that special case, and they are passed. By and by we see there are so many special cases 
 that we remove the limitation by general law, and it has been done in appropriation bills^ 
 precisely in the way now proposed. 
 
 I will cite an instance. We removed the limitations as to the time or mode of proof 
 required at the Department, and that takes in a whole class of cases. True, if each one 
 came here and asked action separately by itself, it would be a private claim; but you 
 make a general law to include all cases. That is precisely this case. 
 
 I refer, now, to an instance in my mind, with regard to those who drew pensions for 
 revolutionary service. You prescribed, originally, that only those widows of revolu- 
 tionary soldiers should draw a pension who were married previous to 1783, 1 think. Then 
 you limited it to 1794; and then you limited it to 1800, because you found such a large 
 number of cases coming so nearly up to the time, that it was deemed advisable to extend 
 it. The last amendment, I recollect distinctly, because I drew it, was ingrafted on an 
 appropriation bill in 1853, and it was to meet a class of special cases here pending. 
 
 Mr. Green. I will inquire when the rule is to apply under the resolution adopted this 
 morning, for a recess, to-day or to-morrow ? 
 
 The Presiding Officer. To-morrow. 
 
 Mr. Green. Then I move that the Senate do now adjourn. 
 
 Mr. Hunter. I hope that we shall get through with this bill. 
 
 Mr. Green. We cannot get through, because I have an amendment to offer, and so 
 have others. 
 
 Mr. Hunter. Let us hear them. 
 
 The motion to adjourn was not agreed to. 
 
 The Presiding Officer. Will the Senate receive the amendment proposed by the Senator 
 from Georgia ? 
 
 The amendment was received. 
 
 The Presiding Officer, The question now is on agreeing to the amendment. 
 
 Mr. Hunter. The amendment is a proposition which certainly ought to receive some 
 examination before it is passed. We ought to know how much money it will take from 
 the Treasury ; we ought to know what changes it is to make in the principles on which 
 accounts have been settled with States. I apprehend it will be found that it makes other 
 changes besides the one which has been referred to by the Senator from Louisiana, the 
 mode of stating the account as to interest and principal. I believe there have been some 
 rules as to whether interest shall be allowed to States at all, and upon which settlements 
 have been made with most of the States, and that will be changed if this provision be 
 adopted; and it is probable that under the change it will be found that very large sums 
 will be due to the States of this Union. I have no doubt that most of the old States 
 would come in if this amendment be adopted, and some of them might claim very largelj^ 
 This is eminently a subject for separate legislation. We ought to know what changes are 
 made. We ought to know whether under this amendment we shall not pay to some 
 States interest on claims on which interest has never been voted. 
 
 The first deviation, if I remember, was in the case of Alabama; but there it was deter- 
 mined to make certain allowances of interest, because the State had paid the interest, 
 because it had sold stocks, as was done in Maine; and an exception was made in the case 
 of Alabama for that reason. I believe that was the case also in Maryland, where the 
 allowance was on the principle of the Alabama case. Unless you treat this as having 
 arisen out of those exceptional circumstances, you will reopen all the settlements that 
 
555 
 
 have been made with the States; and you will pass out of the Treasury a large sum of 
 money, in my opinion. I speak, though, only from general recollection; I have had no 
 time to examine the amendment particularly ; but I am afraid it will be found when we 
 come to see the effect of it— if it should be adopted— that it will go much further than 
 any of us suppose. 
 
 Mr. Fessend^en. The Senator from Virginia, if he would take the pains to read the 
 amendment, would see that is not open to the objections he has stated. It does not pro- 
 vide, if I read it rightly, for the payment of any interest to a State, in any case whatever, 
 where interest has not been allowed heretofore. It does not make any new claim in that 
 respect. The whole amount of it is simply this : The Treasury, as I understand, has 
 adopted the rule that where a certain amount of debt is owing to a State, and a certain 
 amount of interest has accumulated on that debt, and where the principal thus owing 
 bears interest, and the interest thus owing does not, if the claim is paid in part, they 
 apply that part payment to the principal which bears interest, instead of to the interest 
 which does not, thus reversing the rule which exists in every State in the Union and 
 operating most unjustly towards the States themselves. For instance, suppose a debt is 
 due to a State, which debt bears interest, and by the law at the same time there is an 
 amount of interest accumulated upon it which does not bear interest — let us call one 
 $50,000 and the other $30,000, the $50,000 bearing interest and the $30,000 not bearing inter- 
 est. The Government, in these circumstances, instead of j)aying the whole, pay up 
 $30,000. Then, instead of applying it to the amount which does' not bear interest against 
 the Government, and which the State has paid, they apply it to the principal, reducing 
 the claim which bears interest to $20,000, and leaving the State to lose its interest on 
 $30,000. 
 
 Mr. Toombs. It is worse than that. 
 
 Mr. Fessenden. That is bad enough. The provision is, in regard to all these claims 
 which the States have where the United States will not pay accumulating interest, as they 
 ought to do, that the partial paj'-ment shall first go to sink the interest that is due. If a 
 man owes me money, and interest has been accumulating year after year which he has 
 failed to pay, and esx)ecially if I am in debt for it, as is very often the case with the States, 
 he ought to indemnify me; but the rule adopted by the Treasury is worse than that. 
 They say they will not only not indemnify me and leave me to pay my interest, but when 
 they do make a payment it shall not go to sink the interest, but to sink the principal, 
 leaving the interest to stand. That is unjust. It does not apply in the case of any pri- 
 vate claim anywhere, but has been arbitrarily adopted by the accounting officers of the 
 Treasury. In the case of Maryland, which was precisely similar, Maryland remonstrated, 
 and at the last session Congress said that account should be adjusted upon proper 
 principles— the same principles that exist in every State of the Union between man and 
 man — that where principal and interest are due and the Government paid any part, that 
 payment should be applied to the interest first; if it paid it off, very well; if it overbal- 
 anced it, the balance should be so much towards the principal. This was on the common, 
 ordinary principles of justice. 
 
 In the case of the State of South Carolina, if I understand it, the officers went so far 
 as to keep an account with the State, crediting her with interest accumulating on the 
 principal, and if there was any left they then took the part they had paid, cast inter- 
 est on that, and then offset the two ! That is to say, they paid their interest in part and 
 retained to themselves the right of offsetting the interest which accrued on their own 
 j)ayment of money due to the State to pay the rest of the debt with. [Laughter.] 
 
 It does not do to make it a matter of account current between the two, because the 
 account is really all on one side; but the Treasury officers apply the principle of accounts 
 current to it as if so much was due from Maryland and so much from the United States, 
 and cast interest on both and then offset the two ; but instead of that, it is all due from 
 the United States. They say, " we will owe you the interest; we will pay you part of the 
 principal ; we will cast interest on the money we allow you and pay you interest with it." 
 That is the principle they have adopted. This is simply to set that right and to say that 
 where these things exist the Government shall do what is proper. * * * Why, sir, what 
 difference will it make how much money it amounts to? If there be more or less, the 
 Government ought to pay and pay it at once, without the slightest hesitation, and calculate 
 the interest upon proper principles. 
 
 The Maryland provision came from the Senator's own Committee on Finance, and was 
 agreed to by the Senate. If it was proper in that case, why is it not in every other ? 
 
 Mr. Hunter. I have stated that was made under peculiar circumstances; that I do not 
 recollect perfectly. The Senator from Maryland can explain them. It will be found, I 
 think, that they do not apply to other cases. 
 
 Mr. Pearce. I will state the facts in relation to the claim of Maryland. The State of 
 Maryland advanced large sums of money to the Government of the United States during 
 the war of 1812, and some time after the close of that war the United States reimbursed 
 the principal. In 1812 an Act was passed for the payment of interest to the State of 
 Maryland, and the interest was paid upon a mode of calculation novel to me, though I 
 find it has been adopted as the usual rule of computation in such cases at the Treasury. 
 That is to say, having determined to settle the accounts, and commenced to make pay- 
 ments on it, the first payment was applied to the reduction of the principal, the interest 
 being made to stand aside; and so payments were made from time to time until the 
 whole of the principal was liquidated; and then they went back to the period when they 
 began to pay and ascertained what the amount of interest due at the time was, and paid 
 
556 
 
 that sum without any interest on it. In 1829 or 1830 an Act was passed through both 
 Houses of Congress authorizing the payment of interest to the State of Maryland upon 
 the proper principle, such as prevailed in mercantile transactions, and it was vetoed by 
 General Jackson, and the veto came in at the next session of Congress, on the ground 
 that it was disturbing the usual mode of settlement. [Laughter.] 
 
 After I became a member of the Senate, I revived this claim of Maryland, under 
 instructions from my State Legislature, and I introduced a general bill, providing for the 
 liquidation of the interest due to the different States of the Union, which had made such 
 advances in a body. It was objected to by a gentlemen, then a Senator from Alabama, 
 who preferred that each State should have its own claim rest on its own basis. He intro- 
 duced another bill for the benefit of the State of Alabama, and it was passed through the 
 Senate, and under that bill the State of Alabama was paid according to the old mode of 
 computation. The Senate will remark, however, that this rule was always adopted in the 
 allowance of interest. The Government of the United States never paid interest, except 
 where the State had paid interest itself upon its advance, or had lost interest, and Ala- 
 bama obtained her allowance of interest because the funds which she had applied to aid 
 the General Government were taken from a bank which was her property, and she had 
 thus been obliged to contract her line of discounts, and so lost interest. The State of 
 Maryland obtained interest because she had liquidated the bonds which she had given to 
 her creditors for the money she applied for the service of the Government during the war, 
 by selling United States stock of which she was owner, thus transferring to the liquida- 
 tion of this obligation an interest-bearing fund. The principle was that the United States 
 would pay no interest, except where interest had actually been paid or lost by the State. 
 
 As the State of Maryland came within that category she was entitled to interest, and 
 after long years of dispute on the subject, the Congress of the United States, at the last 
 session, passed the Act which has been referred to, providing for the reexamination and 
 readjustment of the account of the State of Maryland, and directing that the interest 
 should be calculated according to certain rules laid down by the Supreme Court of the 
 United States for that purpose ; that is to say, first applying the payments to the interest, 
 and when the interest was all liquidated then applying them to the principal; and under 
 that Act I think the State of Maryland received, after the last session of Congress, about 
 two hundred and seventy thousand dollars. There are several States interested in like 
 manner; I do not recollect how many; but when I originally introduced the bill I carefully 
 noticed the States interested and their number, and no doubt the amount will be very 
 large. Delaware, South Carolina, Virginia, and several other States are interested, and 
 the amount is very large; but I do not know that magnitude of the obligation is any 
 defense against the passage of an Act for payment, according to the principles of equity 
 which have been applied to the State of Maryland. This is an inconvenient time, it is 
 true, for us to be dunned for this money; but I think we ought to settle fairly, if we do 
 nothing else. If we cannot pay the money, we ought, at least, to acknowledge the obli- 
 gation. 
 
 [Second session Thirty-fifth Congress.] 
 
 In Senate, Febeuary — , 1859. 
 
 The Army Bill being under consideration: 
 
 Mr. Iverson. I am instructed by the Committee on Claims to offer the following 
 amendment: 
 
 That all the States which have had, or shall have refunded to them by the United 
 States, moneys expended by such States for military purposes during or since the war of 
 1812 with Great Britain, which have not already been allowed interest upon the moneys 
 so expended, shall now be allowed interest, so far as they have themselves paid or lost it, 
 said interest to be computed by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury, according 
 to the provisions and principles directed to be applied to the case of Maryland by the 
 twelfth section of the Act of March 3, 1857, entitled "An Act making appropriations for 
 certain civil expenses of the Government for the year ending the thirtieth of June, 1858," 
 and that all the States which have been allowed interest upon claims against the United 
 States, accruing during or since the said war of 1812, shall be entitled to have their inter- 
 est accounts reexamined and restated by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury, 
 according to the provisions and principles of the twelfth section of said Act of March 3, 
 1857, and that those provisions and principles shall govern the computation of interest in 
 all cases in which interest may hereafter be allowed to any of the States. Any money 
 found to be due to any State, as directed by this section to be computed and ascertained, 
 shall be paid to such State out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
 ated: provided, that, in lieu of the payment of money, the Secretary of the Treasury pay 
 the State of Maryland on such sums only on which the said State either paid interest or 
 lost interest by the transfer of an interest-bearing fund. 
 
 This provision was applied by that Act to the State of Maryland, and under the accounts 
 of that State were reopened and readjusted at the Treasury Department, and she was 
 paid back, if I remember aright, the sum of $272,000. The amendment which I now pro- 
 pose, simply puts all the States precisely on the footing that the Act of 1857 put the State 
 of Maryland. It is just and proper that the rule, if applied to one State, should be applied 
 to all; and the rule is itself just and proper. Heretofore the mode of calculating interest at 
 
557 
 
 the Treasury Department has been the one which was in vogue some half century or 
 century ago, and which has long since been exploded in every civilized country. They 
 calculated the interest upon the principal up to the time of the settlement, and they cal- 
 culated interest upon the various payments up to the time of the settlement, and struck 
 a balance. That mode of calculating interest has been exploded in every State in the 
 Union. Not a single State now adheres to it, although it was, in early days, when I was 
 a boy, the mode of calculating interest. The mode now is that applied to the accounts of 
 the State of Maryland, first to compute interest up to the time of the first payment, and 
 then apply the payment, in the first place, to the extinguishment of the interest, and 
 then apply any surplus to the extinguishment of the principal, and so on of each payment 
 of interest. That is the principle on which the accounts of Maryland have been settled, 
 and I propose to apply it to all the States of the Union. It is just and proper. 
 
 The amendment, you will perceive, does not give the States interest unless they paid it 
 themselves or lost it'by the transfer of an interest-bearing fund. It is just and proper that 
 every State should be put upon the same footing as the State of Maryland. And the 
 principle of settlement proposed is just and proper in itself. It is the mode adopted by 
 every State in the Union in the calculation of interest. I have put in the amendment a 
 provision that the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay these amounts to the States in five 
 per cent bonds of the United States, redeemable in ten years or sooner, at the discretion 
 of the President. The States, I understand, are perfectly willing to take five per cent 
 bonds of the United States instead of the money. In the present embarrassed condition 
 of the country, we think it prudent and proper to make this provision. With this 
 explanation of the case, I hope the Senate will adopt the amendment. 
 
 Mr. Hunter. At the last session I voted against the provision when it was introduced, 
 but I believe the opinion of the State which I represent is, that she is entitled to the money ; 
 and although 1 would never have used my official position to introduce it, I feel bound to 
 vote for it as her representative. I suppose, in justice, if we were settling the account 
 originally, this would be the proper mode of doing it. I do not think it well to reopen 
 these old accounts which have been settled, and with the settlement of which the States 
 were satisfied in former times; but the precedent which has been set in the case of Mary- 
 land has made all the States desire the application of the same principle to them, and"^! 
 believe most of them have agents here, and are insisting upon it. 
 
 ********* 
 
 Mr. Iverson called for the ayes and nays, and they were ordered. 
 
 Mr. Fessenden. I wish to say a word about this proposition ; because I think, when the 
 Senate understands it, there will be no dilficulty in passing it. I think there can be no 
 dispute about it. I advocated this provision last year, against the opposition of the Chair- 
 man of the Committee on Finance; and I have no sort of disposition to change ray action 
 because it turns out that the State of West Virginia is so largely interested as she is. I 
 do not mean to say that that affects his action, because everybody knows that he is not 
 influenced in that way. I mean simply to say, in regard to myself, that Virginia has a 
 large claim under this provision, much larger than it was supposed any State could have; 
 but that does not affect my action, or induce me to change my vote. I have no doubt, 
 from the honorable Senator's well known habit of looking out for the Treasury, that if 
 Virginia would let him alone, he would vote against the amendment, although his State 
 will be so much benefited by it. ' 
 
 But, sir, the principle of settlement proposed is a very simple one, and a perfectly honest 
 one. In settling these claims the Government officers have heretofore acted on the prin- 
 ciple of applying partial payments to the discharge of the principal, and letting the interest 
 accumulate. It is no question about paying interest; that is settled. This class of claims 
 always carry interest, and it is always allowed. The Government let the interest run on until 
 it got to be* as large as the principal. They then paid a certain amount; but instead of 
 applying that amount to the interest which was due, they applied it to the principal and 
 let the interest stand, which did not carry interest; that is to say, they paid the principal 
 before the interest. They did worse than that in many cases, as I understand; when they 
 came to settle up fairly they charged interest on the payment of the principal up to the 
 time of the settlement, and allowed no interest on the interest existing. Thus they made 
 the payment of the principal eat up the interest. 
 
 This mode of settlement was grossly unjust, and as great an outrage as anything could 
 be. It was contrary to the mode in which interest is computed between individual and 
 individual. Maryland applied for a recomputation, and Congress passed a law to allow it. 
 All that is now asked is to place every other State on the same footing — there may be some 
 half dozen of them — that advanced money on the same foundation on which you placed 
 Maryland, not only to do the thing equally as between the States, but to do the just thing, 
 and pay mofiey which is absolutely due without any sort of question. 
 
 The following thirty-four Senators voted in favor of the amendment, viz., twenty-six in 
 1858, and eight others^in 1859: Bayard, Benjaniin, Bigler, Bright, Brown, Chestnut, Clark, 
 Collamer, Crittenden, Dixon, Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Fitch, Foot, Foster, Hamlin, 
 Hammond, Harlan, Hunter, Iverson, Kennedy, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Polk, Rice, Sew- 
 ard, Simmons, Thomson, Toombs, Wade, Wilson, Yulee — 34. 
 
 The amendment prevailed in the Senate, but failed in the House of Representatives in 
 a close vote, when avowed friends, enough to have carried it, voted in the negative, because 
 of the then condition of the Treasury. 
 
558 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. House of Representatives. Report No. 3126. 
 
 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NEWTON, MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 June 30, 1886 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House, and 
 ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Gallinger, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following 
 
 REPORT. 
 [To accompany bill H. R. 1125.] 
 
 The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1125) 
 for the relief of the First National Bank of Newton, Massachusetts, having 
 considered the same, respectfully report: 
 
 That this bill was favorably reported by the Committee on Claims of 
 the Senate in the Forty-eighth Congress, and after an exhaustive dis- 
 cussion passed that body. It has again been favorably reported by the 
 Committee on Claims of the Senate, the report being made by Senator 
 Jackson, which we adopt, as follows: 
 
 That on and prior to February 28, 1867, Julius F. Hartwell was Cashier of the United 
 States Sub-Treasury in Boston, Massachusetts. While acting as such Cashier he embez- 
 zled a large amount of the Government's money by lending the same to the firm of Mellon, 
 Ward & Co., who were extensively engaged in stock speculations. As the time for the 
 examination of the funds in the Sub-Treasury approached, March 1, 1867, when Hartwell's 
 accounts would have to be passed, some plan had to be devised by the guilty parties to 
 prevent or delay exposure. The device resorted to and pM in operation was to procure 
 funds and assets of innocent third parties to be placed temporarily on deposit in the Sub- 
 Treasury till the examination was had, and then to be immediately withdrawn again, and 
 thus tide Hartwell and his associates in the embezzlement over the crisis. Edward Carter, 
 the active financial member of said firm of Mellon, Ward & Co., who concocted this 
 scheme with Hartwell, was a Director in the First National Bank of Newton, and seems 
 to have possessed not onlj" the confidence of, but unlimited influence over, E. Porter Dj'^er, 
 the Cashier of said bank. By means of this confidence and influence, and in execution of 
 his and Hartwell's fraudulent conspiracy. Carter procured from Dyer the money, bonds, 
 securities, and checks of the First National Bank of Newton, to the amount of $371,025, 
 which were deposited in the Bub-Treasury on February 28, 1867, Hartwell giving a receipt 
 therefor, as Cashier, that the deposit was " to be returned on demand in Governments, or 
 bills, or its equivalent." This receipt, being in the name of Mellon, Ward & Co., was 
 immediately indorsed by Carter, as follows : " Pay only to the order of E. Porter Dyer, Jr., 
 Cashier," and signed Mellon, Ward & Co. 
 
 This deposit of its funds and assets was made without the knowledge and consent of 
 the President and Directors of the First National Bank of Newton. Hartwell's default 
 was discovered on the night of February 28, and on March 1, 1867, when Dyer presented 
 the above receipt and demanded its reclemption, payment was refused, and the bank's 
 funds and securities were held and applied by the Government to make good Hartwell's 
 default. The capital stock of the bank was $150,000. It was doing and for years had done 
 a prosperous and profitable business; but this fraudulent misapplication and appropria- 
 tion of its assets ruined the institution, and on March 11, 1867, it was placed in the hands 
 of a receiver, and to make good its losses and provide the means to discharge its debts 
 the stockholders were compelled to pay in a second time the amount of their respective 
 holdings of its capital stock. On February 24, 1873, the First National Bank of Newton 
 filed its petition in the Court of Claims against the United States to recover the amount 
 of its funds and assets so deposited in the Sub-Treasury and appropriated by the Govern- 
 ment. The case was heard in December, 1880, and judgment was rendered in favor of the 
 bank January 24, 1881, for the full amount of the principal claimed, viz., $371,025. The full 
 details of the' conspiracy and transaction by which the Government, through the fraud of 
 its agent, wrongfully got possession of the bank's assets, are clearly set forth in 10 Court 
 of Claims Reports, p. 519; 96 United States Supreme Court Reports, 30; and 16 Court 
 of Claims Reports, p. 54, to which reference is here made for a more complete statement 
 of the facts than hereinabove stated. In delivering the opinion of the Court of Claims in 
 the bank's suit. Chief Justice Drake characterized the taking of its assets as a ^^villainous 
 scheme," and the transaction as " simply a case of a bank being robbed, and of its stolen 
 assets being put into the hands of the Cashier of the Sub-Treasury for a purpose which 
 by no possible view could in law be held to effect a transfer of the bank's right of property 
 in them either to him or to the United States." That the United States could not derive 
 a benefit from the fraudulent act of their Cashier, or lawfully withhold the funds thus 
 
559 
 
 obtained, admitted of no question, either in law or morals. After referring to many of 
 the authorities on the question, the Supreme Court (96 United States Reports, p. 36) say, 
 in conclusion : 
 
 " But surely it ought to require neither argument nor authority to support the propo- 
 sition that where the money or property of an innocent person has gone into the coffers 
 of the nation by means of a fraud to which its agent was a party, such money or property 
 cannot be held by the United States against the claim of the wronged and injured party. 
 The agent was agent for no such purpose. His doings were vitiated by the underlying 
 dishonesty, and could confer no rights upon his principal." 
 
 On the twenty-eighth of April, 1881, a duly certified copy of the bank's judgment against 
 the United States was presented to the Secretary of the Treasury, as provided by law. 
 Before its payment, the now Attorney-General of the United States, in March, 1881, 
 entered an appeal to the Supreme Court. This appeal seems to have been taken for the 
 purpose of enabling him to examine the case. After making such examination, and find- 
 ing the case undistinguishable from that reported in 96 United States Reports, ai)ove cited, 
 the appeal, which had been in the meantime entered in the Supreme Court, was, on his 
 motion, dismissed in that Court October 25, 1881. 
 
 Thereafter, on October 29, 1881, the sum of $260,000 was paid on account of this judg- 
 ment, by the Treasurer of the United States, that being the only amount available under 
 the appropriation then existing. The balance of $111,025 was paid August 30, 1882. 
 
 Such is a brief history of the case. The bill under consideration proposes to pay the 
 bank interest on the amount of its funds so taken and appropriated by the United States, 
 from date of conversion to time of payment. The Court of Claims was not authorized 
 to award such interest, its jurisdiction in the matter of "interest" being confined to 
 cases of contract expresslj'- stipulating for the payment of interest. It will hardly be 
 insisted that this restriction upon one of its tribunals settles either the question of the 
 Government's liability or the measure of its duty in a case like the present, where the 
 contract relation is not voluntarily assumed by the party making the claim. The Govern- 
 ment may, with propriety, refuse to recognize any obligation to pay interest to those who 
 voluntarily deal with it, without expressly stipulating for the payment of interest. But 
 the question of its obligation to malce indemnity by the allowance of interest, where the 
 creditor relation is forced upon the individual by the wrongful act of the Government or 
 its agents, stands upon a different footing, and should be determined by the general prin- 
 ciples of the public law and the rules of natural justice and equity applicable to the facts 
 and circumstances of the particular case. Ordinarily the Government cannot and should 
 not be made responsible to the extent of individuals for the wrongful acts of its officers 
 or agents. But this rule cannot be justly invoked to shield or protect the Government 
 from the measure of responsibility apijlied to private persons where it has adopted such 
 wrongful acts and derived an advantage and benefit therefrom. Where the Government 
 has profited by the fraud of its agent, why should it deny to the injured party the full 
 redress that Courts of equity would afford as between individuals and private corpora- 
 tions ? In the jurisprudence of all civilized countries the general doctrine is well settled 
 that any one — except a " bona fide " purchaser for value and without notice — who obtains 
 possession of property which has been procured from the owner hy fraudulent means or 
 practices is converted by the Courts into a trustee, and ordered to account as such ; or, as 
 stated by Perry on Trusts, Section 166, the principle " denotes that the parties defrauded, 
 or beneficially entitled, have the same right and remedies against him as they would be 
 entitled to against an express trustee who had fraiidulently committed a breach of trust." 
 Whenever the principal adopts the fraudulent act of his agent, or attempts to reap an 
 advantage therefrom, his liability is properly measured by this rule. Indeed (says Perry 
 on Trusts, 172), the doctrine has been thus broadly stated: 
 
 " That when once a fraud has been committed, not only is the person who committed 
 the fraud precluded from deriving any benefit from it, but every innocent person is so 
 likewise, unless he has innocently acquired a subsequent interest; for a third person by 
 seeking to derive any benefit under such a transaction, or to retain any benefit resulting 
 therefrom, becomes particeps criminis, however innocent of the fraud in the beginning." 
 
 It would not admit of a moment's doubt that in the present case interest would have 
 been awarded the bank as against the agent committing the fraud. It is also clear that 
 as against any private principal occupying the position of the Government the bank 
 could and would have received interest!^ Why should not the Government, standing as 
 it does under this transaction in the attitude of a trustee, if not a particeps criminis, 
 be held to the same measure of responsibility and redress ? Nothing short of this will 
 meet the justice of the case or afford the equitable relief to which the bank is justly enti- 
 tled. A great Government like ours, with unlimited resources and revenues at its com- 
 mand, should above all things deal justly with its citizens. It should not stand upon 
 technicalities in withholding property or funds which may have wrongfully come into its 
 possession. It should never make for itself a profit or secure and retain an advantage 
 through the fraud of its agents or by any breach of trust which has worked a wrong and 
 injury. It should in such cases make such reparation as its Courts would enforce as 
 between individuals. 
 
 The American Consul at Geneva successfully claimed interest upon the amounts 
 awarded to the United States against Great Britain. The counsel for Great Britain, while 
 objecting to the application of the principle allowing interest, distinguished between cases 
 where, in their view, it should and should not be allowed, in language strikingly applica- 
 ble here; and attention is called to it as being a concession, on the part of a party object- 
 ing to the allowance of interest, which covers the present case, as follows: 
 
560 
 
 " Interest, in the proper sense of that word, can only be allowed where there is a prin- 
 cipal debt of liquidated and ascertained amount detained and withheld by the deVjtor 
 from the creditor after the time when it was absolutely due and ought to have been paid^ 
 the fault of the delay in payment resting with the debtor; or where the debtor has 
 wrongfully taken possession of and exercised dominion over the property of the creditor. 
 In the former case, from the time when the debt ought to have been paid, the debtor has 
 had the use of the creditor's money, and may justly be presumed to have employed it for 
 his own profit and advantage. He has thus made a gain corresponding with the loss 
 which the creditor has sustained by being deprived, during the same period of time, of 
 the use of his money; and it is evidently just that he should account to the creditor for the 
 interest which the law takes as the measure of this reciprocal gain and loss. In the latter 
 case the principle is exactly the same. It is ordinarily to be presumed that the person 
 who has wrongfully taken possession of the property of another has enjoyed the fruits 
 of it; and if, instead of this, he has destroyed it or kept it unproductive, it is still just to 
 hold him responsible for interest on its value, because his own acts, after the time when 
 he assumed control over it, are the causes why it has remained unfruitful. In all these 
 cases it is the actual or virtual possession of the money or property helo(aging to another which 
 is the foundation of the liability of interest. The person liable is either lucratus by the 
 detention of what is not his own, or is justly accountable as if he were so." 
 
 In the case under consideration, the funds of the bank — an amount fixed and liqui- 
 dated—have been wrongfully withheld for many years, during which the Government has 
 retained and used them, and to that extent has made or saved interest, of which the bank 
 throughout the same period lost such interest. In allowing interest at a low rate the 
 bank will receive only (or less than) what it was unjustly deprived of, while the United 
 States will only yield up what it has received or saved that rightfully belonged to the 
 bank, for it cannot be questioned that the use of the principal sum has put the Government 
 in receipt of additional funds to the amount of the value of such use. The claim is thus 
 brought within the general principle so clearly and forcibly stated in the above quoted 
 extract from the counsel of Great Britain. 
 
 In this statement of the proposition which should govern the present case it is hardly 
 necessary to say that the committee do not wish to be understood as even suggesting 
 that the same rule could or should be applied to that large class of cases known as war 
 claims. They stand entirely upon a different footing. Every man, woman, and child 
 residing, during the war, inthe insurrectionary territory, became thereby an enemy of 
 the United States. The Government could have asserted against each and all of them 
 the extremest measures conceded by the public law to belligerents. That it did not adopt 
 this policy, but modified the harsher rules of war, by which it waived some of its bellig- 
 erent rights, could not be made in any case the basis of a claim for interest, nor lay the 
 ground for the payment of interest. Take, for illustration, the captured and abandoned 
 property cases. TThis property and its proceeds, under the modern rules of war, could 
 have been appropriated to the absolute use of the Government. Instead of pursuing this 
 course, the Government, in a spirit of liberality, adopted the generous policy of making 
 itself a depository of these funds, to be held for the benefit of the real owners. The 
 proposition to allow interest on such claims should not and would not be entertained for 
 a moment. 
 
 It cannot be properly urged as an objection to this claim for interest that the bank 
 should be held responsible to some extent for the unfaithfulness of the Cashier whom it 
 had selected and intrusted with certain well defined duties in respect to its funds and 
 assets. No want of care is shown in making the selection. There was nothing in his 
 previous conduct to excite suspicion or put the bank upon inquiry or notice so as to 
 charge it with any degree of negligence in retaining him in its employ. The doctrine of 
 contributory neghgence is sometimes looked to and considered in the determination of 
 the better equity as between two innocent parties who have been defrauded by a third 
 party who has been trusted by both. If there had been no previous default on the jiart of 
 Hartwell, and he had on the night of February 28, 1867, embezzled the funds and assets of 
 the bank that day deposited with him by Carter and Dyer, the Government and the bank 
 might then have occupied the position of two innocent parties, whose equities would 
 have to be determined and settled to some extent by the question of negligence in the 
 employment of unfaithful agents. But that is not the present case. The Government 
 had already lost its money by the previous embezzlement of its Cashier of the Sub- 
 Treasury, and then, through the corrupt influence of that same agent and his confederate, 
 the bank's agent is tempted by a "villainous scheme " into a breach of his trust, by means 
 of which the Government obtains possession of the bank's entire assets, and wrongfully 
 appropriates them in making good its previous losses. It would be shocking to every 
 sense of right and justice for the Government now to urge that the unfaithfulness of the 
 bank's trusted ageiit was a bar or valid defense to its liability and duty to refund either 
 the principal or interest of the funds so procured and converted to its own use. Your 
 committee have too much regard for the honor and good name of the Government to 
 allow it to occupy a position so questionable. It should be observed, too, that the decision 
 of its own Courts declaring that the Government could not rightfully hold the assets so 
 fraudulently obtained has really disposed of this question of negligence, which applied 
 with equal force to the recovery of the principal as to the interest. 
 
 To the objection that the allowance of this claim for interest will establish a bad prece- 
 dent, the reply of Mr. Sumner to a similar objection is a complete answer: 
 
 "If the claim is just, the precedent of paying it is one which our Government should 
 
. 661 
 
 wish to establish. Honesty and justice are not precedents of which either Government 
 or individuals should be afraid." (Senate Report No. 4, Forty-first Congress, first session, 
 p. 10.) 
 
 But it is respectfully submitted that there are abundant precedents, both in the judicial 
 and in the legislative branches of the Government, to support the present application for 
 the allowance of interest. The prevalent idea that "the Government never pays interest" 
 has grown up from the practice of the departments, which do not allow interest except 
 where it is specially provided for in cases of contracts or expressly authorized by law. 
 But this usage and custom of the Executive Departments cannot be properly regarded as 
 the settled rule and policy of the Government, for its action upon the subject of interest 
 has not from the earliest time conformed to such usage. On the contrary, it will be 
 found, upon an examination of the precedents where Congress has passed Acts for the 
 relief of private citizens, that in almost every case, except those growing out of the late 
 war, Congress has directed the payment of interest where the United States had withheld 
 a sum of money which had been decided by competent authority to be due, or where the 
 amount due was ascertained, fixed, and certain. The highest Court of the country has 
 also affirmed this to be not only the practice of the Government, but the measure of its 
 duty. Thus, in 15 Wallace, p. 77, where the suit was against a United States Collector for 
 the recovery of taxes illegally collected, the Supreme Court used the following language 
 upon the subject of interest allowed on the claim, viz. : 
 
 "The third exception is to the instruction that if the jury found for plaintiff they 
 might add interest. This was not contested upon the argument, and w^e think it clearly 
 correct. The ground for the refusal to allow interest is the presumption that^ the Government 
 is always ready and willing to pay its ordinary debts. When an illegal tax has been col- 
 lected, the citizen who has paid it and has been obliged to bring suit against the Collector, 
 is entitled to interest in the event of recovery from trie time of the alleged exaction." 
 
 On June 8, 1872, Congress referred the claim of the heirs of Francis Vigo to the Court 
 of Claims in the following language: 
 
 " The claim of the heirs and legal representatives of Colonel Francis Vigo, deceased, 
 late of Terre Haute, Ind., for money and supplies furnished the troops under command 
 of General George Rogers Clark, in the year 1778, during the Revolutionary war, be and 
 the same hereby is referred, along with all the papers and official documents belonging 
 thereto, to the Court of Claims, with full jurisdiction to adjust and settle the same; and 
 in making such adjustment and settlement, the said Court shall he governed by the rules 
 and regulations heretofore adopted bj' the United States in the settlement of like cases, 
 giving proper consideration to official acts, if any have heretofore been had in connection 
 with this claim, without regard to the statute of limitation." 
 
 The Court of Claims allowed the claim, with interest thereon from the time it accrued, 
 and among other facts found that: 
 
 "No rules and regulations have heretofore been adopted by the United States in the 
 settlement of like cases, except such as may be inferred from the policy of Congress when 
 passing private Acts for the relief of various persons. When passing such private Acts, 
 Congress has allowed interest upon the claim up to the time that the relief was granted." 
 
 The Attorney-General appealed from this judgment awarding interest, but the decision 
 of the Court below was affirmed by the Supreme Court, at the October term, 1875. (See 91 
 U. S. Rep., p. 443, et seq.) In delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice 
 Miller says: 
 
 "It has been the general rule of the officers of the Government, in adjusting and allow- 
 ing unliquidated and disputed claims against the United States, to refuse to give interest. 
 That this rule is sometimes at variance with that which governs the acts of private citi- 
 zens in a Court of justice, would not authorize us to depart from it in this case. The rule, 
 however, is not uniform; and especially is it not so in regard to claims allowed by special 
 Acts of Congress, or referred by such xVcts to some department or officer for settlement." 
 
 This was said in reference to unliquidated and unadjusted claims. Where the Govern- 
 ment, by and through the fraud of its agents, gets possession and withholds from the 
 rightful owner an ascertained, fixed, and certain amount, the claim for interest certainly 
 stands upon higher equitable grounds than in the cases cited. The finding bj^ the Court 
 of Claims that the policy of the Government, as shown by the general rule pursued by 
 Congress in passing Acts for the relief of private claims, was to allow interest, is supported 
 by the precedents. 
 
 Your committee, iipon this proposition, beg leave to refer to and adopt this portion of 
 House Report 391, Forty-third Congress, first session, which discusses the subject of 
 interest as follows : 
 
 THE OBLIGATION TO PAY INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT AWARDED THE CHOCTAW NATION. 
 
 Your committee have given this question a most careful examination, and are obliged 
 to admit and declare that the United States can not in equity and justice, nor without 
 national dishonor, refuse to pay interest upon the moneys so long withheld from the 
 Choctaw Nation. Some of the reasons which force us to this conclusion are as follows: 
 
 1. The United States acquired the lands of the Choctaw Nation on account of which the 
 said award was made, ou the twenty-seventh day of September, 1830, and it has held them 
 for the benefit of its citizens ever since. 
 
 2. The United States had in its Treasury, many years prior to the first day of January 
 
 36"^ 
 
562 
 
 1859, the proceeds resulting from the sale of the said lands, and have enjoyed the use of 
 such moneys from that time until now. 
 
 3. The award in favor of the Choctaw Nation was an award under a treaty, and made 
 by a tribunal whose adjudication was final and conclusive. (Comegys vs. Vasse, 1 Pet., 193.) 
 
 4. The obligations of the United States under its treaties with Indian nations have been 
 declared to be equally sacred with those made by treaties with foreign nations. ( Worcester 
 vs. The State of Georgia, 6 Pet., 582.) And such treaties, Mr. Justice Miller declares, are to 
 be construed iiberal'ly. ( The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall., 737-760.) 
 
 5. The engagements and obligations of a treaty are to be interpreted in accordance with 
 the principles of the public law, and not in accordance with any municipal code or execu- 
 tive regulation. No statement of this proposition can equal the clearness or force with 
 which Mr. Webster declares it in his opinion on the Florida claims attached to the report 
 in the case of Letitia Humphreys. (Senate report No. 93, first session Thirty-sixth Con- 
 gress, p. 16.) Speaking of the obligation of a treaty, he said: 
 
 "A treaty is the supreme law of the land. It can neither be limited nor restained, nor 
 modified, nor altered. It stands on the ground of national contract, and is declared by 
 the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land; and this gives it a character higher 
 than any act of ordinary legislation. It enjoys an immunity from the operation and 
 effect of all such legislation. 
 
 "A second general proposition, equally certain and well established, is that the terms 
 and the language used in a treaty are always to be interpreted according to the law of 
 nations, and not according to any municipal code. This rule is of universal application. 
 When two nations speak to each other they use the language of nations. Their inter- 
 course is regulated, and their mutual agreements and obligations are to be interpreted by 
 that code only which we usually denominate the public law of the world. This public 
 law is not one thing at Eome, another at London, and a third at Washington. It is the 
 same in all civilized States; everywhere speaking with the same voice and the same 
 authority." 
 
 Again, in the same opinion, Mr. Webster used the following language: 
 
 " We are construing a treaty, a solemn compact between nations. This compact between 
 nations, this treaty, is to be construed and interpreted throughout its whole length and 
 breadth, in its general provisions, and in all its details, in every phrase, sentence, word, 
 and syllable in it, by the settled rules of the law of nations. No municipal code can touch 
 it, no local municipal law affect it, no practice of administrative department come near 
 it. Over all its terms, over all its doubts, over all its ambiguities, if it had any, the law of 
 nations 'sits arbitress.'" 
 
 6. By the principles of the public law interest is always allowed as indemnity for the 
 delay of payment of an ascertained and fixed denumd. There is no conflict of authority 
 upon this question among the writers on public law. 
 
 This rule is laid down by Rutherford in these terms : 
 
 "In estimating the damages which any one has sustained, when such things as he has 
 a perfect right to are unjustly taken from him, or withholden, or intercepted, we are to 
 consider not only the value of the thing itself but the value likewise of the fruits or profits 
 that might have arisen from it. He who is the owner of the thing is likewise the owner 
 of the fruits or profits. So that it is as properly a damage to be deprived of them as it is 
 to be deprived of the thing itself." (Rutherford's Institutes, Book I, chap. 17, sec. 5.) 
 
 In laying down the rule for the satisfaction of injuries in the case of reprisals, in making 
 which the strictest caution is enjoined not to transcend the clearest rules of justice, Mr. 
 Wheaton, in his work on the law of nations, says: 
 
 " If a nation has taken possession of that which belongs to another, if it refuses to pay a 
 debt, to repair an injury, or to give adequate satisfaction for it, the latter may seize some- 
 thing of the former and apply it to his or its advantage, till it obtains payment of what is 
 due, together with interest and damages." (Wheaton on International Law, p. 341.) 
 
 A great writer, Domat, thus states the law of reason and justice on this point: 
 
 *'It is a natural consequence of the general engagement to do wrong to no one that they 
 who cause any damage by failing in the jjerformance of that engagement are obliged to 
 repair the damage which they have done. Of what nature soever the damage may be, 
 and from what cause soever it may proceed, he who is answerable for it ought to repair 
 it by an amende proportionable either to his fault or to his offense or other cause on his 
 part, and to the loss w'hich has happened thereby." (Domat, Part I, Book III, Tit. V, 
 1900, 1903.) 
 
 " Interest" is, in reality, in justice, in reason, and in law, too, a part of the debt due. It 
 includes, in Pothier's words, the loss which one has suffered, and the gain which he has 
 failed to make. The Roman law defines it as "quantum mea interfuit; id est, quantum 
 mihi abest, quantumque lucrari potui." The two elements of it were termed "lucrum 
 cessans et damnum emergens." The payment of both is necessary to a complete indem- 
 nity. 
 
 Interest, Domat says, is the reparation or satisfaction which he who owes a sum of 
 money is bound to make to his creditor for the damage which he does him by not paying 
 him the money he owes him. 
 
 It is because of the universal recognition of the justice of paying, for the retention of 
 moneys indisputably due and payable immediately, a rate of interest considered to be a 
 fair equivalent for the loss of its use, that judgments for money everj^where bear interest. 
 The creditor is deprived of his profit, and the debtor has it. What greater wrong could 
 the law permit than that the debtor should be at liberty indefinitely to delay payment. 
 
563 
 
 and during the delay have the use of the creditor's moneys for nothing? They are none 
 the less the creditor's moneys because the debtor wrongfully withholds them. He holds 
 them, in reality and essentially, in trust; and a trustee is always hound to pay interest upon 
 moneys so held. 
 
 In closing these citations from the public law, the language of Chancellor Kent seems 
 eminently appropriate. He says: "In cases where the principal jurists agree, the pre- 
 sumption will be very great in favor of the solidity of their maxims, and no civilized nation 
 that does not arrogantly set all ordinary law and justice at defiance will venture to disregard the 
 uniform sense of established writers on international law^ 
 
 7. The practice of the United States in discharging obligations resulting from treaty 
 stipulations has always been in accord with these well established principles. It has 
 exacted the payment'of interest from other nations in all cases where the obligation to 
 make payment resulted from treaty stipulations, and it has acknowledged that obligation 
 in all cases where a like liability was imposed upon it. 
 
 The most important and leading cases which have occurred are those which arose 
 between this country and Great Britain; the first under the treaty of 1794, and the other 
 under the first article of the treaty of Ghent. In the latter case the United States, under 
 the first article of the treaty, claimed compensation for slaves and other property taken 
 away from the country by the British forces at the close of the war in 1815. A difference 
 arose between the two Governments, which was submitted to the arbitrament of the 
 Emx)eror of Russia, who decided that "the United States of America are entitled to a just 
 indemnification from Great Britain for all private property carried away by the British 
 forces." A joint commission was appointed for the purpose of hearing the claims of indi- 
 viduals under this decision. At an early stage of the proceedings the question arose as to 
 whether interest was a part of that ^\just indemnification''^ which the decision of the Emperor 
 of Russia contemplated. The British Commissioner denied the obligation to pay interest. 
 The American Commissioner, Langdon Cheves, insisted upon its allowance, and in the 
 course of his argument upon this question said: 
 
 "Indemnification means a reimbursement of a loss sustained. If the property taken 
 away on the seventeenth of February, 1815. were returned now uninjured, it would not 
 reimburse the loss sustained by the taking away and consequent detention ; it would not 
 be an indemnification. The cfaimant would still be unindemnified for the loss of the use 
 of his property for ten years, which, considei:ed as money, is nearly equivalent to the 
 original value of the principal thing." 
 
 Again he says: 
 
 " If interest be an incident usually attendant on the delay of payment of debts, damages 
 are equally an incident attendant on the withholding an article of property." 
 
 "In consequence of this disagreement the commission was broken up; but the claims 
 were subsequently compromised by the payment of $1,204,960, instead of $1,250,000, as 
 claimed by Mr. Cheves; and of the sum paid by Great Britain, $418,000 was expressly for 
 interest. 
 
 An earlier case, in which this principle of interest was involved, arose under the treaty 
 of 1794, between the United States and Great Britain, in which there was a stipulation on 
 the part of the British Government in relation to certain losses and damages sustained 
 by American merchants and other citizens, by. reason of the illegal or irregular capture 
 of their vessels, or other property, by British cruisers; and the seventh article provided 
 in substance that "full and complete compensation for the same will be made by the 
 British Government to the said claimants." 
 
 A joint commission was instituted under this treaty, which sat in London, and by which 
 these claims were adjudicated. Mr. Pinckney and Mr. Gore were Commissioners on the 
 part of the United States, and Dr. Nicholl and Dr. Swabey on the part of Great Britain ; 
 and it is believed that in all instances this Commission allowed interest as a part of the 
 damage. In the case of "The Betsey," one of the cases which came before the Board, Dr. 
 Nicholl stated the rule of compensation as follows: 
 
 "To reimburse the claimants the original cost of their property, and all the expenses 
 thty have actually incurred, together with interest on the whole amount, would, I think, 
 be a just and adequate compensation. This, I believe, is the measure of compensation 
 usually made by all the belligerent nations, and accepted by all neutral nations, for losses, 
 costs, and damages occasioned by illegal captures." (Vide Wheaton's Life of Pinckney, 
 page 198; also, 265, note, and page 371.) 
 
 By a reference to the American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. 2, pages 119, 120, 
 it will be seen by a report of the Secretary of State, of the sixteenth February, 1798, laid 
 before the House of Representatives, that interest was awarded and paid on such of these 
 claims as had been submitted to the award of Sir William Scott and Sir John ISicholl, as 
 it was in all cases by the Board of Commissioners. In consequence of some difference of 
 opinion between the members of this Commission, their proceedings were suspended until 
 1802, when a convention was concluded between the two Governments, and the Commis- 
 sion reassembled, and then a question arose as to the allowance of interest on the claims 
 during the suspension. This the American Commissioners claimed ; and though it was 
 at first resisted by the British Commissioners, yet it was finally yielded, and interest was 
 allowed and paid. (See Mr. King's three letters to the Secretary of State, of twenty-fifth 
 of March, 1803, twenty-third of April, 1803, and thirtieth of April, 1803, American State 
 Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. 2, pages 387 and 388.) * 
 
 Another case in which this principle was involved arose under the treaty of the twenty- 
 seventh of October, 1795, with Spain, by the twenty-first article of which, " in order to ter- 
 
564 
 
 minate all differences, on account of the losses sustained by citizens of the United States 
 in consequence of their vessels and cargoes having been taken by the subjects of his 
 Catholic Majesty during the late war between Spain and France, it is agreed that all such 
 cases shall be referred to the final decision of Commissioners, to be appointed in the fol- 
 lowing manner," etc. The Commissioners were to be chosen, one by the United States, 
 one by Spain, and the two were to choose a third ; and the award of the Commissioners, 
 or any two of them, was to be final, and the Spanish Government to pay the amount in 
 specie. 
 
 This Commission awarded interest as part of the damages. (See American State Papers, 
 vol. 2, Foreign Relations, page 283.) So in the case of claims of American citizens against 
 Brazil, settled by Mr. Tudor, United States Minister, interest was claimed and allowed. 
 (See Ex. Doc, first session Twenty-fifth Congress, House Reps., Doc. 32, page 249.) 
 
 Again, in the convention with Mexico, of the eleventh of April, 1839, by which provision 
 was made by Mexico for the payment of claims of American citizens for injuries to per- 
 sons and property by the Mexican authorities, a mixed Commission was provided for, 
 and this Commission allowed interest in all cases. (House Ex. Doc. 291, Twenty-seventh 
 Congress, second session.) 
 
 So, also, under the treaty with Mexico of February 2, 1848, the Board of Commissioners 
 for the adjustment of claims under that treaty allowed interest in all cases, from the 
 origin of the claim until the day when the Commission expired. 
 
 So, also, under the convention with ('olombia, concluded February 10, 1864, the Com- 
 mission for the adjudication of claims under that treaty allowed interest in all cases as a 
 part of the indemnity. 
 
 So under the recent convention with Venezuela, the United States exacted interest 
 upon the awards of the Commission, from the date of the adjournment of the Commis- 
 sion until the payment of the awards. 
 
 The mixed American and Mexican Commission, now in session here, allows interest in 
 all cases from the origin of the claim, and the awards are payable with interest. 
 
 Other cases might be shown in which the United States, or their authorized diplomatic 
 agents, have claimed interest in such cases, or where it has been paid in whole or in part. 
 (See Mr. Russell's letter to the Count de Engstein, of October 5, 1818, American State 
 Papers, vol. 4, p. 639, and proceedings under the convention with the Two Sicilies, of 
 October, 1835, ElKott's Dip. Code, p. 625.) 
 
 It can hardly be necessary to pursue these precedents further. They sufficiently and 
 clearly show the practice of this Government with foreign nations, or with claimants 
 under treaties. 
 
 8. The practice of the United States in its dealings with the various Indian tribes or 
 nations has been in harmony with these principles. 
 
 In all cases where money belonging to Indian nations has been retained by the United 
 States, it has been so invested as to produce interest, for the benefit of the nation to which 
 it belongs; and such interest is annually paid to the nation who may be entitled to 
 receive it. 
 
 9. The United States, in adjusting the claim of the Cherokee Nation for a balance due 
 as purchase money upon lands ceded by that nation to the United States in 1858, allowed 
 interest upon the balance due them, being $189,422 76, until the same was paid. 
 
 The question was submitted to the Senate of the United States, as to whether interest 
 should be allowed them. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, in their report upon 
 this subject, used the following language: 
 
 " By the treaty of August, 1846, it was referred to the Senate to decide, and that decision 
 to be final, whether the Cherokees shall receive interest on the sums found due them 
 from a misapplication of their funds to purposes with which they were not chargeable, 
 and on account of which improper charges the money has been withheld from them. It 
 has been the uniform practice of this Government to pay and demand interest in all 
 transactions with foreign Governments, which the Indian tribes have always been said to 
 be, both by the Supreme Court and all other branches of our Government, in all matters 
 of treaty or contract. The Indians, relying upon the prompt payment of their dues, hnve 
 in many cases contracted debts upon the faith of it, upon which they have paid, or are 
 liable to pay, interest. If, therefore, they do not now receive interest "on their money, so 
 long withheld from them, they will in effect have received nothing." (Senate Report, No. 
 176, first session Thirty-first Congress, p. 78.) 
 
 10. That upon an examination of the precedents, where Congress has passed Acts for 
 the relief of private citizens, it will be found that, in almost every case, Congress has 
 directed the payment of interest, where the United States had withheld a sum of money 
 which had been decided by competent authority to be due, or where the amount due was 
 ascertained, fixed, and certain. 
 
 The following jjrecedents illustrate and enforce the correctness of this assertion, and 
 sustain this proposition : 
 
 1. An Act approved January 14, 1793, provided that lawful interest from the sixteenth 
 of May, 1776, shall be allowed on the sum of $200, ordered to be paid to Return J. Meigs, 
 and the legal representatives of Christopher Greene, deceased, by a resolve of the United 
 States, in Congress assembled, on the twenty-eighth of September, 1785. (6 Stats, at Large, 
 p. 11.) 
 
 2. An Act approved May 31, 1794, providing for a settlement with Arthur St. Clair, for 
 expenses while going from New York to Fort Pitt, and till his return, and for services in 
 
565 
 
 the business of Indian treaties, and "allowed interest on the balance found to be due 
 him." (6 Stats, at Large, p. 46.) 
 
 3. An Act approved February 27, 1795, authorized the officers of the Treasury to issue 
 and deliver to Angus McLean, or his duly authorized attorney, certificates for the amount 
 of $254 43, bearing interest at six per cent, from the first of July, 1783, being for his services 
 in the Corps of Sappers and Miners during the late war. (6 Stats, at Large, p. 20.) 
 
 4. An Act approved January 23, 1798, directing the Secretary of the Treasury to pay 
 General Kosciusco an interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the sum of $12,- 
 280 54, the amount of a certificate due to him from the United States from the first of 
 January, 1793, to the thirty-first of December, 1797. (6 Stats, at Large, p. 32.) 
 
 5. An Act approved May 3, 1802, provided that there be paid Fulwar Skipwith the sum 
 of $4,550, advanced by hini for the use of the United States, with interest at the rate of six 
 per cent per annum from the first of November, 1795, at which time the advance was 
 made. (6 Stats, at Large, p. 48.) 
 
 6. An Act for the relief of John Coles, approved January 14, 1804, authorized the proper 
 accounting officers of the Treasury to liquidate the claim of John Coles, owner of the ship 
 Grand Turk, heretofore employed in the service of the United States, for the detention of 
 said ship at Gibraltar from the tenth of May to the fourth of July, 1801, inclusive, and 
 that he be allowed demurrage at the rate stipulated in the charter-party, together with 
 the interest thereon. (6 Stats, at Large, p. 50.) 
 
 7. An Act approved March 3, 1807, provided for a settlement of the accounts of Oliver 
 Pollock, formerl)'^ commercial agent for the United States at New Orleans, allowing him 
 certain sums and commissions, with interest until paid; (6 Stats, at Large, p. 65.) 
 
 8. An Act for the relief of Stephen Sayre, approved March 3, 1807, provided that the 
 accounting officers of the Treasury be authorized to settle the accounts of Stephen Sayre, 
 as Secretary of Legation at the Court of Berlin, in the year 1777, with interest on the 
 whole sum until paid. (6 Stats, at Large, p. 65.) 
 
 9. An Act approved April 25, 1810, directed the accounting officers of the Treasury to 
 settle the account of Moses Young, as Secretary of Legation to Holland in 1780, and pro- 
 viding that after the deduction of certain moneys paid him, the balance, with interest 
 thereon, should be paid. (6 Stats, at Large, p. 89.) 
 
 10. An Act approved May 1, 1810, for the relief of P. C. L'Enfant, directed the Secretary 
 of the Treasury to pay to him the sum of $606, with legal interest thereon from March i, 
 1792, as a compensation for his services in laying out the plan of the city of Washington. 
 (6 Stat, at L., p. 92 ) 
 
 11. An Act approved January 10, 1812, provided that there be paid to John Burnham, 
 the sum of $126 72, and the interest on the same since the thirtieth of May, 1796, which, 
 in addition to the sum allowed him by the Act of that date, is to be considered a reim- 
 bursement of the money advanced by him for his ransom from captivity in Algiers. (6 
 Stat, at L., p. 101.) 
 
 12. An Act api)roved July 1, 1812, for the relief of Anna Young, required the War 
 Department to settle the account of Col. John Durkee, deceased, and to allow said Anna 
 Young, his sole heiress and representative, said seven vears' half-paj'^, and interest 
 thereon. (6 Stat, at L., p. 110.) 
 
 13. An Act approved February 25, 1813, provided that there be paid to John Dixon the 
 sum of $329 84, with six percent per annum interest thereon from the first of January, 1785, 
 "being the amount of a final-settlement certificate. No. 596, issued by Andrew Dunscomb, 
 late Commissioner of Accounts for the State of Virginia, on the twenty-second of 
 December, 1786, to Lucy Dixon, who transferred the same to John Dixon." (6 Stat, at L., 
 p. 117.) 
 
 14. An Act approved February 25, 1813, required the accounting officers of the Treas- 
 ury to settle the account of John Murray, representative of Dr. Henry Murray, and that 
 he' be allowed the amount of three loan-certificates for $1,000, with interest from the 
 twentj'^-ninth of March, 1782, issued in the name of said Murray, signed Francis Hop- 
 kinson. Treasurer of Loans. (6 Stat, at L., p. 117.) 
 
 15. An Act approved March 3, 1813, directed the accounting officers of the Treasury to 
 settle the accounts of Samuel Lapsley, deceased, and that they be allowed the amount of 
 two final-settlement certificates. No. 78446, for one thousand dollars, and No. 78447, for 
 one thousand three hundred dollars, and interest from the twenty-second day of March, 
 1783, issued in the name of Samuel Lapslev, by the Commissioner of Army Accounts for 
 the United States on the first day of July,"^1784. (6 Stat, at L., p. 119.) 
 
 16. An Act approved April 13, 1814, directed the officers of the Treasury to settle the 
 account of Joseph Brevard, and that he be allowed the amount of a final-settlement cer- 
 tificate for $183 23, dated February 1, 1785, and bearing interest from the first of January, 
 1783, issued to said Brevard by John Pierce, Commissioner for Settling Army Accounts. 
 (6 Stat, at L., p. 134.) 
 
 17. An Act approved April 18, 1814, directed the Receiver of Public Moneys at Cincin- 
 nati to pay the full amount of moneys, with interest, paid by Dennis Clark, in discharge 
 of the purchase money for a certain fractional section of land purchased by said Clark. 
 (6 Stat, at L., 141.) 
 
 18. An Act for the relief of William Arnold, approved February 2, 1815, allowed 
 interest on the sum of six hundred dollars due him from January 1, 1783. (6 Stat, at 
 L., 146.) 
 
 19. An Act approved April 26, 1816, directing the accounting officers of the Treasury 
 to pay to Joseph Wheaton the sum of eight hundred and thirty-six dollars and forty-two 
 
566 
 
 cents, on account of interest due him from the United States upon sixteen hundred dol- 
 lars and eighty-four cents, from April 1, 1807, to December 21, 1815, pursuant to the 
 award of George Youngs and Elias B. Caldwell, in a controversy between the United 
 States and the said Joseph Wheaton. (6 Stat, at L., 166.) 
 
 20. An Act approved April 26, 1816, authorized the liquidation and settlement of the 
 claim of the heirs of Alexander Roxburgh, arising on a final-settlement certificate issued 
 on the eighteenth of August, 1878, for $480 87, by John Pierce, Commissioner for Settling- 
 Army Accounts, bearing interest from the first of January, 1782. (6 Stat, at L., 167.) 
 
 21. An Act approved April 14, 1818, authorized the accounting officers of the Treasury 
 Department " to review the settlement of the account of John Thompson," made under 
 the authority of an Act approved the eleventh of May, 1812, and " to allow the said John 
 Thompson interest at six per cent per annum, from the fourth of March, 1787, to the 
 twentieth of May, 1812. on the sum which was found due to him, and paid under the Act 
 aforesaid." (6 Stat, at L., 208.) 
 
 22. An Act approved May 11, 1820, directed the proper officers of the Treasury to pay 
 to Samuel B. Beall the amount of two final-settlement certificates issued to him on the 
 first of February, 1785, for his services as a Lieutenant in the army of the United States 
 during the revolutionary war, together with interest on the said certificates at the rate 
 of six per cent per annlim, from the time they bore interest, respectively, which said 
 certificates were lost by the said Beall, and remain vet outstanding and unpaid. (6 Laws 
 of U. S., 510; 6 Stat, at L., 249.) 
 
 23. An Act approved May 15, 1820, required that there be paid to Thomas Leiper the 
 specie value of four loan-office certificates, issued to him by the Commissioner of Loans 
 for the State of Pennsylvania, on the twenty-seventh of February, 1779, for one thou- 
 sand dollars each; and also the specie value of two loan-certificates, issued to him by 
 the said Commissioner on the second day of March, 1779. for one thousand dollars each,, 
 with interest at six per cent annually. (6 Stat, at L., 252.) 
 
 24. An Act approved May 7, 1822, provided that there be paid to the legal representa- 
 tives of John Guthry, deceased, the sum of one hundred and twenty-three dollars and 
 thirty cents, being the amount of a final-settlement certificate, with interest at the rate 
 of six per cent per annum from the first day of January, 1788. (6 Stat, at L., 269.) 
 
 25. An Act for the relief of the legal representatives of James McClung, approved 
 March 3, 1823, allowed interest on the amount due at the rate of six per cent per annum 
 from January 1, 1788. (6 Stat, at L., 284.) 
 
 26. An Act approved March 3, 1823, for the relief of Daniel Seward, allowed interest to 
 him for money paid to the United States for land to w^hich the title failed, at the rate of 
 six per cent per annum from January 29, 1814. (6 Stat, at L., 286.) 
 
 27. An Act approved May 5, 1824, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to 
 Amasa Stetson, the sum of six thousand two hundred and fifteen dollars, " being for 
 interest on moneys advanced by him for the use of the United States, and on warrants 
 issued in his favor, in the years 1814 and 1815, for his services in the Ordnance and ic^uar- 
 termaster's Department for superintending the making of army clothing and for issuing 
 the public supplies." (6 Stat, at L., 298.) 
 
 28. An Act approved March 3, 1824, directing the proper accounting officers of the 
 Treasury to settle and adjust the claim of Stephen Arnold, David and George Jenks, for 
 the manufacture of three thousand nine hundred and twenty-five muskets, with interest 
 thereon from the twenty-sixth day of October, 1813. (6 Stat, at L., 331.) 
 
 29. An Act approved May 20, 1826, directed the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
 ury to settle and adjust the claim of John Stemman and others for the manufacture of 
 four thousand one hundred stand of arms, and to allow interest on the amount due from 
 October 26. 1813. (6 Stat, at L., 345.) 
 
 30. An Act approved May 20, 1826, for the relief of Ann D. Taylor, directed the payment 
 to her of the sum of three hundred and fifty-four dollars and fifteen cents, with interest 
 thereon, at a rate of six per cent per annum from December 30, 1786, until paid. (6 Stat, 
 at L., 351.) 
 
 31. An Act approved March 3, 1827, provided that the proper accounting officers of the 
 Treasury were authorized to pay B. J. V. Valkenburg, the sum of five hundred and 
 ninety-seven dollars and twenty-four cents, "being the amount of fourteen indents of 
 interest, with interest thereon"^ from the first of January, 1791, to the thirty-first of 
 December, 1826." (6 Stat, at L., 365.) 
 
 In this case the United States paid interest on interest. 
 
 32. An Act approved May 29, 1828, provided that there be paid to the legal representa- 
 tives of Patience Gordon the specie value of a certificate issued in the name of Patience 
 Gordon by the Commissioner of Loans for the State of Pennsylvania, on the seventh of 
 April, 1778, with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the first day of 
 January, 1788. (7 Stat, at L., p. 378.) 
 
 33. An Act approved May 29, 1830, required the Treasury Department "to settle the 
 accounts of Benjamin Wells, as Deputy Commissary of Issues at the Magazine at Mon- 
 ster Mill in Pennsylvania, under John Irvin, Deputy Commissary-General of the Army 
 of the United States in said State in the revolutionary war;" and that "they credit him 
 with the sum of five hundred and seventy-four dollars and four cents, as payable Febru- 
 ary 9, 1779, and three hundred and twenty-six dollars and sixty-seven cents, payable July 
 20, 1780, in the same manner and with such interest, as if these sums, with their interest 
 from the times respectively aforesaid had been subscribed to the loan of the United 
 States." (6 Stats, at Large, 447.) 
 
567 
 
 34. An Act approved May 19, 1832, for the relief of Kichard G. Morris, provided for the 
 payment to him of two certificates issued to him by Timothy Pickering, Quartermaster- 
 
 , General, with interest thereon from the first of September, 1781. (6 Stats, at Large, 486.) 
 
 35. An Act approved July 4, 1832, for the relief of Aaron Snow, a revolutionary soldier, 
 provided for the payment to him of two certificates issued by John Pierce, late Commis- 
 sioner of Army Accounts, and dated in 1784, with interest thereon. (6 Stats, at Large, 
 503.) 
 
 36. An Act approved July 4, 1832, provided for the payment to W. P. Gibbs of a final- 
 settlement certificate dated January 30, 1784, with interest at six per cent from the first of 
 January, 1783, up to the passage of the Act. This Act went behind the final certificate 
 and provided for the payment of interest anterior to its date. (6 Stats, at Large, 504.) 
 
 37. An Act approved July 14, 1832, directed the payment to the heirs of Ebenezer L. 
 Warren of certain sums of money illegally demanded and received by the United 
 States from the said Warren as one of the sureties of Daniel Evans, former Collector of 
 Direct Taxes, with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum from Septem- 
 ber 9, 1820. (6 Stats, at Large, 373.) 
 
 38. An Act for the relief of Hartwell Vick, approved July 14, 1832, directed the account- 
 ing officers of the Treasury to refund to the said Vick the money paid by him to the 
 United States for a certain tract of land which was found nof to be x^roperty of the 
 United States, with interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum from the 
 twenty-third day of May, 1818. (6 Stats, at Large, 523.) 
 
 39. An Act approved June 18, 1834, for the relief of Martha Bailey and others, directed 
 the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the parties therein named the sum of four 
 thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven dollars and sixty-one cents, being the amount 
 of interest upon the sum of two hundred thousand dollars, part of a balance due from 
 the United States to Elbert Anderson on the twenty-sixth day of October, 1814 ; also the 
 further sum of nine thousand five hundred and ninety-five dollars and thirty-six cents, 
 being the amount of interest accruing from the deferred payment of warrants issued for 
 balances due from the United States to said Anderson from the date of such warrants 
 until the payment thereof; also the further sum of two thousand and eighteen dollars 
 and fifty cents admitted to be due from the United States to the said Anderson by a 
 decision of the Second Comptroller, with interest on the sum last mentioned from the 
 period of such decision until paid. (6 ^tats. at Large, 562.) 
 
 40. An Act approved June 10, 1834, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to pay bal- 
 ance of damages recovered against William C. H. Waddell, United States Marshal for 
 the southern district of New York, for the illegal seizure of a certain importation of 
 brandy on behalf of the United States, with legal interest on the amount of said judg- 
 ment from the time the same was paid by the said Waddell. (6 Stats, at Large, 594.) 
 
 41. An Act approved February 17, 1836, directed the payment of the sum therein named 
 to Marinus W. Gilbert, being the interest on money advanced by him to pay off troops in 
 the service of the United States, and not repaid when demanded, •(e Stats, at Large, 622.) 
 
 42. An Act approved February 17, 1836, for the relief of the executor of Charles Wil- 
 kins, directed the Secretary of 'the Treasury to settle the claim of the said executor, 
 for interest on a liquidated demand in favor of Jonathan Taylor, James Morrison, 
 and Charles Wilkins, who were lessees of the United States of the salt works in the 
 State of Illinois. (6 Stats, at Large, 626.) 
 
 43. An Act approved July 2, 1836, for the relief of the legal representatives of David 
 Caldwell, directed the proper accounting officers of the Treasury to settle the claim of the 
 said David Caldwell for fees and allowances, certified by the Circuit Court of the United 
 States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, for official services to the United States, 
 and to pay on that account the sum of four hundred and ninety-six dollars and thirty- 
 eight cent's, with interest thereon at the rate of six per centum from the twenty-fifth day 
 of November, 1830, till paid. (6 Stats, at Large, 664.) 
 
 44. An Act approved J uly 2, 1836, provided that there be paid Don Carlos Delossus 
 interest at the rate of six per centum per annum on three hundred and thirty-three dol- 
 lars, being the amount allowed him under the Act of July 14, 1832, for his relief, on 
 account of moneys taken from him at the capture of Baton Rouge, La., on the twenty- 
 third day of September, 1810, being the interest to be allowed from the said twenty-third 
 day of September, 1810, to the fourteenth day of July, 1832. (6 Stats, at Large, 672.) 
 
 In this case the interest was directed to be paid four years after the principal had been 
 satisfied and discharged. 
 
 45. An Act approved July 7, 1838, provided that the proper officers of the Treasury be 
 directed to settle the accounts of Richard Harrison, formerly Consular Agent of the 
 United States at Cadiz, in Spain, and allow him, among other items, the interest on 
 the money advanced, under agreement with the Minister of the United States, in Spain, 
 for the relief of destitute and distressed seamen, and for their passages to the United 
 States, from the time the advances, respectively, were made to the time at which the said 
 advances were reimbursed. (6 Stats, at Large, 734.) 
 
 46. An Act approved August 11, 1842, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to 
 John Johnson the sum of seven hundred and fifty-six dollars' and eighty-two cents, being 
 the amount received from the said Johnson upon a judgment against him in favor of the 
 United States, together with the interest thereon from the time of such payment. (6 
 Stats, at Large, 856.) 
 
 47. An Act approved August 3, 1846, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to 
 Abraham Horbach the sum of five thousand dollars, with lawful interest from the first of 
 
568 
 
 January, 1836, being the amount of a draft drawn by James Reeside on the Post Office 
 Department, dated April 18, 1835, payable on the first of Januar}^ 1836, and accepted by 
 the Treasurer of the Post Office Department, which said draft was indorsed by said Abra-* 
 ham Horbach, at the instance of the said Reeside, and the amount drawn from the Bank 
 of Philadelphia, and, at maturity, said draft was protested for non-payment, and said 
 Horbach became liable to pay, and, in consequence of his indorsement, did pay the full 
 amount of said draft. (9 Stats, at Large, 677.) 
 
 48. An Act approved February 5, 1859, authorized the Secretary of War to pay to Thomas 
 Laurent, as surviving partner, the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, with interest at the rate 
 of six per cent yearly, from the eleventh of November, 1847, it being the amount paid by 
 the firm on that day' to Major-General Winfield Scott, in the City of Mexico, for the pur- 
 chase of a house in said city, out of the possession of which they were since ousted by 
 the Mexican autlforities. (11 Stats, at Large, 558.) 
 
 49. An Act approved March 2, 1847, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to pay the 
 balance due to the Bank of Metropolis for moneys due upon the settlement of the account 
 of the bank with the United States, with interest thereon from the sixth day of March, 
 1838. (9 Stats, at Large, 689.) 
 
 50. An Act approved Jvily 20, 1852, directed the payment to the legal representative of 
 James C. Watson, late of the State of Georgia, the sum of fourteen thousand six hundred 
 dollars, with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum, from the eighth day of May, 
 1838, till paid, being the amount paid by him, under the sanction of the Indian Agent, to 
 certain Creek warriors, for slaves captured by said warriors while they were in the service 
 of the United States against the Seminole Indians in Florida. (10 Stats, at Large, 734.) 
 
 51. An Act approved July 29, 1854, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to John 
 C. Fremont one hundred and eighty-three thousand eight hundred and twenty-five dol- 
 lars, with interest thereon from the first day of June, 1851, at the rate of ten per cent 
 per annum, in full for his account for beef delivered to Commissioner Barbour, for the use 
 of the Indians in California, in 1851 and 1852. (10 Stats, at Large, 804.) 
 
 52. An Act approved July 8, 1870, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to make proper 
 payments to carry into effect the decree of the District Court of the United States for the 
 District of Louisiana, bearing date the fourth of June, 1867, in the case of the British brig 
 •' Volan," and her cargo; and also another decree of the same Court, bearing date the 
 eleventh of June, in the same year, in the case of the British bark " Science " and cargo, 
 vessels illegally seized by a cruiser of the United States, such payments to be made as fol- 
 lows, viz.: To the several persons named in such decrees, or tfieir legal representatives, 
 the several sums awarded to them respectively, with interest to each person from the date of 
 the decree under which he receives payment. (16 Stats, at Large, 650.) 
 
 53. An Act approved July 8, 1870, directed the Secretary to make the proper payments to 
 carry into effect the decree of the District Court of the United States for the District of 
 Louisiana, bearing date July 13, 1867, in the case of the British brig " Dashing Wave," and 
 her cargo, illegally seized by a cruiser of the United States, which decree was made in 
 pursuance of the decision of the Supreme Court, such payments to be made with interest from 
 the date of the decree. (16 Stats, at Large, 651.) 
 
 An examination of these cases will show that subsequent to the seizure of these several 
 vessels, they were each sold by the United States Marshal for the District of Louisiana as 
 prize, and the proceeds of such sales deposited by him in the First National Bank of New 
 Orleans. The bank, while the proceeds of these sale were on deposit there, became insol- 
 vent. The seizures were held illegal, and the vessels not subject to capture as prize. But 
 the proceeds of the sales of these vessels, and their cargoes, could not be restored to the 
 owners in accordance of the decrees of the District Court, because the funds had been 
 lost by the insolvency of the bank. In these cases, therefore. Congress provided indem- 
 nity for losses resulting from the acts of its agents, and made the indemnity complete by 
 providing for the payment of interest. 
 
 Your committee have directed attention to these numerous precedents for the purpose 
 of exposing the utter want of foundation of the often repeated assumption that " the Gov- 
 ernment never pays interest." It will readily be admitted that there is no statute law to 
 sustain this position. The idea has grown up from the custom and usage of the account- 
 ing officers and Departments refusing to allow interest generally in their accounts with 
 disbursing officers, and in the settlement of unliquidated domestic claims arising out of 
 dealings with the Government. It will hardly be pretended, however, that this custom or 
 usage is so "reasonable," well-known, and "certain," as to give it the force and efltect of 
 law, and to override and tram^^le under foot the law of nations and also the well settled 
 practice of the Government itself in its intercourse with other nations. 
 
 11th. Interest was allowed and paid to the State of Massachusetts because the United 
 States delayed the payment of the principal for twenty-two years after the amount due 
 had been ascertained and determined. The amount appropriated to pay this interest was 
 $678,362 41, more than the original principal. (16 Stats, at Large. 198.) 
 
 Mr. Sumner, in his report upon the memorial introduced for that purpose, discussing 
 this question of interest, said: 
 
 "It is urged that the payment of this interest would establish a bad precedent. If the 
 claim is just, the precedent of paying it is one of which our Government should wish to 
 establish. Honesty and justice iire not precedents of which either Government or indi- 
 viduals should be Jifraid." (Senate Report 4, Forty-first Congress, first session, p. 10.) 
 
 12th. Interest has always been allowed to the several States for advances made to the 
 United States for military purposes. 
 
569 
 
 The claims of the several States for advances during the revolutionary war were 
 adjusted aud settled under the provision of the Acts of Congress of August 5," 1790, and of 
 May 31, 1794. By these Acts interest was allowed to the States, whether they had advanced 
 money on hand in their treasuries or obtained by loans. 
 
 In respect to the advances of States during the war of 1812-15, a more restricted rule 
 was adopted, viz.: That States should be allowed interest only so far as they had them- 
 selves paid it by borrowing, or had lost it by the sale of interest-bearing funds. 
 
 Interest, according to this rule, has been paid to all the States which made advances 
 during the war of 1812-15, with the exception of Massachusetts. Here are the cases: 
 
 Virginia, U. S. Stats, at Large, vol. 4, p. 161. 
 
 I^elaware, U. S. Stats, at Large, vol. 4, p. 175. 
 
 New York, U. S. Stats, at Large, vol. 4, p. 192. 
 
 Pennsylvania, U. S. Stats, at Large, vol. 4, p. 241. 
 
 South Carolina, U. S. Stats, at Large, vol. 4. p. 499. 
 
 In Indian and other wars the same rule has been observed, as in the following cases: 
 
 Alabama, U. S. Stats, at Large, vol. 9, p. 344. 
 
 Georgia, U. S. Stats, at liarge, vol. 9, p. 626. 
 
 Washington Territory, U. S. Stats, at Large, vol. 11, p. 429. 
 
 New Hampshire, U. S. Stats, at Large, vol. 10, p. 1. 
 
 13th. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, in the report to which reference has 
 heretofore been made, speaking of this award and of the obligation of the United States 
 to pay interest upon the balance remaining due and unpaid thereon, used the following 
 language: 
 
 "Your committee are of opinion that this sum should be paid them with accrued inter- 
 est from the date of said award, deducting therefrom $250,000, paid to them in money, as 
 directed by the Act of March 2, 1861 ; and, therefore, find no sufficient reason for further 
 delay in carrying into effect that provision of the aforenamed Act, and the Act of March 
 3, 1871, by the delivery of the bonds therein described, with accrued interest from the date 
 of the Act of March 8, 1861. 
 
 " Your committee have discussed this question with an anxious desire to come to such a 
 conclusion in regard to it as would do no injustice to that Indian nation whose rights are 
 involved here, nor establish such a precedent as would be inconsistent with the practice 
 or duty of the United States in such cases. Therefore, your committee have considered it 
 not only by the light of those principles of the public law — always in harmony with the 
 highest demands of the most i>erfect justice — but also in the light of those numerous pre- 
 cedents which this Government in its action in litigation has furnished for our guidance. 
 Your committee cannot believe that the payment of interest on the moneys awarded by 
 the Senate to the Choctaw Nation would either violate any principle of law or establish 
 any precedent which the United States would not wish to follow in any similar case, and 
 your committee cannot believe that the United States are prepared to repudiate these 
 principles, or to admit that because their obligation is held by a weak and powerless Indian 
 nation it is any the less sacred or binding than if held by a nation able to enforce its pay- 
 ment and secure complete' indemnity under it. Could the United States escape the pay- 
 ment of interest to Great Britain, if it should refuse or neglect, after the same became due, 
 to pay the amount awarded in favor of British subjects by the recent joint commission 
 which sat here? Could we delay payment of the amount awarded by that commission 
 for fifteen years, and then escape by merely paying the principal ? The Choctaw Nation 
 asks the same measure of justice which we must accord to Great Britain; and your com- 
 mittee cannot deny that demand unless they shall ignore and set aside those principles of 
 the public law which it is of the utmost importance to the United States to always main- 
 tain inviolate. 
 
 " Your committee are not unmindful that the amount due the Choctaw Nation under the 
 award of the Senate is large. They are not unmindful, either, that the discredit of refusing 
 payment is increased in proportion to the amount withheld and the time during which 
 refusal has been continued." 
 
 Few, if any, of the foregoing cases presented as strong and meritorious grounds for 
 the allowance of interest as the claim now under consideration. Following these prece- 
 dents, and for the reasons above set forth, the committee deem the present a proper case 
 for the payment of interest on the sum converted ($371,025) from date of conversion to 
 date of payment. This interest they fix at the rate of four and a half (4^) per centum per 
 annum, that being about the average rate paid by the Government between 1867 and 1881, 
 and which it may be fairly assumed was saved or made by it for the use of the funds dur- 
 ing the period of detention. On this basis the interest allowed will amount to the sum of 
 $249,039 95. 
 
 The committee accordingly recommend that the bill be amended as follows: In line 
 one of Section 2 strike out the words "seventy-five" and insert in lieu thereof "forty- 
 nine," and in line second of said section after the word "thousand," insert the words 
 "and thirty-nine and ninety-five hundredths." And as thus amended that the bill be 
 passed by the Senate. 
 
570 
 
 In addition to the precedents cited in the foregoing Senate report, the 
 committee refer to the following cases in which interest has been allowed 
 by Act of Congress or paid by the Treasury Department : 
 
 Date of Act. 
 
 Baron de Glaubeck September 29, 1789 
 
 Captain Markley August 11, 1790 . . 
 
 Lieutenant Brewster August 11, 1790 
 
 John Stevens i August 11, 1790 — 
 
 James Derry i August 11, 1790 
 
 Benjamin Hardison 1 August 11, 1790 
 
 Widow of General Lord Stirling 
 
 Child of Colonel Laurens 
 
 Oliver Pollock 
 
 Widow of Colonel Roberts 
 
 Widow of Captain White 
 
 Widow of Colonel Elliott 
 
 Widow of Major Wise - 
 
 Widow of Major Huger _ 
 
 Widow of Lieutenant Bush 
 
 Widow of Major Motte 
 
 Captain Mclntire 
 
 Colonel Pannil 
 
 General De Hass 
 
 Dr. Debevere 
 
 Lieutenant King 
 
 Sailingmaster Sherman 
 
 General Nathanael Greene 
 
 Colonel Dubois 
 
 Moses White 
 
 Widow of Thomas Flinn 
 
 De Beaumarchais 
 
 Thomas Barclay - 
 
 Mary Rappley ea 
 
 John Plolkar 
 
 Joshua Barney 
 
 Nicholas Vreeland 
 
 John Crute 
 
 Walter S. Chandler 
 
 John Crain -.. 
 
 Heirs of John W. Baylor and others 
 
 Robert Johnson 
 
 Benjamin Wells 
 
 1792 
 1792 
 1792 
 
 August 11, 1790 ... 
 August 11, 1790 ... 
 December 23, 1791. 
 March 27, 1792.... 
 March 27, 1792.-. 
 March 27, 1792.... 
 March 27. 1792.-.. 
 March 27, 1792.... 
 March 27, 1792.... 
 March 27, 1792.... 
 March 27, 
 March 27, 
 March 27, 
 March 27, 1792.. 
 March 27, 1792.. 
 March 27, 1792.. 
 April27, 1792 ... 
 
 June 4, 1794 
 
 March 2, 1803... 
 March 3, 1805.-. 
 Ai)rill8, 1806 ... 
 April 18, 1808 . . . 
 February 2. 1815 
 April 29, 1816 ... 
 March 2, 1849 ... 
 April 5, 1820 .... 
 
 May 7, 1822 
 
 March 3, 1825... 
 March3, 1825... 
 May 20, 1826 .... 
 May 26, 1828 .... 
 .May 29, 1830 .... 
 
 A. D.Baylor j May 29, 1830 
 
 Charles Yates' executor 
 
 Ward & Brothers 
 
 Lucian Harper 
 
 Heirs of General Hazen ... 
 
 Lieutenant Vawtes 
 
 Major Roberts 
 
 Lieutenant Hillary 
 
 Dr. Carter 
 
 Colonel Baylor 
 
 Lieutenant Brooke 
 
 Ichabod Ward 
 
 Dr. Axson 
 
 Dr. Knight.... 
 
 John B. Taylor 
 
 J & J. Pettigrew.-- 
 
 A. McKnight 
 
 Heirs of Colonel Harrison. 
 
 Lieutenant J acob 
 
 The Union Bank of Florida 
 
 William Greer... 
 
 Gray, McMurdo & Co 
 
 John S. Wilson 
 
 Charles Cooper & Co 
 
 James Dunning 
 
 May 29, 1830 .... 
 May 31, 1830 .... 
 March 2, 1831... 
 March 3, 1831... 
 May 25, 1832 .... 
 May 25, 1832.... 
 May 25, 1832 .... 
 May 25, 1832 .... 
 May 25, 1832 .... 
 May 25, 1832 .... 
 June 15, 1832.--. 
 June 15, 1832.... 
 June 15, 1832.... 
 July 13,1832 .... 
 July 14,1832 .... 
 July 14; 1832 .... 
 July 14,1832-... 
 July 14, 1832..... 
 March 3, 1849... 
 May 26, 1852 .... 
 March 27, 1854 .. 
 July 27. 1854 .... 
 Juliy^27, 1845 .-. 
 July 27, 1854 --.. 
 
571 
 
 Case of. 
 
 Date of Act. 
 
 Statutes at Large. 
 
 Volume. 
 
 Page. 
 
 July 29, 1854 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 22 
 
 22 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 803 
 
 August 1, 1854 
 
 August 18, 1856 
 
 August 23, 1856 
 
 February 7, 1857 
 
 February 10, 1857 
 
 March 16, 1858 
 
 Junel, 1858-.-. 
 
 June 3, 1858.-.. 
 
 February 9, 1859 
 
 April IS," 1860 
 
 808 
 467 
 483 
 495 
 496 
 527 
 586 
 538 
 559 
 837 
 
 February 22, 1869 
 
 July 7, 1870 - 
 
 440 
 649 
 
 July 7, 1870 
 
 649 
 
 May 25, 1872 
 
 March 3, 1877 
 
 June 18, 1878 
 
 663 
 542 
 576 
 
 December 19, 1878 
 
 February 29, 1879 
 
 February 18, 1880 
 
 Augusts, 1882 
 
 Januarys, 1883 
 
 March 3, 1883 -.- 
 
 589 
 602 
 535 
 
 726 
 752 
 805 
 
 July 14, 1832 . 
 
 518 
 
 July 14, 1832 
 
 521 
 
 July 14, 1832 
 
 524 
 
 July 14, 1832 
 
 514 
 
 February 9, 1833 
 
 February 9, 1833 
 
 February 27, 1833 
 
 February 27, 1833 
 
 March 2, 1833 
 
 533 
 533 
 537 
 
 587 
 540 
 
 March 2, 1833 
 
 March 2, 1838 
 
 March 2, 1833 -_ 
 
 540 
 542 
 543 
 
 March 2, 1833. — 
 
 March 2, 1833 
 
 544 
 549 
 
 March 2, 1838 
 
 551 
 
 March 2, 1838 
 
 551 
 
 March 2, 1833 
 
 551 
 
 February 27, 1833 
 
 March 2; 1883 
 
 March 2, 1833 . 
 
 537 
 551 
 540 
 
 March 2, 1833 
 
 542 
 
 June 19, 1834 
 
 565 
 
 June 27, 1834 
 
 570 
 
 June 28, 1834 
 
 574 
 
 June 28, 1834 
 
 576 
 
 June 28, 1834 
 
 576 
 
 June 28, 1834 
 
 576 
 
 June 30, 1834 
 
 587 
 
 JuReSO, 1834 
 
 June 80, 1834 
 
 582 
 589 
 
 April 10 1840 
 
 796 
 
 July 4, 1840 - 
 
 802 
 
 August 11, 1842 
 
 Augusts, 1846 
 
 March 3, 1847 
 
 856 
 658 
 704 
 
 March 3, 1847 
 
 694 
 
 
 
 John Frazier and John G. Clendenin 
 
 Phineas M. Nightingale, administrator 
 
 Thomas H. Baird... 
 
 The legal representatives of Thomas Gordon 
 
 Mary Reeside 
 
 Joseph D. Beers 
 
 John Hamilton 
 
 Ruf us D win ell 
 
 Heirs of Richard D. Rowland 
 
 Henry Hubbard 
 
 Francis Huttman 
 
 Nott&Co. 
 
 British schooner Flying Scud 
 
 British steamer Labuan 
 
 James F. Joy , 
 
 John N.Hall 
 
 Executors of Samuel P. Fearon 
 
 Manhattan Sayings Institution... 
 
 Commercial Bank of Knoxyille 
 
 Henry Page.. 
 
 Albert Elsberg, administrator 
 
 Robert Stod art Wy Id 
 
 German National Bank of Louisyille 
 
 Captain Dayenport 
 
 Gertrude Gates 
 
 John Peck 
 
 John Laurens 
 
 Colonel Thornton 
 
 Son of Alexander Brownlee 
 
 Heirs of John Wilson 
 
 Riddle, Becktle, Headington & Co.. 
 
 Captain Thomas 
 
 Lieutenant Foster 
 
 Dr. Ledyard 
 
 Colonel John Ely 
 
 Captain Triplett 
 
 Lieutenant Wagnon 
 
 William Price 
 
 Philip Slaughter. -. 
 
 James Barnett 
 
 Archibald Watts 
 
 Captain Gibbon 
 
 Philip Bush 
 
 Eleanor Courts 
 
 Dr. John Berrien 
 
 The legal representatiyes of Christian Ish ... 
 
 Joseph Falconer 
 
 Samuel Gibbs 
 
 Benjamin Bird 
 
 Groye Pomeroy 
 
 The representatiyes of General Lord Stirling 
 
 John Peck 
 
 Captain George Hurlburt 
 
 Alyarez Fisk 1 
 
 Matthew Lyon 
 
 John Johnston 
 
 Felix St. Vrain 
 
 Lewis C. Sartori 
 
 The legal representatiyes of Simon Spaulding 
 
 Every fact in the present case has been officially found by the Court of 
 Claims, and that Court in delivering judgment (16 Court of Claims Reports, 
 73) characterized the transaction as " simply a case of a bank being robbed, 
 and of its stolen assets being put into the hands of the Cashier of the Sub- 
 Treasury for a purpose which by no possible view could in law be held to 
 
572 
 
 effect a transfer of the bank's right of property in them either to him or to 
 the United States." Demand was immediately made for the return of the 
 money, but it remained in the hands of the Government for fifteen years, 
 and then repayment of the principal was made. So that the United States 
 was able to hold property, which its Courts has declared it had no right to 
 hold, until it earned enough at six per cent to pay for it. Surely reparation 
 should be made in such a case. The principle of repaying interest under 
 such circumstances seems to be established, in the language of several dis- 
 tinguished committees of this House, as follows: 
 
 It will be found, upon examination of the precedents where Congress has passed Acts 
 for the relief of citizens of the United States, that in almost every case where the Govern- 
 ment has withheld a sum of money which had been decided by competent authority to be 
 due, or where the amount was ascertained, fixed, and definite. Congress has directed the 
 payment of interest, together with the principal, (Report No. 17, Forty-sixth Congress, 
 first session ; Report No. 1568, Forty-eighth Congress, first session ; Report No. 661, Forty- 
 ninth Congress, first session.) 
 
 For a stronger reason should this be so in the present case, where not only 
 was the amount ascertained, fixed, and definite, but where, also, the cred- 
 itor relation was not voluntary, but was forced upon the claimants by the 
 United States, who became, therefore, tort debtors. 
 
 There is abundant proof to show that at the time the property of the bank 
 was transferrred to the Sub-Treasury of the United States the bank was 
 earning from eight to ten per cent upon its assets, being in a very prosper- 
 ous condition. The bill calls for the payment of five per cent interest, but 
 the Senate committee have found that four and a half per cent was about 
 the average rate of interest paid by the Government between 1867 and 1881, 
 and accordingly your committee, recognizing the fact that the Government 
 ought not to pay a higher rate of interest on this claim than they were in 
 the habit of paying to other creditors, recommend that the bill be amended 
 by striking out in lines 1 and 2, of Section 2, the words "two hundred and 
 seventy-five thousand dollars," and inserting in lieu thereof the words " two 
 hundred and forty-nine thousand thirty-nine dollars and ninety-five cents," 
 and thus amended, recommend its passage. 
 
EXHIBITS 
 
 FEE CLAIM, ETC, 
 
EXHIBIT No. 1. 
 
 [Copy.] 
 
 State of California, office of Surveyor-General. 
 [Official.] 
 
 Subject to the approval and ratification of the Legislature of the State 
 of California, I hereby appoint Captain John Mullan to represent this State 
 and collect therefor such amounts of money as have been paid by said 
 State to the Registers and Receivers of the several U. S. Land Offices, as 
 fees for the selections of lands, as provided by law, and which selections, 
 for cause satisfactorily shown, were not approved, confirmed, or certified to 
 said State, but subsequently rejected and canceled, and to the restitution 
 of which fees the State is entitled. 
 
 No expense connected with the collection of said amounts to be consid- 
 ered a claim against the State, and Capt. Mullan to receive as compensa- 
 tion in full for said collection, the sum of twenty per cent (20 per cent) of 
 the amount collected and receipted for by the State. 
 
 Witness my hand and seal this twenty-fourth day of October, 1883. 
 
 [Signed:] H. L WILLEY, Surveyor-General. 
 
 [Official.] 
 
 Office of Surveyor-General and ex officio State Land Register ) 
 OF THE State of California, December 1, 1885. J 
 
 Captain John Mullan, Washington, D. C: 
 
 Sir: I hereby appoint you Special Agent on the part of this office, and 
 of the State of California (subject to the action of the Legislature of the 
 State of California), to represent the interests of this office, and that of 
 the State of California, before Congress, and before the proper Bureaus 
 and Departments of the Government of the United States, at Washington 
 City, D. C, in the matter of all lands inuring to the State of California, 
 under the Acts of Congress approved September 28, 1850, and July 23, 
 1866, in regard to all swamp or overflowed lands, which have been hereto- 
 fore sold or otherwise disposed of by the United States, to the loss or 
 detriment of this State. 
 
 With a view of securing for this State a proper indemnity, in either lands 
 or money, for such swamp or overflowed lands as have been heretofore so 
 sold, or otherwise disposed of by the United States. 
 
 H. I. WILLEY, Surveyor-General. 
 
576 
 EXHIBIT No. 2. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. H. R. No. 3222. 
 
 In the House of Representatives. January 11, 1886 — Read twice, re- 
 ferred to the Committee on the Public Lands, and ordered to be printed. 
 Mr. Henley introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 To extend certain provisions of an Act approved March second^ eighteen hun- 
 dred and fifty-five, entitled '^ An Act for the relief of purchasers and locators 
 of swamp and oveifiowed lands^ 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America, in Congress assembled, That all entries, locations, 
 selections, and disposals of the swamp lands, or of lands alleged to be 
 swamp, under any law of the United States made since the third day of 
 March, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, be and the same are hereby con- 
 firmed, and patents shall issue to such purchasers, locators, or grantees 
 thereof; provided, that if any State shall not, within one year from the pas- 
 sage of this Act, through its constituted authorities, return to the General 
 Land Office of the United States a list of all the lands sold by the State as 
 aforesaid, together with the dates of such sale and the names of the pur- 
 chasers, and also of all lands granted or conveyed by her as aforesaid, the 
 patents shall be issued immediately thereafter as above provided. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the second section of the Act of March second, eighteen 
 hundred and fifty-five, entitled "An Act for the relief of purchasers and 
 locators of swamp and overflowed lands," be and is hereby continued in 
 force and extended to all States, for all lands the entry, selection, or loca- 
 tion of which is confirmed by the preceding section; provided, that none of 
 the provisions of the first section of this Act shall apply to entries, locations, 
 or selections, of lands in the States of Oregon and Minnesota prior to March 
 twelfth, eighteen hundred and sixty; neither shall said States be allowed 
 indemnity for swamp lands sold or located prior to that date; and provided 
 further, that cash indemnity only shall be allowed for all locations, entries, 
 selections, and disposals of swamp lands; and the amount of cash to which 
 any State shall be entitled shall be the price at which the land was held 
 at the date of location, entry, selection, or disposal, by the General Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 3. 
 
 [PSteport No. 1089.] 
 
 In the House of Representatives. January 26, 1886 — Read twice, referred 
 to the Committee on the Public Lands, and ordered to be printed. 
 
 March 17, 1886 — Reported with amendments, committed to the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and ordered to be 
 printed. 
 
 Omit the parts struck through and insert the parts printed in italics. 
 
577 
 
 Mr. Caswell introduced the following bill: 
 
 A BILL 
 
 For the relief of purchasers and other grantees of the United States of certain 
 swamp and overflowed lands, and to reimburse and indemnify certain 
 States. 
 
 Whereas, The United States has, by various Acts of Congress, granted 
 to several of the States certain of the swamp and overflowed lands situate 
 within their respective limits; and whereas, some of said swamp and over 
 flowed lands were thereafter erroneously sold and otherwise disposed of by 
 the United States, in derogation of the rights of the States entitled thereto, 
 and contrary to and in violation of the provisions of the grants aforesaid; 
 and whereas, no adequate indemnity to said States or relief to the purchasers 
 of said lands has been hitherto provided; therefore. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of .America, in Congress assembled, That it shall be the daty of the 
 proper officers of the Treasury and Interior Departments to adjust and set- 
 tle the claims of any State against the United States for all lands which 
 have been or may hereafter be sold or otherwise disposed of by the United 
 States that were included in any grant of swamp or overflowed lands to 
 such State. 
 
 Sec. 2. That for all of said lands in any State which were sold for cash 
 the said State shall have the credit for the full amount of the purchase 
 money received by the United States, as of the last day of the year in 
 which it was received, and the same shall be applied to the payment of 
 the indebtedness, if any, of such State to the United States; and the bal- 
 ance, less such sum or sums as may have heretofore been paid or credited 
 as aforesaid, shall be paid over to the Governor or other duly authorized 
 agent of said State; an(f for all of said lands in any State located with 
 warrants or scrip, or which were otherwise disposed of by the United States, 
 and for which indemnity has not heretofore been granted such State, shall 
 have indemnity in cash, the amount thereof to be limited to the price at 
 which the lands were held at the date of their disposal by the United 
 States, the said indemnity to be credited and paid as herein provided in 
 the cases where lands were sold for cash ; provided, that the acceptance by 
 any State or its legal representative of indemnity, for any of the lands sold 
 or otherwise disposed of by the United States, shall be a relinquishment 
 and waiver of all its right, title, and interest in and to such lands, and an 
 acknowledgment and confirmation of the title thereto in the grantees of 
 the United States. 
 
 Sec. 3. That the provisions of this Act shall embrace the swamp and over- 
 sowed lands on the odd sections within the six-mile limits of the line of rail- 
 road between Chicago and Mobile constructed under the Act of Coxigress 
 approved September twentieth, eighteen hundred and fifty. 
 
 87 •" 
 
57; 
 
 EXHIBIT No. 4. 
 
 Forty-ninth Congress, first session. House of Representatives. Report No. lO*^!*. 
 
 SWAMP AND OVERFLOWED LANDS. 
 
 March 17, 1886 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
 the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Van Eaton, from the Committee on the Pubhc Lands, submitted the 
 following 
 
 REPORT. 
 [To accompany bill H. R. 4792.] 
 
 The Committee on the Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (H. 
 R. 4792), for the relief of purchasers and oth^r grantees of the United 
 States of certain swamp and overflowed lands, and to reimburse and indem- 
 nify certain States, have had the same under consideration and report: 
 
 There have been three grants of swamp and overflowed lands by the 
 United States to States in which such lands were situate, namely, to 
 Louisiana in 1849, to all public land States in 1850, and to Minnesota and 
 Oregon in 1860. For all practical purposes these Acts were alike in their 
 provisions and granted to these States all the unsold lands of that charac- 
 ter within their respective limits. They were grants in prxsenti, without 
 condition of any kind, and conveyed, j^ropno rigore, to the respective States 
 all lands coming Avithin the descriptive terms used in the statutes. Although 
 the language of these statutes is so plain and unambiguous as apparently 
 not to require judicial interpretation or construction, yet, upon one pretext 
 or another, they have been before various Courts, both State and National, 
 for consideration, and the right and the title of the States to these lands 
 repeatedly and uniformly confirmed. The scope of the decisions rendered 
 will sufficiently appear in the following brief quotations from the opinions 
 of the Supreme Court of the United States. • 
 
 In Eailroad Company vs. Smith (9 Wallace, 95), that Court says: 
 
 The Act of September 28, 1850, was a present grant by Congress of certain lands to the 
 '■States within which they lie, but by a description which requires something more than a 
 mere reference to their townships, ranges, and sections to identify them as coming 
 within it. * * * 
 
 By the second section of the Act of 1850 it was made the duty of the Secretary of the In- 
 terior to ascertain this fact, namely, what tracts were so swampy", overflowed, and'wet as that 
 the major parts thereof were unfit for cultivation, and furnish the State with the evidence 
 of it. Must the State lose the lands, though clearly swamp land, because that officer has 
 neglected to do this? The right of the State did not depend on his action, Init on the Act 
 of Congress, and though the State might be embarrassed in the assertion of this right by 
 the delay or failure of the Secretary to ascertain and make out lists of these lands, the 
 right of the State to them could not be defeated by that delay. 
 
 And in the latter case of French vs. Fyan et al. (3 Otto, 169), the same 
 Court says: 
 
 This Court has decided more than once that the swamp land Act was a grant in prxsenti, 
 by which the title to those lands passed at once to the State in which they lay, except as 
 to States admitted to the Union after its passage. 
 
 It was not necessary that the States should submit any selections, or 
 prefer any requests, or make any demands. " The title to those lands 
 passed at once," and it was made the duty of the Secretary of the Interior 
 to ascertain the particular tracts of land which were included, described, 
 and conveyed in the grant, and certify them to the States. Sales, loca- 
 tions, and entries of these lands have been made and patents issued, not- 
 
579 
 
 withstanding the fact that it was not competent for the Government to 
 give a valid title to the said lands so embraced in these grants to any other 
 than the grantees named in the Acts of Congress. These facts coming to 
 the attention of Congress, a remedial statute was passed in 1855, and 
 another in 1857, providing indemnity to the States and confirming the title 
 of the innocent purchasers and locators of the lands ; but through oversight 
 or purchase, because it was supposed the irregular practices which made 
 these statutes necessary would not be continued, they were not made pros- 
 pective and continuing in their application. 
 
 Notwithstanding the laws and the decisions of Courts and the rulings of 
 the department itself, the practice has continued of not considering any 
 lands as coming within the purview of the swamp grants until the States 
 should select and prove them to be such, and sales and other disposals of 
 these lands have continued to the present time. Hence the necessity for 
 further remedial legislation, which should be, if possible, coextensive with 
 the injuries inflicted. 
 
 The result of the continued disposal of these lands, to which reference 
 has been made, has been and is a double injustice to the States, and man- 
 ifests itself, (1) in the unjust and illegal diminution of a fund upon which 
 they had a right to rely, and (2) in the initiating of a series of worthless 
 and void titles and the litigations and losses to which they give rise, 
 evidenced in part by the reports of over seventy cases decided in the Courts 
 of last resort in the several States, and cited in the report of the commis- 
 sion on the codification of the land laws of the United States, vol. 1, pages 
 57 and 58. 
 
 These conditions, in the opinion of your committee, give rise to just claims 
 against the United States, both on the part of States and the individuals 
 who find themselves without title to lands for which they have paid full con- 
 sideration, and demand attentive consideration and speedy action by Con- 
 gress. 
 
 It is for the adjustment of these claims, and these only, that the bill 
 herewith reported provides. It does not make any grant or renew or enlarge 
 or modif}^ any previous grant. It does not reverse, set aside, or modify any 
 decisions of the Courts. On the contrary, it is in entire consonance with 
 these and simply and only provides for carrying them into effect in a direct 
 and equitable manner. 
 
 Briefly restated the case is as follows: 
 
 There are certain moneys in the Treasury of the United States which in 
 law and in fact belong to certain States, because received by the United 
 States for the property of these States wTongfully and illegally sold by it, 
 and the proceeds thereof converted to its use. This bill provides that these 
 moneys shall be returned to the rightful owners. To meet the further fact 
 that the United States has assumed to dispose of other lands not its own 
 otherwise than for cash, this bill, when amended as proposed by the com- 
 mittee, provides that the United States shall make compensation therefor 
 in cash at the rate at which the lands were held when disposed of, with the 
 proviso that the acceptance of indemnity shall be a relinquishment of the 
 title and rights derived through the grant and a confirmation of the title 
 and right of parties holding under the subsequent irregular and unauthor- 
 ized conveyances from the United States. 
 
 For the purpose of making the bill conform to what they believe to be 
 •the dominant public sentiment and to embrace all the cases calling for con-* 
 gressional intervention, your committee recommend the following amend- 
 ments, namely: 
 
 In section two strike out all after the word " State " in the twelfth line 
 
580 
 
 down to and including the word "may" in the twenty-first line, and insert 
 in lieu thereof the word "shall." Also insert the words "or its legal rep- 
 resentatives," after the word " State " in the twenty-seventh line, and strike 
 out in same line the words " whether in cash or in land." Also add a new 
 section, as follows: 
 
 " Sec. 3. The provisions of this bill shall embrace the swamp and over- 
 flowed lands on the odd sections within the six-mile limits of the line of 
 railroad between Chicago and Mobile, constructed under the Act of Con- 
 gress approved September 20, 1850." 
 
 The recommendation of the committee to pay cash indemnity only is 
 made from the fact that the public lands fit for agricultural purposes should 
 be set apart for the purpose of settlement and homestead, and is in har- 
 mony with the growing sentiment of the people in all the States. The day 
 for the issue of scrip which can be floated by speculators on the choicest 
 portion of public lands has passed. 
 
 With reference to the proposed section three, which the committee have 
 added, it will suffice to say it was found, on examination of the law and 
 the facts, that the even-numbered sections were granted to aid in the con- 
 struction of the railroad referred to, and that the swamp lands on the odd 
 sections within the six-mile limits of the road that remained unsold on the 
 twenty-eighth day of September, 1850, have been subsequently sold by the 
 United States, and the proceeds paid into its Treasury — most of it thirty 
 years ago. Where these odd sections were vacant on the third of March, 
 1857, the United States has certified them to the State under the swamp 
 land grant, but where the same have been sold the. Government has 
 declined to pay indemnity, on the ground that they were withdrawn from 
 sale by letter of the President eight days before the swamp land grant was 
 passed. 
 
 Your committee do not see that this letter of withdrawal took it out of 
 the power of Congress to grant these lands to the States eight days after it 
 was written. By the later Act all the swamp and overflowed lands remain- 
 ing unsold at the date of its passage were granted to the States within 
 which they were situate without any reservatidn whatever. If, therefore, 
 the withdrawal of these lands was not a sale of them they "remained 
 unsold " and passed by the grant. But that said withdrawal was not a 
 sale or so considered is evidenced by the fact that in due. time the lands 
 were restored to market, sold, and the money received paid into the Treas- 
 ury of the United States. 
 
 The same conditions surround these lands that surround all other 
 swamp lands, wherever situated. There is the same necessity for perfect- 
 ing title in those persons to whom the United States has wrongfully con- 
 veyed these lands, and the same obligation on the part of the Government 
 to pay indemnity to the State. This section does not in any way enlarge 
 the grant as originally made. It simply recognizes what the Courts have 
 repeatedly decided. 
 
 Your committee have had various bills before them and find they are 
 similar to bills which have been before every Congress since 1865. Special 
 Acts have since that date been passed for several of the States or their 
 grantees, but no general bill of a remedial nature has yet become a law. 
 
 In conclusion your committee would state that this bill, with the proposed 
 amendments, makes provision for the final adjustment of the vexed ques- 
 tions arising out of the swamp land grant as to all the States interested,, 
 and is in harmony with the views of all State and United States Courts, 
 as expressed in numerous decisions. They, therefore, report the bill back 
 with amendments and recommend its passage. 
 
ri:s 
 
^x^'m 
 
 m^ 
 
 ^&W^ 
 
 m 
 
 >>-:>.:> 
 
 RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
 University of California Library 
 or to tine 
 NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 BIdg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
 University of California 
 Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 • 2-month loans may be renewed by calling 
 (510)642-6753 
 
 • 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing 
 books to NRLF 
 
 • Renewals and recharges may be made 4 
 days prior to due date. 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 
 SENT ON ILL 
 
 MAR 3 1 1999 
 
 U. C. BERKELEY 
 
 ^ >5> 
 
 
 2,000(11/95) 
 
 
 
 
3?52»> "'^^^^^'' ^"■:^M- 
 
 ^>- L^^m^ 
 
 >I^^^5 
 
 ^^ yn 
 
 
 :>3^ 
 
 
 ^^^3^5 
 
 E^? 
 
 uS 
 
 ss 
 
 
 
 
 M126753 
 
 H J 8341 
 
 CaKs 
 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 
 ►' ^>^^ ':^L_:3l?L> ■ l^'" 
 
 9^sy^ 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 ^^^^^^^^^ 
 
 'Si 
 
 ^^^^^ 
 
 > 
 
 ^^ 
 
 irJ^^ 
 
 
 ?^ 
 
 "^ - 
 
 2. 
 
 
 
 
 
 s^ 
 
 ^ x::> .„:2> 3^ 
 
 >S>iS 
 

 m39>3wm 
 
 MMMMMMMMMMMMMj^ 
 
 LIB