Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Mr. WHEELER. The rule provides that where a motion to reconsider has been once made and lost it is not in order to renew it.

The SPEAKER. The Chair agrees with the gentleman in that statement. But the point now is whether it is in order to move that the pending motion to reconsider be laid on the table. It is merely changing the negative to the affirmative; it gives neither side any advantage.

The question was then taken upon the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider; and upon a division there were-ayes 48, noes 78.

Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. HOLMAN said: As this is a fair testquestion, I call for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was again taken; and there were-yeas 73, nays 99, not voting 68; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Acker, Adams, Ambler, Arthur, Banks, Beatty, Beck, Bell, Bird. James G. Blair, Braxton, Bright, Buffinton. Benjamin F. Butler, Coburn, Comingo, Cox, Crossland, Davis, Eldredge, Finkelnburg, Garfield, Golladay, Griffith, Haldeman, Hancock, Handley, Hanks, Havens, Hay, Hereford, Herndon, Hibbard, Holman, Kerr, Killinger, King, Lamison, Lewis, Manson, McClelland, MeIntyre, McNeely, Merrick, Monroe, Hosea W. Parker, Randall, Read, Edward Y. Rice, John M. Rice, Ritchie, William R. Roberts, Shanks, Sherwood, Slater, R. Milton Speer, Sprague, Stevens, Stevenson, Stoughton, Strong, Terry, Dwight Townsend, Tuthill, Tyner, Van Trump, Waddell, Walden, Wells, Whitthorne, Jeremiah M. Wilson, Wood, and Young-73.

NAYS-Messrs. Ames. Averill, Barber, Barnum, Bingham, Austin Blair, George M. Brooks, Buckley, Burchard, Burdett, Roderick R. Butler, Freeman Clarke, Coghlan, Conger, Cotton, Crocker, Dawes, De Large, Dickey, Duell, Duke, Dunnell, Eames, Elliott, Ely, Farnsworth, Frye, Garrett, Getz, Iarper, George E. Harris, Hays, Gerry W. Hazelton, John W. Hazelton, Hoar, Hooper, Houghton, Kelley, Ketcham, Lamport, Lansing, Leach, Lowe, McCrary, McHenry, McJunkin, McKee, Mercur, Merriam, Mitchell, Moore, Morey, Morphis, Leonard Myers, Negley, Niblack, Packard. Packer, Palmer, Peck, Perce, Aaron F. Perry, Eli Perry, Peters, Platt, Poland, Prindle, Rainey, Ellis H. Roberts, Rogers, Rusk, Sargent, Seeley, Sessions, Sheldon, Shoemaker, Sloss, H. Boardman Smith, Snapp, Snyder, Thomas J. Speer. Starkweather, Stowell, Sutherland, Sypher, Taffe, Thomas, Turner, Twichell, Upson, Voorhees, Wakeman, Waldron, Wallace, Warren, Wheeler, Whiteley, Willard, and Williams of Indiana-99.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Archer, Barry, Beveridge, Bigby, Biggs, Boles, James Brooks, Caldwell, Campbell, Carroll, William T. Clark, Cobb, Conner, Crebs, Creely, Critcher, Darrall, Donnan, Dox. Du Bose, Farwell, Forker, Charles Foster, Henry D. Foster, Wilder D. Foster, Goodrich, Hale, Halsey, Hambleton, Harmer, John T. Harris, Hawley, Hill, Kellogg, Kendall, Kinsella, Lynch, Marshall, Maynard, McCormick, McGrew, McKinney, Benjamin F. Meyers, Morgan, Orr, Isaac C. Parker, Pendleton, Porter, Potter, Price, Robinson, Roosevelt, Sawyer, Scofield, Shellabarger, Shober, Slocum, John A. Smith, Worthington C. Smith, Storm, St. John, Swann, Washington Townsend, Vaughan, Walls, Williams of New York, John T. Wilson, and Winchester-68.

So the motion to lay on the table was not agreed to.

The question was then taken upon the motion to reconsider; and it was agreed to, upon a division-ayes 87, noes 58.

The question then recurred upon the motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Pacific Railroad.

Mr. WHEELER. I withdraw the motion to recommit, and now move as a substitute for the original bill that which I had read by the Clerk a few minutes ago.

The amendment was read at length as printed in a previous part of to-day's proceed

ings.

Mr. GARFIELD, of Ohio. Will the gen. tleman from New York [Mr. WHEELER] allow me to offer the amendment I suggested a short time since?

Mr. NIBLACK. I ask the gentleman to permit me to move an amendment to come in at the end of the substitute.

Mr. WHEELER. I will hear the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. NIBLACK.]

The amendment was read, as follows:
And Congress may at any time after, amend or

repeal this act, having due regard to the rights and interests of the railroad companies which may have availed themselves of the privileges hereby granted. Mr. WHEELER. I see no objection to that amendment, and am willing to accept it. The amendment to the substitute was then agreed to.

Mr. WHEELER. I now yield to my colleague [Mr. Cox] for ten minutes.

Mr. COX. I do not intend to go into a debate as to the details of this bill. Since it was before the House last it has undergone some changes. It has now various pretenses of recompense to the Government for the grant which is sought without consideration; but still as a land grant it is just as demoralizing in its tendency as it ever was. I can only reiterate the protest of the people whom I represent, the working people, who are not always represented here, and who seek to be heard by petitions such as that which I hold in my hand-the protest of the city in which I live, expressed again and again to this House against any system like this, which really gives away not only the public domain, but a most important piece of public land which the Government may need for the defense of the Pacific

[blocks in formation]

The gentleman from California [Mr. SARGENT] who spoke a while ago seems to quarrel with one of his newspapers, the Alta California, for speaking out very plainly upon this subject. I have nothing to do with local quarrels between that gentleman and the newspapers of his State. I only know from my knowledge of the Pacific coast that no newspaper in California, except perhaps two, the Sacramento Union and the San Francisco Bulletin, speaks with more emphasis, cogency, and honesty for the people of that State than does the Alta California. I have not here the extracts from that paper denunciatory of this bill; but I believe they have already been read to the House. Indeed, they have been quoted to show the unrepresentative character of the California representatives on this question.

Sir, the Bulletin, the great paper of the Pacific coast, which circulates there almost everywhere, from the top of the Sierras down to the coast range and throughout all that State of seven hundred miles in length and three hundred in width, has been quoted as favoring this peculiar business; but I happen to have in my hand (it has been sent to me by the editors of that paper) their emphatic protest against this bill. The reason given by these newspapers, the Sacramento Union, wnich, I believe, has denounced the project, and also the Bulletin, all Republican papers, is that good faith has not been kept by this company with the people of the various sections where the company has sought to make its termini. The Bulletin, in its edition of March 22, says:

"The time has therefore arrived when there should be a frank understanding with the railroad company. Do they mean to come into San Francisco, as they have promised and as the terms of their franchise from Congress contemplated, or to attempt building up a rival city and diverting the commerce of the port?"

In another article headed, “A Stupendous Scheme," the whole project of this company is analyzed and denounced in the strongest terms compatible with decency and morality. I call attention to that article, which is as follows:

"A Stupendous Scheme.-The Central Pacific Railroad Company, from the inception of the enterprise, has had a policy of which the public knows little or

nothing. In voting subsidies, the people have had to go in the dark. They were not informed as to what would be done; it was a demand for money or land continually. The public realize that the railroad company at one time has made quasi promises that the road would terminate at Mission bay; at another it has promised that Oakland should be the terminus; and still another, that Vallejo should be the favored location. At all of these places the railroad company has acquired valuable real estate, under the supposition that these towns were respectively to receive benefits from the concession of property to the company.

At this time the people realize that those promises amount to nothing; that the company intend to do what will bring its managers the most money. This is why the people are left so completely in the dark even while an effort is being made to acquire Goat Island and its approaches, and at the same time the company is asking for an enlargement of the grant of land in Mission bay, together with the China Basin, &c.

"Now, what does all of this mean? Simply, that we are asked to give land to the company without knowing what it is to be used for. At this time wo are even in doubt whether this very Mission bay property may not be made available as so much means to injure San Francisco. It is a vast estate in the heart of a great city, and worth millions of dollars. It is now believed that Stanford & Co. do not intend to come to Mission bay with any railroad except that which will follow down the coast counties to Los Angeles, San Diego, &c., but construct a town extending from the Oakland shore to Goat Island, or as near to that point as may be permitted by the Government, and we do not see why Goat Island may not form a portion of that town. The map which we publish to-day will show by a dotted line, taking in a vast tract of the bay on the Oakland side, where the company claims to own. This line, as will be seen, is within a short distance of Goat Island, and it is urged that the company intend to fill in, both from the island and from the hills north of Oakland, and make a town which the company will own exclusively.

"It is a grand scheme, and if San Francisco will but permit the bay to be used in the way suggested we do not see why the company may not be entirely successful. Indeed, the shallowness of the water on the Oakland side, taken in connection with the rocky and firm foundation of the bottom, renders it perfectly practicable to carry out such a project. It was supposed for a time that the Central Pacific Railroad Company would be satisfied with a bridge across the bay, and enter this city in that way; but such is not their intention, for they have discouraged the bridge project. There is every reason to believe that the plan here sketched is that which has been substantially adopted by the railroad company.

"We have been free to comment adversely to any project which looks, however remotely, to bring injury to San Francisco and her inhabitants by the railroad company, because we have always en leavored to deal justly by it. We would do so still; give it every means to do our business with facility and with advantage to its stockholders; but we are opposed to the city tying herself up any further. We are utterly opposed to granting Goat Island to the railroad company, for we are perfectly satisfied this cannot be done with safety to the people. We have gone just as far as we can afford to go. The city owns property worth four or five hundred million dollars. We may use a portion of this property so as to benefit ourselves-build a bridge across the bay, and if need be, aid a railroad extending to the Atlantic States. San Francisco is strong enough not to be trifled with any longer."

It will be observed that in this article the question is again and again asked, what is the object of making Goat Island the terminus? The papers in California state that the effect at least will be to make San Francisco an inland town, reducing not merely the value of the wharfage, but the value of all the property in the city. This is the reason why the Chaniber of Commerce, as well as the people of San Francisco, are opposed to this peculiar scheme. The article to which I have just called attention explains what is meant by the telegram which on the 16th of April was sent from San Francisco by a committee of citizens to Senator CASSERLY. He it was who requested me to have it read in this House. The substance of that telegram is as follows:

Caleb T. Fay left here ou the 14th, instructed to wait in New York till COLE or yourself invited him to come to Washington. Let it be known that the railroad yesterday conditionally agreed with a committee of our citizens to make the terminus in Mission bay.

A. B. FORBES,
JAMES OTIS.
JOHN C. MERRILL,
F. M. LEWIS,
E. B. PERRIN.

Whether they have made any such arrangement I am not authorized to say, except so far as this telegram goes; but from the article in the Bulletin there is every reason to believe

that this company did agree that it would not by this project injure the city of San Francisco. It did not wish to spoil the harbor for railroad purposes Oh, no!

What the citizens of San Francisco appre hend is, that this scheme may be the means of building up a rival city, thereby ruining San Francisco to a very large extent, besides demoralizing the country by this peculiar system of land grants and land grabbing, as to which both parties, in the last election in California, gave an unequivocal vote.

When this subject was under discussion three weeks ago, I made this point with reference to the Pacific Mail Steamship Company and the Panama Railroad Company, both seeking subsidies: that there was a contract made between the overland Pacific railroad and the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, whereby all products coming from Asia should be carried over this pet railroad, and no other; that they could not go by the Panama road, or any other possible competitive route. By that contract, which affected every transaction in China or Japan, before the goods got to the Pacific coast on this side they were ordered to but one route, the overland railroad. Since that time these speculators, these schemers, have bought up the Panama railroad. They have plugged up the Isthmus! There is no more competition. Therefore your teas and your silks will be higher in price by reason of the higher cost of transportation, because these men get their subsidies and their land grants from Congress. They can afford to buy up in one gambling speculation a railroad like that at Panama. I should like to see all competition possible. Before I will give my vote for any bill of this character, or for any grant of lands or money from this Government whereby these favored corporations can raise the price of teas or other commodities at their pleasure and at our double expense, I will be glad[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. WHEELER. I will now yield for ten minutes to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. WOOD.]

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Pacific Railroad, in the remarks he submitted when this substitute was first read, stated he had so modified or changed the bill as to meet every possible objection urged against the measure as originally introduced.

Mr. WHEELER. I said every reasonable, and not every possible objection.

Mr. WOOD. We are left, then, to determine what is reasonable. I will show he has not in any way obviated the fundamental objection to this bill, and that is involved in the Congress of the United States deliberately parting with the property of the people of the United States for no compensation whatever. This substitute is objectionable in every aspect in which we may view it. Indeed, in my judg ment, it goes further than the original bill. It provides that the President may appoint three commissioners who shall determine the amount to be paid for the continuous and never-ending use of this island. It is, in that regard, more objectionable than the original proposition.

But, sir, I desire to have read the proceedings of the citizens of San Francisco, which, in my judgment, should have some influence in this House on a question of this character. They have never been presented to the House, but by some secret malign influence have been so far kept from the public. They are the proceedings of the meeting held in San Francisco in reference to this measure, and I ask that they be read as a part of my remarks. The Clerk read as follows:

"SAN FRANCISCO, April 18. "The excitement over the Yerba Buena or Goat Island question is increasing. A committee of one hundred was formed to-day, embracing leading citieas of San Francisco in every department of busiBess, to defend the interests of commerce and the city

The committee elected the following officers: "President, Hon. William Alvord, mayor of the

city: first vice president, R. G. Sneath; second, John S. Hager: secretary, Alfred Wheeler: treasurer, D. J. Tallant.

The meeting unanimously adopted the following resolutions:

[ocr errors]

Whereas the Central Western and Southern Pacific Railroad Companies have received enormous grants of land and subsidies in bonds and money from the Federal Government, from the State of California, various counties of the State, and from the city of San Francisco, which grants and subsidies were more than sufficient for the entire construction and equipment of said roads; and whereas this State and city have given said railroads large subsidies and valuable grants of land within this city, with the intention and understanding that said roads would make their western termini within the city of San Francisco, and upon the tract of land granted for that purpose in Mission bay; and whereas said companies have obtained large grants of land on the opposite side of the bay in front of Oakland, and have directed the entire railroad system of the above lines and all the railroads of this coast toward said last-mentioned point, in disregard of the conditions of said compact; and whereas said companies have been, and are now, making strenuous efforts to obtain from the Federal Government a grant or lease of Goat Island, lying in the Bay of San Francisco, midway between this city and the Oakland shore, for the purpose of the terminus of all the lines aforesaid, in spite of and against the expressed wishes of this city, and in defiance of damage and danger to the commercial interests of this port, as conclusively demonstrated by the scientific investigations and judgment of eminent engineers: Therefore,

Resolved, That the city of San Francisco has a right to expect, and does expect, from said railroad companies a strict compliance with the terms, conditions, and compacts made by said companies, to wit, the actual and immediate location of the terminus of said roads, now merged into one ownership, upon the sixty acres of land in Mission bay, in this city, and the actual and immediate abandonment on the part of the railroad companies of any construction or proceeding having in view the fixing of such terminus at any other point whatever.

"Resolved, That the citizens of San Francisco believe that said companies should withdraw from Congress immediately all demand or request for the grant, lease, or privilege of using and connecting said roads with Goat Island, and cease the further construction of wharves, piers, and slips in the channel of the bay at the terminus of their present Oakland wharf or elsewhere.

[ocr errors]

Resolved, That, in case the companies shall decline, refuse, or omit to comply with this reasonable request, it is the right, duty, and purpose of the citizens of San Francisco to take all lawful measures for maintaining their rights in the premises and prevent said wrongful acts of said companies.

Resolved, That if the city of San Francisco should be compelled to resort to legal tribunals to assert and maintain her rights as against said companies, it would be proper and just that the grants and subsidies conditionally made to said railroads should be annulled and set aside.

Resolved, That it is to the interest of San Francisco and said companies that there should be complete accord and harmony of action between them, and that, to facilitate and aid the requirements of commerce, this city should not be, and will not be, governed by any hostile, unfriendly feeling toward said companies, but should continue to be liberal and accommodating, only demanding in return on the part of said companies the same prompt, exact compliance with agreements as would be demanded of and accorded by this city.

Resolved, That it eminently concerns the whole Pacific coast, and especially the city of San Francisco, that another railroad connecting the Atlantic with the Pacific, traversing a route free from danger of obstruction and delay by the severities of winter, and having its terminus at San Francisco, should be constructed as soon as possible; that this city and the adjoining counties should contribute liberally in aid of such enterprise.

Resolved, That the executive committee of this association be instructed to act upon and carry out the spirit of these resolutions, and take such measures in so doing as in their judgment may be most efficient.

"Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to Leland Stanford, and to every member of Congress, to the mayor of St. Louis, and to the president of the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Speaker, this meeting at which these resolutions were passed was subsequent to the action of the Chamber of Commerce and of the board of supervisors and the repeated expression of opposition by the press of the entire Pacific coast, who are alike interested, whether in California or in Oregon, in preserving the integrity of the harbor of San Francisco. There is one significant resolution passed at a subsequent meeting of citizens which I will read. It is as follows:

Resolved, That we look with confidence and pride to our Senators, COLE and CASSERLY, in this emergency, to ward off the calamity that has startled us with its audacious and reckless disregard of our rights and interests, and we bow our heads in shame at the action of our members of the House,

recently loaded with honors by a confiding constituency. Truly there is nothing so unkind as base ingratitude.""

Mr. SARGENT. The same resolution was offered in the Legislature and voted down by a two thirds vote.

Mr. WHEELER. I yield fifteen minutes to the gentleman from California, [Mr. CoGHLAN.]

Mr. COGHLAN. It has been urged by the gentleman from New York in front of the Chair, [Mr. Cox,] and also by the gentleman from New York who spoke last, [Mr. WooD,] that the State of California is not properly represented on this question by the members from that State on this floor. I defy either of those gentlemen, or any member of this House, or any opponent of this bill, to show a single tangible objection to the passage of this bill. It is very easy for gentlemen to cry out that this is a land grant or that it is a subsidy. They evidently find it very hard, in the face of the facts of the case, to show that it is either. It is very easy to say that this will injure the city of San Francisco; but if any gentleman on this floor, or anywhere else, can show any reason why the city of San Francisco will not be benefited by this very bill, then I myself will vote against it and do what I can to defeat it.

Every objection which has been raised either in San Francisco or on this floor against this bill, except the false and meaningless cry that we are aiding a railroad, is answered and refuted by the bill itself. No man can truly claim that this is in any sense either a land grant or a subsidy; for in the first place Goat Island is not in any sense public lands in the common acceptation of that term. It cannot be settled upon as a homestead nor entered under preemption laws. It is reserved by the Government for military purposes, and its whole value to the people of the United States depends upon retaining it for that purpose; and if from this bill we derive an additional benefit from it without impairing its usefulness as a defensive. position, then the people are that much the gainer. Nor does the Government part with its control over the whole island. This bill grants the use of one half-not the land-but the use of one half so long as the company uses it for railroad purposes exclusively, and with the further proviso that the Government may take possession of the whole island in time of war, or even in anticipation of war.

But even this privilege is in no sense a subsidy or gift to the railroad. The President must appoint three commissioners, who shall act as a court to go upon the ground and hear the evidence, and then decide upon the value of the use of the island; and the company must pay this value to the last cent before they take the benefits of this bill. Therefore, I say it is in no sense a subsidy nor a free gift. Now, I ask in all conscience if this island can be made to serve two great public purposesa defense to the harbor and also become the western terminus of the whole great system of continental railways-why should it not be used for both purposes. Because," say gentlemen, "it will injure the harbor of San Francisco if a bridge is made from Oakland to the island."

46

I want the attention of the gentleman from New York who spoke last to the fact that the president of the Chamber of Commerce of Sau Francisco, the mayor of San Francisco, and several other prominent citizens addressed a note to the chief engineer of the United States on that coast, to General B. S. Alexander, United States engineer; Professor George Davidson, United States engineer; Colonel George H. Mendell, United States engineer; Colonel C. S. Stewart, United States engineer; and Captain A. F. Rodgers, United States Coast Survey, all of them gentlemen whose names have heretofore been mentioned in the debates of this House. They asked these engineers

the question whether the building of a bridge resting upon piers from Oakland to Goat Island will at all injure the harbor of San Francisco. These engineers, in answer to the inquiries of the opponents of this bill, stated explicitly that a bridge built as proposed in this bill would have no appreciable effect on the harbor at all.

I hold in my hand a paper taken from the San Francisco Bulletin, and published by the opponents of this bill, which states directly and distinctly that it will have no appreciable influence at all on the harbor to build this bridge on piers, as is proposed in this bill. That is my answer to one of the objections.

Now I claim, and the people of San Francisco will yet uphold me in the claim, that by a bridge to Goat Island alone can that city ever become the terminus of the system of roads centering upon the Bay of San Francisco. It was with this view that it has been urged for some years that a bridge should be built to Goat Island. And I may say without fear of contradiction that many men in San Francisco who to-day are fighting this bill, for reasons which I will presently state, are the very men who up to a few weeks past were in favor of that project.

I say that by no other means, or on no other plan, and in no other way can San Francisco be made the terminus of the various railroads crossing the continent. The engineers say that there is no possible way whereby a bridge can be built across the bay to Hunter's Point except at an expense of $15,000,000. Now, gentlemen must remember that although San Francisco is a large city, it has not business enough to pay interest on so large a sum of money for so short a span of road. The situation of San Francisco being upon a peninsula, the only hope that we can ever reach it by a short route, or the only one practicable, is by way of Goat Island, which seems almost to have been created for the express purpose of making San Francisco the terminus of the continental Tilroads.

In this bill it is provided that the company shall receive and convey the passengers, goods, and freight hauled or to be hauled over their road into the business portion of the city of San Francisco free of expense.

The bill also provides that the company shall not use the land for any other than railroad purposes exclusively, and yet a cry is raised that warehouses, and in fact another city is to be built upon the island. That is mere bosh.

Any man who knows anything practically of the building up of towns must be aware that it would be easier to build a city twenty miles from San Francisco than to build one under the shadow of that place, nay, in the very city itself, for Goat Island is, I am informed, within the corporate limits of that city; and this bill gives the power to the city of San Francisco to tax the property of the company as it does other property in its city limits.

Then the bill provides further that there shall be no wharf charges; the company cannot receive one dollar or one cent for wharfage, and this brings me to one of the causes of the opposition to this bill. It comes from the men who own the wharves in San Francisco, and who have been in the habit of levying a heavy tax upon every pound of produce raised in my district and in other parts of the State. These men, who want to lay a burden on every sack of wheat raised by my constituents, are the men who have raised this outcry, calling this a railroad subsidy, and they have succeeded by this cry in getting the people of San Francisco so excited upon this question that they have lost sight of the vast benefits which this bill will confer upon the city as well as upon the State, and are listening to the selfish cries of those who wish still in their greedy exactions upon commerce to sit like an incubus upon the growing prosperity of that young and flourishing city.

A

It would, Mr. Speaker, be very easy and very pleasant to me to join this now popular, but, as I earnestly believe, baneful movement. But I have faith in the people of my State. little reflection will show them the utter selfishness of the opposition to this bill. I could not go back there and hold my face to the sun if I could be led by a hope of popular favor to be so base as to cast my vote against what I know will so greatly benefit San Francisco and the State of California.

Another portion of the opposition to this bill comes not from the masses I have named, and not from the respectable portion of the San Francisco press; for though the Bulletin, Chronicle, and some other respectable papers are fighting the bill, they are using the weapons of reason and not of blackguardism to defeat it.

But the opposition I speak of now comes from a paper which has been alluded to in this debate as a great commercial paper; and as near as I can find out from inquiry from those best acquainted with its course, the Alta is, in truth, a great commercial paper, one that can be bought cheaper to do dirtier ac tions than any other paper in the United States. It was through the influence and at the suggestion of this paper that a gang of roughs were procured, not from among the decent people of my State, but from among the Alta's friends, who probably had a month's leave of absence from the penitentiary, to put forward the unanswerable argument against this bill of burning in effigy its friends. The Alta will no doubt say I now speak of the citizens of San Francisco. I do not. I speak of the citizens of San Quinton, who assisted the Alta in that demonstration; and I will now dismiss them by saying that the same crowd that did that burning can probably be hired for thirteen dollars to burn the image of the Saviour of the world for having preached the Sermon on the Mount, and that for fourteen dollars the Alta can be hired to uphold them in the act and to sanctify the deed.

That is one class of the opposition to this bill which I do not intend to try to answer at all, but any opposition endeavoring to defeat the bill by argument I am willing to listen to and to do all I can to make the bill concur with their sentiments, where those ideas are just and practicable. I believe it does now answer every request and every objection asked for or urged when the measure was last before the House. I do not believe the people of California know what this bill is; they have an idea that this bill will allow this company to build a city on the island; I do not believe that they have any idea that the company have to pay for the use of the island; I do not believe they have any idea that the railroad company will be compelled to take their passengers and freight into the business portion of San Fran. cisco, or that no wharf charges can be made by the company.

But again. It is the opinion of engineers not of the railroad, but those depended upon by the opponents of this bill-that it will be a much cheaper and more practicable way of making San Francisco the terminus of the railroad system to establish ferries from the east side of the bay than to attempt to build bridges. They say to the citizens of San Francisco, in answer to a question propounded by the mayor and others, that

"We believe it will be preferable to use properly constructed ferry-boats for the present. Looking at the question of economy of transit only, we think that the railroad interests and the commerce of San Francisco will have to be greatly increased before the construction of a bridge across the bay will be justified. For instance, if the cost of the bridge is $15,000,000, the interest on the cost at seven per cent. per annum will be $1,050,000, to which must be added the cost of keeping the bridge in order, painting, attending the draw or draws, &c., say $25,000, making the total annual cost of bridge and its maintenance $1,075,000.

Now the cost of keeping up and running a firstclass ferry-boat between this city and Oakland, capable of transporting twenty freight cars at a time, would not exceed $100,000, or at most $150,000 a

year, so that the city or the railroad, as the case may be, looking at the question of expenditure only, had better keep a free ferry between this city and Oakland, consisting, if necessary, of seven ferry-boats, at an annual cost of $150,000 each, rather than to build and maintain a bridge at an annual cost of $1,075,000."

This being the case, the whole question is this: shall San Francisco have a ferry which will consume ten minutes of time from shore to shore, or one whose trip shall be made in four minutes? Shall it be a ferry from Oakland or a ferry half way to Oakland, that is, from Goat Island? That, if we do as the engineers do-lay aside the bridge question as not feasible-is the whole question at issue. Most certainly the ferry from Goat Island is the best for San Francisco.

I have before stated that this bill is not a grant. Gentlemen may get up here and cry, "Oh, you are helping a gigantic corporation!" Well, sir, if in helping a corporation you help the commerce of California and of the United States, if you help thereby to make San Francisco a great commercial city, it seems to me that you should lose sight of the fact that you may be helping a corporation. That cry should not have with any gentleman the weight of a feather in regard to the passage of this bill. I believe that by passing this bill we will be making a great commercial city of San Francisco and be inviting the commerce of China and the Indies to that port; and if something be not done to save the double transhipment of through freight and to get rid of these wharf charges and to protect San Francisco from the class of men who have for years been taking advantage of her necessifies, then I believe that some other port upon the Pacific or some other nation will gain the control of the commerce of the East, and California will lose all the benefits of the vast commerce which, with proper and liberal action, must certainly in the future, as in the past, reach the American continent through her portals.

This is a great and important question, one which I ask gentlemen to look at in some other light than that of a mere railroad subsidy, which it certainly is not. I have never voted in this House or raised my voice in favor of any land grant of any kind, and I do not intend to do so. If this were a grant of that character, and this company was not com. pelled to pay the whole value of this property, or to pay for this right of way, for that is what it amounts to and nothing more, I should be compelled to vote against this bill.

It is simply a proposition to enable this railroad to have a proper terminus in the West; and not only this road, but all roads that may go to that city. No man who knows anything about the business of this road but knows that it must have a terminus near the business portion of the city of San Francisco, and yet not in that part of the city. The vast number of trains which must be made up, the backing and constant motion of dozens of donkey engines at all hours of the day and night, incident to the placing properly of the cars in their respective trains, should teach any man that the heart of a great city is no place for the working depot of a great railroad; and this island, being only four minutes out of the heart of San Francisco, is certainly the best place for that purpose.

I know that my time is exhausted, Mr. Speaker, but I ask one moment more in which hastily to refer to another class of opponents to this bill. We have been charged with being in favor of it because it is a railroad grant. Let me tell you that I believe the great opposition to this bill, among those who have raised this cry against it, is because of the fact that to-day the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company is begging a subsidy to build another railroad. If they can excite the apprehensions of the people of San Francisco that this road is working against their interests, then they hope to get a subsidy from the people of Cali

fornia. And I know that the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company, through its agents at San Francisco, is working with all its interest and all its power to raise this cry against the Central Pacific Railroad Company in order that they may succeed in getting a subsidy from my State to the amount of several million dollars. The paid agents of that road are the loudest-mouthed of all the opponents to this bill. But they are spending their time, labor, and money for nothing, for the people of that city will not be long in finding out that the keen agents of that company are trying to turn the anti-subsidy cry against our company into a subsidy cry for a paper railroad to fill the coffers of the Alta and disinterested parties of that ilk.

Mr. Speaker, all my interests in life are centered in the State of California. I have lived there from early boyhood, and as a Californian I am proud of the prosperity and grandeur of San Francisco. No power on earth could make me do one thing to injure her, and, on the other hand, I am willing to stem what seems to be the popular current on this question, because I know it to be to her interest. I know that before many years she will be to the western slope of this continent what New York is to the eastern. She is no longer isolated from the rest of the country, and her energetic and enterprising people will soon see that by a liberal policy toward commerce she can alone hope for the greatness to which her geographical position entitles her. As New York is the queen of the Atlantic, so San Francisco in the near future, guided by this policy, will sit upon her many hills the unquestioned guardian of the Golden Gate, through which must come, and pay her tribute as it passes, the wealth of Asia and the Indies.

Mr. WHEELER. I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] for ten minutes.

Mr. BANKS. The same objections lie against the substitute now proposed that were urged with so much effect and sustained by the majority of the House against the original bill, when it was before under consideration. It is not a senseless cry, as the gentleman from California [Mr. COGHLAN] has said to us. It is & patriotic protest against the surrender of the property of the United States which is indispensable to the defense of the Government, and the authority to place obstructions to the flow of tidal waters in the harbor of San Francisco, which must be detrimental if not destructive to the harbor of San Francisco. Those are the objections against this bill.

The evasive propositions now presented by the gentleman from New York [Mr. WHEELER] confess their weight and substance, and evade instead of remedying the evils we denounce. It is not confession and avoidance, but a confession and evasion. We challenge the attention of gentlemen to the insufficiency of the amendments. They aggravate rather than relieve the original defects of this measure. We are called upon here, without any consid erable debate, to postpone all the legitimate and necessary business of the Government for the purpose of granting to a corporation that does not need it land that is essential and important to the public defense, and to authorize the construction of works in the harbor of San Francisco which will be injurious to the commerce of this country. What is the substitate which the gentleman has proposed, and which does not meet the objections sustained by the House against the original bill? It is an unmanly evasion of those weighty and substantial objections.

The first proposition is as to the surrender of this property to this corporation. It is provided in the substitute that three commissioners shall be appointed, who shall have power, or any two of them, at their own option, io cede this land to this corporation at just what they may choose to say it is worth. They are to be appointed within one month; to

decide within three months. They are responsible to nobody, to be confined by nobody, their proceedings to be revised by nobody, and their judgment upon this weighty national matter to be final and conclusive against the Government forever hereafter. What is the neces sity for this unseemly haste and this latitudinarian surrender of power? It is to cover our act and evade the responsibility which ought | to attach to the action of Congress. We shield ourselves from the natural consequences of this cession by the appointment of these commissioners. They are not instructed to consider the value of the land but to estimate its use, offsetting the injuries by the benefits which may accrue to the Government by this grant. And they are to be paid by the parties who are to be benefited by the grant!

Sir, the House of Representatives ought never to agree to that. If there is anything to be paid for this island, we should fix the amount ourselves; or if we are to allow other men to pass judgment on this property, they should be men known to the Government and responsible to it; men whose reputation and character would be in some measure a security for the justness of their judgment. They should be confirmed by the Senate. Who are these three commissioners, two of whom will decide this question? Most likely the very men who have been named in this connection as having already given a judgment that it is of no account whether the Government retains this island or not. I assume nothing in saying that such an abnegation of duty and responsibility on the part of this House is unbecoming if not indecent. We have no just right to shield ourselves by fixing upon the President the responsibilities growing out of this measure.

We are told again, sir, that in case of war or the anticipation of war the Government may take possession of the whole of this island. Why, sir, the gentleman from New York does not do sufficent justice to the intelligence of the House when he submits such a proposition. With the memory of the late war fresh in our minds, we know that the Government can take any property in time of war, or in anticipation of war. It may occupy every church or private dwelling, or any other species of property. And why should we be called upon to vote deliberately by yeas and nays that in time of war the United States may take possession of its own property? The recognition of this power in this bill is a mere evasion of our duty, and an unworthy pretext for an act that cannot upon any just grounds be defended.

But we have urged upon us the authorized statement of the engineers that if this road be laid upon piers placed in a certain manner at certain distances there will not be any "appreciable" injury to the harbor. Sir, every man knows that the ocean currents are subtile and incomprehensible powers; that the effects of their movements cannot be easily foretold; that we cannot anticipate with certainty what will endanger or what will benefit a harbor. It is said that these piers will not cause an appreciable" injury. Why should we do any injury to the harbor of San Franciscothat harbor upon which we are dependent for the majestic commerce that is to flow to us during the next fifty or one hundred years from the empires of the East, which are just opening to us their treasures? Why should we strike at that harbor in any manner?

66

But let me say to the gentleman from New York-ay, Mr. Speaker, let me call the attention of the House to the fact-that these piers will materially and permanently injure that magnificent harbor; that they will not only obstruct its use, but that they may destroy it. If any weight is to be given to our experience with other harbors, we may well pause before we sanction such a measure as this, the consequences of which none of us can anticipate and none can estimate or limit. This bill, if it shall receive the approval of Congress, will end in the construction of solid embankments

for this railroad to rest upon. Piers will not be used. The moment you pierce the bottom of a harbor by the sharpened pile, that instant you begin solid structures. The sediment which accompanies every ebb and flow of the tides will settle about them until it usurps the place of the waters, and then these parties will come to Congress for authority to complete the inevitable and natural effect of the ebb and flow of tides by filling the spaces where water may still rest, without affording either channel or current for the benefit of commerce or of the harbor. This effect has been witnessed in the harbor of Boston. Wherever piles have been driven or piers constructed, under just such evasive legislative acts as this, the result has been the formation of solid structures which no Legislature would have authorized or justified.

You see the same thing in every part of the world. Wherever piers are laid for structures of this kind they are followed by solid embankments of earth or stone. This has been the case in New York, London, Liverpool, Paris, and St. Petersburg. The same results can be seen in the embankments just completed at the Isthmus of Suez. Structures begun in this way have been uniformly followed by solid embankments. Will the gentleman from New York, or any one of the advocates of the surrender of the property and rights of the Government to this corporation, say that these embankments, when they shall become solid, will not impair, obstruct, or destroy the commercial advantages of the harbor of San Francisco?

Why should we adopt this measure now? Sir, this corporation can wait six months or a year. But when the United States has surrendered its property in this way, there is no remedy; it is bartered away for all time; we are abandoning the interests of the Government; we are abandoning the defenses of the country, not for a few months, but for centuries, and committing an irremediable wrong. We are abandoning the commercial privileges of the people when we surrender by this act at this moment this island so necessary to the public defense. Let us attend to the rights of American citizens who are in chains, manacled with felons, serving out, perhaps, life sentences in penal colonies of foreign countries. Let us attend to our destroyed commerce. Let us reduce our taxes. Let us do any of those things which the President and the people call upon us to do, instead of seizing this moment, so urgent for other duties, to waste public property and surrender a strategic position necessary to the preservation of its liberty and the maintenance of its commercial power. If there were any reason for it I would not speak so earnestly against it; but there is no reason for it. We can do this act-I cannot describe it as I ought to with due consideration to my obligations to the House-but let us do this hereafter. There may be a time even for an act of impolicy and dishonor; there may be a time even for an act like the one now under consideration; but it should be-hereafter!

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. Speaker, I shall expend, no time in commenting on the taste which imputes to the largest committee in this House unmanly evasion in the reporting of this substitute. Neither shall I stop to comment on the good taste which charges in fact that the President of the United States in the designation of these commissioners will select bad men, men who perhaps are interested in the grant. Sir, the President of the United States needs no such defense at my hands. The power is lodged with him as in other cases of this nature, and he will exercise it honestly. If not, he is responsible.

But I spurn the insinuation that the President will select men for commissioners to appraise the value of this island who are venal men, who are mercenary men, or who are interested

in this corporation. I have looked to the eloquent gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] for argument, not for invective. But, sir, where is the argument which the gentle man from Massachusetts has adduced against this bill? He comes here with the oft-repeated and stale cry that this bill if carried into exe. cution is to work the destruction of this island for military purposes. I oppose to that declaration the declaration of the General of the armies of the United States, General Sherman, who said to me this bill, if carried into execution, would be greatly to the advantage of the Government of the United States, and this island for military purposes would be greatly enhanced by this improvement. Every gentleman who has been in the harbor of San Francisco knows that this island is a barren rock, which at points rises three hundred feet above the elevation of the sea. The parts of the island pointing to the city and toward the Golden Gate can only be used for military purposes, and the bill provides that the President of the United States shall select the portion to be used for military purposes. Who is better fitted for this purpose than he? General George H. Thomas said two years ago when I was in the city of San Francisco that if Nature had settled anything it was that Goat Island should be the terminus of the Pacific railroad. Every man who has inspected the island and examined the sheltered nook in the southeastern part knows that is the only place where vessels can lie in security. They cannot lie opposite that part of the island fronting the city, because the tides come in so heavily through the Gate; but in this sheltered nook they may lie in perfect security. It was stated also by General Sherman that the portion of the island blasted down, as it must be if used by the railroad, will furnish a most secure site for an arsenal for the storage of munitions of war, as it would be out of the way of the bombardment of a hostile fleet in the bay. It was his argument that the approach from the main land will afford a means of getting to the island in case the bay were blockaded by a hostile fleet.

Sir, the Government of the United States should never sell this island, but it admits of the use here proposed without any injury to the Government, and it is the only divided use it does admit of. Yet we are told by the gentleman from Massachusetts, in face of the fact that this bill provides for the appointment of a board of commissioners to appraise the damages, that this is a gift to a corporation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire, during the few remaining minutes allowed me, to bring the House back from the turmoil of debate here, and from the agitation in the city of San Fraucisco, to the merits which the committee believe are involved in this measure. I am aware of the great prejudice existing against railroads. I remember, sir, in the Thirty-Seventh Congress, when the gentleman from California [Mr. SARGENT,] who now sits in front of me, and to whom this country is indebted more than to all other agencies for the Pacific railroadI remember well when he stood up here, and, amid opposition and ridicule, advocated this line of railroad. We were willing then to grant him anything he might ask. We were in search of men who had boldness and courage and hardhood enough to undertake this gigantic enterprise.

At last, after Congress had voluntarily tendered its subsidies, a set of men were found bold enough to undertake this great work and carry it to completion; and when at Promontory the last spike was driven into the last rail of the track, the country rang with plaudits and the praises of those men; but after we had become a little accustomed to the vastness of the work, and after it began to be sus pected that the men who had carried it to successful completion had reaped, in a pecuniary point of view, some reward for their labor, then many were ready to cry those men

down; and now, in this Hall, they are daily denounced as mercenaries and thieves. No man can stand on this floor to-day to advocate any measure which has the name of a railroad in it without being liable to be maligned by gentlemen here who arrogate to themselves all the virtue of the House.

Sir, I grant that corporations in this country as in all countries are grasping. I grant, if you please, that this Central Pacific Railroad Company is grasping. Those who constitute this corporation are men who are looking for their individual gain like all men who engage in enterprises of this character. Sir, let us array ourselves in all legitimate ways against this overshadowing influence of corporations, which they are exercising in this country, if the assertions of gentlemen are to be believed. But, sir, let us be careful that in giving vent to that feeling we do not prejudice other interests of this country.

Now, sir, there are certain facts in connec tion with this measure which have been asserted by me before in this debate, and which have never been contradicted. I point to the fact that this line of Pacific railroad now terminates on the east shore of the Bay of San Francisco, to which shore no vessel with a draught of over three feet of water can approach. I point to the further fact which has been brought out in this pamphlet, a copy of which I hold in my hand, embracing the correspondence between the mayor, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, and other prominent citizens of San Francisco, with these five engineers of the United States who have been referred to in this debate; the fact that in the opinion of these five engineers not only can this line of road come nowhere else, but other railroads in contemplation, including the great Southern Pacific, now pointing to the city of San Francisco, cannot approach the Bay of San Francisco in any other way than upon the eastern shore. I ask the Clerk to read the passage from this pamphlet which I have

marked.

The Clerk read as follows:

"Question. Is it a fact, as intimated by Governor Stanford, in his letter of the 11th instant, to the board of supervisors of San Francisco, (copy inclosed,) that the Southern Pacific railroad, will, in order to avoid the heavy grades necessary consequent upon passing from the Tulare valley into the Santa Clara valley, be compelled to send its business by way of the San Joaquin valley, and thus reach San Francisco in company with the railroad system of the north by Livermore pass, or by the straits of Carquinez and Oakland?" Is the topography of the Diablo range of this city of such a character that the thirty-fifth parallel road will be unable to reach San Francisco on a direct line from the southward up the peninsula?

Answer. From the best information we can obtain, we are of the opinion that Governor Stanford is correct in his statement that the Southern Pacific railroad will be forced by economical considerations to pass through the San Joaquin valley. And we believe that a train of cars placed at any point in that valley, from one end of it to the other, could be brought, at the present time at least, to San Francisco cheaper, and in less time by the way of Antioch and the straits of Carquinez and Oakland, than by any other route."

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. Speaker, I have caused this portion of that pamphlet to be read to demonstrate the proposition that not only all the commerce that the line of the Pacific railroad takes to San Francisco is landed on the eastern shore now, but also that all the commerce which will hereafter pass over the lines now in process of construction, including the great southern line, must be left on the east side of the bay. It is demonstrated by an examination of the Coast Survey charts that no ship can approach the shore, hence the necessity for lighterage, cartage, and other charges upon every pound of commerce destined west; and so with all coming in an easterly direction; every pound of commerce must be transshipped, lightered over to the wharf, and carted to the Central Pacific railroad. I stated in the former debate upon this bill that I had carefully estimated in connection with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CROCKER] and the gentleman from New

York, [Mr. WILLIAMS,] experienced railroad men, the expense per ton of this literage, cartage, &c., and that we could make it less than two dollars per ton. Now, I put the proposition plainly to the House whether the entire commerce of this country passing through that port both ways shall pay to the private wharfowners of San Francisco two dollars per ton, or shall the Government through this bill not only prevent the delay of transshipment, but exempt commerce from this private taxation?

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire why should this burden be put upon the commerce of the world in the harbor of San Francisco? Why should the House refuse the same facilities that are enjoyed by commerce elsewhere in this country?

Mr. WOOD. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. WHEELER. Certainly.

Mr. WOOD. I would ask him whether he would support a proposition in this House to give to the Harlem Railroad Company running to the city of New York the use of Governor's Island, Government property, lying off the city?

Mr. WHEELER. I would not support the proposition for a gift. I would support a proposition to sell it to the Harlem Railroad Company, if it became necessary for commerce, or that the President should appoint a commissioner to appraise the value and sell it to the company, but I would not support the proposition, as I do not in this case, to give them the use of the island.

Mr. WOOD. I understand the gentleman to say, then, that he would vote for a proposition to give the use of Governor's Island, within three hundred yards of the Battery in New York, to the Harlem Railroad Company.

Mr. WHEELER. The gentleman does not understand me. If, in my judgment, it was indispensable to the commerce of the country, I would vote to sell it, not to give it.

Mr. WOOD. But to a railroad corporation? Mr. WHEELER. To a railroad or any other corporation, if thereby commerce was to be facilitated.

Mr. WOOD. Very well; it is all right; that is on record.

Mr. WHEELER. I now ask the previous question on the bill, substitute, and amend

ments.

Mr. HOLMAN. I rise to a question of order. When the gentleman from New York called the previous question on the motion to reconsider, it was certainly stated by him that amendments would be open for consideration. Mr. WHEELER. I will hear them.

Mr. HOLMAN. I offer the following amendment, to come in at the end of the first section of the substitute:

But no provision of this act shall take effect until the said Central Pacific Railroad Company shall have paid into the Treasury the sums paid by the United States as interest on the bonds issued by the United States for the benefit of said company and now remaining unpaid.

Mr. WHEELER. I decline to admit that amendment.

Mr. HOLMAN. I rise to a question of order. The gentleman stated that amendments would be considered to this bill.

Mr. WHEELER. I said that I would hear amendments read for my consideration.

Mr. HOLMAN. That was not the statement, and if the gentleman thinks a moment he will remember that it was not.

Mr. WHEELER. The gentleman, I hope, does not think me green enough to admit all the amendments which he and other opponents of the bill might desire to offer.

Mr. HOLMAN. The gentleman said they should be considered.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I recollect distinctly what the gentleman from New York said. He said, "I will consider them."

Mr. BANKS. I beg the gentleman's pardon. The language he used was, "shall be considered."

« ÎnapoiContinuă »