Mr. HOWE. The recollection of the Senfrom Illinois is not entirely accurate in reference to the history of this claim. He is }. correct in saying that many years ago Jongress made a grant of land to the Territory of Wisconsin for the purpose of constructing a canal in Wisconsin. He is entirely incorrect in supposing that the State of Wisconsin was charged with any responsibility about that growing out of the failure to construct the canal. The State of Wisconsin was not in existence; the grant was made to the Territory and the Territory was expressly directed by the terms of the grant to dispose of the land and to pay the money over to a particular agent. }. the act, to wit, the Milwaukee and Rock River Canal Company. The only thing possible for the Territory to do in com: pliance with the act was to sell the land and pay the money over to the company. What the company did with the money was a matter over which the Territory had no control. But it was required that the canal should be built; if not built the Government was entitled to receive the lands back, and the State might make herself liable to pay for the lands if, when the Territory became a State, she by an act of her Legislature accepted the terms of the grant. The State never did accept the terms of the grant. Long before the State came into existence the work was proved to be a failure. And the State had no controversy with the canal company, none whatever; and we never applied to Congress to settle any difficulty with the canal company. The State claimed that the U.S. owed her 5%. of the net proceeds of the public lands disposed of within her limits, and we asked the U.S. to pay that simple claim which you paid to everybody else. They had an account in the interior Dept showing precisely what it was, but jwould not pay it. Why? Because they said the U.S. had made this grant of lands to the Territory to build the canal; the canal had not been built, and the lands had not been paid for. The State an swered that she was not responsible for building the canal, and was only responsible for the right use of the money received from the grant. A portion of the lands granted had been sold by the Territory, and part of the money had been paid over to the company, as the act making the grant directed; another portion had not been paid over; and the State said, “We are undoubtedly responsible for this money which we have received from the lands and which we have not paid over to the company; that money is in our hands; it does not belong to us.” The canal company said, “It belongs to us.” We rather thought it belonged to the U.S. At all events, and inasmuch as we received the lands from the U.S. we thought we ought to account to the U.S. for the lands. The question was a question between the canal company and the government of the U.S., which owned the money in our hands that we had not paid over. That was the question which Congress was called upon to settle and did settle by the resolution of July 1, 1864. That resolution I have. There you decided that that money, to the extent of the expenditures made by the canal company, belonged to the company; that it was a fund put in the hands of the Territory for the express use of that company in the execution of that work; and if they. their own money in in lieu of the money derived from those lands they ought to have the money derived from the lands to that extent; you decided that; here is your resolution; you said then this: “That the SecyInterior shall, in adjusting the amount due the State of Wisconsin under existing laws as, 5,%, of the net proceeds of sales of the public lands within her imits, estimate and charge against her the yalue of the 125,431 and 82 100ths acres of land granted to the Territory of Wisconsin to aid in the construction of the Milwaukee and Rock River canal, which have been sold by said Territory or said State at $1.25per acre, and as much more as the Territory and State received upon the same upon sales of any part thereof at a higher He was to charge us with this quantity of land at $125 an acre, and if we sold any of it sfournmnore than $125, to charge us that extra “ and shall credit said State with the amount that has been legally and properly applied by said State or Territory ctoonwstarrudcttihoencoofsstaoifdscealnlinagl.”said land and That is the way the Secretary was to settle with us; give us credit for the 5%., charge us with the lands at what we got for them less the amount which it cost to make sale of the lands and the amount which we had paid over to the company. Well, then, about the company: o to“Athned Milwaukee Secarnedta Rryocskhal Rl iavlesros Centlael Cnodmapllaonwy such sums of moneyas have been properly expended by said company in the survey and location of said eanal, in the construction thereof as far as the same been constructed, together with dams, locks, and slack water navigation, and in theokeeping and the same in repair; and thesameshall bepaid to the said canal company out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, oexceeding in amount, however, the balance charged against the State of Wisconsin upon the salesof said canal lands, as above required, after deducting the sum allowed. State for money paid by her out of the same und. That is the wo you proposed to treat the canal company. When you had set off against what you owed us on the 5%, fund the amount of money in our hands derived from the canal grant, that money was then in your hands; it was then in the Treasury of the U.S., and you directed here that out of that fund, to the extent of it, should be paid this claim of the canal company; for what? “Such sums of money as have been properly expended by said company in of said canal, the survey and location in the construction thereof asfar as the same has been constructed, togetherwith dalms, locks, and slack water navigation, and in the management and keeping the same in repair.” Under that resolution the SecyInterior, undertook to Mr. HENDRICKS. adjTuhste this account. ComrGLO.