Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I renew the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask the attention of the House, and particularly the lawyers of the House, to what little I have to say in relation to this claim. I am conscious that it is a painful duty for members of the House to resist an appropriation for a private claim; but I do trust that the character of this claim may be understood by members before they agree to set a precedent that may involve the nation in an expenditure of millions of dollars. What is this claim? If I understand the facts correctly, Madison Sweetzer was the owner of 2 sections of land, the title to which he derived from certain Indian tribes. The Gov;ernment of the U.S. supposed that it had acquired the title from those tribes. The Land office directed the land to be surveyed; and one section was given to the State of Ohio for canal purposes, and another section of the land was sold. The title of the Government failed because Sweetzer had a rior title derived from the Indian tribes. The grantee of the State of Ohio, and the private individual who derived his title from the Government, took possession of these lands, made improve ments upon them, and have occupied them up to the present time. Madison Sweetzer, who held the original prior Indian title, bronght. an action in the circuit court of the U.S. against the l occupants, and judgment was rendered in his favor. He, I understand from my colleague, has the judgment and can enforce it against. the occupants of the laud. Now, the Government of the U.S. received for one section $2 60 an acre, and for the other he says the U.S. received nothing at all, but there is no doubt that it was of equal value. This is the highest price the Government has received for any land sold for a great number of years. The whole amount received by the Gtwernment would be $4,000. What is this bill? It is not a bill for the relief of the occupants of the land, but it is a bill which proposes to quiet title, the occupants all buying out the prior title held under the Indian tribes, the prior title of Madison Sweetzer. What is the measure of damages the Government propose to pay to quietthese titles? It is not temeasure of damages which may be awarded against the Government if the occupants of these lands could bring an action in a court' of law. If we authorized these occupants to sue in a court of claims their measureof damages, according to the decision in Ohio, would not be the value of the lands. vflint rule does not prevail in more than one or 2 States of the Union. if anywhere. The measure of damages would be simply the money which was paid, without interest, because the occupants under the decision are not entitled to interest unless it be interest after suits have been commenced in the circuit court. In other words, then, instead of getting $32,000, these occupants would get $4,000, with a modicum of interest amounting to a very small sum. Now, this man Sweetzer can enforce a writ Of ejectment by showing his right of possession; but he cannot turn these occupants out until the have been paid for all the improve ments which have been made and for all the taxes which have been paid upon the lands. It will be seen, Mr. Chairman, from the statement I have made in this matter, that the government of the U.S. is establishing a new mode of relief for all persons who acuire land from the Government and whose title appens to fail. It is a mode of relief unknown to any judicial tribunal. Ithas never beforebeen adopted by this Government. It is important and ought to be carefully considered. What, I my you, is to be the result? In the conflict otp titles which must follow the making of land grants for railroad purposes and the passage of land bills for California, as well as the 1,000 other grants in which controversies will arisehHere the hammer fell.] 1‘. conKLING. I rise to oppose the amendment; but I will give the Gentfrom Ohio 9, iart of my time.