Mr. Dawes] for a short time; “Let me appealto the House. Is there anything unreasonablein the proposition I if have offeredthat this bill shall passthen the Gentfrom Iowa shall introduceand passhis amendmentin theshape Ofan explanatoryJtResolution‘3” In answer to that I said: “The gentlemanmakesthat suggestionto me. I will sayin reply. if. as the gentleman adopt this amendmentitwould defeastays.we should the bill in the Senate. why would not the amendmentbe also do feated in the Senate if sent to them in the shape of an explanatoryJtResolution?” The gentleman then said: "I do not say it would be defeated if sent to the Senate as an independentmeasure." To this I " replied: Ifthis will bedefeatedwith the same thing in it. I would like to know whetherthe Senatewould not be likely to defeatan independentbill." "What was the gentleman’s response? I will just gose far as to pledge that the friends of the bill shall vote for it." New, sir, I have prepared this bill in accordance with that understanding; and I hope the House will pass it. I am not endeavoring to give any construction to the act of 1564 other than that given to that act by the persons who voted on the passage of that bill. I do not seek to take any advantage of the Union Pacific railroad, eastern division, nor of the Central Pacific railroad of California; nor do I wish to take any advantage of the Union Pacific Railroad Company. I only ask that this matter shall be carried out as was suggested at that time. If that bill means what it was alleged to on that day, then this explan atory act will not interfere one iota with that act. If it means something more than was claimed on that occasion, then this explanatory not should pass. that the intention of the House in passing that bill should be placed upon the statute. Now. that is all there is in this case. I am not seeking, as I have said, to take advantage of anyone of these roads. I have to preserve faith with the people who have been lookin to our legislation with a view to settlement an, investment; that is 0.111desire. I may remark that the bill does not ive any construction to the 2nd section oft e bill which passed the other day, being the only section in which the California company is interested. I demand the previous question.