Mr. WI. SON, of own. I beg leave to state that when the bill was reported by the ComMilAffrs, aiier listening to the discussion that occurred on that occasion it seemed to me that the case, as presented by that bill, would be looked upon by the country as amere picking up of a quarre between 2 railway corporations in the State of NewJersey, for adustment in the Congress of the U.S. seamedtoine that the action proposed by the ComMilAffrsin the bill reported by them was objectionable in thatrespect, and for the purpose of avoiding that objection, and of applying a general principle to all rail wayinterests and commerce in the U.S., I submitted a substitute for the hill to rted by the committee, which substitute was finally ag proved by the committee, adopted, and passe. certainly had no intention, either open or concealed, public or private, either made known orkept within my own mind, of releasing the Illinois Central Railroad Company or any other railroad company from their obligations to the Government of the U.S. embraced in any law concerning them, and I think in action in relation to the appropriations to which the Gentfrom Illinois [ML Wasn nUaNE] has referred, during the 38th Congress, gives sufficient evidence that I adno intention of releasing the Illinois Central Railroad Company from any obligation resting upon it. Ildztead of having any such intention, it will be remembered by every member of the present House who was a member of the 38th Congress, that I stood out with the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. Wasnnnaxn] and several others, until almost the very last hour of the session, in insisting that no part oi the mono embraced in the Army appropriation bill should bed to the Illinois Central Railroad Company or transportation of troops, supplies, or munitions of war and more than that. I not only insisted upon applying that provision to that railroad company, but also to all the railway companies within my own State and my policy, or the proprietyof my course in that regard, was called in question by my colleagues from Iowa, who thought I was too severe instead of bein too liberal in regard to those railways; that was crippling rather than strengthening the railway corporations of my own State by insisting on an observance of the provisions of the grants of land to them as I understood them and if the language of this bill, by any system of construction, can be made to sustain the views given by the Gentfrom Massachusetts