Mr. STEVENS. I certainly desire to explain it. Iam hardl ableto make myself hea this morning, and must therefore be indulged in speaking very low. By the act of 1864 the southern division of the Pacific railroad had a right to unite with the main branch anywhere beyond the 100th parallel, provided it received only the amount ofbonds which it would have been entitled to up to the 100th meridian. It was entitled also to the odd sections of land. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the act of 1864 confined the odd sections of land to the original grant, or gave them the whole amount. My CODStfllCHOll is that it gave them the whole amount. But the land beyond the 100th parallel is of little importance anyhow. When the bill was before the House the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. objected to that part only because heVHfBeOarNcEH that conveyed mineral lauds. My amendment provides “that nothing contained in the foregoing bill shall be so construed as to not any mineral lands to the Union Pacific ail road Company.” I have, therefore, obviated that objection. I have said nothing about the land which they would have been entitled to, because, according to my construction, they would be entitled to it under the old law. But the land beyond the 100th meridian, I think, is not worth quarrelin about. If it is considered an original grant there is scarcely a member of the House who would not vote to give the alternate sections beyond the one /100th meridian to the company. I do not thipk the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. WILSON] himself would object to it as an original grant. By the act of 1864 the southern division had liberty, if it reached the 100th degree, or the place of meeting, before the Union pacific road reached there, and if the latter had ceased to operate and to fairly darry on the road, to go on and meet the western Pacific railroad. Now, the explanatory bill of the Gentfrom Iowa takes away that right to 0 on and build that road, for it gives to the Ilnion Pacific railroad under all circumstances the right to go on with its entire line from Omaha to the point where it shall meet the Central Pacific railroad. N ow, that is a very important provision. It takes aim entirely one privilege from the Southern acific railroad and bestows it no where else, namely, the right to unite and go on with the line. The gentleman also proposes to confine the land and bonds according to a map which is already filed, as he says, to the initial point. Now, there never was such a map "filed. A survey was made to Fort Riley, and a map or profile was filed to that point. A conjectural line was marked on some of the maps in the office to a supposed initial point upon the 100th egree, but that ini tial was never fixed and is not fixed to this day. The line from Fort Riley to that initial pomt was to be fixed by the President. It never has been fixed to this day. There was, therefore, no such quantity of land or bonds provided for. But the bill, as passed; only gives them the same amount of land that they would have if they had had time to file their map and had filed it to the initial point, which they never have had time to do; and the main object of that bill was to extend the time from the summer to next December., Now sir, that is all that is done with regard to the Southern Pacific railroad. With regard to the main line. it is a thing with which the Southern Pacific railroad had nothing to do. It is a thing which was fixed according to the desire of the Union Pacific Railroad Company. An alteration was surreptitiously obtained in the law. stopping it on the California side at 150 miles this side of the California line. Now, what does the amendment that I propose say in regard to that? That nothing contained in the forecoing bill shall he so construedas to grant any mineral land to the Union Pacific Railroad Company eastern division. nor to entitle said companyto receivebondsof the U.S.for any greater number of miles than the said companywould have beenentitled to had the bill aboverecitednot beenpassed. Is there anything more honest and fair than that? What objection can any honest man have to it?. Nor shall it be construed to prevent the Union Pacific Railroad Company from receiving the full amount of U.S.bondsand land to which it Would be entitled according to the number of miles ofrond which it may build. Now, what objection can there be to this explanatory act? It declares that the Southern Pacific Railroad Company shall have no more than the original law provides. It declares that the Union Pacific Railroad Company shall be deprived of no right in consequence of the passage of this law. Now. Mr. Speaker, if anything "more than that is wanted, or if anything more than that is contained in the bill of the Gentfrom Iowa, then it seems to me to be unjust. There is more contained in his bill, as I perceive very well. It is very cunningly devised. It takes away 2 very important privileges granted by the law of 1862 and 1864. Ittakes away the right to go where they please. only receiving bonds up to the 100th me ridian. It takes away the right to unite and carry on the road in case the other company should fail. And, according tom construction of the gentle man’s bill and amendment, ittakes away the right of the western road to come on and meet the other. Now, I wish to have 2 sections of the former law read to show that they contain all that I have now stated except the right to file the maps.)