Mr. JULIAN. I will answer with very great pleasure. I answer that, so far is it from be in true that these facts warrant the policy of this bill, the policy of making this confusion and conflict a basis ofaction, they prove directly the reverse. What you want is not to recognize this system of uncertainty and instability, but to sweep it away, and usher in through the authority of the nation a system of perma nence and eace. The bill before us hands over the miners everywhere to interminable litigation, discord, and strife. Instead of leading them out of the bondage into which the non-action of the Government has led them, it leaves them to wrestle with their destiny as best they may. That is what the nation will do in remanding this question to the miners, as provided for in this bill. Mr. Spenker, I will tell the Gentfrom California [Mr. BIDWELL] what these facts and statements which I have read prove. They prove the absolute necessity for interposing the arm of the national Government through its system of surveys, and thus clearing avfiy this disorder and confusion through the well adapted machinery of the land dept. That is my answer to the Gentfrom california. This machinery is as old as the Government, and perfectly fitted to do the work without any newinventions. My friendfrom NewHampshire [Mr. MARs'ros] suggests that this bill over turns the common law of the world, by allowing one man to run halfa mile under the land of another. Imny have occasion to refer to that in another connection before I conclude. I resume the reading of the Nevada report: “2. As to permanencyof the rogulations, evcnsuch as they are, there is now no guaranteeevenof that. A miners' meeting adopts a code; it stands apparently as the law. Sometime after. on u.fewdo s’ notice, a corporafsguard assembles n. nd.on simp emotion, radically changesthe whole system by which claims maybe old in a district.” And this local custom of miners, " enacted by “a corporafs guard” of adventurers, who are here today and gone tomorrow, is to be the basis of a national policy, and the harbinger of order and peace in the mining regions! In stead of extirpating this pernicious system, or rather lack of all system, we now propose to set it up as 0.rule, and coolly ask the nation to conform its policy to it. I will read on: " Before a man may traverse the State, the laws of a district. which by examination and tudy he may have mastered.may be swept away and no longer stand asthe laws which govern the interest hemap; haveaequired, and the change has been one which byno reasonablediligence could he be expected to rheagviestkenroewdulepdogneof. But ifthe lawsbeuni form and thestatute book of the State, he will have security in his tenure, and reasonablenotice of any changetherein. 3. As to protection to the miner and encouragement to the capitalist, the present system or lack of system, affords neither. T ie curseof uncertainl of titles to land in our sister Statedid not, throng 15 years of her history, more paralyzeher prog ress, than the nncertaint of mining titles in the outside districtsnow retar s yearsago our development. 5 a hordeof greedy prospectors, from every ipnagrtthoef ir the Ppeilic coast.sweptover our State. leav nngle, thniorkticeassof location on every'dip, snur, and leaves in Vallembrosa.’ and after a year or two of fever is unrest, swarmedawayagain to the newer fieldsof Idaho and Montana. leaving nothing to mark their passagebut their fuded‘no ticcs' moldering on the hill sides. their pitiful burlesguo of development in the way of assessment work, an the threatening: terrors of the common law doctrine as to ‘vested righte.’" Sir, in the light of these remarkable facts, coming to us in an authentic form from the State of Nevada herself, I argue the folly of now establishing any new dispensation on any such foundation. I repeat it, what the nation wants today, what the miners and the whole country i are liungering and thirsting for, is the interposition of the national Government through the directing hand of the land dept, dispelling the chaos and disorder which now afflict the mining regions, bringing light out of darkness, and opening up the pathway to prosperity and ieace. That is what we want. Wliy, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the U.S. declares that congress “shall make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the U.S.” What right has the Congress of the U.S. to abdicate its jurisdiction over this great'domnin? What right has the central Government, owning these lands in fee, to say to these embryo communities in the far West that it gives up to their absolute discretion and management these eat magazines of mineral wealth? Why, sir, it would be a most wanton reereancy to the grand trust devolved upon us ifwe should do so. Here is the GLO in Washington, with its local land offices multiplying in every portion of the public domain in which they are demanded. The State of Nevada has registers and receivers, with their offices locate in the very midst of her minerals, and armed under existing laws with the power to deal with all questions which may arise alfectin the public lands. 'lhe register an receiver under the laws of Congress, charged with the execution of our land policy within their respective districts and in the vicinity of the matter in dispute, can call parties before them, hear their statements, take evidence, and determine the whole matter, with the reserved right of either party who may feel ag rieved to appeal to the GLO at Vashington or to the Federal courts under existing laws. Why doyou propose to take away from the register and receiver of the land districts of nevada theirjurisdiction over this question? Why do you wish to confer the jurisdiction and settlement of a national question upon a State or territorial tribunal? Did anybody, before this bill was introduced, ever hear of such a proposition? Can Congress thus delegate such a power? Mr. Speaker, it is said that the reason why these disputes should be referred to the local tribunals is that the are disputes about the possession of the land only, and not about the title; that it only involves the question as to whether A or by has been the tres asser upon the possessory title of the other. Vhy, sir, if you will read this bill you will find that the question of possession is the question of title, or it declares expressl that the party to whom is awarded by the loca court the possession of the land shall thereupon receive the title from the Federal Government. A novel idea, indeed, that this does not involve anything but the right of possession; that I, owning a tract of land about which 2 men are quarreling, shall not have the right to say that the honest man and not the rogue shall take it if I see fit to grant it to either. The nation owns the fee of every rood of these mineral lands. Every inch of them is, today, legally the property of the Republic. The title is in the great body politic of the nation; and is it not a surprising doctrine that the Government, representing this body politic, shall not be consulted as to the question of title between conflicting claimants? The House cannot fail to see that this question of possession, which it is proposed to refer to the local tribunals, is a question of title. The gentlemen from California know it. They know that the moment the question of possession is settled under this bill, it is made the duty of the land dept to execute a patent accordingly. ven if it were not so, there is no occasion for transferring the question from the land dept of the Government to the local tribunals of the miners. The machinery of the Land Office is well understood and is perfectly adapted to the work of settling all disputes. Sir, I repeat, what we want today is the intervening arm of the national authority in the settlement of all disputes and the consequent security of titles. I see here around me gentlemen from the Northwest who know something about the policy pursued in relation to the lead and copper mines in the upper eniu sula of Michigan and in the State of Il ine is. Years ago we adopted the policy of leasing those mineral lands, and retaining the fee in the national Government. The result was an utter failure, financially and otherwise. We established, at length, the policy of survey and sale, and I remember that Congress instituted a geological survey, which was conducted, I think, by a distinguished scientific Gentfrom my own State, David Dale Owen, in connection with another gentleman; and their labors proved to be of great value to the country and to the land dept. We had also the ordinary land survey and subdivision of the mineral regions, and the lands were opened to purchase upon 6 months’ notice. The moment we instituted this policy ofsurvey and sale order began to bear rule in the mining regions, sober and intelligent citizens became purchasers and settlers, and organized and prosperous commu‘ nities were established. Sir, I would enact a law and the ComPubLands have agreed upon a bill to that effect extendin our surveys over all these mineral lands. he bill provides, in connection with the general survey, for a geo logical survey, the snrveyor to be a mineralo gist and mining engineer, and the mineral regions to be explored and classified preliminary to their sale. The bill, however, provides that these lands shall be open to occupancy and settlement, and the title is to be conferred in fee upon every man who is, or shall hereafter be ound, in the occupancy of the lands, and developing the same, on payment of the fees of the Land office and the costs of survey. Unlike the bill before the House, we require no 1,000 ddllars' worth of improvement beforehand, and no 5 dollars peracre as a price, but we say to the adventurers and explorers from all quarters: explore these mineral regions; select our claim; occupy and improve it in good faith, and you shall have your lead or vein of land, with its minerals, on these conditions. This is the homestead law, in its essential principles, applied to these fields of gold and srlver. That is the policy that I propose. A bill making provision for these things and conforming to the land policy of the U.S. has been agreed upon by the ComPubLands, as I have stated; and I have offered the sections of that bill as a substitute for the bill now before us. I hope, if any legislation is to be had upon this subject at this session, it will be legislation of that character, and I can u see no reason whatever for discarding the well tried instrumentality of the Land Office for the purpose oftrying experiments like this. Iknow it is said by the friends of this bill that these mines are so numerous and so peculiarly situated, and the strife growing out. of them is so unusual, that the land dept is incapable of settling it at.all; that it would cost the miners more than their claims are worth to settle their disputes except in their local tribunals, and that it would be practical confiscation to require these disputes to be settled as other land controversies. But why should this be so? There are land offices in the mining districts. The are there for the purpose of surveying and disposin of the agricuffnral lands. The machinery of these offices extends every where over the Republic, and whether it applies to the gold and silver lands or not. I want to know why these offices cannot be used in the settlement of these difficulties.