Mr. WINDOM. I do not care to continue the discussion upon this point any further except to say that so far as the Indians in Minnesota being punished was concerned, some 800 to 900 of our people were murdered by them, and only 39 of the murderers were hung. In regard to the bill now under consideration I think it was misunderstood on yesterday. I know that some gentlemen who opposed it argued that it was intended to exten the laws of nnsas over lands which the Indian tribes yet. held. There is nothing of the kind in the bill. The whole object of the bill is to extend the laws of Kansas over lands which the Indians hold in severalty. Ilie Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. Ixcsnsou] tells us that the design of this bill is to enable speculators in Kansas to swindle the Indians out of their land. I know he exonerates the ComIndAffrs from any such design; but he pays but a poor compliment to the committee when he says they are ised by these speculators for this purpose. If there be any such object, [am not aware of it; and I apprehend. from the facts obtained concerning the most of these Indians who live upon these lands allotted to them in serernlty, gentlemen will find that they are a very different class of people to sivindlcrs. I am informed, and I believe it to be a fact, that a portion of the Indians located upon these lands are among the wealthiest people in Kansas. One of them, as was stated yesterday, is now a member of the Kansas Legislature, and I presume he pays taxes. The difficulties which this bill is intended to obviate were clearly stated yesterday by my colleague on the committee, the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. Hosanna] The object is simply to enable the officers of justice in Kansas to execute the laws. I think that the amendment offered by the Gentfrom Penna lVania [Mr. Srrzvsxs] will not meet the difficu ty which, as I understand, does not arise wholly from Indians going off their reservation and committing depredations. White men residing near these allotted lands may commit crimes, and flee to those lands for refuge, and as I understand it, there is no power to execute the laws upon those lands. By the law admitting the State of Kansas, it is expressly provided that these lands held by the Indians shall not be included within the State of Kansas at all. Hence, there may be, for instance, an 80 acre tract, owned by an Indian or a halt breed, and surrounded on all sides by white settlements; yet that tract, under the present law, is not within the State of Kansas. If an Indian ora white man commitsa crime and takes refuie on that tract, how can the authorities of the State of Kansas arrest and punish him? The gentlemans amendment would perhaps obviate the difficulty as to Indians; butI do not think it would do so as to white men. I believe that there is nothing in this bill which would operate to the injury of those Indians. I believe, on the contrary, that it would be a vast benefit to the people of Kansas, both Indians and whites. I propOSe, at a suitable time, to move an amendment, to strike out in the 8th, 9th, and 10th lines the following words; Also over all landssoldintrnstby th U t dSt forwtzibsofladisulalnidsmtae me "" The word “sold” is evidently n mispriut for the word “held.” I stated esterday that the bill extended only to lands Iield in severalty. UntilI saw the bill in print this morning, I thought that that provision had been stricken out.