Mr. HENDRICKS. it is a grant of land. The grant is complete. If the road be not built of course the lands will not be realized by the company undertaking to build it. The point the Senator made the other day, as I understand it, was that I charged against the State of Kansas what was granted to the pacific Railroad Company, and that that was. nted, not to the State, butto the company. but difference does it make to the land interest of the country? If Congress sees fit to at land to a corporation in the State of Kansas, that is not to be charged to the State of Kansas as a portion of the publib lands 0ing to make important improvements in that State. Why, sir, that principle would exclude us from considerin as against the State of Kansas the grant that it is now proposed to make, for that is not a grant to teState of Kansas for her own benefit, but this is agrant to a corporation in the State of Kansas. The Senator told the Senate the other day that this was like the usual grants to States for railroad purposes. The Senator misunderstood the language which he used himself. This bill is a grant to the State of Kansas for the benefit of aparticular company; and in that particular it is altogether different from the other grants that have been made. We make grants to States and give the entire grant to the control of the State, and say that that State may transfer the grant to whatever corporation she pleases. I ask the attention of the Senate to the langna used in this bill, “for the pur ' fiose of aiding the Kansas and Neosho Valley ailroad Company” a particular company that Congress knows nothing about. We cannot tell what the company is by even reading the laws of Kansas. this not a company that is chartered by an act of Kansas. I understand that it is a company organized under some general law of the State of Kansas; and the existence of such a company, its obligations, its responsibilities, its means, can only be ascertained by going to the executive depts of the State. Now, for the purpose of aidin that company in the construction of this run, the bill provides, “there is hereb granted to the State of Kansas for the use an benefit of said railroad company." Is that like the grants that have been heretofore made? 3 years ago we granted land for the construction of a road from Leavenworth by Lawrence to the southern line of Kansas in the direction of Galves ton bay. That grant was made direct to the State, and the State had the control of it. If she saw fit to give it to one company or an other, it was at her pleasure. But this bill prooses to give it directly to the State, not for or use, not under her control, but for the use and benefit of a particular railroad compan, the character and responsibility of which we nbw nothing about. It has been the pol icy of Congress to place the entire responsi bility of these grants with the States a good policy. The State can judge of the responsibility of the corporation that prouses to con. struct the road, whether it is wel to trust that corporation with the control of the land or not; but this bill proposes, in extraordinary language, to made the State but a trustee, and a particular railroad company that Congress knows nothingl about the beneficiary. Is Congress preare to make such a grant as that?