Mr. JULIAN? would indicate. There are differenccs, it is true, but by no means to the extent indicated, as some of us know by exerience. Again, it is said that this bill is to overturn the whole land system of the U.S. Sir, the U.S. has had a system applicable to farming lands, but since the discovery of our gold and silver minus, I will ask any gentleman to tell me what system this government has had. In 1850 it was proposed to legislate upon.this subject. A discussion took place in the Senate, but ultimately nothing was done, on the ground that Congress was not sufficiently informed, and it would, therefore, leave the people of the mining region to get along as est they could. Accordingly, they were let alone, and for 17 years they have been going on under their own local rules. Rights of property have own up. Men have spent 17 years oigltheir lives there, and invested their capital. Their future hopes are all centered in that country. They have considered themselves safe hereto fore and I tell you if we could be sure that the Congress of the U.S. would never interfere with our occupation of these lands, would never survey and cut them up into square parcels and sell them at auction, we would not come here asking you to dispose of these lands in the manner proposed by this bill, because the local title would be considered safe. Sir, we ask gentlemen not to put us off. We want security. We have lived there almost a generation, and is it too much that we come ere and ask you to pass this measure? Are we to be charged with being impudent because we are earnest and want you to believe us? We, as American citizens, ask that we shall have the same rights as you have. You own your propertv here. We ask that the Government of the U.S shall give us the same titles to ours. I know that the res onse of every true man is that we are right. Vhy should we be lessees and tenants always? Is that the sys tem that the American Government wishes to establish that all the rest of you may own your homes, but we who delve in the earth for the precious metals shall be tenants and serfs always? I ask the House now to say “no.” Heretofore the U.S. has had no sys tem in rard to the mineral lands. Now we propose that the people shall hold these lands under their local rules. This is a legulization of the system by the U.S., a thing which has never been done except by permission heretofore. We ask that our occupation may be declared legal, simply retaining the right on the part of the U.S. to disgose ultimately of these lands to the possessors. ‘hat is the 1st section of the bill. This bill gives a permissive right to a man in occupation of a mine or lode to buy of the U.S. provided he has expended $1,000 upon it, showm that he is in earnest and has settled in good laitb, and is not seeking to seize it and hold it for speculative purposes. Now, there have been disputes between men over what they consider valuable mines, involving some times millions of dollars. The rights of the different parties to this dispute are dependent on our local rules. We occupy upon the doctrine of possession, upon that great common law that the people have established for themselves during the 20 years past, of which on know nothing and with which Congress has never undertaken to meddle. That deter' mines our rights as between ourselves. Now, we say it is nothing to the U.S. who buys the land, but it is ofimmense importance to us that the man should be held to be the owner who, under our rules, regulations, and customs, is entitled to possession. It is objected to the bill that we are to settle that question in our local courts. I tell you all our rights in those mining regions depend upon local rules and customs, and they must be settled there. We will trust to a jury of our countrymen and to the mode of procedure in our courts, our interests, our homes, our whole possessions much more freely and with much more confidence than we will trust them to any man who happens to be appointed to political position in the Government, whether he be commissioner in a land office or SecyInterior, or a clerk who may be deputed to decide upon our disputes. Our rights that have grown up under the common law give us that equal protection that Englishmen and Americans have always claimed, that their disputes shall be submitted to the courts and to a verdict of their peers. I ask this House not to change that, but let these disputes be settled there in our courts, for we can decide them much better there. Further, let me tell this House that if congress shall say that those disputes must go to the Land Office, it will have the effect of opening litigation which has been settled for years past, and mining claims that are now supposed to be worth 50, 60, or 100,000 dollars, will become worthless the moment the information reaches there that this congress has decided that the SecyInterior shall have the final decision of these claims. Sir, there is not a man from those States and Territories who dare go home and face the indignation of that people if he should vote to throw this property into litigation a ain, after it has passed through the ordeal an had the determination of our highest courts. 1 have stated now all the overturning of our land sys tem which this bill contemplates. You have never had any 5 stem as to our mineral lands. Now, we ask that the determination of the question as to who are rightfully in possession shall be left to our courts, and not to the SecyInterior. IknowI have been a little broken in my argument, for I cannot state it fully and regularly in the brief time that is allowed me. I think I have referred to the prominent objections which have been made to this bill. In regard to whether the amount to be expended by a miner to entitle him to atitle to his claim shall be $1,000 or $500, we are satisfied with the sum as it is in the bill, $1,000. We would not object: to $500, excc t that it would involve delay to amend the bi. And so, too, in regard to the price peracre. We would not object to $1 25, except that the bill now has it 5 dollars peracre, and we think it better be passed that way and changed afterward by another bill, if it should be considered necessary.