Mr. TRUMBULL. The 7th section is: “That in order to render effectual the provisions of this act the Legislature of the State to be erected or admitted out of the territory now comprised in Wisconsin Territory, east of give the Mississippi, shall their assent to the same by act to beduly passed.” I do not know what that has to do with it; perhaps the Senator will show. They accepted the lands; they did not complete the work. What then? They are responsible to the Government for this money. They do not want to pay it. They get into a difficulty with their canal company and they come to Congress and ask Congress to settle it, and the Senfrom Indiana here gravely rises and says, “Congress is the proper body to enter into a judicial in vestigation, to resolve itself into a court of chancery to inquire how this canal company expended their money, and settle it upon equi. table principles.” We grant a tract of land to a State to make an improvement on condition that the State shall pay us for the land if the improvement is not made. The improvement fails, and the State modestly comes here and says, “The company we contracted with did not do it, and now we want you to settle betweenus and them and resolve yourselves into a court and hear the testimony and make a decree.” Do you not think we are a compe tent body to do that? “We understand all about it.”. Well, but the Senator says we have committed ourselves to do that. It is true that.". ago we passed a resolution that we would undertake to make this settlement; that is, we authorized the ComrGLO to do it. Now I will refer to that law. It is entitled, “A reso:lution for the relief of the State of Wisconsin;” and what is it? " “That the SecyInterior shall sthe amount due the State of Wisconsin inder exsting laws, as 5%. of the net proceedsof salesof the public lands within her limits, estimate and charge against her the value of 131 25,000 6/100th acres of land granted to the Territory of Wisconsin to aid in the construction of the Milwaukee and Rock River canal, which have beensold said Territory or said State at $125 per aere and as much more as the Territory and state received upon the same upon the sales of any part thereof at Foprice, and shall credit said State with the amount that has been legally and applied by said State or Territory toward the costof selling said land and toward the construction of said canal. And the said Secretary shall also settle and allow to the Milwaukee and Rock River Canal Company” Now, the Government of the U.S. undertakes to settle with that company. What have we got to do with that company? We undertook to settle it and we have got into this difficulty about it; a matter that I do not think Co. was ever competent to settle, but we undertook to settle it. “And the said Secretary shall also settle and allow to the Milwaukee and Rock River Canal Company such sums of money as have been properly expended by said company” We are to decide that here today what has been “properly expended.” We are the chan cellors to determine that question. Have you the evidence before you, Senators, to know whether this money was properly expended, whether it was judicious? {". read in a moment some of the disputed items that you may see “properly expended by said company in the survey and location of said canal, in the construction thereof. as far as the same has been constructed, together with dams, locks, and slack water navigation, and in the management and keeping the same in repair; and the same shall bepaid to the said canal company oauptproopf raiantyed money in the Treasury not otherwise Now we are going to pay money to the canal company out of the Treasury of the U.S. under this resolution "not exceeding in amount, however, the balance charged against the State of Wisconsin.” The 2nd section provides: “That the ComrGLO be and, he is hereby, appointed, Commissioner to adjust the accounts herein provided for, under the supervision of the SecyInterior, and to determine what sum shall be charged to said State of Wisconsin for the lands granted for the construction of said canal, and what sums shall be credited respectively to said State and to said company for the moneys expended by them in the construction of said locks and canal, as herein provided.” There is your court. The ComrGLO, under the direction of the SecyInterior, is constituted a court to determine what sums should be allowed. The ComrGLO, under the direction of the SecyIn terior, has carefully examined and determined what sums shall be allowed, and they appeal from the decision of the tribunal erected at their own instance for the relief of the State of Wisconsin and come here now to this Senate and ask you to overturn the judgment of the tribunal that was created to settle the claim at their own instance. Are you prepared to do it? I ask you, Senators, if you are prepared to do it. Are you prepared to say that the ComrGLO decided wrong? that the SecyInterior decided wrong? What evidence have you got to predicate it upon?. There is no report accompanying this resolution. Tell me now upon what you are going to vote $25,000 out of the Treasury, as it is said; but I will show you in a moment the claim is $77, 138 09, when we come to get the papers. That is the claim. Qn what ground are you going to vote that the Commissioner has decided wrong and that the SecyInterior has decided wrong? You must 3. it on the ground that you, as a court of appeals, have looked into the testimony, have seen what wasFo expended and have become satisfied that "the tribuna created at the instance of Wisconsin has done injustice. As I said before, I think we are a very poor tribunal to do that. But if we must decide it, let us see now what the points of difference are. Here is the report of the ComrGLO, approved by the Secyinterior, the in jhe states that he has examined and adjusted an account between the U.S and the Milwaukee and Rock River Canal Company under the resolution which I have just read for the relief of the State of Wisconsin. He goes on to charge them with the lands, and credits the canal coin ny with the moneys they expended; and then o makes up this statement of the difference: I wish every Senator would take this paper and read it. What is the 1st item? He has allowed $76, 492 77; the company claims $153, 625 86 leaving a difference of 77,000 and odd dollars; and this difference consists in these items: “The amounts charged on account of expenditure for: &c., subsequent to the date of resolution and consequently in no way can be held to fall within its scope– 2900 and odd dollars.” It was right certainly to disallow that. I will not read all these items, but I will read another: pa"yAacbeloeunt charged January 11, 1855, as due and to D. H. f.p.: agent of the company, for general managementof the company business. Disallowed, becausefor the same period Mr. pRricehsaidrednst was paid periodically astipulated salary as and superintendent for a large portion of ftrhoemtim time, ewtaosatlismoea, ltlorawveedlinag ndapnadidoftohrer expense incurred, all of which were no doubt intended to complete his full compensation. This is not, then, a proper expenditure under the terms of the resolution, having been wholly unknown to Congress when tahpepemaraetdteirnwthaes aucncdoeurntesoonfsitdheeractoimonp, aintynuont tihlaavfitnegr the resolution of July 1. ’ Are you prepared, Senators, to vote to have that paid? There is a claim of $11, 174 for extra pay for managing this business by a man who has been paid a stipulated salary all the time, and also extra compensation for mile age and traveling. Your Commissioner disal lowed it.