Mr. SHERMAN. I thought we had sold all the saline lands; but whether so or not, I think it is the policy of the llU.S. to get rid of them. This bill gives the mineral lands to the people where they are in Nevada and in the other mineral States, for 5 dollars an acre, nothing more and nothing less. It gives them the lands for probably less than it will cost to lay them out, survey them, locate them, plat them, and sell them, so that it is substantially a grant of the mineral lands to the settlers in the mineral regions, and that policy I am in favor of adopting; while on the other hand, if you should adopt the proposition now made by.the Senfrom Oregon the U.S. would retain possession and control of these lands, would e subject to expenses, and there would be no legal right, no legal title to the improvements made on these lands. A settler going upon a claim and building his improvements upon the land there has no title whatever; the title to the improvements is in the U.S.; he has nothing but a os sessory title, a customary right which the U.S. at any time may destroy; and it. seems to me that nothing could be more inju‘ rious to the people who go to our mineral lands than this system of affairs no title, no right, a man's improvements at anytime subject to the legislation of Congress,ducement' to make imprqytgments no harem Ermaneut settle mpnt. One objecti yttnd n tobjec tiop made to the iss'ion' o 0 Grade was that her population was so changeable that4 or 5 years ago it was more than it was the last 2 or 3 years. The reason of that is that no man can get a title to land; their title‘ to their lands is simply possessory, it may be destroyed at any time by the U.S or even by their local laws. It seems to me that under the circumstances all the gentlemen from that region of country should be in favor of divesting the U.S. of its title and reposing it in some way in the people whomay live there. I am therefore in favor of the general principle of the bill. The bill introduced by me, upon which the debate is pending, was iramed carefull at the Treasury Dept, havin also be ore them a bill framed at the Land dice, and all the various bills were combined together, to carry out the general idea of divestin the U.S. of its interest in these Iands upon such terms as would substantially pay the expense of laying out and surveying them. The great body of the lands, even in the mining district, are agricultural lands. They are subject 0 entry and sale precisely like any other agricultural lands, while the mineral lands may be divided into small tracts and the title may be conveyed by patent. The conVeyance of the surface conveys the lode or lead, whichever way it may lead. This is reversing the ordiuar effect of a patent to land, the title of which descends to tecenter pfd the earth, and does not follow the lead or o e. The original bill framed in the Treasury Dept carried out the general idea of disposing and getting rid of the title to mineral land and vesting it in the occupier of the soil at just about the rate that would pay for surveying and laying down and patenting, no more and no less. The amendment reported by the ComMining does not vary the essential features of the bill. It makes them still more liberal to the miner by redu cing the rate of taxation, and containing some other provisions in regard to the manner in which occupying claimants of mines may get a patent an title. That is the principal may terial difference. Under the circumstances, it seems to me, with very limited knowledge of the profession of mining, and with no knowl edge of the subject matter except that derived from knowledge of our land laws, it would be better for Congress to adopt either the original bill or the substitute, and thus dispose an get rid of the mineral lands of the U.S. I believe it would do more to encourage the settlement of the mining regions, to induce people to go there to make permanent improvements if they can get a good title, than any other measure that can be proosed. It seems to me that no man with ouri eas of prudence and care would be willin to build exensive improvements upon lands the title 0 which he does not possess, and that that general idea is sufficient to induce all of us to vote for this disposition of the mineral lands. I shall therefore vote against the amendment of the Senfrom Oregon, and vote either for the original bill or for the substitute. I do not see any objection to the substitute, and shall vote for it, and hope the subject may thus be got rid of. I do not so pose that any scheme can be devised that will make this sys tem for the sale of the mineral lands very much like our other system for the sale of the publi0 lands, which was changed very much from time to time, until finally the present land system was adopted. 'I may say that the whole history of our public lands was a system ofchange. it is only Within the last 4 or 5 years that the homestead principle has been adopted, which has disposed of the great body of the public land. tormerly it was sold at 2 dol ars an acre, and legislation varied from year to year, until finally it became the settled pol icy of the U.S. to encourage the occupation of land by the actual occupier, and to give him a title, for nothing, to alimited quan tity of the public land. ‘his bill ap lies to the mineral lands the same system that has been applied to the other lands of the U.S.