Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, in relation to the claim I will briefly state according to my recollection how the case has stood from time to time. This land was granted to the Territory of Wisconsin, it is true, to aid this company in the construction of this canal. After a little time the canal project was aban' doned by the Territory as a chimera, a thing that was impossible to be I. done, and the whole failed. But the oclaimed to old against the Territory of Wisconsin a claim for the amount of money which it had expended in the prosecution of the work as far as it had progressed. That claim was pending before I i. a citizen of Wisconsin, and has been pending probably for more than 20 years. On my entering the Senate I found that the U.S. Treasury, under the direction of the SecyInterior, refused to pay over to the State of Wisconsin the 5%. to which it was entitled of the proceeds of the sales of public lands within the State. There was a large sum of money retained in the Treas: ury of the U.S. which belonged to the State of Wisconsin which the State of Wisconsin steadily struggled during a course of years to obtain, but struggled in vain. The reason was that this canal company claimed to be one of 3 parties to an arrangement which in volved not only the State of Wisconsin but the U.S., the U.S. having made the grant, and made the Territory in the 1st instance the trustee of the grant, and, upon the admission of the State of Wisconsin into the Union, made the State take the place of the Territory, as trustee in disposing of this grant for the benefit of the company." One of the resolutions passed at the time of the ad. ision of the State of Wisconsin required the State of W isoonsin to assume and pay all obligationswhich were imposed upon the Territory in, consequence of this land grant. We found this company preferring its claim to the State of Wisconsin, the State of Wisconsin re. fising to pay, and the State asserted that the claim was not a just one. Whenever Wiscon. sin applied to the U.S. for the money in its Treasury belonging to the State of Wis. consin we met this company insisting that the money should not be paid to the State until theywere settled with, and the struggle went on for a course of years. Whenever on the part of the State of Wisconsin the Senators representingthat State presented the claim of theState and endeavored to have a resolution passed by Congress which would direct thement of this money by the SecyInterior, we were met by this company. The question was referred to the ComJudiciary and the ComJudiciary reported in favor of the resolution which was passed some 2 years ago. That resolution assumed that it was the duty of the U.S., before coming to a settlement with the State of Wisconsin, to see that the rights or equitable rights of this company were in some way or other disposed of. We who represented the State of Wisconsin were compelled from necessity to yield to the view which was taken by the committee; and although we did not urge that view, for we urged that the money should be paid over to the State of Wisconsin and that the State of Wisconsin should be allowed to settle with this corporation, the ComJudiciary and the Senate thought it wise to pass the resolution in its present shape. They referred it to the ComrGLO to settle the whole matter; and now, as it seems to me, the only question is, whether the Commissioner in settling it has given the true construction to the resolution which was passed by Congress. It is a simple question of H. on the construction of the resolution itself, whether interest ought or ought not to be allowed to the comny. That is the whole question. Although I struggled against the resolution of 1864 as it passed in its present shape, although I struggled to have a resolution passed which would give the money over to the State of Wisconsin and allow Wisconsin to deal with the company and Congress have nothing to do with it, although I used very much the same argument which my honorable friendfrom Wline is has used today, that this matter of set ement was not a thing for Congress to look into at all, still Congress did decide that they would do equity among all the parties, and apinted the ComrGLO as the tribunal to settle the equities. Now if he has given a wrong construction to this instrument when he has decided that the company is not entitled to interest, I think this a question upon which the Senate can properly pass. If it were upon a question of ct and we were asked to go through the account and see whether he allowed a proper amount for services rendered or for salaries or any of those questions of fact that might involve the calling of witnesses, I would say at once with my honorable friendfrom Illinois that is a thing we should not look into; but is if a mere construction of the resolution of 1864 We are asked to make, whether they are entitled to interest or not. We are asked to pass on that and give our judgment as to a question of law, not a question of fact. This is all I desire to say, Mr. President, on the subject. The motion to reconsider was rejected. POWER OF AMNESTY AND PARDON..