Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senfrom Wisconsin insists upon going on with this resolution I shall not object, though I think it would be better to wait till we have the papers here. I know the fact that there were papers before the ComJudiciary. I was opposed to this report, and I know the fact that those papers were sent with the resolution. I do not know what has become of them. The question is a somewhat complicated one; but I will try and make such of the Senators as will listen to me for perhaps, ten minutes understand the reason why I think this money ought not to be paid. It is a proposition to take $25,000 out of the Treasury and give it, I think, to the canal company. not quite sure that it gives it to the canal company. I will read the resolution: Resolred by the Senate and HoRep of the U.S.A. in Congressassembled, That the resolution entitled." A relief of the state of Wisconsin, ” dreasteodlutJiuolny for the 1, to 1864, contrued as to entitie the Milwaukee and Rock River Canal Company to reimbursement; out of the canal land fund thereinmentioned, for the amounts which are proved to have been paid out by it interest for in carrying on the work mentioned in said former resolution in the same manner as for other sumsby it expended. Also for the amount which is proved to have been expended by it in necessaryre fairs and management of the canal after the date of said resolution, but before the date of the settlement made thereunder: Provided only, That said company shall not receive morethan the amount of the residue of the trust fund arising from the sale of the canal lands charged against said State in said settlement and not heretofore B. over to said company; and the SecyInterior shall complete the settlement by making saidfurther allowances to said companyup to the amount of said resi due of said canal lands fund, and the same shall be paid to said company out of any moneys in ury the Treasnot otherwise appropriated. I was under the impression that the resolution limited it to $25,000, but it seems it does not. It would perhaps appear to do so by construction if we had. the papers here to show how much this trust fund amounted t;o but as the Senfrom Wisconsin insists upon going on without them, I cannot state the amount at this time. I am not sure whether it is $25,000. The case, Mr. President, is about this: some years ago, when Wisconsin was a Territory, this canal company was chartered by the territo. rial Legislature, and a grant of lands was made by Congress to the Territory of Wisconsin for the purpose of making this improvement on condition that the improvement should be made. It so turned out that the improvement was not made; the proceeds of the lands were squandered. in process of time a dispute arose between the canal company and the State of Wisconsin, the State of Wisconsin being responsible to the U.S. for the value of the lands in case they were not used to make this improvement, and the improvement failed. The State of Wisconsin and the canal company got into a controversy, and they came to Congress and asked Congress to settle the difficulty between them; and singularly enough, Congress entered in to make the settlement between the canal company and the State of Wisconsin and authorized an officer of the Government per hans.the ComrGLO but I cannot state positively, having none of the papers here to make a settlement between the State of Wisconsin and this canal company. Congress directed that in making the settlement the State should be charged what she had received for these lands, but not less, at any rate, than $1 25 an acre, which was the minimum price at which the Government sold lands. The Commissioner charged the State with these lands at $1.25 an acre. In this settlement the State was to have a credit for all the money that the company had expended in undertaking to make their improvement. The Commissioner went on and made the settlement, and allowed a credit for every dollar that the company ever expended, and they have ot it. g Now what more is wanted? The Commissioner said they were not entitled to interest on the money they borrowed to make the improvement with, but this canal company say they were. They say, “we were a poor company; we could not make the improvement; it is true we had these lands, but we had to go and bor. row money, and we paid extravagant rates of interest ten%. in order to get money to make the improvement that has never been completed, and now we insist that we shall be aid back the interest that we paid out.” The 8.decided that the law there was a resolution passed on this subject did not authorize him to allow interest to this company. The amount they now claim, my recollection is, is $25,000. Am I not right about it?