Mr. FARNSWORTH. I shall not detain the committee with any lengthy remarks on this question. But there are new members here who were not members of the House at the last session; and I do not understand how my colleague could have supposed an amendment such as he has offere would pass this committee unanimously. I see around me a good man members of the House who were members of the last congress who opposed it then, and who opposed it not only by votes but by speeches, and I presume that they have not changed their determination in regard to it. I now rise merely for the purpose of statin this case as it is, and brushing awaythe fog which has been thrown around it by my colleague. I am not in favor of giving to a railroad nor any other company any more than is their just due. At the same time I will not allow any private grudge or any popular demonstration that may e made against this company to swerve me from what I conceive to be an act of justice and legal right. The original charter which passed Congress granting lands to the State of Illinois for the purpose of aiding in the construction of a rail roa providedthatsuchroadshouldbefreetothe Government for the transportation of troops and munitions of war. there is no provision in that act to which my colleague adverted requiring that the company shall transport supplies or troops over the road free O charge. Izlothing of the kind. If the Government sees fit to use the road and put rolling stock upon it for the transportation of troops. it may do so, but nobody it seems to me, could ever have dreamed that in time of a rent war, when the Government kept the entire rolling stock of this road employed in the transportation of its troops and property, it should be allowed to do so without charge thereon. The agent of the railroad company, when the Government desired to use the road for transportation, made a contract with the SecyWar, with the concurrence of the then POTUS, and upon the opinion of the AttyGen, as I understand, all concurring that the railroad company was entitled to payment for the transportation of troops and munitions of war and they were transported by the company in pursuance of a contract that the company should receive so much and no more. I do not remember how much it was, about 2/5ths or 3/5ths the usual tariff of rates, I believe, making allowance for the right of the Governmentto use the road bed and paying the company for the use of the rolling stock, its agents, conductors, and freight men. Now it is true that my colleague, or some other gentleman at the last session of Congress, proposed an amendment similar to this. It is true the House voted it in, and it is true that we voted upon it and discussed it a number of times, the Senate steadily adhering to its 1st vote and non-concurring in the amendment which was proposed in the House, upon a full, free, open and fair discussion. It came back to the House afterwards, and was discussed a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th time, and on each of those occasions my colleague got less votes for his amendment than he got before. It is a very easy thing to propose an amendment of this sort, making an assault upon a railroad company, charge itwith being a monopoly, or with robbing the Government, and all that sort of thing, and in that way to carry such a measure through without regard to right or jus tice. But it does seem to me that when the House shall understand this question, when it shall understand that the railroad company used almost its entire rolling stock, all its agents, conductors, engineers, and other employees in the service of the Government, and that this was a contract made with the SecyWar, upon a careful consideration of the law, the rights of the Government and the rights of the company, it does seem to me that the House will not interfere with that contract.