Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have introduced this proviso in conformity to what I supposed to be the unanimous sentiment of the House. After the act was passed by the House to facilitate intercourse between the States, it was suggested such a construction could be given to it that the Illinois Central Railroad Company could receive compensation for the transportation of troops and property of the U.S., which was not aut orize by the lawmaking the grant to the road; and with that understanding, such was the excitement in the House, such appeared to be the feeling of indignation of gentlemen all over the House, that we should sanction such a principle, that, by unanimous consent, the bill was called back from the Senate to amend it so that this railroad company could not, under any circumstances, receive such compensation. Now, sir, I have never had any doubt on thisquestion. It is idle for the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. DAVIS] to arraign me here in regard to my course concerning the Illinois Central or any other railroad company. It has nothing to do with the merits of the question before the House. As to my position with respect to the Illinois Central railroad. the public understand what it is and I am willing to stand on it in any part of the State. 1st, Mr. Chairman, in reply to what the gentleman has said in regard to the action of the last Congress. This House passed this proposition over and over again on an amendment moved by the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. WILSON] that no portion of the appropriation should be used to pay this Illinois entral Railroad Company and why did the House pass it? Because the lawmaking the grant to the Illinois Central Railroad Company provided expressly that the should carry the troops and property of the U.S. free of toll or other charge. It was shown this company had received an immense grant of lands, and it was shown they were ledged to do that when they accepted the land? that is, that the should do this work for the U.S. The amendmentwas adopted by an overwhelmin majority. We voted on it many times, but the Senate refused to concur, and we had 3 or 4 committees of conference. At the heel end, when the sands of the session were fast running out, in order to prevent the loss of the appropriation bill, the House finally receded; but it was the opinion of the House, as indicated by vote after vote, that this company had no right whatever to receive any pay for their service. In the Congress before the last one thisquestion was referred to the ComJudiciary, one of the ablest committees. It was in that Congress composed of the most distinguished men in the House. What was their report? They reported to the House that the company was not entitled to receive any compensationwhatsoever. Why, sir, that was admitted in the discus si0n. It was claimed we were driving a hard bargainwith the Illinois Central Railroad company, that they never expected to he called u onto do this work. In answer to that it was shown that by the war, by the additional businesswhich they had received growing out of the war, that company had done from 25 to 50%. more business than they wouldhave one had not the war broken out. It wasshown, although they charged nothing. for the work done for the Government, they would be from 25 to 50%. Better off than if thered never been any war. But they came in with these charges on the ground stated by the Gentfrom NewYork, and which in my judgmentis utterly untenable. They went to the SecyWar and said they would have to give up the road unless they were paid, and he paid them, according to the report $6, 552,000, leaving a large amount unpaid. hVhether an additional amount has been paid I do not know; but I do know this company has no right under the law. It has no such right under its charter from the State of Illinois, which I understand provides they shall not receive any compensation. They had no right to this sum paid them and they have no right to any additional sum. Therefore, sir, I have moved this amendment: in the 1st place providing no additional sum shall be paid to them; and in the 2nd place, for testing this matter before the courts, that is, whether under the terms of their grant they have any right to receive any compensation whatsoever. These are the grounds upon which I have introduced this amendment; and I trust there will be no substantial division in the committee in regard to the subject. If the courts decide they are entitled to this money, the will get it; if they decide they are not entitle to it, then they ought to be compelled to refund what they have already received.