Mr. JULiAN. I will answer the gentleman. I supposed he knew, having been in California, and knowing all about these nestions, that there is an a peal from the Iconland olhces to the General grand office irfWashington. But let me say further that I can imagine no reason why the U.S., owning these lands in fee, should not have the right on final appeal to determine the question of title. It may be attended with expense. It may be that a poor man in Nevada could not carry up his case to Washington, while a rich man could, but still the nation ought not to thrust itselfin the way of supplicants for relief. Wh should we close the door against them? An let. me say, that under the bill of the Senate, there may be litigation in the Federal courts at all events. If there is a claim between citizens of different States that delay and litigation which the gentleman so much dreads might. occur. He does not wholly evade the difficulty by taking the ‘urisdietion from the local land offices; but venture to say that in 99 cases out of a100 the final adjudication will be before the registers and receivers of the local land office. It would only be in rare cases that an appeal would be sought. All disputed claims beweeu re'emptors and purchasers and homestead claimants on the public lands go before these officers, and the claimants of mineral lands certainly ought to have the right to appeal if they should desire it. But, Mr. Speaker, I need not dwell upon that. If this bill is not disposed ofin the way that I desire, by the adoptionof the substitute I have offered, then Is all propose to amend certain features in the wayI will now indicate. Where it requires the purchaser to pay 5 dollars peracre, I would change it so that he may pay but $1 25 peracre, in conformity with our laws in other cases. The object is not to make money by the sale of these lands so much as to develop them. And any policy which stimulates exploration and development is thewxsest policy for the Government, for individual wealth 15 national wealth. I also propose to strike out that clause which requires the miner to have eXpended $1,000 on his improvement before he can obtain a title to it. I think ifa man spends $500, or even $100 on a vein, he should have a title; or even i he has expended a.dollar on it, and will go on it, and work it and develop it, the Government ought to give him a title. I would not cripple the exploration and settlement of these lands by the interposition of this obstacle of $1,000. It might do for my distinguished friend, the Senfrom Nevada, to exact a condition of that kind; it migh. but money in his pocket, for aught I know. at it cannot serve the interests of the rank and file, the poor men who are exploring these mines and desire to find homes. And I propose further to provide, in accordance with the views already expressed, that the settlement of disputed cases shall be determined by the land dept of the Government, as in other cases, subject to the right of ultimate appeal to the Land Office at Washington. If we adopt this bill at all it certainly should be with the amendments I have indicated. But I hope the substitute I have offered may prevail. I wish to inquire of