by the United States as cash, but the States where it was located were in their settlements with the United States refused the right to count it as cash, and were deprived of any allowance on account of it for the benefit of their improvement or school funds.

Other scrip issued under various other laws, all of far less importance than the agricultural-college scrip, rests equally upon the same principle, and the allowance, except as provided herein, should include all such scrip. The principle is indeed not vitally different from that admitted by the act of 1857 in granting 5 per cent upon Indian reservations. This was construed by the Secretary of the Interior to extend also to Indian scrip, because the grant of land and scrip alike were to discharge the obligations of the United States and were in equal derogation of the right of the States to a share in the proceeds of the public lands.

LIMITATIONS OF THIS BILL.

The interests of the United States have been carefully guarded in this bill by provisions declaring that the 5 per cent shall be limited to permanent Indian reservations and allotments and scrip locations. It expressly excludes lands disposed of under the homestead law, except where commuted payments were made; it excludes lands located by soldiers' additional homestead scrip, and lands granted for railroad, wagon road, or canal purposes, or reserved for military, naval, forest, park, or other reservations, except as specifically provided for in the bill. It differs in respect to its limitations from many of the bills heretofore favorably reported by excluding from the account many lands included in former bills.

CALIFORNIA.

The State of California requires special consideration. It will be remembered that the usual enabling act was not passed in regard to California. The people of California organized their own State without previous authority from Congress, and Congress on September 9, 1850 (9 Stat. L., 453), passed an act admitting the State under the constitution presented by the people. Thus the grants found in the other acts failed to be specifically made to California, and this State alone in the Union had never received 5 per cent upon the cash sales of public lands. It can not be questioned that California, having in her admission surrendered to the United States the same consideration for which the other States received the 5 per cent grant, should be placed on the same basis as the other States. This bill provides for the equal inclusion of California in its benefits.

ARKANSAS.

By the act of August 4, 1894 (28 Stat. L., 229), a settlement of various disputed demands between the United States and the State of Arkansas was authorized. The settlement arranged under this act was confirmed by the act of April 29, 1898 (30 Stat. L., 367). The committee does not regard this compromise as affecting the right of the State of Arkansas to participate in the grants now made by this bill. The right of the State to a payment of 5 per cent on cash sales

under the act admitting the State into the Union (June 23, 1836; 5 Stat. L., 58) were included in the adjustment, but the right to 5 per cent upon military bounty land warrants and scrip locations not being then admitted as of right, but now granted by the discretion of Congress, this State must share in the benefits of the pending bill.

THE AMOUNT INVOLVED.

The total amount involved in the grant to the States by this bill has been calculated by the Commissioner of the General Land Office. In his communication of February 9, 1900, he summarizes the matter as follows:

I therefore submit the following statement and estimate of the area of lands already disposed of by the Government for military bounty-land warrants, and for scrips of various kinds of Indian allotments, and of lands embraced in present permanent Indian reservations, and an estimate of the amount required to pay 5 per cent of the estimated value of such lands at $1.25 per acre, including 5 per cent of the net proceeds of public lands sold in the State of California.

It appears from the records of this office that 28,085 military bounty-land warrants for 160 acres each were issued under the act of May 6, 1812 (2 Stat. L., 729), embracing an area of 4,493,600 acres; and it appears from the annual report of this office for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1899, that 17,600 acres of said warrants were still outstanding. It therefore appears that 4,476,000 acres of such warrants have been located and patents issued thereon. It also appears from said report that for warrants issued under the acts of February 11, 1847, September 28, 1850, and March 3, 1855, patents have issued to 58,973,050 acres, making a total area of 63,449,050 acres for which patents have issued under military bounty locations prior to June 30, 1899. It also appears from the records of this office that to June 30, 1899, agricultural college scrip locations have been made aggregating 7,954,188.05 acres, and that other scrips located from 1864 to 1899, inclusive, aggregated 801,570.09 acres, making a total area of scrip locations (not including Choctaw scrip located prior to 1864) of 8,755,758.14 acres.

It further appears from the records of this office that prior to June 30, 1899, Indian allotments have been made embracing 655,695.74 acres.

The area of Indian reservations is not kept in this office, but it appears from the report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for 1899 that the present area of Indian reservations (unallotted) in the several public-land States is 40,007,816 acres. Therefore the area of lands already disposed of by the United States and directly affected by the bill, the estimated value thereof, and the total amount to be paid to the States thereunder may be stated as follows:

It follows that 5 per cent of said sum would amount to $7,889,436.88, the amount to be paid to the States under the bill.

In regard to the amount due each State the Commissioner reports, under date of April 19, 1900, as follows:

To show the amount that would accrue to each particular State would involve tedious examinations and extended calculations that have not been made, and would require much time and labor.

The committee have made some investigation in regard to the amounts

due to the several States, and are able to make an approximate calculation on this subject, the general correctness of which is exhibited by its substantial agreement in the aggregate with the Commissioner's figures. These amounts are as follows:

Section 4 of this bill deals with the advances made to the several States under the act of June 23, 1836, section 5 (5 Stat. L., 55). The grant of the surplus money in the Treasury made by this act was not a gift, but a deposit. The terms were expressed in the act itself as follows:

And the Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver the same to such treasurers or other competent authorities on receiving certificates of deposit therefor signed by such competent authorities, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary aforesaid; which certificates shall express the usual and legal obligations and pledge the faith of the State for the safe-keeping and repayment thereof, and shall pledge the faith of the States receiving the same to pay said moneys and every part thereof, from time to time, whenever the same shall be required by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the purpose of defraying any wants of the public treasury, beyond the amount of the five millions aforesaid: Provided, That if any State declines to receive its proportion of the surplus aforesaid, on the terms before named, the same shall be deposited with the other States agreeing to accept the same on deposit in the proportion aforesaid.

They now stand as loans, subject to demand. It is interesting to note from the debates in Congress when this act was passed that these deposits were the surplus proceeds of the sales of public lands, although the fact does not appear on the face of the act.

The amounts deposited with the States under this act are shown by a report of the Treasurer of the United States of May 13, 1892, printed in Senate Report No. 226, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, as follows:

The present bill proposes to close the accounts between the United States and the several States for these deposits by a statutory release. of the States from their obligations to repay on demand. The original act was an exhibition of the generosity of the United States toward the several States then in the Union. The continued possession by the various States of these amounts is a complete answer to any criticism which could by any chance be made against this bill on the ground of undue liberality toward the States admitted into the Union since that grant.

The liberal dealing of Congress with the several States then in the Union in regard to funds derived from the sale of public lands was evinced by the absolute donation to the States by the act of September 4, 1841 (5 Stat. L., 453), of the proceeds of such sales. The first section gave to Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Michigan 10 per cent of the proceeds of the sale of public lands within each State in addition to the 5 per cent required by the enabling act. Under this section these States received $233,258.20. (The Public Domain, p. 256.) The second section donated the entire net proceeds of the sales of public lands to the States then in the Union, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Florida. Under this act, until its suspension by act of August 30, 1842 (5 Stat. L., 567), the States then in the Union and the Territories named received $691,117.05. (The Public Demain, p. 753.)

CONCLUSION.

With these legislative precedents for liberality toward the States earliest in the Union, the present bill exhibits but moderate fairness toward the later public-land States. In relation to Indian reservations and Indian scrip, this bill carries out the policy actually executed in regard to the older States. In regard to bounty-land warrants and other scrip, it grants to the States nothing more than the amounts justly due upon a fair construction of the covenants of the United States contained in the enabling act.

A number of amendments have been incorporated in the bill, all of which appear in it as now reported, and the committee recommend the passage of the amended bill."

STELLA B. ARMSTRONG.

MAY 19, 1900.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. BAKER, from the Committee on Pensions, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany H. R. 9175.]

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 9175) granting an increase of pension to Stella B. Armstrong, have examined the same and report:

The report of the Committee on Pensions of the House of Representatives, hereto appended, is adopted and the passage of the bill is recommended.

HOUSE REPORT.

The claimant is the widow of Frank C. Armstrong, late a major and surgeon in the Thirty-second United States Volunteer Infantry. He was enrolled with the above rank in the Twenty-first Kansas Infantry May 14, 1898, and mustered out December 10, 1898; appointed surgeon Thirty-second Volunteer Infantry July 5, 1899, and died at Manila, Philippine Islands, December 4, 1899, of disease incurred in the service and line of duty.

The claimant married the soldier May 26, 1885. She is now receiving a pension of $25 per month, allowed under the provisions of the general laws.

The facts bearing upon claimant's financial condition and the reasons generally for the proposed legislation are contained in the following letter written by the Representative who introduced the bill in the House:

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., April 18, 1900. DEAR SIR: Having been intimately acquainted with Maj. Frank C. Armstrong for the past fifteen years, and having personal knowledge of the financial condition of himself and wife at the time of his death, I desire to state to the committee that he died leaving his wife an insurance policy in the Ancient Order of United Workmen for $2,000, a policy in the Maccabees for $1,000, and a policy in the Michigan Mutual for $1,000. None of this insurance has been paid yet, and as to the two policies in the Maccabees and Michigan Mutual, the question has been raised as to the liability of the companies by reason of the fact that after the issue of the policies he went into the Army, an extra hazardous risk that was prohibited by these companies.

In addition to the $2,000 in the A. O. U. W., which, in my judgment, will be paid without contest, Mrs. Armstrong's only source of support is $25 per month pension that has already been allowed by the Department to her as the widow of Major Arm