the necessity of a convention between the two governments before we can perform this work, unless we wish to pay for it all. In other words, if we do it now, Mexico will not be bound for its half of the cost unless they choose to pay it.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. I do not desire to antagonize the recommendations of the conference committee at all, but I understand that there is a region of country there of from 5 to 10 miles in width where people do not know whether they are under our Government or under another flag, and it is very important to have that question determined at an early day, so that our people can know with certainty whether they are buying land from the States or locating on the domain of another power. The importance of that consideration has impressed itself upon my mind; and while, as I have said, I do not desire to antagonize the recommendations of the conference committee, I believe this is a matter that ought to be pressed to a settlement without delay, so that the boundary lines of the United States shall be accurately and certainly defined.

Mr. LANHAM. * * * In a report by the Committee on Foreign Affairs at the present session of Congress I find this statement:

A survey of the boundary was made under the treaty, and the actual boundary was then what was the middle of the river. Since that time it has shifted its channels so often and so far-in some cases gradually, in others abruptly by cut-offs-that no man knows accurately where the boundary is to-day. The channel will sometimes move slowly, by accretion on one side and erosion on the other. Sometimes the stream will suddenly cut a new channel, abandoning the old ones altogether, and in a single day, by cut-off, a tract or a "banco" of 100 acres will be found on the other side of the river.

Mr. BURNES. My friend from Texas [Mr. LANHAM] is reading from a report which relates to the necessity of a survey from Paso del Norte to the Gulf.

Mr. LANHAM. That may be true; but what I desire was to ascertain whether or not the boundary between Texas and Mexico was contemplated by the Senate amendment.

Mr. BURNES. This says in express terms, "west of the Rio Grande."
Mr. ADAMS. Will the gentleman allow a question?

Certainly.

Mr. BURNES. Mr. ADAMS. I understand that a convention was made, and that under that convention it was intended that two parties should join to lay out this line, but that our party did lay out the line, the other party being a few days late; but I understood the gentleman to say, after making that statement, that the line thus laid out was accepted, or acceptable to the Mexican Government. Is that correct? Mr. BURNES. Yes, sir. The Mexican Government expressly assented to the survey or reconnaissance which was made by our party alone. They were satisfied to let our people go on by themselves, saying that the result would be satisfactory to their Government, and my information is that we were advised by the Department of State four or five years ago that Mexico was entirely satisfied with the work that had been done, notwithstanding the fact that her party did not pursue the line through.

Mr. ADAMS. It would follow, then, that the expenditure of this money would be mainly for the erection of monuments to mark the boundary. Is not that so?

Mr. BURNES. In answer to my friend from Illinois [Mr. ADAMS], and also in reply to my friend from Iowa [Mr. HENDERSON], who asked substantially the same question, I desire to say that monuments have been there for twenty or thirty years, probably not as fine monuments as "sixty millions of people" would desire, but monuments which serve all practical purposes, though perhaps they are not so numerous as they ought to be. All along the line there are monuments, but in the report of our party, which I have read, I found that they recommended certain additional monuments to be placed here, there, and elsewhere.

Mr. ADAMS. I did not mean that the money was to be used for the purpose of erecting more stately monuments, but rather for the purpose of completely defining and marking out the line established by the reconnaissance or survey to which the gentleman has referred, in order that, as the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. HENDERSON] has suggested, settlers should have no difficulty in determining on which side of the international line they were locating.

Mr. BURNES. There are monuments there, but it does not follow that a man can recognize the line at any particular point where he may happen to strike it. No man can find even the line of his own quarter section of land at every particular point. But within a given distance there are monuments now existing which were deemed sufficient to mark the boundary after the war with Mexico, and by following from one of those monuments to the other the line can always be defined.

When the location of one monument has been ascertained, or rather when two have been fixed so as to give the direction, any one can determine the boundary between the two countries on two or three hours' investigation. The boundary might not always be before a person rushing backward and forward across the imaginary boundary line, but he could pursue and find the boundary in a couple of hours anywhere.

Mr. ADAMS. Of course; but if it is true, as the gentleman has said, that the reconnaissance is made, what remains to done about that boundary line? And why did the gentleman say, as I understood him to-day, that something ought to be postponed until a further convention? What use for a further convention?

Mr. BURNES. Well, we have agreed with Mexico under the convention of 1882; and it seems to have been settled in the public mind and the Congressional mind that there ought to be some mɔnuments marking this line, and that a considerable sum of money-estimated, I believe, as high as $400,000-should be expended in placing these additional monuments along the line which has been pursued and marked. Now, if we undertake to carry out this plan, which has been agreed upon between the two governments, one-half of the expense of which is to be paid by each-if we undertake to do this without a new convention, the old one having expired, where is the obligation which will justify us in demanding of Mexico a repayment of one-half of the expenditure?

Mr. ADAMS. That is exactly what I wanted to have clearly brought out. If we make this appropriation and go on under it, we shall get all the benefit for which the work is done, except that we shall have paid more than our share; and the object with which the gentleman would have action postponed until a further convention is not that we may get a better boundary line or better or more numer

ous monuments on that boundary line, but that we shall be enabled to make Mexico pay a share of the expense.

Mr. BURNES. That is all there is in it. Allow me to say there never has been any dispute between Mexico and this country with regard to that boundary line. There is now no dispute between the two nations concerning it. The only question is whether by putting up more monuments we shall make it more distinct, more readily discernible for the benefit of our people and the Mexican people and for the sake of the good neighborship which should exist between the two countries. To that policy we stand committed. But I say we should not go on carrying out that policy until Mexico has given her consent by some contract or assent.

Mr. ADAMS. And what the gentleman seeks to gain by postponing the advantages of a good boundary line, well marked out, is that we shall get a certain sum of money from Mexico to assist in paying the expense.

Mr. BURNES. So far as that is concerned, let me say this to my friend from Illinois: We are not going to perish from the face of the earth because we do not put up a few more monuments on this boundary line within a month or two, or because we do not put them up while the information in regard to the subject is certainly very incomplete and imperfect. As the matter stands at present, true business policy dictates that we should have a convention and settle this question with regard to the work, and then do it. I am perfectly willing to have it done.

But we can readily get those facts; the Secretary of State can furnish them, I have no doubt; and before doing so he will have time to perfect a contract, by treaty or otherwise, for the payment of the work. Hence, I say that the policy pursued by the House conferees in the conference on this question ought to be ap proved by the House.

OBJECTION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE BUREAU OF EDUCATION.

AUGUST 31, 1888.

SUGGESTED DURING THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SUNDRY CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL.

Mr. BURNES. I make the motion that the House recede from its disagreement to the Senate amendment just reported.

Mr. CANNON. What is the amendment?

The Clerk read as follows:

To exempt the Bureau of Education from removal to the Pension building, as proposed by existing legislation.

Mr. BURNES. I make the motion in order to bring the question properly before the House; and I also desire to say that I am in favor of it. The Secretary of the Interior advises us that at this particular time it would result in great inconvenience, and, as his judgment has always been sound in these matters, I am in favor of receding.

Mr. CANNON. I only want to say a word about it. Legislation was had in the last Congress which provided that there should be placed in the Pension Office the Commissioner of Railroads and his office; the Commissioner of Education, with his office, and the General Land Office, with all the records and the clerks. The gentleman from

Mr. BURNES. And the pension agent.

Mr. CANNON. And the pension agent besides. The gentleman who has led this House in connection with this legislation, so far as it was concerned, now upon his sick-bed [Mr. RANDALL], I know gave exhaustive consideration along with the subcommittee

Mr. BURNES. I would remind my colleague that the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. RANDALL] did not investigate this matter as thoroughly as the Secretary of the Interior, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LONG], the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. RYAN], and myself. We went through the Pension building and Bureau of Education, and the Secretary of the Interior was with us. We made a careful examination, and while we thought at the time, and while I still think, there is room enough for all these offices, yet the Commissioner of Pensions is very much opposed to it. He says it is taking room that he needs. The Secretary of the Interior is opposed to it and asks us to recede, believing it will cause a great deal of confusion; and he asks that for the present year at least we should not place the Bureau of Education in that building. In view of this request I think we ought not to move that bureau.

The question being taken, on the motion of Mr. BURNES, that the House recede from its disagreement to the Senate amendment, it was decided in the affirmative.

DEBATE ON SENATE AMENDMENTS TO THE DEFICIENCY
APPROPRIATION BILL.

SEPTEMBER 26, 1888.

Mr. BURNES. Mr. Speaker, I ask, by unanimous consent, and hope it will meet with the approval of the judgment of the House, to immediately non-concur in the Senate amendments, and request a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.

Mr. BLOUNT. Let me inquire of the gentleman from Missouri, in the first place, how many of these amendments there are, and, in the second place, whether any of them involve large sums of money?

Mr. BURNES. There are two items, I believe, which involve two or three hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. BLOUNT. Are they strictly deficiencies?

Mr. BURNES. I think the conferees can act on them as well as the committee itself, and particularly as it is difficult to get a quorum of the committee.

Mr. DUNN. I shall not object, but rise to ask a question. As I have not had an opportunity to examine the Senate amendments which have just been received by the House, I wish to ask the gentleman from Missouri whether they include an amendment creating a land office in what is known as the Public Land Strip, or No Man's Land?

Mr. BURNES. Yes; I think they do. I understand there is a provision attaching No Man's Land to the State of Kansas.

Mr. McMILLIN moved that the amendments be printed in the RECORD; and it was so ordered.

Mr. SPINOLA. I should like to ask the gentleman from Missouri whether it is not customary, on a proposition involving so many items as are included in the amendments of the Senate, to have those amendments printed and let them go over instead of referring them at once to a conference committee to be reported back in gross and then voted upon as a whole. Ought they not to be referred to the Committee on Appropriations and reported back with the recommendations of that committee before we are asked to act on them?

Mr. BURNES. I wish to say to my friend from New York, as one of the probable conferees on this bill, that I think I understand the wishes and temper of the House in regard to all these amendments. I think I understand the objection the gentleman from New York has to one of these propositions, and I assure him, so far as I am concerned, the matter shall have full and fair consideration. If any gentleman wishes to appeal to the House in reference to any matter, I think I can assure the House it will go to the House for consideration. Therefore the gentleman from New York will see that no possible injury can be done to any member.