Several additions to and comments

Ohio Canal,

upon these tables are necessary to the full understanding of the facts. Though Delaware lies almost wholly south of Mason and Dixon's line, I place it in the first column, because the money expended upon it has been quite as much for the benefit of New Jersey and Pennsylvania as Delaware. I place Louisiana in the third column, because much of the expenditures of the West have been for the improvement of rivers; and, in regard to this point, the interest of Louisiana cannot be separated from that of the great valley of the Mississippi.

It would seem, at first impression, that the proportion of public money expended in this way south of Mason and Dixon's line, as compared with the money expended at the North, was in the proportion of one to three, or, measuring it by the ratio to the gross population on each side of the line, one to two; that nothing had been expended in Maryland, next to nothing in Virginia. If it were so, it would be pertinent to refer to the constitutional opinions of the South in elucidation of the circumstance. But it is not the fact. To the sum of 573,917 dollars directly expended, we have to add, of subscriptions prior to 1834, the sum of 200,000 dollars to the Dismal Swamp canal, in Virginia, which stock is at a discount; $999,000to the Chesapeake and Ohio canal, in Maryland, at a loss of more than a half a million, without reckoning later sums, appropriated to the same object; and $450,000 to the Chesapeake and Delaware canal, partly in Delaware, and partly in Maryland, which has no market val ue. If these things be taken into consideration, and especially if the calculation on both sides be brought down to the present time, the difference in favor of the North vanishes.

[H. OF R.

But the most interesting points of comparison as to this are between the States of the East and the West. Manifestly, the sum expended in the ten States of the North and East is much less than the sum expended in the eight States and two Territories of the West. I have omitted to reckon the subscription of $233,500 to the Louisville and Portland canal, because of the value of the stock; but if the contemplated appropriation to render that canal public should pass both Houses, it will add a million of dollars to the sum total of the column of the West. And shall we say nothing of the Cumberland road?

Down to the close of 1833, the cost of the Cumberland road was 3,723,530 dollars. To the same period, the total cost of internal improvements, fortifications, and light-houses, all together, in all New England, was but 3,506,751 dollars. Am I told that the Cumberland road unites the Atlantic and the West? So do the admirable public works constructed at her own expense by the State of Pennsylvania. So do the series of canals and railways, constructed or undertaken at the sole expense of the States of New York and Massachusetts, from the Lakes to Albany, and thence diverging to the cities of New York and of Boston. That it adds to the value of the public lands. So do these. That it is beneficial to the whole country. So are these. That it is a national work. Be it so, if you will. And are not the fortifications and other public works on the maritime frontier, by tenfold greater force of reasoning, national in every element that goes to constitute nationality?

To enter into every one of the details of this extensive subject would be irksome to myself and to the House. I abstain from doing it. The more you investigate the question, the more conclusively will you make it appear that all these complaints are fallacious in principle and unfounded in fact. It is the inside of a house, the seat of ease and comfort, finding fault that money is expended on the exposed outside, for the common benefit of the whole edifice and all its inmates. It is impossible, without some pretty radical change in the nature of things, to have a country which is all interior and no part frontier. That frontier has the advantage, if advantage it be, of the money employed in frontier expenses. And it bears the first brunt of battle. Would it not be immeasurably ridiculous for me to complain that the inhabitants of Massachusetts, peaceably pursuing their accustomed avocations, do not enjoy the privilege of seeing some millions of public money spent among them in the very pleasant way it now circulates in Florida? In a word, the expenditures of the frontier of the United States, whether applied on the Ocean, the Gulf, or the interior, are nevertheless expenditures for and of the heart of the country which they cover and protect.

Men of high public estimation have soberly affirmed in Congress, that so many millions, drawn from the West, are expended on other parts of the Union. Self-delusion can hardly go beyond this point. I have shown how and A word as to where the public money is disbursed. how and where it is obtained.

Our revenue from customs is a voluntary tax paid by the consumer of dutiable merchandise. In proportion to

the general diffusion of wealth and competency, and to the habits of expense, characteristic of any part of the country, will be its contribution to this branch of the public taxes. It is obvious to perceive that the section

of the North and East consumes far more of commodities

subject to duty than either that of the South or that of the West.

Our revenue from the public lands has the appearance of coming from the West. It is notorious, however, that far the larger part of the purchase-money is provided by emigrants or capitalists of the Atlantic States. We are every day pouring out our population and our riches into the capacious lap of the West.

There is one other topic which it would be unjust, in view of both sides of the question, to pass over. I have submitted authentic details in regard to most of the fixed public works. Our marine hospitals on the seaboard are paid for by our seamen out of their own hard earnings, and have nothing to do with the subject. Some appropriations have been made latterly for the construction of custom-houses. The commerce of the country demands it. I can find many an offset for the cost of them, by looking into the disposition of the public lands. But our navy yards, and the current expenses of the naval service, which are of course on the seaboard, call for consideration. I suppose it must be through these current expenditures of the naval service that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. GRAVES] imagines that the section of the North and East is growing rich by the disbursements of the public money.

It is true enough that our navy yards are on the coast, either of the Atlantic or the Gulf. I suppose they would be of very little use on a mountain of the interior, very little in the midst of a prairie. What slight inequality there is in the fact that four of our seven yards are situated at the North, and only three at the South, has been the natural consequence of circumstances wholly independent of the action of the Government. Where is the mercantile marine built, owned, and manned? Who finds the ships which convey to market the vast productions of the South and West? It is the North, simply because the South has a local advantage in the character of its soil, which as it were extinguishes other branches of industry by its superior productiveness, as the sun does the light of the stars. Cotton-planting is so profitable, that ship-building and other manufactures, or even the production of the necessaries of life, are comparatively neglected by the people of the South. Besides, every thing connected with ship-building is done cheaper at the North. It is not Government patronage which enables me to build a merchant ship at the North, and employ her at the South.

In the country, or section of country, where, the mercantile marine flourishes, there will the military ma rine flourish. You may transfer it to other localities, for great considerations of public good; you may create ports to receive it, where suitable ones were not provided by nature. Still, it is an exotic, sustained by cost and care; not a hardy plant, springing up spontaneously in its native soil.

ket.

Now, as to the current expenditures for the service of the navy. All articles of merchandise tend towards some great market, within the sphere of which they are produced. Their price has reference to that marTo obtain them on advantageous terms, a purchaser will go, as a matter of course, either to the place of production or to the place of market. This law of trade regulates the actions of private individuals, looking only to their own business. It applies to the purchases made by the United States, with this additional circumstance, that the Government buys on advertised proposals of contract. It does not go to the seller. It makes known its wants, and invites offers. It is immaterial to the Government where the contractor lives, where he collects the supplies that he furnishes, or where the profits he makes are to be invested or spent. The Government looks only to the quality of the article and the price; except that, as in duty bound, it seeks for things of the growth or manufacture of the United States, in preference to imported merchandise. It opens a free competition to every inhabitant of the country, whether he be of the North or the South, the East or the West. If the people of any State-South Carolina, for instance-do not put in for contracts, we are to presume it is because they do not produce the article wanted, or have other business that is more profitable.

[MAY 23, 1836.

Ay, but the still-reproached East, the ever-patient East! We, it seems, grow rich by the expenditure among us of the money of the United States. Absurd! We prosper, as we did before this Government existed, and as we should if it were to cease to exist in this hour, by the energies that are within us; by the properties of character which our sect and our fathers displayed in the overthrow of the monarchy of England, which brought them hither to this New World, and which marshalled them forward into the van of the battles of the Revolution.

I aver that the Government expenditures in the States of the East are not sufficient to exert any sensible effect upon their general industry or prosperity. Take an example, to show the truth of the case in the clearest light. Suppose you are to expend half a million of dol lars in the construction and equipment of a ship of the line. What portion of the materials of that ship is furnished by the States of the East? Timber? No, that comes from Florida, and elsewhere at the South. Sails and cordage? Cotton is from the South, and hemp from Russia, or from the State of Kentucky. Copper, iron, lead? These are from Pennsylvania, from Wisconsin, or from foreign countries, except now and then a little iron smelted from bog-ore at the North. Flour? We import corn and wheat in vast quantities for our own consumption; we have none to sell to the Navy Department. Molasses, sugar, rice? None of these are produced in Yankee land. Pork and beef? They come to us from the great pastures of the interior, from the banks of the Ohio, from the State of Kentucky itself. To scarce any thing of all the costly materials and equipments of that ship can New England lay claim, unless it be a few white-pine spars and locust treenails, which are among the most insignificant of the items in the charges of her construction. Some things, however, our soil has contributed to the composition of the navy. We have given you the skill and science to shape and combine its inanimate materials, the productions of your forests, your fields, and your mines, and to form these into noble fabrics, which walk on the water at our command as things of life. We have given you the brave sailors, who man your gun-decks, and who, in the darkest hour of doubtful warfare, threw themselves into the strife, summoned back victory to your standard, and caused its star-spangled folds to fling themselves out in triumph once again to the breezes of their own blue heaven. These are the things which the East contributes to the navy of the Union.

In these remarks, I act wholly on the defensive. I deny the alleged fact of inequality in the distribution of the public expenditures; I deny the alleged causes or motives of the supposed inequality. There are two sides to this question. If I chose to do it, I could easily turn the tables on gentlemen, and from defence proceed to attack. Hundreds of times I have heard it complainingly said at the North-We pay for our lands, without any favors as to time, or reduction as to price, on the part of Government. No millions have been expended among us in the extinguishment of Indian titles. We have no profitable pre-emption speculations. No money by millions of dollars, no land by millions of acres, has been bestowed on us for aid in the construction of canals, roads, and railways. Our country is filled with common schools and the higher institutions of instruction, with no thanks to the rest of the Union; for not to us, as to the States of the West, has Congress given 9,030,469 acres of public land for the uses of education.

I denounce all such murmurs against the West, when I hear them in the mouths of my constituents at home; and I denounce all such murmurs against the North, when I hear them in the mouths of the members of this House. To the North I say: The five millions expend

MAY 23, 1836.]

[H. OF R.

must sacrifice some civil liberties for the advantages to be derived from the communion and fellowship of a great empire." This consideration lies at the very foundation of a Union which, in its beautiful system, realizes the dreams of St. Pierre and Rousseau, of a continent confederated in the cause of civilization and peace.

To the West, in general, I say: You are mistaken as to the facts, when you suppose there is partiality in the action of the Federal Congress to your prejudice. It is quite the other way, as mathematical demonstration will show.

To Kentucky I say: The inequalities of which you complain are State inequalities, not sectional ones. Thus, we have spent in New Hampshire for internal improvements 35,529 dollars, in Vermont nothing; in North Carolina 197,573 dollars, in South Carolina nothing; in Kentucky nothing, and 859,124 dollars in Ohio. The simple juxtaposition of these examples of inequality proves that there is nothing sectional in the fact, unless you mean to hand over Ohio and Louisiana to the East, in the same deed, and by the same rule of transfer, which carry Virginia.

To every member of this House, whatever spot of the Union he represents, I say: Away with these local complaints; I am ashamed of them; they are unworthy of an American Congress. I have three sufficient answers for all such complaints. In the first place, it is immate. rial to me where the money of an appropriation is to be expended. Is the appropriation constitutional? Is it required by the public service? These are the questions to be asked. In the second place, there is no just foundation for the complaints. I concur to the letter in the sentiment of the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. THOMPSON,] that a union of States, such as ours, like the relations of private friendship, to be lasting, must be one of perfect equality. I say this equality exists to all practical purposes, on a fair and general view of the great sections of the Union. And if a State were to come here and say it could not be loyal without money, I would sooner spend money on it needlessly, lavishly, wastefully, ay, throw money away on it, than see it disaffected for want of expenditures within it, under the impression that it is unfairly treated by Congress or the sister States. Finally, whatever inequalities of this kind there might be, I say they would be counterbalanced a thousand-fold by the general benefits of the Union-the exemption of the States from domestic wars, border differences, impediments of intercourseand their unity of force in foreign affairs. It is frequently said by gentlemen from the West, that the cost of Louisiana and Florida should not be charged to the receipts of the public lands, because of the political advantages of the acquisition to the whole Union. Be it so, but let the same rule be applied to other public expenditures. Remember that great objects cannot be attained except by the compromise and sacrifice of minor objects. Call to mind the strikingly pertinent observations of a celebrated statesman in reference to this subject: "All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter. We balance inconveniences; we give and take; we remit some rights, that we may enjoy others; and we choose rather to be happy citizens than subtle disputants. As we must give some natural liberty to enjoy civil advantages, so we

tion of the Government to this day, only nine votes have been thrown by all the States south of the Potomac for presidential candidates north of that river. Add to which, the corresponding fact of one or the other of two candidates for the presidency, presented by the West, having been warmly supported by nearly the entire mass of the population of New England. I do not speak of this in reproach of the South or the West, but simply in vindication of the justice and fairness of the North.

Our country, with all its sectional diversity of views and feelings, is one. It is one in the rich, manly, vigorous, expressive language we speak, which is become the vernacular tongue as it were of parliamentary eloquence, the very dialect of constitutional freedom. It is one in the fame of our fathers, and in the historical reminiscences which belong to us as a nation. It is one in the political principles of republicanism which we feel and profess in common, no matter in what spot of earth our portion be cast. It is one in the substantial basis of our manners, in the warp, at least, of which the web is wo

ven.

It is one in the ties of friendship, affinity, and blood, binding us together throughout the whole extent of the land, in the associations of trade, of emigration, and of marriage. It is one in the general balance of interests and of business, arising from our mutual wants and the reciprocal interchanges of the products of our industry. It is one in our exterior relations, protected as these are by the honored flag of the Union. It is one in that glorious constitution, the best inheritance transmitted to us by our fathers, the monument of their wisdom and their virtue, under whose shelter we live and flourish as a people.

One we are in fact, one should we be in sentiment. To this great republic, union is peace, union is grandeur, union is power, union is honor, union is every thing which a free-spirited and mighty nation should glory to possess. To us all, next to independence, next to liberty, next to honor, be we persuaded that a cordial and abiding confederacy of the American people is the greatest of earthly goods. We, the several States which compose it, entered into it with conciliation to the people of our sister States in our hearts, and compromise of all secondary interests in our acts. Thus let us persevere, with the same emotions, fresh and bright as in the first conception, and welling forth in exhaustless abundance from our bosoms; feeling that, like the fabled fountains of Florida, they are capable to communicate matchless beauty and everlasting youth to this our beloved republic.

That, unlike other political societies, this will endure unchangeable forever, I cannot hope; but I pray to God, if, in the decrees of his providence, he have any mercy in store for me, not to suffer me to behold the hour of its dissolution: its glory extinct; the banner of its pride rent and trampled in the dust; its nationality a moral of history; its grandeur, a lustrous vision of the morning slumber, vanished; its liberty, a disembodied spirit, brooding, like the genius of the past, amid the prostrate monuments of its old magnificence.

And there is, in the burning chambers of the dread

of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever."

The terms of the cession made by Massachusetts, on the 19th April, 1785, are "transfer, quit claim, cede, and convey to the United States of America, for their benefit, Massachusetts inclusive, all right, title, and estate, of and in, as well the soil as the jurisdiction," &c. Connecticut, by her act bearing date the 14th October, 1786, cedes" to the United States in Congress assembled, for the common use and benefit of the said States, Connecticut inclusive." North Carolina, by her act of cession of 2d April, 1790, cedes her waste lands, with certain reservations, "as a common fund, for the use and benefit of the United States of North America, North Carolina inclusive, according to their respective and usual proportion in the general charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatever." In like manner, Georgia, by her compact of cession, entered into with the United States on the 2d of April, 1802, after expressing certain other stipulations, declares," that all the lands ceded by this agreement to the United States shall, after satisfying the above-mentioned payment of one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the State of Georgia, and the grants recognised by the previous conditions, be considered as a common fund for the use and benefit of the United States, Georgia included, and shall be faithfully disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatever." As the phraseology of the cessions from Virginia and North Carolina is somewhat peculiar, it may not be improper to show what was the mode of ascertaining the "usual respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure" of the several States of the confederation; although it may not be difficult to show that this particular mode of expression in no respect varies the character of the cessions of North Carolina and Virginia from those of the other States, nor can it be made the foundation for a mode of distribution differing in the smallest degree from that established by the cessions from the other States.

The eighth article of confederation prescribes the rule by which the requisitions upon the States for money shall be regulated, and is in the following terms: "All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence and general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common Treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted to, or surveyed for, any person, as such land, and the buildings and improvements thereon, shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States, in Congress assembled, shall, from time to time, direct and appoint." When it is remembered that the Congress of the confederation possessed no powers of taxation, properly so called, either direct or indirect; that the only mode of creating revenue was by requisitions upon the several States; that several of the States did, for a series of years, contend that the waste land, lying in any one of the States, was rightfully the property of the Union; that the ratification of the articles of confederation was delayed for the purpose of procuring, if possible, the recognition of this principle; that the first cession was made in reference to such claim, and for the purpose of facilitating their ratification; and especially, when we collate the article above quoted with the language of the various cessions, it would seem to be impossible to give such a strained construction to the plain import of plain language, as to derive for Congress, from the terms of any single cession, the power to distribute the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the several States. But to be more explicit. The cession from Virginia, VOL. XII.-242

[H. OF R.

which, it is contended, conveys the power to distribute the money arising from the sale of the public land, conveys that land to the United States as a "common fund." The article of confederation above quoted declares that "all charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence and general welfare, and allowed by the United States, shall be defrayed out of a common Treasury." The Virginia cession provides that the land ceded shall be a common fund, for the benefit of the States, "according to their usual respective proportions in the general charge and expendi ture," and for no other purpose. The article of confederation provides that the "common Treasury shall be supplied by the several States," according to the standard therein directed. Both instruments provide the same means for the accomplishment of the same objects: a "common fund," a "common Treasury," to meet "the general charge and expenditure, which shall be incurred for the common defence and general welfare." In the one case, the "common Treasury" is to be raised by requisitions upon the respective States; and in the other, the "common fund" is created by the patriotic and distinguished liberality of a single State. Could it have been possible, without using the same terms, to have expressed an entire concurrence of purpose more perfectly than it is expressed in the article of confederation referred to, and the cessions from the various States, especially the State of Virginia? Other considerations enforce this view of the subject as conclusively as if it had been established by mathematical demonstration.

At the time the several cessions were made, no man ever dreamed that the sale of the public lands would ever furnish a fund for distribution among the States. The country was overwhelmed with debt; the Govern ment had not the power to enforce the collection of requisitions of money from the States; and the strongest fears were entertained that the pressure of common danger being withdrawn, the arch of the Union would tumble into ruins. To meet the crisis-to "render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Govern ment and the preservation of the Union"-the convention was assembled in 1789, whose consultations resulted in the formation of the admirable constitution under which we now live. What were the exigencies of Government for which the convention was required to provide? The most important and pressing was the crea tion of a fund for the redemption of the public debt, by the adoption of such a system of taxation as might enable the Government to meet its pecuniary responsibili ties without the delays, and vexations, and disappointments, and refusals, which had invariably attended the plan of raising revenue by requisitions upon the respect. ive States. And yet, in this state of things, when the Government was bankrupt-when the States were resorting to the extraordinary measure of creating a gen eral central Government, and giving to it the power of direct taxation over their citizens, and the entire control of their commerce, for the purpose of creating "a common fund" for the redemption of their common debt, and when scarcely any other exigency could have induced them to make such concessions-we are now gravely told that the "common fund," created by the cessions of portions of their public lands by the States, for meeting "their usual respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure," and "for no other use or purpose whatsoever," was merely intended to enable this General Government to collect money from the people of the United States with one hand, and dis tribute it to the Governments severally with the other. And not only this, but that, in doing so, "their usual respective proportions in the general expenditure should be entirely disregarded."