SENATE.] Tariff. [JANUARY 4, 1833. should be such sensation at this call upon the Treasury caprice in the little debate but what springs from the imDepartment. Why not obtain the information so much patience and fretfulness of the Senator himself. His own needed? Who is in danger? Is there, indeed, any danger? whims and caprice have so affected him, that he imagines If there is any thing obscure or equivocal in the Secreta- he sees them in others. ry's report, why should he not explain? Again: "Is the game to be resumed which was played The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. MANGUM] has through the last eight months on the great political chesstaken very strong ground, and seems almost to arraign board?" Now, as I am no gamester, he will pardon me the motives which prompt us to the call. It seems to me if I should not readily understand this figure. If there that a Senator who would invoke us to come to the sub- was any gambling concern in the last Presidential elecject of the tariff in a spirit of kindness and conciliation, tion, it was the double game played by the friends and should not set an example so very wide from his precepts. foes of the protecting system to inculcate the belief, that The Senator sounds an alarm, the Union is in danger, President Jackson was on the side of each; and though and he presents the alternative of immed ate action or the election is finished, the game seems to be kept up. ruin. I was, and am still disposed to act in a spirit of Indeed, the opposition to this call seems to be upon the conciliation, but with a spirit of prudence and discretion principle of this game, and from an apprehension lest the I have witnessed a crisis so often that they cease to alarm administration should be obliged to show its hand. me. If by immediate action is meant that we must aban- "Shall we sit here," it is inquired, "to be amused don the protecting policy before the 1st of February, by witty gentlemen, to taunt a Secretary, or embarrass then there is no such alternative as the Senator proposes, each other?" Surely here the Senator does not mean for it is ruin at any rate; once surrender to a State, under me. I have no pretensions to wit; and if calling on a Seher threat of a dissolution of the Union, and the Union cretary to explain an equivocation, and for information is not worth preserving, it is virtually dissolved. Every on a most important subject, which he is bound by law refractory State would catch and rely upon the example, to give, is “taunting" and "embarrassing," I, for one, and whenever a mère and ephemeral majority in a State shall continue to taunt and embarrass. becomes refractory, she may set you at defiance, compel The Senator has more than once referred to the " "opyou to renounce the principle of which she complains, or position benches;" and 'I confess I find it difficult to un the Union is dissolved, derstand him. It is probably designed as a figure of Your tariff, the supposed source of supposed griev-speech. A chair is a bench, and a man is a chair; there ances, was last year modified, as was thought, to adapt fore, by one figure riding on the back of another, a man itself to the conflicting interests of all parts of the coun- is a bench: so, by opposition benches are probably intendtry. It has not yet gone into operation; and before we ed opposition members of the Senate. But still we are can even conjecture the effects of this modification, we left in the fog. Where are your opposition benches? are called upon to change again, and immediately, and un-opposition to what, and on what subject? To the adder the influence of a threat. Sir, I would act with no ministration? If you mean to every measure, there is no resentment under these circumstances, and if prudence opposition bench here; if to some particular measure, and policy would permit, I would do the same justice every one, perhaps, is an opposition bench. This last every where, as if no rebellion was threatened. But I definition, I am very sure, would include the Senator himshould much fear that, in so doing, our motives would be self, if we take for our rule his strictures on the late promisunderstood, and we should establish the dangerous clamation. In these times we find we have strange bedprecedent of surrendering a principle under the influence fellows. This nullification seems to have scattered us of the threat of a State to dissolve the Union. A State all abroad. On the subject now under discussion we are throws herself on her "sovereignty," her "reserved strangely mixed up. The mover of the resolution, [Mr. rights;" and there she is to remain until you render her POINDEXTER,] the Senators from Maryland, North Carowhat, in her own judgment, is right. And if you lina and Virginia, [Mr. SMITH, Mr. BROWN, and Mr. Tr. refuse, or even delay, your laws are annulled within her LER,] all originally administration men, are for the resolulimits. This is "nullification"-this is the "peaceable tion in some shape; as well as the Senators from New remedy:" peaceable to be sure, so long as you cease to Jersey and Maine, [Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN and Mr. HOLMES] resist her will, or attempt to enforce your own. Sup- who, I suppose, the gentleman would denominate "onpose our buxom sister New York should take it into her position benches;" and the Senators from Alabama, head to set herself down upon her sovereignty. Sir, North Carolina, and Kentucky, [Mr. KING, MANGUM, and s rong as she is, I would get a rod, whip her up, tell her to leave off crying, wipe her eyes, make a pretty courte sy, and promise never to do so again; and after that I would inquire into the grounds of her complaints, and do her justice. BIBB,] supporters, and the Senator from Maine, [Mr. SPRAGUE] not, I believe, considered as a very ardent supporter of the administration in all things, against the resolution. It does seem to me, that the Senator will find it extremely difficult to make this a party discussion, unThe Senator from North Carolina, in his impatience, less he should be a little more fortunate in marking his line. inquires, if this is a time for the ability and patriotism The Senator recurs again to his favorite figure of a of the Senate to be exhausted in embarrassing moves, or game of chance, and asks if he would not shuffle and to be attenuated in parliamentary manœuvre." Now, deal again." Doubtful whether I would. We have been what does he mean? Who are the manoeuvring Sena- so badly beaten, twice in succession, a short rubber I tors, and who the able and patriotic? Do his new asso- believe you call it, (don't you, Mr. President?) that I ciates, the nullifiers, constitute all the ability and patriot-should calculate a little before I sat down. And I don't ism which are arrayed by embarrassing moves and parlia- see the reason why he and his friends should wish it, unmentary maœuvre? It appears to me, Sir, it is to those less it is this-The friends of the administration and the who would shut out the light, and screen a public officer nullifiers were partners, and won the bet, and the adfrom the explanation of an equivocal report, that parlia- ministration folks took the whole, and refused to divide. mentary manœuvre is to be ascribed. It is again inquired, But this is a common case, and, if this falling out shall if "this is a time for whimsical, capricious, and injurious tend to put things back where they should be, good may violations in parliamentary tactics." To say nothing of come out of evil, and the resolution may not turn out the figure of whimsical and capricious violations in tactics, quite so great a calamity as we anticipated. And I conI must think that the question is much more "whimsical fess that the symptoms are a little propitious. This proand capricious" than it is "ingenious," and more inge- clamation is, with some exceptions, about what it should nious than ingenuous. I have witnessed no whim nor be. The Senator is not satisfied that it is so acceptable JANUARY 4, 1833.] Tariff. [SENATE. trines, however irrelevant, and even if out of order, I must be allowed to depart from the ordinary rules of debate to meet him. I protest, sir, against all the doctrines of the nullifiers as destructive of the Union. The Federal Government is no Government, if they are right. The very design of forming this constitution has failed us, if there is no coercive power in this Government to execute its own purposes, which an individual State may not ef fectually resist, and we are back again into the old confederation, nothing but a league which any member may at its discretion break. to the opposition. The President's "bitterest revilers speak well of it." I am not so sure of that. I have lately .seen some "revilings" from a different source quite as bitter" as any I ever heard against him or any other President. As to my own opposition, it has been to the measures, not to the man. The proclamation contains doctrines and precepts which are mine, and always have been. The right of a State to take justice into her own hands, and resist or secede from the Union, I have always opposed. And if this administration will carry out these principles, it will cover a multitude of sins, and I must take the liberty to approve its principles, and aid its ac- Sir, the principles of these nullifiers, as I understand tion even at the expense of the displeasure of that Senafor them, are, that a State may throw herself on her reserved and his party, whoever they may be. Now do, sir, per- rights, determine a law of Congress unconstitutional, and mit me, just about to retire, to approve of one single resist its execution. Then she may call on Congress or act of the President's. There has been very little before the States for a convention, and unless three-fourths of of which I could approve, and there may not be another the States declare the law to be constitutional, it is unchance. I have never, under this administration, sought constitutional and void. Seven of the twenty-four States for occasion to find fault. It was my determination to then, being more than one-fourth, may annul any law that condemn where I must, but approve where I could. The we pass, although it may have been determined to be Fenator, in reference to the proclamation, prefers the constitutional by the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial works of the administration to their faith, alluding, pro-authorities of the United States. Allowing this doctrine bably to their doings in Georgia, and their declarations to be sound, we are still "a rope of sand," and if I were as to South Carolina. Now, sir, I like their faith best, to determine whether I would preserve or abandon such their words better than their deeds. And the only fear I a Union, I would "not admit a doubt to cloud my choice." have is, that they will not carry their principles out, and Pardon me, sir, if I give you an illustration or two of this prove their faith by their works. Then their proclama- extraordinary doctrine of nullification. Suppose Ohio tions and all that will do no good, but their faith without should sit down upon her "reserved rights," and deterworks will be dead, being alone. There is, I confess, mine that all our public lands within her limits became some ground to apprehend, from what has happened hers, as an attribute of her sovereignty, by the very act of heretofore, that in this case principle and practice may her admission into the Union, and should forbid all sales disagree. Hitherto there has been a most woful conflict by the United States, or declare them void. And this is between profession and action. a supposable case, for such doctrine has been urged The Senator inquires if we will lend a willing ear to seriatim in this Senate. Suppose further, that we should the answer to this call upon the Secretary. No, sir; I indulge her by a call of a convention, and that six other lend a willing ear to the answer of no officer of this or States, Indiana, Illinois, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, any other administration. I will, for it is my duty, look and Missouri, all the States where we have public lands, upon his report with a scrutiny bordering on jealousy, should decide that Ohio was right, and our claim to these and if I should perceive an evasion or equivocation, Ilands was unconstitutional, this decision is final and conwould, if I could, call again, or send for the Secretary, and subject him to a personal examination. No, sir, I re- Again: Suppose Pennsylvania should undertake to expel the suggestion that we are seeking occasion to censure pound that clause of the constitution which provides that that officer, or wish to make him "a target;" and why it persons held to service or labor in one State fleeing should be supposed I know not, unless his friends appre-into another, shall be delivered up, and should determine hend that he is indeed censurable, and cannot endure scrutiny. The inquiry proposed is a very simple one, and one from which no faithful officer ought to shrink. No, sir, the remark that the design to hold the Secretary up as a target is in my view illiberal, if not disorderly. I sustain this call because the law authorizes it, and requires and makes it his duty to answer it. I make no promises beforehand to confide in the answer. I shall neither approve nor disapprove in advance. I will first see and then judge. I shall leave to others the honor of that system of political ethics which determines the matter before it has been heard. The President and his Secretary have said that a protective system is not only constitutional but expedient, of all articles indispensable to national defence, without any specification. Now what are they? Let the Secretary define, or at least specify some of them. Let us have the President's indispensables, or, if he cannot spare them, let the Secretary send us his. We would like to know what they are, how they are cut and made, in what fashion, whether British or American, and whether the material is of foreign or domestic production. If protection of articles essential to national defence is admitted to be constitutional, then nullification must go to the wall, for the constitutionality of all protection rests precisely upon the same ground. You cannot discriminate between what is and what is not essential to national defence, and if you could, the distinction would avail you nothing. Now, sir, since the Senator has brought into discussion these nullifying doc clusive, and our lands are gone. that it could extend only to voluntary servitude. That by the laws of nature and of God there could be no such thing as involuntary servitude or slavery, and that nothing conventional could abrogate those laws. And this, too, is a supposable case, for it has been urged in this Senate by a highly distinguished Senator from a highly respectable State. Now, would you give her a convention also? If you did, and the six New England States should decide for her, then slavery is abolished, at least in all the free States. And, quere, how much does it fall short of emancipation in all the States? Mind, I contend for no such effect. I only show to what conclusions your premises would lead; and let the South beware how it inculcates doctrines so dangerous to its safety, peace, and even existence. The slaves there would soon learn how to nullify, and would turn these principles to suit their own case. God forbid they should ever make the application! No man would deprecate such a state of things more than I should. But I forewarn gentlemen, that this doctrine of "reserved right," when applied to the relation of master and slave, may produce a state of things too terrific for description. I will only add, that so long as the Union holds together, we are bound to maintain this relation with our treasure and our blood. But so soon as it shall be dissolved, be the conflict between master and slave what it may, the free States would then repose upon their sovereignty. They would not interpose if they could, and they could not if they would. SENATE.] Tariff Duties. [JANUARY 4, 7, 1833. Mr. FOOT said, that the very words objected to by the Senator from Alabama should be retained, in order to convey to the Secretary a correct idea of the meaning of the Senate in passing the resolution. Let it not be again repeated, that "an unprincipled bama were inserted for the purpose of calling the attencombination has been practised upon the South." On tion of the Secretary to the language of his report, and the subject to which I have now alluded, I know that no should, therefore, most properly be retained. one will charge me as a party to any such combination. The truth is, the South, though a minority, has always ruled the North, and always will. When our nullifiers in the last war threatened resistance to the United States laws, as unconstitutional, they were to be hanged under the second or some other section. But now, if the South does all that, and more, it is "a crisis." What was then "moral treason" is now dignified by the name of the Secretary in his annual report. "a crisis." Mr. BIBB suggested to the Senator from Mississippi, the propriety of inserting in the resolution the words "for the most part," so as to use more exactly the language of Mr. POINDEXTER would simply remark that, in Sir, I regret that I have travelled so wide of the imme-adopting the resolution as it then stood, the Senate would diate question. I should not have done it, but that the Senator from North Carolina wandered, and I, to answer him, was compelled to do the same thing. Mr. SMITH observed, that he did not deem it necessary to reply to many parts of the speech of the Senator from Maine, particularly the latter part, as they were wholly irrelevant to the subject before the Senate. Some parts of it, however, he would notice. Mr. S. then went on to show, and quoting from the public documents to substantiate his positions, that it had been the practice of the Government, since its formation, to call on the department for projets of bills. At the time spoken of by the Senator from Maine, no parties were formed in this country; both the Senator from Maine and himself were then federalists. In 1794, when the two great parties that then divided the country were formed, it was inconvenient to us (said Mr. S.) of the democratic party to call on the heads of departments for opinions, because our opponents were strengthened by arguments embraced in them. We, then, said he, protested against the practice, defeated our opponents, and always demanded facts, and not opinions. Mr. S. then took a review of the course of the party then in power, and the views entertained by them of the law. The honorable Senator from Maine might have seen in the speeches of the federal members of that period the doctrines now advanced in his, and which were so successfully opposed by the ablest men in the nation; such as Giles, Madison, and Gallatin. Mr. S. quoted from the documents several cases in which facts had been called for by Congress from the Secretary of the Treasury; particularly a resolution adopted on motion of Mr. Eppes, calling on the Secretary of the Treasury for the plan of a tariff, which was adopted, and resulted in the tariff of 1816. The question was then taken on the amendment, and decided as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Dallas, Forsyth, Grundy, Hill, Kane, King, Mangum, Miller, Rives, Robinson, Smith, Tipton, White, Wilkins.--17. NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Buckner, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnston, Knight, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Sprague, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Webster.--25. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. KING then observed, that he did not rise for the purpose of entering into any discussion on the merits of the resolution, but to express a wish that it might be made to speak the truth. He called the attention of the Senate | to this fact, that the annual report of the Secretary did not say that a reduction of duties to the amount of six millions could be made on the protected articles; and moved to amend the resolution by striking out the words "as expressed in his (the Secretary's) annual report." Mr. POINDEXTER rose and read from the annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury, that part which says that a reduction of duties to the amount of six millions could advantageously be made for the most part on articles commonly denominated the protected articles. Mr. P. said that the words objected to by the Senator from Ala refer the Secretary to his own language in general terms. This, he thought, was all that was necessary. The question was then taken on Mr. KING'S motion to strike out, and it was lost by the following vote: YEAS.-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Dallas, Dudley, Forsyth, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Kane, King, Mangum, Rives, Robinson, Smith, Tipton, White, Wilkins.-18. NAYS. Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Buckner, Calhoun, Cham bers, Clay, Clayton, Dickerson, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Holmes, Johnston, Knight, Miller, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Sprague, Tomlinson, Webster.--26. Mr. BIBB then moved to amend the resolution, by inserting the words "for the most part," using the language of the Secretary of the Treasury; which motion was adopted, Mr. POINDEXTER asserting and remarking that their insertion would not at all vary the meaning of the resolution. The question then recurring on the resolution as amended. Mr. MANGUM, in order to give time for absent Senators to be here, moved to lay the resolution on the table, which question was then taken, and decided as follows: YEAS.--Messrs. Benton, Bibb, Black, Brown, Buckner, Calhoun, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ewing, Forsyth, Frelinghuysen, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Holmes, Kane, King, Mangum, Miller, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Smith, Tipton, White, Wilkins.--27. NAYS.--Messrs. Bell, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Foot, Johnston, Knight, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss, Robbins, Seymour, Silsbee, Sprague, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Webster.--18. So the resolution was, for the present, laid on the table. Adjourned to Monday. MONDAY, JANUARY 7. TARIFF DUTIES. Mr. POINDEXTER moved the Senate to take up his resolution, calling for information as to the amount of duties; and asked for the yeas and nays on the motion. Mr. HENDRICKS said he should vote against the motion, as he thought the subject had already consumed sufficient time. Mr. DICKERSON said he should vote against the consideration, because the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. TrLER] had not yet returned. The question was then taken, and decided in the negative, as follows: YEAS. Messrs. Clay, Clayton, Foot, Holmes, Johnston, Knight, Moore, Poindexter, Robbins, Seymour, Silsbee, Tomlinson, Waggaman.-13. NAYS.--Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Benton, Black, Brown, Buckner, Calhoun, Chambers, Dallas, Dudley, Dickerson, Ewing, Frelinghuysen, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Kane, King, Mangum, Miller, Naudain, Prentiss, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Smith, Sprague, Tipton, Webster, White, Wilkins.--31. So the motion to take up the said resolution was nega tived. JANUARY 7, 1833.] PUBLIC LANDS. Public Lands. The Senate then proceeded to the special order of the day, being Mr. CLAY's bill for appropriating the proceeds of the public lands for a limited term, &c. The question being on the amendment reported by the Committee on Public Lands, which substitutes a new bill, reducing the price of public lands, {SENATE. have delegated powers to the Federal Government, and amongst these delegated powers, is not one authorizing Congress to enter into compacts with them, by which State authority can be restricted, or by which federal power or influence can be increased. In such States, (as distinguished from other States) the Federal Government claims no right, nor does it possess the means of influencing, in the slightest degree, the progress of agriculture, or the growth of population: but such States, and the people thereof, themselves enjoy, and extend to others, the opportunity of enjoying all their natural advantages of soil and climate, without control on the part of any other people or government. Mr. KANE, of Illinois, rose and said, that the principles and details of this bill had been so fully examined and developed at a previous session, that he could not consent to waste time by repeating the various arguments which had been urged with a perspicuity and force which he could not imitate. With other gentlemen from the new Any portion of the lands of proprietors in such States States, said Mr. K., I feel the great difficulties under is liable to be taken for public uses in such modes as such which we labor in our attempts to oppose the passage of States may prescribe. In such States Congress cannot rethe bill. They are, indeed, of the most discouraging gulate the price of real estate, nor can its value be regukind. The bill has once received the sanction of this lated with any view to the interests or wishes of propriebody; a majority, after long and patient examination, have tors of lands in other States. approved it. The opinion has not only been formed, but Now, sir, on the other hand, look at the comparative expressed, that it is a measure demanded by the general condition of the new States in these respects. The fedeinterest. Added to this, its provisions are of the most ral authorities, under the forms of compacts, have imposfascinating character. It appeals to the pride and inter- ed upon them, at a time when their population was small, ests of the States separately; to the avarice and self-love and when that population was subjected to all the disabiof the individuals composing those States. The report of lities of a Territorial Government, conditions depriving the Committee on Manufactures accompanying the bill, them of the most essential powers of useful and prosperconcludes with the most imposing display which the ex- ous States. The proprietors of nineteen-twentieths of our perience of man could suggest: a statement in figures soil cannot be taxed for any purpose of public convenieasily read, and readily comprehended, showing to each ence whatever; and let the public necessities be ever so of the States the sum, in dollars, to be received under the urgent, not one foot of it can be appropriated for public beneficent purposes of the bill. How are such appeals use, at any equivalent designated by State authority. Not to be resisted? Persons in the older states are told by the even a road can be opened through these vast extents of report, that if the land in the new States is reduced in territory without subjecting our citizens to prosecution. price, their own possessions must fall in value. The cis- If such things have been done, and no prosecutions instimontane States are warned of dangers to be apprehended from emigrations, and a frightful picture is presented to them of the decay of their relative strength and consequence in the Union. Yet, Mr. President, the representatives from the new States, against such fearful odds, feel it their duty to try once again to avert the calamities which they sincerely be lieve this bill calculated to visit upon their constituents --once again to show the injustice of fixing the future condition of the younger portion of the confederacy with an exclusive view to the interests of the older. tuted, our citizens are indebted to the mercy and forbearance of our overshadowing landlord; for we are bound not to interfere with the primary disposition of the soil. The effect of this ownership of so large a portion of our territory under the restrictions imposed upon us, is still more serious in another point of view. Our destiny is in the hands of those whose interests are in essential points adverse to ours. This fact cannot be more satisfactorily established than by a reference to the report of the Committee on Manufactures. This report declares: "The influence of the reduction Sir, we have heard much upon this floor with regard to of the price of public lands would probably be felt througha claim of right on the part of the new States to the land out the Union--certainly in all the Western States, and within their limits. This claim has been denounced in no most in those which contain, or are nearest to, the public measured terms, as grasping, with a sacrilegious hand, at lands." Again: "There ought to be the most cogent and property acquired for the common benefit, by the com- conclusive reasons for adopting a measure which might mon blood and treasure of the nation. "Fearful alarms" seriously impair the value of the property of the yeomanry have been sounded in the ears of our fellow-citizens, and of the country." And again: "The greatest emigration strong prejudices have been infused into their bosoms on that is believed now to take place from any of the States, account of a claim so monstrous and daring. One would is from Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The effects of have supposed that a claim resting solely upon conven- a material reduction in the price of the public lands would tional and constitutional ground, could be asserted with- be, 1st, to lessen the value of real estate in those three out reproach, discussed without alarm, and decided with- States; 2d, to diminish their interest in the public domain out bloodshed. It is a matter which refers itself only to as a common fund for the benefit of all the States; and, the decision of a peaceful constitutional tribunal, where 3dly, to offer what would operate as a bounty to further the scales of justice are influenced only by pure intentions emigration from those States, occasioning more and more and enlightened reason. lands, situated within them, to be thrown into market; But it is no part of my intention to discuss this mooted thereby not only lessening the value of their lands, but abstract question. I wish neither to subject myself, unnecessarily, to the anathemas which have been so profusely heaped upon other gentlemen, nor to place myself in a condition to feel compelled to revisit these anathemas upon the motives or conduct of others. I go for the fact, and shall appeal to the candor of all who admit its truth, that the new States are not upon an "equal footing" with the old, with regard to their rights and liberties. The old States are under no control except such as they have imposed upon themselves by their own constitutions of State Government, and except so far as they draining them both of their population and currency." The plain English of this language is, that the price of lands within the new States ought not to be reduced, because the value of lands in other and older States will be thereby diminished, and because the people of the older States may find it their interest to remove from the old to the new States. And as the older States have the power in their hands, they should so use it as to advance themselves; and that our interests and prosperity are not only subordinate considerations, but that they are to be checked, if necessary, in order to preserve the ascenden SENATE.] Public Lands. (JANUARY 7, 1833. cy of wealth and population in the older States. Under shall secure to it a perpetuity of at least five hundred years such circumstances, can the new States be upon an equal footing with that of the old? Our delightful and healthy climate is not to be visited, nor are our fertile lands to be cultivated, except upon terms which may accord with the pride and avarice of other States. The poor and the enterprising of the older States are to be chained to a sterile soil, to serve the ends of avarice, or the purposes of an ambition not chastened by a spirit of philanthropy. The designs of a beneficent Providence must be frustrated to keep up the price of the real estate of individuals, and the numerical consequence of the older States. est. to come, and that it ought to be distributed amongst the Shall we be told, in answer to these statements, that Congress have, and will continue, to act justly and liberally towards us. Gentlemen who repose themselves upon such an answer should consider that their opinions may not be impartially formed; that their sentiments and actions, in common with the rest of the human race, may be influenced by State pride, self-love, and personal interBut our complaint is, Mr. President, that any Government or people whose interests are adverse to ours, should exercise the right of judging for us in these particulars, and not do the same thing with respect to the older States. As long as this state of things shall continue, the new are not upon a footing of equality with the older States. Should any further excuse be demanded for renewing again this discussion, I refer to the message of the President of the United States at the commencement of the present session, which, upon a comprehensive view of the general substantial interests of the confederacy, has, for the first time on the part of any Executive Magistrate of this country, declared "It cannot be doubted that the speedy settlement of these lands constitutes the true interDuring the revolution, and about the time of the adopest of the republic. The wealth and strength of a coun- tion of the articles of confederation, some uneasiness was try are its population, and the best part of that popula- discovered on the part of some of the States, of account tion are the cultivators of the soil. Independent farmers of the extensive claims of other States to waste and unare every where the basis of society and the true friends cultivated lands, and as early as October, 1777, it was of liberty." "It seems to me (says the President) to be moved in Congress, "That in order to render the present our true policy that the public lands shall cease, as soon Union and Confederacy firm and perpetual, it is essential as practicable, to be a source of revenue, and that they that the limits of each respective territorial jurisdiction should be sold to settlers in limited parcels, at a price should be ascertained by the articles of confederation." barely sufficient to reimburse the United States the ex- It was also on the same day moved, "That the United pense of the present system, and the cost arising under States in Congress as embled, shall have the sole and exour Indian compacts." A respectful regard for the opi- clusive right and power to ascertain and fix the Western nions of the Chief Magistrate, presenting new views upon boundary of such States as claim to the South Sea, and to this interesting subject, should induce us to review our dispose of all land beyond the boundary so ascertained for own, and to re-examine the foundations upon which our the benefit of the United States." Again: It was at the minds have been brought to different conclusions. Now, same time further proposed, "That the United States in sir, what are the grounds upon which contrary doctrines Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive are held? The report of the Committee on Manufactures, right and power to ascertain and fix the Western boundary of the last session, will serve as the text book for this de- of such States as claim to the Mississippi, or South Sea, velopement. The document takes up the subject of the and lay out the land beyond the boundary so ascertained, lands from the commencement of the revolutionary war, into separate and independent States; from time to time, exhibiting the right of this Government theretò, as deriv- as the numbers and the circumstances of the people ed from the cession of the several States of this Union, thereof may require." These several propositions were and from treaties concluded with foreign Powers, and, voted down in the old Congress by decided majorities. with regard to the first description, declares, "Thus, by The articles of confederation were agreed upon by the the clear and positive terms of these acts of cession, was Congress, containing a proviso, "That no State shall be a great public national trust created and assumed by the deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States," General Government. It became solemnly bound to hold and were submitted to the several States for ratification, and administer the land ceded as a common fund, for the and were eventually ratified by all the States. Four of use and benefit of all the States, and for no other use or these States, however, did endeavor to procure some mopurpose whatever. To waste or misapply this fund, or dification of the provision I have just cited. Maryland to divert it from the common benefit for which it was con- proposed to insert after the provision these words: "The veyed, would be a violation of the trust. The General United States, in Congress assembled, shall have the Government has no more power rightfully to cede the power to appoint commissioners, who shall be fully auland thus acquired to one of the new States, without a fair thorized and empowered to ascertain and restrict the equivalent, than it could retrocede them to the State or boundaries of such of the confederated States which claim States from which they were originally obtained." This to extend to the river Mississippi, or South Sea."--In exreport, especially when taken in connexion with explana-planation of this proposition it was urged by Maryland, tions furnished by its author, [Mr. CLAY,] urges that this that States with "overgrown" possessions might be incitfund is to be converted into money, after a mode which ed, by a superiority of wealth and strength, to oppress, by |