Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Having very briefly and imperfectly adverted to the cessions of public lands from the several States, it is proper and necessary to inquire into the nature of the contracts by which other public lands have been acquired by the United States; and here it is not intended to follow the track which has been generally pursued by those entertaining the same views upon this subject. Much has been said of the comparative cost and revenue of the public lands. With great deference to the opinions of others, this is not believed to be the most correct view of the subject. It has already been shown that the cessions of land by the several States to the Union were intended as contributions to that "common Treasury" spoken of in the articles of confederation, to meet the "expenses incurred for the common defence," as expressed in the same article, and for "no other use or purpose whatsoever," as is expressly provided in the cession from Virginia. It is believed that as little difficulty exists in showing that the purchases from foreign nations belong to the same "common fund" with the lands received from the States of this Union. It is not necessary here to state an account of debit and credit between the land fund and tax fund, for the purpose of showing on which side a balance may preponderate, although such comparison may fall into a subsequent part of this inquiry. It will be sufficient to show by what means such purchases of lands were effected. No man at all acquainted with the history of this country can be ignorant that Louisiana was purchased from France, and Florida from Spain; nor that the first cost fifteen and the latter five millions of dollars, without estimating interest, difference of exchange, or any other incidental charge; nor will it be pretended that they were not paid for out of the public Treasury, out of that very "common Treasury" designed to provide for the "common defence" of the whole Union, as contradistinguished from its separate parts. How, then, can it be pretended that the money arising from the sale of the lands acquired by the purchase of Louisiana and Florida stands upon different ground, with respect to distribution, from money brought into the Treasury by taxation? Nor can this view of the subject be too clearly or strongly enforced upon the public mind.

[MAY 23, 1836.

chase of stock, to be thereafter disposed of to the best advantage for the promotion of the objects for which the taxes were raised, and is therefore the trustee of the people for the faithful application of the proceeds of that stock for such purposes, and no other. It is useless to answer, that as the stock is worth more than the money it cost, the States are entitled, as bodies politic and corporate, to the profits, by a ratable distribution among them. The fund with which these purchases were made was not contributed by the States. It was contributed in the form of "taxes, duties, imposts, and excises," directly by the people. How, then, can Congress take a fund, or the proceeds of such fund, con. tributed by the people in their individual character, for certain definite purposes, "to provide for the common defence," &c., and distribute it among the State Gov. ernments? The thing is utterly absurd and impossible upon any fair constitutional principle. To close this branch of the subject, it is asserted, without the fear of successful contradiction, that as Congress can alone raise revenue by taxation for purposes common to the Union, and has appropriated a portion of the revenue so raised to the purchase of lands, that body is, to that extent, the trustee of the people, and bound for the faithful applica tion of the whole trust property to the purposes and objects for which alone the money with which it was paid for was raised. This view of the subject is still more strongly enforced by the consideration that the whole of the public expenses, ordinary and extraordi nary, including an amount of public debt exceeding four hundred millions of dollars, have been met and discharg ed exclusively by the fund raised from the pockets of the people by direct or indirect taxation. This assertion is not too strong when we advert to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury of the 28th of April, 1836, by which it appears that, by a fair statement of the ac count current between the tax fund and the land fund, technically so called, by the returns rendered up to the 18th day of the same month of April, the balance due the land fund was only $3,016,961 68, not much more than one tenth of the sum now claimed to be subject to distribution for the years 1833, 1834, and 1835. What show of justice, then, would there be in such a scheme of distribution, by which the money collected from the people, and paid for public lands, shall be squandered, when received back again from the sale of these lands, among the Governments of the States of this Union? The catchword has been, that as the public revenue had accumulated greatly beyond the necessary wants of the Government, let it be returned to the people again by distribution. Of all the humbugs created in this age of invention for ministering food for political ambition or pecuniary cupidity, this is the most preposterous and absurd. Distribute money among the people, forsooth! The scheme is to distribute it to the regularly organized State Governments. It need not be said that the inten tion is to corrupt these Governments by giving them an interest at war with the best interests of the people, but it requires no exercise of the imagination to perceive that such would be the inevitable result.

The present constitution had for its object the perpetuity of the Union, and for that purpose conferred on the Federal Government certain powers, to be exercised for certain defined and specified purposes, and no others. Among these was the power to levy and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises;" and for what purpose? "To pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." The "common defence," "the general welfare" of the United States-that "defence" and that "welfare," which are "common" and "general" to the "United States" as a confederacy, as a whole, as contrasted with and distinguished from its several parts-not that vague common defence and general welfare understood by some to confer unlimited power of taxation and appropriation upon this Government, but such as may be provided for and promoted by the exercise of the powers definitely and specifically granted in the constitution, and by no other. If this view of the subject be correct-and it is not only intact, but believed to be intangible-it follows irresistibly that Louisiana and Florida were paid for out of the tax fund collected out of the pockets of the people for certain specified purposes; and, as an unavoidable consequence, that the public lands within their limits are bound, by every principle of law and equity, to stand in the place of the fund from which they were paid for. It then results in this: that this * In Mr. Clay's last elaborate speech upon the bill for Government, for the better providing for the common distributing the proceeds of the land sales, he is under. defence and general welfare, appropriated a portion of stood to have said, that if, in consequence of the distri the public money collected from the people in the pur-bution proposed, there should not be money in the

Already have we heard it more than whispered, from a quarter most ominous, that if the revenue shall be so re. duced by this notable scheme of distribution as to produce a deficiency in the Treasury for defraying the ordi. nary expenditures of the Government, the duties on wines will admit of augmentation, and those on silks be augmented or restored, according as they are now sub. ject to or free from duty. But what is the plan of dis.

MAY 23, 1836.]

Public Lands.

[H. OF R.

lieving, at the time the subject was first investigated in Congress, that the change of the deposite of the public money from the Bank of the United States to the local banks was, if not the wisest, among the wisest acts of General Jackson's civil administration, subsequent experience and observation have strengthened and confirmed that opinion. And I now as confidently believe, that if the Bank of the United States had held the control of the large amount of public money at the time its charter was about to expire, which would have been in its possession if the fiscal agency of the Government had not been previously taken away from it, the local banks would have been crushed, and a scene of pecuniary distress and ruin created, such as the wildest imagination would scarcely be able to conceive.

Mr. DUNLAP said, as the bill from the Senate embraced the object contemplated by the resolution under consideration, and as the time was near at hand for pro

postpone the further consideration of the subject before the House until Monday next, at which time he should move to appropriate the three hours which would otherwise be devoted to the continuation of this debate to the consideration of the Tennessee land bill.

Mr. HANNEGAN moved to lay the resolutions of the Kentucky Legislature, together with the instructions, on the table.

tribution now proposed for our adoption? As before stated, instead of returning money to the pockets of the people from whom it had been previously collected, it contemplates dividing it among the State Governments. The cession from Virginia provides that the land shall constitute a "common fund," according to the "usual proportions of the States in the general charge and expenditure, according to the rule established by the articles of confederation." The federal constitution, in changing the mode of creating and collecting revenue, retained a rule analogous to that of the articles of confederation by which direct taxes should be apportioned among the States-the rule of federal numbers. While the bill under consideration proposes to distribute according to this rule, it is not until fifteen per cent. have been previously secured to the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi, and Louisiana, and to those at the Northwest, the benefits of the expend itures already made in building and repairing the Cum-ceeding with the orders of the day, he would move to berland road, without any charge or deduction, except the nominal reimbursement from the two per cent. fund originally set apart for its construction. It is true, the federal constitution has set up no standard by which money or other favors shall be distributed among the States; and this is of itself sufficient to show that no such distribution was ever intended by it. But if the rule of direct taxation is settled, invariable, and, as far as may be, equitable between the States, it may be fairly concluded, that if, under any circumstances, a distribution of public money among them should ever be made, it would be regulated by the same standard. It is again asserted, that no rule of distribution of money different from the one established for regulating direct taxation could possibly be consistent with the constitution. But in addition, it is fearlessly asserted that, as the constitution is a grant of defined and specified powers to carry into effect objects equally definite, the power sought to be exercised by this bill is totally repugnant to its most obvious principles. It has been asked, what shall be done with the redundant revenue with which the Treasury is now overloaded? To the comprehension of a plain understanding there does not seem to be much mystery in the matter. If the land fund is sufficient to meet the necessary expenditures, repeal the whole of your taxes. If not sufficient, repeal a part of them. If more than sufficient, repeal the whole of the tariff, and curtail the sale of the public lands, by limiting it to actual settlers, and to actual settlers alone; and, in connexion with this latter subject, establish an equitable system of gradua tion in the price, according to the period which the land has remained subject to entry at the minimum price established by the Government.

It might not be difficult to expatiate upon the general course of public affairs, not only since the commence. ment of the present administration, but from the adoption of our present form of Government; but it is not now considered necessary.

On one topic of general discussion within the last three years, a single remark may not be inappropriate. Be

Treasury to meet ordinary expenditures, the duties on wines and silks might be restored or increased. This is ominous, but it is not the only circumstance going to show the connexion of his scheme, and the scheme of Mr. Calhoun, with the continuance, and, if necessary, the increase of a high tariff. It is sufficient to refer to the fact that the scheme to distribute dates with the "compromise" tariff act of 1833, intended by Mr. Clay, and so stated by him, to save, not to destroy, the protective system. If the scheme of distribution, in either form, as presented by Mr. Clay or Mr. Calhoun, shall be carried, my life on it, the tariff will be increased and perpetuated.—Note by Mr. H.

Mr. STORER asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. SPEIGHT, in view of the importance of the motion, proposed that there should be a call of the House, which was agreed to.

After proceeding a short time with the call, Mr. MER. CER moved that it be suspended; and after some conversation between that gentleman and Mr. SPEIGHT,

Mr. HANNEGAN remarked that he hoped the call would be proceeded in, and that they should have a full House, as the motion which he had made was intended by him to be a test vote on the subject of distributing the proceeds of the sales of the public lands.

The motion to suspend the call was lost, and the roll was then called through, as were also the absentees, when it appeared that 190 members were in attendance.

Mr. HIESTER moved to suspend all further proceed. ings under the call; which was agreed to.

Mr. MANN, of New York, appealed to the gentleman from Indiana to withdraw the motion, as he desired to make a few remarks on the subject before the House.

Mr. HANNEGAN could not withdraw the motion. Mr. ADAMS called for the reading of the resolution of instructions; which being done,

Mr. McCOMAS desired to know whether it was intended that the motion to lay on the table should be a test question on the propriety of distributing the proceeds of the public lands.

Mr. HANNEGAN repeated that he had made the mo tion expressly for the purpose of testing the sense of the House on the subject alluded to.

The motion to lay the resolutions of the Legislature of Kentucky, and the instructions moved by Mr. WIL LIAMS, on the table, was then decided in the affirmative as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Ash, Ashley, Barton, Beale, Bean, Beaumont, Bockee, Boon, Bouldin, Bovee, Boyd, Brown, Cambreleng, Carr, Casey, Chaney, Chapman, John F. H. Claiborne, Cleveland, Connor, Craig, Cra mer, Cushman, Dickerson, Doubleday, Dunlap, Fairfield, Farlin, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, James Garland, Gillet, Glascock, Grantland, Grayson, Griffin, Haley, Joseph Hall, Hamer, Hannegan, Albert G. Harrison, Hawes, Haynes, Holsey, Howard, Huntsman, Ingham, Jabez Jackson, Jarvis, Joseph Johnson, Cave Johnson, John W. Jones, Benjamin Jones, Judson,

H. OF R.]

Fortification Bill.

Kennon, Kilgore, Kinnard, Lane, Lansing, Lawler,
Gideon Lee, Joshua Lee, Leonard, Logan, Loyall,
Lucas, Lyon, Abijah Mann, Job Mann, Martin, John Y.
Mason, William Mason, Moses Mason, May, McKay,
McKeon, McKim, McLene, Montgomery, Morgan, Muh-
lenberg, Owens, Page, Parks, Patterson, Patton, Phelps,
Pinckney, John Reynolds, Joseph Reynolds, Roane,
Rogers, Schenck, Seymour, Sickles, Smith, Speight,
Sutherland, Taylor, Thomas, John Thomson, Toucey,
Towns, Turrill, Vanderpoel, Wagener, Ward, Ward-
well, Webster, Weeks-110.

[MAY 23, 1836.

was the rule of the majority alone. The caucus system was another of the principles of the New York democstitution. He described the manner in which he himself racy; a principle he declared to be at war with the conhad been nominated to the Baltimore convention. Nine individuals out of ten thousand, at Nashville, had met and nominated him, and the nomination was afterwards approved of by some fifty or sixty more, and he paid as much attention to it as he should to the whistling of a bird. It was said the principle of the caucus system was indispensable to keep the party together. Why, carry out such a principle, and the election of a king might be justified under it. He again denounced it as one of the most dangerous of the federal doctrines, and tending to the most alarming inroads upon the liberties of the people. He then adverted to the loss of the fortification bill. He said he saw the chairman [Mr. CAMBRELENG] of the committee of conference on that occasion when he returned, and asked him if they had agreed; and that gentleman informed him that they had, and that he was only waiting for an opportunity to make the report to the House. He was, however, astonished just after, to see the same gentleman get up and protest against that being no quorum in the House. very report from being made, on the ground of there extraordinary manner in which the journal was kept at He remarked upon the present, by the protest of Messrs. GLASCOCK, ROBERTSON, and GarLAND of Louisiana, containing their reasons for not voting on the abolition question, being now spread on the journal. Every other member had an equal right, and the journal might be filled in this way. He then referred to Judge White's letter to John Ross, and said and that his letter was a legal opinion. ́ When the questhat Judge White had been consulted by Ross as a lawyer, Mr. WILLIAMS, of Kentucky, moved to take up theated the same doctrine contained in that letter, that, tion of State jurisdiction came up, Judge White reiterresolution from the Senate, fixing a day for the adjournment of Congress.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Chilton Allan, Heman Allen,
Anthony, Bailey, Bell, Borden, Briggs, Buchanan,
Bunch, William B. Calhoun, Campbell, Carter, George
Chambers, John Chambers, Childs, Nathaniel H. Clai-
borne, Clark, Corwin, Crane, Cushing, Deberry, Denny,
Evans, Everett, French, Fry, Philo C. Fuller, Granger,
Graves, Grennell, Hard, Hardin, Harlan, Harper, Sam-
uel S. Harrison, Hazeltine, Hiester, Hoar, Hopkins,
Howell, Hubley, Hunt, Ingersoll, William Jackson,
Janes, Jenifer, Laporte, Lawrence, Lay, Luke Lea,
Lewis, Lincoln, Love, Samson Mason, McCarty, McCo-
mas, McKennan, Mercer, Milligan, Morris, Parker,
Dutee J. Pearce, James A. Pearce, Pettigrew, Phillips,
Potts, Reed, Rencher, Robertson, Russell, William B.
Shepard, Augustine H. Shepperd, Slade, Spangler,
Sprague, Standefer, Steele, Storer, Taliaferro, Waddy
Thompson, Turner, Underwood, Vinton, Washington,
White, Elisha Whittlesey, Lewis Williams, Sherrod
Williams-89.

So the whole subject was laid on the table.
The hour of one having arrived,

The SPEAKER announced the special order.
Mr. LOVE moved to suspend the rules for the pur-
pose of calling the States for petitions; lost.

Mr. HUNTSMAN called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. CAMBRELENG hoped the gentleman from Kentucky would withdraw his motion. The best way to bring the session to a speedy termination was to persevere in transacting the public business, without wasting time in motions to suspend the rules.

Mr. WILLIAMS declined withdrawing his motion; when it was negatived: Yeas 98, nays 89-two thirds being necessary.

FORTIFICATION BILL.

On motion of Mr. CAMBRELENG, and in further execution of the special order of the 26th of January, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. MANN, of New York, in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the bill "making appropriations for certain fortifications of the United States for the year 1836."

The question pending being the motion of Mr. CAMBRELENG, to amend the bill by inserting an item of $700,000 for the armament of the fortifications

Mr. FORESTER resumed his remarks, and set out by a review of the land bill. He then adverted to the course of Mr. Van Buren upon former occasions, on the subject of internal improvements, the Bank of the United States, &c.

It was

He examined that principle of the majority party, which said that "the spoils belong to the victors," which was an anti-democratic doctrine, and one of the most abominable federal maxims ever advanced. making the voice of the people give way to the voice of corruption. It might be New York democracy, but it was not the kind of democracy which prevailed in Tennessee. There it was held that the rule of democracy

revenue.

quoad the United States, the Cherokees were independshe had supreme jurisdiction within her territorial limits. ent; but that Georgia, being one of the original States, character of counsel, and was confined to the question The one was a legal opinion, given on consultation in the kees; the other was his constitutional opinion as respectof sovereignty between the United States and the Chero ed the latter people and the State of Georgia. There was, then, no inconsistency between the two documents. Mr. F. then adverted to the subject of the surplus He had made a calculation, and he found that all the bills before Congress at that time, if they should pass, amounted, exclusive of the French spoliation claims, to an appropriation of about twenty-three million of dolinevitably leave a surplus in the Treasury. To say that lars, say twenty-five million of dollars, and this would to return a people the money that belonged to them would corrupt them, was absolutely ridiculous. This HAYNES] that morning, and it was the strangest he had was the argument of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. ever heard from any man. The manner in which Congress had been in the habit of voting away the public money was far more corrupting. He censured the mode value of a thousand dollars each; and he had always conof members voting books to themselves, perhaps to the demned it.

On the subject of the deposite banks, he reviewed the course of the House on the resolution of Mr. WISE, in resisting an inquiry into the connexion of that "traitor and perjured scoundrel," Reuben M. Whitney, with those banks. It was due to the Secretary of the Treasury that this investigation should have been had, in spite Hampshire, [Mr. PIERCE,] that that officer was above of the defence made of him by the gentleman from New public opinion. What the facts were, Mr. F. knew not; that the charges made on the floor of that House, by one but it was due to Mr. Woodbury, and due to the country,

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Mr. PICKENS obtained the floor, and said he would move that the committee rise, though, if it was desired, he would proceed.

Mr. PEARCE, of Rhode Island, said it was evident there was not a quorum present, and he asked that the Chair count the committee.

The Chairman counted, and reported only fifty-one members present.

Mr. MERCER said a quorum was doubtless within the Capitol, and he would take that opportunity of sending to the Chair an amendment to the amendment, authorizing the President of the United States to expend so much of said sum as he may deem expedient for the purpose of establishing a national foundry. Mr. M. (Mr. PICKENS having given way) made a few remarks in relation to his amendment.

Mr. MASON, of Virginia, was in favor of the object of his colleague, but he would suggest some limitation of the amount to be appropriated for the purpose, say one hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. MERCER replied that a limitation was hardly necessary, inasmuch as money laid out for cannon was just as valuable to the country as if it was preserved in gold or silver coin. He again entered into a brief statement, showing the necessity of the Government having a foundry of its own, and thereby the insuring of the manufacture of a good material. He preferred leaving the sum to be expended to the discretion of the Exec utive.

Mr. PICKENS said it was not agreeable to him to trespass upon the attention of the committee, and he trusted he never could be induced to do so except from considerations of duty.

Mr. Chairman, this debate has taken a wide range, and doctrines have been advanced and sentiments avowed, against which I feel bound to raise my most solemn protest. The chairman of the Committee of "Ways and Means" [Mr. CAMBRELENG] withdrew an amendment on a former bill embracing the same principles, but declared that he would consider the whole debate as open upon the present occasion.

However, before I proceed to reply to what has been advanced by other gentlemen, I propose to make a few observations on the general principles which shall govern my vote on the bill immediately under the consideration of the committee.

men.

As to appropriations towards those fortifications calculated to give efficiency and protection to our navy, I perhaps would be inclined to go as far as most gentleI am in favor of those that are important for these purposes, and no other, so far as the Atlantic coast is concerned. I look upon it as one of the most idle and visionary schemes that has ever been conceived, to attempt a military line of fortifications on our Atlantic coast, similar to those which European Governments have adopted. Our population, comparatively speaking, is sparse, and we have a coast equal in extent to the whole western coast of Europe. Under these circumstances, our resources would not justify an attempt to encircle ourselves with a system of fortifications on a plan similar to those which more populous and far less extensive countries have adopted. Besides, we have no border Powers against which it may be necessary to protect ourselves. We are remote from all other Powers, with an immense and increasing commerce. Our physical position, and all the circumstances with which we are

[H. of R.

surrounded, proclaim a navy to be our only system of enlarged national defence. Our expenditures for fortifications ought to be made exclusively with a view to give protection and energy to our navy. With our extensive coast, you may make fortifications for land defence, and have your system, as you may suppose, perfect; but give your enemy ascendency upon the ocean, and they will land their forces at whatever points they may think proper. No commercial country can rely for defence upon any thing but a well-regulated navy.

Our true policy of defence is to increase and strengthen it by judicious points of fortification, so as to enable us to protect our whole coast by a stronger naval power than any nation would be able to concentrate against us. With this view, and looking to the natural division of our coast into four great bays as it were-the first from Passamaquoddy to Cape Cod, the second from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras, the third from Cape Hatteras to Cape Florida, and the fourth to the Sabine-I would say that extensive navy yards, with efficient fortifications, should be established at the most suitable points between these different capes, so that an ordinary naval force, with brave and enterprising men, could easily defend the whole frontier, and at the same time protect our commerce. For instance, I would have such a navy yard with fortifications at or near Boston-the same at or near New York-then at Norfolk and the mouth of the Chesapeake the same at Charleston-and then at Pensacola, for the defence of the Gulf, and the commerce of the West. I would place these points on the best and strongest footing, equal to any in Europe, and make little or no expenditures on any other points, so far as our Atlantic frontier is concerned.

It is all idle and visionary to attempt to place our coast in a perfect state of defence by stationary fortifications; this can alone be done by those that move upon the face of the deep. There is scarcely any fortification but what can be passed under favorable tides and winds, and it is a military maxim that there is none but what can be taken. Look to those that were erected at Antwerp, with so much skill and labor, on the same plan of Fortress Monroe, and which Bonaparte himself pronounced impregnable, and what was the result? The French battered them to the ground in twenty-four hours. The truth is, that for an invading force on land we must at last rely upon "high minds and brave hearts," with bayonets, and not fortifications. Besides, sir, the genius of our institutions is at war with a standing army. But extend your visionary and wanton schemes of fortifications, and they call for an increased force to keep them in repair. Sir, I rejoice to say that I believe the majority of the officers of your present army are men worthy to be trusted with the liberties of their country. But increase your military points, and call for a corresponding increase of men, and then place all under profligate and ambitious rulers, and there is no patriot who will not tremble for the consequences to his country.

Mr. Chairman, there has been a great change in the condition and resources of our country within the last few years. Under the application of steam power to our coast and rivers, remote sections have been brought together, and the energies of the community have been condensed. Our weakness, arising from a sparse population, has been to a great extent overcome. If this be the effect of steam as applicable to the water, what must be the operation of things under the tremendous schemes that are now in progress to bring the interior West to the seacoast by means of railroads? I would rather have one railroad running from our coast into that brave and enterprising country, for the purposes of defence, than all the fortifications your overflowing Treasury can erect. For military purposes, heretofore, communities

H. OF R.]

Fortification Bill.

have been strong in proportion to the denseness of their population. But the recent triumphs of invention and art over nature seem likely to develop new energy and resources, and may change the whole scheme of military defences in an extensive and widely populated country. Under these views, I shall never vote for any fortification that cannot be shown to be necessary for the strength and support of the navy. I would desire to have but few points, and place them on the most liberal and substantial basis. It is nothing but a wanton waste of the public money to attempt to embrace too many in. terests, and cover too many points.

But, sir, I will now look at the operation of this system in another point of view. While you have been expending, for the last twenty years, millions upon millions in certain sections of this Union, other extensive sections have been, to a great extent, entirely neglected. When my colleague, [Mr. THOMPSON,] some weeks since, with so much ability, demonstrated the unequal operation of your naval appropriations, he drew but a just picture of this Government in all its fiscal operations. As to our navy, I am disposed to make some allowances for appropriations heretofore, from the fact that our tonnage has been owned in, and our large commercial transactions have, in a great measure, taken place in those sections where the demand and supplies for a navy and its appendages were naturally called for. But we have now reached a new era in our affairs, when other sections and other interests must be attended to. Heretofore your Government has been profuse in its expenditures for the defence of those portions of your country which you boast of as being naturally the strongest, while you have neglected those portions which you have proclaimed to be the weakest. Is this the sound policy that should direct the energies of a fostering Government to protect equally the exposed points of a united people? Let it not be supposed that we complain of the unequal disbursements, merely for the dollars and cents involved. No; it is because the operation is deeply connected with the great principles of liberty. As a people under one Government, we present a different state of things from any other people. We are one for certain great purposes, and separate for others. As far as the pecuniary and fiscal transactions of Government are concerned, it is not to be disguised that we have sectional interests differently affected. As far as the States are concerned, we have in each peculiar sentiments, habits, and feelings. To preserve these is the very essence of our separate independence and existence. No people can be free and independent who are habitually and systematically excluded from the favors and benefits of the Government that acts upon them. Let it become fixed, as a settled policy, that the West and the South are only to feel this Government in its exactions, while other sections are to feel it in its disbursements-let it be known that we are to be converted into Roman provinces, from which you are to collect treasure and wealth to be distributed amongst those who may be styled "Roman citizens"-and then, sir, if such a system is to last if this state of things is to be continued, you will soon see, under it, our industry and enterprise droop and grow dull; you will see our spirits wither and die; genius will turn from lofty aspiration; our people will lose their burning feeling of patriotism; and from manly independence we will tamely sink down to become serfs and vassals under a mighty empire, where even the very boundaries of the States will be lost and forgotten amid the ruin and desolation thrown over a broken and disheartened country!

It is useless and idle, at this period of the world, to talk about liberty, so far as it may be identified with personal rights and individual protection. These stand secured, and are, to a great extent, consecrated in the

(MAY 23, 1836.

feelings and institutions of every civilized community on earth. In those great struggles which ended in the over. throw of feudal barbarism, the contest was for individ ual and personal liberty. But since the combination of the Holy Alliance, together with all the improvements and schemes of modern society, every thing seems to tend towards an amalgamation of all Christendom into one system of organization, and the great contest now is for the political independence of separate communities. This view becomes deeply interesting to us as independent States. An habitual exclusion of any portion of the States of this confederacy from the fiscal benefits of this Government, and power over its action, must end in a sacrifice of their political independence. Hence it is, that political power becomes deeply identified with political liberty. A people to be free must feel that they

are so.

Compare these great principles with what now actual. ly exists and what has existed for the last twenty years. In that period of time, this Government has collected $420,000,000, and after throwing out of the calculation the $130,000,000 which have been appropriated for the payment of the public debt, we then have left $290,000,000, of which $210,000,000 have been disbursed in the middle and Northern sections, while only $80,000,000 have been disbursed in all the other sections.

Let not gentlemen suppose that the West and South are factious, when they oppose this system of disburse. ments. No! they see involved in it the highest interests and even the liberties of their country.

I come now to what has been advanced by others in the progress of this debate. The chairman of the "Ways and Means" observed that the revenue system which this Government had adopted for the last twenty years was the most unjust and oppressive that was ever adopted by any civilized Government. In this, sir, I agree with him. He also said that the commencement of this system was the tariff of 1816. To a considerable extent, I agree with him here too. But when he came to assert that the "compromise bill" was the consummation of that system, I confess I could not exactly understand him. There are principles in this bill which by no means receive my approbation. The gentlenian spoke of the evils complained of from the surplus in the Treasury, and intimated that if it had not been for the "compro mise," a system would have been adopted which would have reduced the revenue now down to the wants of the Government. All this sounded very well from the gen tleman in one part of his remarks. But when he came to another part, where he was attempting to defeat the "land bill," or any other just distribution of this sur plus amongst the States, I confess I was astonished to see the gentleman labor so hard to prove that there was and would be no surplus.

He entered into a long calculation to show that there would be no more than the wants of the Government would require. At one moment, he denounced the "compromise" as producing the evils of the surplus, to show how much better others could have done for the country; and then, when he desired to retain what was in the Treasury from a distribution, he attempts to prove that the same "compromise" has produced no surplus beyond what the Government will actually want. I leave the gentleman to reconcile this palpable absurdity and contradiction in his argument, if argument it can be called. But, sir, this contradiction was not more aston. ishing to me than the reasoning by which he jumped at his conclusions. He spoke loudly on the "ebbs and floods" of importations and exportations; and from something connected with these ebbs and floods" which he knew of, he asserted that two years hence our importa tions would not exceed $40,000,000, and upon this our imposts would yield $10,000,000 of revenue.

« ZurückWeiter »