Volume 2 — SPEECHES. (continued 15)

‘In whatever light, therefore, this great subject is viewed, the transfer of the public lands from the whole people of the United States, for whose benefit they are now held, to the people inhabiting the new states, must be regarded as the most momentous measure ever presented to the consideration of congress. If such a measure could find any justification, it must arise out of some radical and incurable defect in the construction of the general government properly to administer the public domain. But the existence of any such defect is contradicted by the most successful experience. No branch of the public service has evinced more system, uniformity, and wisdom, or given more general satisfaction, than that of the administration of the public lands.

‘If the proposed cession to the new states were to be made at a fair price, such as the general government could obtain from individual purchasers under the present system, there would be no motive for it, unless the new states are more competent to dispose of the public lands than the common government. They are now sold under one uniform plan, regulated and controlled by a single legislative authority, and the practical operation is perfectly understood. If they were transferred to the new states, the subsequent disposition would be according to laws emanating from various legislative sources. Competition would probably arise between the new states, in the terms which they would offer to purchasers. Each state would be desirous of inviting the greatest number of emigrants, not only for the laudable purpose of populating rapidly its own territories, but with the view to the acquisition of funds to enable it to fulfil its engagements with the general government. Collisions between the states would probably arise, and their injurious consequences may be imagined. A spirit of hazardous speculation would be engendered. Various schemes in the new states would be put afloat to sell or divide the public lands. Companies and combinations would be formed in this country, if not in foreign countries, presenting gigantic and tempting but delusive projects; and the history of legislation, in some of the states of the union, admonishes us that a too ready ear is sometimes given by a majority, in a legislative assembly, to such projects.

‘A decisive objection to such a transfer, for a fair equivalent, is, that it would establish a new and dangerous relation between the general government and the new states. In abolishing the credit which had been allowed to purchasers of the public lands prior to the year 1820, congress was principally governed by the consideration of the expediency and hazard of accumulating a large amount of debt in the new states all bordering on each other. Such an accumulation was deemed unwise and unsafe. It presented a new bond of interest, of sympathy, and of union, partially operating to the possible prejudice of the common bond of the whole union. But that debt was a debt due from individuals, and it was attended with this encouraging security, that purchasers, as they successively completed the payments for their lands, would naturally be disposed to aid the government in enforcing payment from delinquents. The project which the committee are now considering, is, to sell to the states, in their sovereign character, and consequently, to render them public debtors to the general government to an immense amount. This would inevitably create between the debtor states a common feeling and a common interest, distinct from the rest of the union. These states are all in the western and southwestern quarter of the union, remotest from the centre of federal power. The debt would be felt as a load from which they would constantly be desirous to relieve themselves; and it would operate as a strong temptation, weakening, if not dangerous, to the existing confederacy. The committee have the most animating hopes and the greatest confidence in the strength, and power, and durability of our happy union; and the attachment and warm affection of every member of the confederacy cannot be doubted; but we have authority, higher than human, for the instruction, that it is wise to avoid all temptation.

‘In the state of Illinois, with a population at the last census of one hundred and fifty-seven thousand four hundred and forty-five, there are thirty-one million three hundred and ninety-five thousand six hundred and sixty-nine acres of public land, including that part on which the Indian title remains to be extinguished. If we suppose it to be worth only half the minimum price, it would amount to nineteen million six hundred and twenty-two thousand four hundred and eighty dollars. How would that state be able to pay such an enormous debt? How could it pay even the annual interest upon it?

‘Supposing the debtor states to fail to comply with their engagements, in what mode could they be enforced by the general government? In treaties between independent nations, the ultimate remedy is well known. The apprehension of an appeal to that remedy, seconding the sense of justice and the regard for character, which prevail among christian and civilized nations, constitutes, generally, adequate security for the performance of national compacts. But this last remedy would be totally inadmissible in case of a delinquency on the part of the debtor states. The relations between the general government and the members of the confederacy are happily those of peace, friendship, and fraternity, and exclude all idea of force and war. Could the judiciary coerce the debtor states? On what could their process operate? Could the property of innocent citizens, residing within the limits of those states, be justly seized by the general government, and held responsible for debts contracted by the states themselves in their sovereign character? If a mortgage upon the lands ceded, were retained, that mortgage would prevent or retard subsequent sales by the states; and if individuals bought, subject to the incumbrance, a parental government could never resort to the painful measure of disturbing them in their possessions.

‘Delinquency, on the part of the debtor states, would be inevitable, and there would be no effectual remedy for the delinquency. They would come again and again to congress, soliciting time and indulgence, until, finding the weight of the debt intolerable, congress, wearied by reiterated applications for relief, would finally resolve to spunge the debt; or, if congress attempted to enforce its payment, another and a worse alternative would be embraced.

‘If the proposed cession be made for a price merely nominal, it would be contrary to the express conditions of the original cessions from primitive states to congress, and contrary to the obligations which the general government stands under to the whole people of these United States, arising out of the fact, that the acquisitions of Louisiana and Florida, and from Georgia, were obtained at a great expense, borne from the common treasure, and incurred for the common benefit. Such a gratuitous cession could not be made without a positive violation of a solemn trust, and without manifest injustice to the old states. And its inequality among the new states would be as marked as its injustice to the old would be indefensible. Thus Missouri, with a population of one hundred and forty thousand four hundred and fifty-five, would acquire thirty-eight million two hundred and ninety-two thousand one hundred and fifty-one acres; and the state of Ohio, with a population of nine hundred and thirty-five thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, would obtain only five million five hundred and eighty-six thousand eight hundred and thirty-four acres. Supposing a division of the land among the citizens of those two states respectively; the citizen of Ohio would obtain less than six acres for his share, and the citizen of Missouri upwards of two hundred and seventy-two acres as his proportion.

‘Upon full and thorough consideration, the committee have come to the conclusion, that it is inexpedient either to reduce the price of the public lands, or to cede them to the new states. They believe, on the contrary, that sound policy coincides with the duty which has devolved on the general government to the whole of the states, and the whole of the people of the union, and enjoins the preservation of the existing system, as having been tried and approved, after a long and triumphant experience. But, in consequence of the extraordinary financial prosperity which the United States enjoys, the question merits examination, whether, whilst the general government steadily retains the control of this great national resource in its own hands, after the payment of the public debt, the proceeds of the sales of the public lands, no longer needed to meet the ordinary expenses of government, may not be beneficially appropriated to some other objects for a limited time.’

The senator from New York has adverted, for another purpose, to the twenty-eight millions of surplus divided a few years ago among the states. He has said, truly, that it arose from the public lands. Was not that, in effect, distribution? Was it not so understood at the time? Was it not voted for, by senators, as practical distribution? The senator from North Carolina, (Mr. Mangum,) has stated that he did. I did. Other senators did; and no one, not the boldest, will have the temerity to rise here and propose to require or compel the states to refund that money. If, in form, it was a deposit with the states, in fact, and in truth, it was distribution. So it was then regarded. So it will ever remain.

Let us now see, Mr. President, how this plan of cession will operate among the new states themselves. And I appeal more especially to the senators from Ohio. That state has about a million and a half of inhabitants. The United States have (as will probably be shown when the returns are published of the late census25) a population of about fifteen millions. Ohio, then, has within her limits one tenth part of the population of the United States. Now, let us see what sort of a bargain the proposed cession makes for Ohio.

[Mr. Allen here interposed, to explain, that the vote he gave for Mr. Calhoun’s plan of cession to the new states, was on the ground of substituting that in preference to the plan of distribution among all the states.]

Oh! ho!—ah! is that the ground of the senator’s vote?

[Mr. Allen said, he had had a choice between two evils; the amendment of the senator from South Carolina, and the amendment of the senator from Kentucky; and it was well known on this side of the house, that he took the first only as a less evil than the last.]

Well; all I will say is, that the side of the house kept the secret remarkably well. [Loud laughter.] And no one better than the senator himself. There were seventeen votes given in favor of the plan of the senator from South Carolina, to my utter astonishment at the time. I had not expected any other vote for it but that of the senator from South Carolina himself, and the senator from Michigan, (Mr. Norvell.) No other did, or I suppose would rise and vote to cede away, without any just or certain equivalent, more than a billion of acres of public land of the people of the United States. If the vote of the other fifteen senators was also misunderstood, in the same way as the senator’s from Ohio, I shall be very glad of it.

But I was going to show what sort of a bargain for Ohio her two senators, by their votes, appeared to be assenting to. There are eight hundred thousand acres of public land remaining in Ohio, after being culled for near half a century, thirty-five per centum of the proceeds of which are to be assigned to that state, by the plan of cession. For this trifling consideration, she is to surrender her interest in one hundred and sixty millions of acres; in other words, she is to give sixteen millions, (that being her tenth,) for the small interest secured to her in the eight hundred thousand acres. If, as I believe and have contended, the principle of cession, being once established, would be finally extended to the whole public domain, then Ohio would give one hundred millions of acres of land, (that being her tenth part of the whole of the public lands,) for the comparatively contemptible consideration that she would acquire in the eight hundred thousand acres. A capital bargain this, to which I supposed the two senators had assented, by which, in behalf of their state, they exchanged one hundred millions of acres of land against eight hundred thousand! [A laugh.]

I do not think that the senator’s explanation mends the matter much. According to that, he did not vote for cession because he liked cession. No! that is very bad; but, bad as it may be, it is not so great an evil as distribution, and he preferred it to distribution. Let us see what Ohio would get by distribution. Assuming that the public lands will yield only five millions of dollars annually, her proportion, being one tenth, would be half a million of dollars. But I entertain no doubt that, under proper management, in a few years the public lands will produce a much larger sum, perhaps ten or fifteen millions of dollars; so that the honorable senator prefers giving away for a song the interests of his state, presently, in one hundred and sixty millions of acres, and eventually in a billion, to receiving annually, in perpetuity, half a million of dollars, with an encouraging prospect of a large augmentation of that sum. That is the notion which the two senators from Ohio entertain of her interest! Go home, Messieurs Senators from Ohio, and tell your constituents of your votes. Tell them of your preference of a cession of all their interest in the public lands, with the exception of that inconsiderable portion remaining in Ohio, to the reception of Ohio’s fair distributive share of the proceeds of all the public lands of the United States, now and hereafter. I do not seek to interfere in the delicate relation between senators and their constituents; but I think I know something of the feelings and views of my neighbors, the people of Ohio. I have recently read an exposition of her true interests and views, in the message of her enlightened governor, directly contrary to those which appear to be entertained by her two senators; and I am greatly deceived if a large majority of the people of that state do not coincide with their governor.

The unequal operation of the plan of cession among the nine new states, has been, perhaps, sufficiently exposed by others. The states with the smallest population get the most land. Thus Arkansas, with only about one fifteenth part of the population of Ohio, will receive upwards of twenty-eight times as much land as Ohio. The scheme proceeds upon the idea of reversing the maxim of the greatest good to the greatest number, and of substituting the greatest good to the smallest number.

There can be every species of partial distribution of public land or its proceeds, but an honest, impartial, straight-forward distribution among all the states. Can the senator from New York, with his profound knowledge of the constitution, tell me on what constitutional authority it is that lands are granted to the Indians beyond the Mississippi?

[Mr. Wright said, that there was no property acquired, and therefore no constitutional obligation applied.]

And that is the amount of the senator’s information of our Indian relations! Why, sir, we send them across the Mississippi, and put them upon our lands, from which all Indian title had been removed. We promise them even the fee simple; but, if we did not, they are at least to retain the possession and enjoy the use of the lands, until they choose to sell them; and the whole amount of our right would be a preëmption privilege of purchase, to the exclusion of all private persons or public authorities, foreign or domestic. This is the doctrine coeval with the colonization of this continent, proclaimed by the king of Great Britain, in his proclamation of 1763, asserted in the conferences at Ghent, and sustained by the supreme court of the United States. Now, such an allotment of public lands to the Indians, whether they acquire the fee or a right of possession, indefinite as to time, is equivalent to any distribution.

Thus, sir, we perceive, that all kinds of distribution of the public lands or their proceeds may be made—to particular states, to preëmptioners, to charities, to objects of education or internal improvement, to foreigners, to Indians, to black, red, white, and gray, to every body, but among all the states of the union. There is an old adage, according to which, charity should begin at home; but, according to the doctrines of the opponents of distribution, it neither begins nor ends at home.

[Here Mr. Clay gave way to an adjournment.]

It is not my intention to inflict upon the senate even a recapitulation of the heads of argument which I had the honor to address to it yesterday. On one collateral point I desire to supply an omission, as to the trade between this country and France. I stated the fact that, according to the returns of imports and exports, there existed an unfavorable balance against the United States, amounting, exclusively of what is reëxported, to seventeen millions of dollars; but I omitted another important fact, namely, that, by the laws of France, there is imposed on the raw material imported into that kingdom a duty of twenty francs on every hundred kilogrammes, equal to about two cents per pound on American cotton, at the present market price. Now what is the fact as to the comparative rate of duties in the two countries? France imposes on the raw product, (which is the mere commencement of value in articles which, when wrought and finally touched, will be worth two or three hundred fold,) a duty of nearly twenty-five per centum; while we admit, free of duty, or with nominal duties, costly luxuries, the product of French industry and taste, wholly unsusceptible of any additional value by any exertion of American skill or industry. In any thing I have said on this occasion, nothing is further from my intention than to utter one word unfriendly to France. On the contrary, it has been always my desire to see our trade with France increased and extended upon terms of reciprocal benefit. With that view, I was in favor of an arrangement in the tariff of 1832, by which silks imported into the United States from beyond the cape of Good Hope, were charged with a duty of ten per centum higher than those brought from France, and countries this side the cape, especially to encourage the commerce with France.

While speaking of France, allow me to make an observation, although it has no immediate or legitimate connexion with any thing before the senate. It is to embrace the opportunity of expressing my deep regret at a sentiment attributed by the public journals, to a highly distinguished and estimable countryman of ours, in another part of the capitol, which implied a doubt as to the validity of the title of Louis Philippe to the throne of France, inasmuch as it was neither acquired by conquest nor descent, and raising a question as to his being the lawful monarch of the French people. It appears to me, that, after the memorable revolution of July, in which our illustrious and lamented friend, Lafayette, bore a part so eminent and effectual, and the subsequent hearty acquiescence of all France, in the establishment of the Orleans branch of the house of Bourbon upon the throne, the present king has as good a title to his crown as any of the other sovereigns of Europe have to theirs, and quite as good as any which force, or the mere circumstance of birth, could confer. And if an individual so humble and at such a distance as I am, might be allowed to express an opinion on the public concerns of another country and another hemisphere, I would add, that no chief magistrate of any nation, amidst difficulties, public and personal, the most complicated and appalling, could have governed with more ability, wisdom, and firmness, than have been displayed by Louis Philippe. All christendom owes him an acknowledgment for his recent successful efforts to prevent a war which would have been disgraceful to christian Europe—a war arising from the inordinate pretensions of an upstart Mahometan pacha, a rebel against his lawful sovereign, and a usurper of his rights—a war which, if once lighted up must have involved all Europe, and have led to consequences which it is impossible to foresee.

I return to the subject immediately before us.

In tracing the history of that portion of our public domain which was acquired by the war of the revolution, we should always recollect the danger to the peace and harmony among the members of the confederacy with which it was pregnant. It prevented for a long time, the ratification of the articles of confederation, by all the states, some of them refusing their assent until a just and equitable settlement was made of the question of the crown lands. The argument they urged as to these lands, in a waste and unappropriated state, was, that they had been conquered by the common valor, the common exertions, and the common sacrifices of all the states; that their ought therefore to be the common property of all the states, and that it would be manifestly wrong and unjust that the states within whose limits these crown lands happened to lie, should exclusively enjoy the benefit of them. Virginia, within whose boundaries by far the greater part of these crown lands were situated, and by whose separate and unaided exertions on the bloody theatre of Kentucky, and beyond the Ohio, under the direction of the renowned George Rogers Clarke, the conquest of most of them was achieved, was, to her immortal honor, among the first to yield to these just and patriotic views, and, by her magnificent grant to the union, powerfully contributed to restore harmony, and quiet all apprehensions among the several states.

Among the objects to be attained by the cession from the states to the confederation of these crown lands, a very important one was to provide a fund to pay the debts of the revolution. The senator from New York, (Mr. Wright,) made it the object of a large part of the argument which he addressed to the senate, to show the contrary; and so far as the mere terms of the deeds of cession are concerned, I admit the argument was sustained. No such purpose appears on the face of the deeds, as far as I have examined them.

[Mr. Wright here interposed, and said, that he had not undertaken to argue that the cessions made by the states to the union, were not for the purpose of extinguishing the public debt, but that they were not exclusively for that purpose.]

It is not material whether they were made for the sole purpose of extinguishing the revolutionary debt or not. I think I shall be able to show, in the progress of my argument, that, from the moment of the adoption of the federal constitution, the proceeds of the public lands ought to have been divided among the states.

But that the payment of the revolutionary debt was one of the objects of the cession, is a matter of incontestable history. We should have an imperfect idea of the intentions of the parties, if we confined our attention to the mere language of the deeds. In order to ascertain their views, we must examine contemporaneous acts, resolutions, and proceedings. One of these resolutions, clearly manifesting the purpose I have stated, has probably escaped the notice of the senator from New York. It was a resolution of the old congress, adopted in April, 1783, preceding the final cession from Virginia, which was in March, 1784. There had been an attempt to make the cession as early as 1781, but, owing to the conditions with which it was embarrassed, and other difficulties, the cession was not consummated until March, 1784. The resolution I refer to, bears a date prior to that of the cession, and must be taken with it, as indicative of the motives which probably operated on Virginia to make, and the confederation to accept, that memorable grant. I will read it.

‘Resolved, that as a further mean, as well of hastening the extinguishment of the debts, as of establishing the harmony of the United States, it be recommended to the states which have passed no acts towards complying with the resolutions of congress of the sixth of September and tenth of October, 1780, relative to the cession of territorial claims, to make the liberal cessions therein recommended, and to the states which may have passed acts complying with the said resolutions in part only, to revise and complete such compliance.’

That was one of the great objects of the cession. Seven of the old thirteen states had waste crown lands within their limits; the other six had none. These complained that what ought to be regarded as property common to them all, would accrue exclusively to the seven states, by the operation of the articles of confederation; and, therefore, for the double purpose of extinguishing the revolutionary debt, and of establishing harmony among the states of the union, the cession of those lands to the United States was recommended by congress.

And here let us pause for a moment, and contemplate the proposition of the senator from South Carolina, and its possible consequences. We have seen that the possession by seven states of these public lands, won by the valor of the whole thirteen, was cause of so much dissatisfaction to the other six as to have occasioned a serious impediment to the formation of the confederacy; and we have seen that, to remove all jealousy and disquietude on that account, in conformity with the recommendation of congress, the seven states, Virginia taking the lead, animated by a noble spirit of justice and patriotism, ceded the waste lands to the United States, for the benefit of all the states. Now what is the measure of the senator from South Carolina? It is in effect to restore the discordant and menacing state of things, which existed in 1783, prior to any cession from the states. It is worse than that. For it proposes that seventeen states shall give up immediately or eventually all their interest in the public lands, lying in nine states, to those nine states. Now if the seven states had refused to cede at all, they could at least have asserted that they fought Great Britain for these lands, as hard as the six. They would have had, therefore, the apparent right of conquest, although it was a common conquest. But the senator’s proposition is, to cede these public lands from the states which fought for them in the revolutionary war, to states that neither fought for them nor had existence daring that war. If the apprehension of an appropriation of these lands, to the exclusive advantage of the seven states, was nigh preventing the establishment of the union, can it be supposed that its security and harmony will be unaffected by a transfer of them from seventeen to nine states? But the senator’s proposition goes yet further. It has been shown that it will establish a precedent, which must lead to a cession from the United States of all the public domain, whether won by the sword or acquired by treaties with foreign powers, to new states, as they shall be admitted into the union.

In the second volume of the laws of the United States, will be found the act, known as the funding act, which passed in the year 1790. By the last section of that act, the public lands are pledged, and pledged exclusively, to the payment of the revolutionary debt, until it should be satisfied. Thus, we find, prior to the cession, an invitation from congress, to the states, to cede the waste lands, among other objects, for the purpose of paying the public debt; and, after the cessions were made, one of the earliest acts of congress pledged them to that object. So the matter stood whilst that debt hung over us. During all that time, there was a general acquiescence in the dedication of the public lands to that just object. No one thought of disturbing the arrangement. But when the debt was discharged, or rather when, from the rapidity of the process of its extinction, it was evident that it would soon be discharged, attention was directed to a proper disposition of the public lands. No one doubted the power of congress to dispose of them according to its sound discretion. Such was the view of president Jackson, distinctly communicated to congress, in the message which I have already cited.

‘As the lands may now be considered as relieved from this pledge, the object for which they were ceded having been accomplished, it is in the discretion of congress to dispose of them in such way as best to conduce to the quiet, harmony, and general interest of the American people.’

Can the power of congress, to dispose of the public domain be more broadly asserted? What was then said about revenue? That it should cease to be a source of revenue! We never hear of the revenue argument, but when the proposition is up to make an equal and just distribution of the proceeds. When the favorable, but, as I regard them, wild and squandering projects of gentlemen, are under consideration, they are profoundly silent as to that argument.

I come now to an examination of the terms on which the cession was made by the states, as contained in the deeds of cession. And I shall take that from Virginia, because it was, in some measure, the model deed, and because it conveyed by far the most important part of the public lands, acquired from the ceding states. I will first dispose of a preliminary difficulty, raised by the senator from New York. That senator imagined a case, and then combated it, with great force. The case he supposed was, that the senator from Massachusetts and I had maintained, that, under that deed, there was a reversion to the states; and much of his argument was directed to prove that there is no reversion, but that, if there were, it could only be to the ceding states. Now, neither the senator from Massachusetts, nor I, attempted to erect any such windmill, as the senator from New York has imagined; and he might have spared himself the heavy blows, which, like another famed hero, not less valorous than himself, he dealt upon it. What I really maintain, and have always maintained, is, that, according to the terms themselves, of the deed of cession, although there is conveyed a common property, to be held for the common benefit, there is, nevertheless, an assignment of a separate use. The ceded land, I admit, is to remain a common fund for all the states, to be administered by a common authority; but the proceeds, or profits, were to be appropriated to the states in severalty, according to a certain prescribed rule. I contend this is manifestly true, from the words of the deed. What are they? ‘That all the lands within the territory so ceded to the United States, and not reserved for or appropriated to any of the before-mentioned purposes, or disposed of in bounties to the officers and soldiers of the American army, shall be considered a common fund, for the use and benefit of such of the United States as have become, or shall become members of the confederation, or federal alliance of the said states, Virginia inclusive, according to their usual respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever.’

The territory conveyed was to be regarded as an inviolable fund, for the use and benefit of such states as were admitted, or might be admitted into the union, Virginia inclusive, according to their usual respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure. It was to be faithfully and bona fide administered for that sole purpose, and for no other purpose whatever.

Where, then, is the authority for all those wild, extravagant, and unjust projects, by which, instead of administration of the ceded territory for all the states, and all the people of the union, it is to be granted to particular states, wasted in schemes of graduation and preëmption, for the benefit of the trespasser, the alien, and the speculator?

The senator from New York, pressed by the argument as to the application of the fund to the separate use of the states, deducible from the phrases in the deed, ‘Virginia inclusive,’ said, that they were necessary, because, without them, Virginia would have been entitled to no part of the ceded lands. No? Were they not ceded to the United States? was she not one of those states? and did not the grant to them include her? Why, then, were the words inserted? Can any other purpose be imagined, than that of securing to Virginia her separate or ‘respective’ proportion? The whole paragraph, cautiously and carefully composed, clearly demonstrates, that, although the fund was to be common, the title common, the administration common, the use and benefit were to be separate among the several states, in the defined proportions.

The grant was for the benefit of the states, ‘according to their usual respective proportions in the common charge and expenditure.’ Bear in mind the date of the deed; it was in 1784—before the adoption of the present constitution, and whilst the articles of confederation were in force. What, according to them, was the mode of assessing the quotas of the different states towards the common charge and expenditure? It was made upon the basis of the value of all the surveyed land, and the improvements in each state. Each state was assessed according to the aggregate value of surveyed land, and improvements within its limits. After that was ascertained, the process of assessment was this; suppose there were five millions of dollars required to be raised, for the use of the general government, and one million of that five were the proportion of Virginia; there would be an account stated on the books of the general government with the state of Virginia, in which she would be charged with that million. Then there would be an account kept for the proceeds of the sales of the public lands; and, if these amounted to five millions of dollars also, Virginia would be credited with one million, being her fair proportion; and thus the account would be balanced. It is unnecessary to pursue the process with all the other states; this is enough to show that, according to the original contemplation of the grant, the common fund was for the separate benefit of the states; and that, if there had been no change in the form of government, each would have been credited with its share of the proceeds of the public lands in its account with the general government. Is not this indisputable? But let me suppose that Virginia, or any other state, had said to the general government, ‘I choose to receive my share of the proceeds of the public lands into my separate treasury; pay it to me, and I will provide in some other mode more agreeable to me, for the payment of my assessed quota of the expenses of the general government;’ can it be doubted that such a demand would have been legitimate, and perfectly compatible with the deed of cession? Even under our present system, you will recollect, sir, that, during the last war, any state was allowed to assume the payment of its share of the direct tax, and raise it, according to its own pleasure or convenience, from its own people, instead of the general government’s collecting of it.

From the period of the adoption of the present constitution of the United States, the mode of raising revenue, for the expenses of the general government, has been changed. Instead of acting upon the states, and through them upon the people of the several states, in the form of assessed quotas or contributions, the general government now acts directly upon the people themselves, in the form of taxes, duties, or excises. Now, as the chief source of revenue raised by this government is from foreign imports, and as the consumer pays the duty, it is entirely impracticable to ascertain how much of the common charge and general expenditure is contributed by any one state to the union.

By the deed of cession, a great and a sacred trust was created. The general government was the trustee, and the states were the cestui que trust. According to the trust, the measure of benefit accruing to each state from the ceded lands, was to be the measure of burden which it bore in the general charge and expenditure. But, by the substitution of a new rule of raising revenue to that which was in contemplation at the time of the execution of the deed of cession, it has become impossible to adjust the exact proportion of burden and benefit with each other. The measure of burden is lost, although the subject remains, which was to be apportioned according to that measure. Who can now ascertain, whether any one of the states has received, or is receiving a benefit from the ceded lands, proportionate to its burden in the general government? Who can know that we are not daily violating the rule of apportionment prescribed by the deed of cession? To me, it appears clear, that, either from the epoch of the establishment of the present constitution, or certainly from that of the payment of the revolutionary debt, the proceeds of the public lands being no longer applied by the general government, according to that rule, they ought to have been transferred to the states, upon some equitable principle of division, conforming as nearly as possible to the spirit of the cessions. The trustee not being able, by the change of government, to execute the trust agreeably to the terms of the trust, ought to have done, and ought yet to do, that which a chancellor would decree, if he had jurisdiction of the case—make a division of the proceeds among the states, upon some rule, approximating as nearly as practicable to that of the trust. And what rule can so well fulfil this condition, as that which was introduced in the bill which I presented to the senate, and which is contained in my colleague’s amendment? That rule is founded on federal numbers, which are made up of all the inhabitants of the United States other than the slaves, and three fifths of them. The south, surely, should be the last section to object to a distribution founded on that rule. And yet, if I rightly understood one of the dark allusions of the senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) he has attempted to excite the jealousy of the north on that very ground. Be that as it may, I can conceive of no rule more equitable than that compound one, and I think that will be the judgment of all parts of the country, the objection of that senator notwithstanding. Although slaves are, in a limited proportion, one of the elements that enter into the rule, it will be recollected that they are both consumers and the objects of taxation.

It has been argued that since the fund was to be a common one, and its administration was to be by the general government, the fund ought to be used also by that government to the exclusion of the states separately. But that is a non sequitur. It may be a common fund, a common title, and a common or single administration; but is there any thing, in all that, incompatible with a periodical distribution of the profits of the fund among the parties for whose benefit the trust was created? What is the ordinary case of tenants in common? There the estate is common, the title is common, the defence against all attacks is common; but the profits of the estate go to the separate use of, and are enjoyed by, each tenant. Does it therefore cease to be an estate in common?

Again. There is another view. It has been argued, from the fact that the ceded lands in the hands of the trustee were for the common benefit, that that object could be no otherwise accomplished, than to use them in the disbursements of the general government; that the general government only must expend them. Now, I do not admit that. In point of fact, the general government would continue to collect and receive the fund, and as a trustee, would pay over to each state its distributive share.

The public domain would still remain in common. Then, as to the expenditure, there may be different modes of expenditure. One is, for the general government itself to disperse it, in payments to the civil list, the army, the navy, and so forth. Another is, by distributing it among the states, to constitute them so many agencies, through which the expenditure is effected. If the general government and the state governments were in two different countries, if they had entirely distinct and distant theatres of action, and operated upon different races of men, it would be another case; but here the two systems of government, although for different purposes, are among the same people, and the constituency of both of them is the same. The expenditure, whether made by the one government directly, or through the state governments as agencies, is all for the happiness and prosperity, the honor and the glory, of one and the same people.

The subject is susceptible of other illustrations, of which I will add one or two. Here is a fountain of water held in common by several neighbors living around it. It is a perennial fountain; deep, pure, copious, and salubrious. Does it cease to be common because some equal division is made by which the members of each adjacent family dip their vessels into it, and take out as much as they want? A tract of land is held in common by the inhabitants of a neighboring village. Does it cease to be a common property because each villager uses it for his particular beasts? A river is the common highroad of navigation to conterminous powers or states. Does it cease to be common because on its bosom are borne vessels bearing the stripes and the stars, or the British cross? These, and other examples which might be given, prove that the argument, on which so much reliance has been placed, is not well founded, that, because the public domain is held for the common benefit of the states, there can be no other just application of its proceeds than through the direct expenditures of the general government.

I might have avoided most of this consumption of time by following the bad example of quoting from my own productions; and I ask the senate to excuse one or two citations from the report I made in 1834, in answer to the veto message of president Jackson, as they present a condensed view of the argument which I have been urging. Speaking of the cession from Virginia, the report says:

‘This deed created a trust in the United States which they are not at liberty to violate. But the deed does not require that the fund should be disbursed in the payment of the expenses of the general government. It makes no such provision in express terms, nor is such a duty on the part of the trustee fairly deducible from the language of the deed. On the contrary, the language of the deed seems to contemplate a separate use and enjoyment of the fund by the states individually, rather than a preservation of it for common expenditure. The fund itself is to be a common fund for the use and benefit of such of the United States as have become, or shall become members of the confederation or federal alliance, Virginia inclusive. The grant is not for the benefit of the confederation, but for that of the several states which compose the confederation. The fund is to be under the management of the confederation collectively, and is so far a common fund; but it is to be managed for the use and benefit of the states individually, and is so far a separate fund under a joint management. Whilst there was a heavy debt existing, created by the war of the revolution, and by a subsequent war, there was a fitness in applying the proceeds of a common fund to the discharge of a common debt, which reconciled all; but the debt being now discharged, and the general government no longer standing in need of the fund, there is evident propriety in a division of it among those for whose use and benefit it was originally designed, and whose wants require it. And the committee cannot conceive how this appropriation of it, upon principles of equality and justice among the several states, can be regarded as contrary to either the letter or spirit of the deed.’

The senator from New York, assuming that the whole debt of the revolution has not yet been paid by the proceeds of the public lands, insists that we should continue to retain the avails of them until a reimbursement shall have been effected of all that has been applied to that object. But the public lands were never set apart or relied upon as the exclusive resource for the payment of the revolutionary debt. To give confidence to public creditors, and credit to the government, they were pledged to that object, along with other means applicable to its discharge. The debt is paid, and the pledge of the public lands has performed its office. And who paid what the lands did not? Was it not the people of the United States?—those very people to whose use, under the guardianship of their states, it is now proposed to dedicate the proceeds of the public lands? If the money had been paid by a foreign government, the proceeds of the public lands, in honor and good faith, would have been bound to reimburse it. But our revolutionary debt, if not wholly paid by the public lands, was otherwise paid out of the pockets of the people who own the lands; and if money has been drawn from their pockets for a purpose to which these lands were destined, it creates an additional obligation upon congress to replace the amount so abstracted, by distributing the proceeds among the states for the benefit and the reimbursement of the people.

But the senator from New York has exhibited a most formidable account against the public domain, tending to show, if it be correct, that what has been heretofore regarded, at home and abroad, as a source of great national wealth, has been a constant charge upon the treasury, and a great loss to the country. The credit side, according to his statement, was, I believe, one hundred and twenty millions, but the debit side was much larger.

It is scarcely necessary to remark, that it is easy to state an account presenting a balance on the one side or the other, as may suit the taste or views of the person making it up. This may be done by making charges that have no foundation, or omitting credits that ought to be allowed, or by both. The most certain operation is the latter, and the senator, who is a pretty thoroughgoing gentleman, has adopted it.

The first item that I shall notice, with which, I think, he improperly debits the public lands, is a charge of eighty odd millions of dollars for the expense of conducting our Indian relations. Now, if this single item can be satisfactorily expunged, no more need be done to turn a large balance in favor of the public lands. I ask, then, with what color of propriety can the public lands be charged with the entire expense incident to our Indian relations? If the government did not own an acre of public lands, this expense would have been incurred. The aborigines are here; our fathers found them in possession of this land, these woods, and these waters. The preservation of peace with them; the fulfilment of the duties of humanity towards them; their civilization, education, conversion to christianity, friendly and commercial intercourse; these are the causes of the chief expenditure on their account, and they are quite distinct from the fact of our possessing the public domain. When every acre of that domain has gone from you, the Indian tribes, if not in the mean time extinct, may yet remain, imploring you, for charity’s sake, to assist them, and to share with them those blessings, of which, by the weakness of their nature, or the cruelty of your policy, they have been stripped. Why, especially, should the public lands be chargeable with that large portion of the eighty odd millions of dollars, arising from the removal of the Indians from the east to the west side of the Mississippi? They protested against it. They entreated you to allow them to remain at the homes and by the sides of the graves of their ancestors; but your stern and rigorous policy would not allow you to listen to their supplication. The public domain, instead of being justly chargeable with the expense of their removal, is entitled to a large credit for the vast territorial districts beyond the Mississippi, which it furnished for the settlement of the emigrant Indians.

I feel that I have not strength to go through all the items of the senator’s account, nor need I. The deduction of this single item will leave a net balance in favor of the public lands of between sixty and seventy millions of dollars.

What, after all, is the senator’s mode of stating the account with the public lands? Has he taken any other than a mere counting-house view of them? Has he exhibited any thing more than any sub-accountant or clerk might make out in any of the departments, as probably it was prepared, cut and dry, to the senator’s hands? Are there no higher or more statesman-like views to be taken of the public lands, and of the acquisitions of Louisiana and Florida, than the account of dollars and cents which the senator has presented? I have said that the senator, by the double process of erroneous insertion, and unjust suppression of items, has shaped an account to suit his argument, which presents any thing but a full and fair statement of the case. And is it not so? Louisiana cost fifteen millions of dollars. And if you had the power of selling, how many hundred millions of dollars would you now ask for the states of Louisiana, Missouri, and Arkansas—people, land, and all? Is the sovereignty which you acquired of the two provinces of Louisiana and Florida nothing? Are the public buildings, and works, the fortifications, cannon, and other arms, independent of the public lands, nothing? Is the navigation of the great father of waters, which you secured from the head to the mouth, on both sides of the river, by the purchase of Louisiana, to the total exclusion of all foreign powers, not worthy of being taken into the senator’s estimate of the advantages of the acquisition? Who, at all acquainted with the history and geography of this continent, does not know that the Mississippi could not have remained in the hands, and its navigation continued subject to the control, of a foreign power, without imminent danger to the stability of the union? Is the cost of the public domain undeserving of any credit on account of the vast sums which, during the greater part of this century, you have been receiving into the public treasury from the custom-houses of New Orleans and Mobile? Or on account of the augmentation of the revenue of the government, from the consumption of dutiable articles by the population within the boundaries of the two former provinces? The national benefits and advantages accruing from their possession have been so various and immense, that it would be impossible to make any mere pecuniary estimate of them. In any aspect of the subject, the senator’s petty items of Indian annuities must appear contemptible in comparison with these splendid national acquisitions.

But the public lands are redeemed. They have long been redeemed. President Jackson announced, more than eight years ago, an incontestable truth, when he stated, that they might be considered as relieved from the pledge which had been made of them, the object having been accomplished for which they were ceded, and that it was in the discretion of congress to dispose of them in such way as best to conduce to the quiet, harmony, and general interest of the American people. That which congress has the power to do, by an express grant of authority in the constitution, it is, in my humble opinion, imperatively bound to do by the terms of the deed of cession. Distribution, and only distribution, of the proceeds of the public lands, among the states, upon the principles proposed, will conform to the spirit, and execute the trust, created in the deeds of cession. Each state, upon grounds of strict justice, as well as equity, has a right to demand its distributive share of those proceeds. It is a debt which this government owes to every state—a debt, payment of which might be enforced by process of law, if there were any forum, before which the United States could be brought.

And are there not, sir, existing at this moment the most urgent and powerful motives for this dispensation of justice to the states at the hands of the general government? A stranger listening to the argument of the senator from New York, would conclude that we were not one united people, but that there were two separate and distinct nations; one acted upon by the general government, and the other by the state governments. But is that a fair representation of the case? Are we not one and the same people, acted upon, it is true, by two systems of government, two sets of public agents; the one established for general, and the other for local purposes? The constituency is identical, although it is doubly governed. It is the bounden duty of those who are charged with the administration of each system, so to administer it as to do as much good and as little harm as possible, within the scope of their respective powers. They should also each take into view the defects in the powers, or defects in the administration of the powers, of the other, and endeavor to supply them, as far as its legitimate authority extends, and the wants or necessities of the people require. For, if distress, adversity, and ruin come upon our constituents from any quarter, should they not have our active exertions to relieve them, as well as all our sympathies and our deepest regrets? It would be but a poor consolation to the general government, if such were the fact, that this unhappy state of things was produced by the measures and operation of the state governments, and not by its own. And if the general government, by a seasonable and legitimate exercise of its authority, could relieve the people, and would not relieve them, the reproaches due to it would be quite as great as if that government itself, and not the state governments, had brought these distresses upon the people.

The powers of taxation possessed by the general government are unlimited. The most fruitful and the least burdensome modes of taxation are confided to this government exclusive of the states. The power of laying duties on foreign imports is entirely monopolized by the federal government. The states have only the power of direct or internal taxation. They have none to impose duties on imports, not even luxuries; we have. And what is their condition at this moment? Some of them are greatly in debt, at a loss even to raise means to pay the interest upon their bonds. These debts were contracted under the joint encouragement of the recommendation of this government and prosperous times, in the prosecution of the laudable object of internal improvements. They may have pushed, in some instances, their schemes too far; but it was in a good cause, and it is easy to make reproaches when things turn out ill.

And here let me say, that, looking to the patriotic object of these state debts, and the circumstances under which they were contracted, I saw with astonished and indignant feelings a resolution submitted to the senate, at the last session, declaring that the general government would not assume the payment of them. A more wicked, malignant, Danton-like proposition was never offered to the consideration of any deliberative assembly. It was a negative proposition, not a negative of any affirmative resolution presented to the senate; for no such affirmative resolution was offered by any one, nor do I believe was ever thought or dreamed of by any one. When, where, by whom, was the extravagant idea ever entertained, of an assumption of the state debts by the general government? There was not a solitary voice raised in favor of such a measure in this senate. Would it not have been time enough to have denounced assumption when it was seriously proposed? Yet, at a moment when the states were greatly embarrassed, when their credit was sinking, at this critical moment, was a measure brought forward, unnecessarily, wantonly, and gratuitously, made the subject of an elaborate report, and exciting a protracted debate, the inevitable effect of all which must have been to create abroad distrust in the ability and good faith of the debtor states. Can it be doubted, that a serious injury was inflicted upon them by this unprecedented proceeding? Nothing is more delicate than credit or character. Their credit cannot fail to have suffered in the only place where capital could be obtained, and where at that very time some of the agents of the states were negotiating with foreign bankers. About that period, one of the senators of this body had in person gone abroad for the purpose of obtaining advances of money on Illinois stock.

The senator from New York said, that the European capitalists had fixed the value of the state bonds of this country at fifty per centum; and therefore it was a matter of no consequence what might be said about the credit of the states here. But the senator is mistaken, or I have been entirely misinformed. I understand that some bankers have limited their advances upon the amount of state bonds, prior to their actual sale, to fifty per centum, in like manner as commission merchants will advance on the goods consigned to them, prior to their sale. But in such an operation it is manifestly for the interest of the states, as well as the bankers, that the bonds should command in the market as much as possible above the fifty per centum; and any proceeding which impairs the value of the bonds must be injurious to both. In any event, the loss would fall upon the states; and that this loss was aggravated by what occurred here, on the resolution to which I have referred, no one, at all acquainted with the sensitiveness of credit and of capitalists, can hesitate to believe. My friends and I made the most strenuous opposition to the resolution, but it was all unavailing, and a majority of the senate adopted the report of the committee, to which the resolution had been referred. We urged the impolicy and injustice of the proceeding; that no man in his senses would ever propose the assumption of the state debts; that no such proposal had, in fact, been made; that the debts of the states were unequal in amount, contracted by states of unequal population, and that some states were not in debt at all. How, then, was it possible to think of a general assumption of state debts? Who could conceive of such a proposal? But there is a vast difference between our paying their debts for them, and paying our own debts to them, in conformity with the trusts arising out of the public domain, which the general government is bound to execute.

Language has been held in this chamber, which would lead any one who heard it to believe, that some gentlemen would take delight in seeing states dishonored, and unable to pay their bonds. If such a feeling does really exist, I trust it will find no sympathy with the people of this country, as it can have none in the breast of any honest man. When the honorable senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. Webster,) the other day uttered, in such thrilling language, the sentiment, that honor and probity bound the states to the faithful payment of all their debts, and that they would do it, I felt my bosom swelling with patriotic pride; pride, on account of the just and manly sentiment itself; and pride, on account of the beautiful and eloquent language, in which that noble sentiment was clothed. Dishonor American credit! Dishonor the American name! Dishonor the whole country! Why, sir, what is national character, national credit, national honor, national glory, but the aggregate of the character, the credit, the honor, the glory, of the parts of the nation? Can the parts be dishonored, and the whole remain unsullied? Or can the whole be blemished, and the parts stand pure and untainted? Can a younger sister be disgraced, without bringing blushes and shame upon the whole family? Can our young sister, Illinois, (I mention her only for illustration, but with all feelings and sentiments of fraternal regard,) can she degrade her character as a state, without bringing reproach and obloquy upon all of us? What has made England, our country’s glorious parent—although she has taught us the duty of eternal watchfulness, to repel aggression, and maintain our rights against even her—what has made England the wonder of the world? What has raised her to such preëminence in wealth, power, empire, and greatness, at once the awe and the admiration of nations? Undoubtedly, among the prominent causes, have been the preservation of her credit, the maintenance of her honor, and the scrupulous fidelity with which she has fulfilled her pecuniary engagements, foreign as well as domestic. An opposite example of a disregard of national faith and character presents itself in the pages of ancient history. Every schoolboy is familiar with the phrase, ‘Punic faith,’ which at Rome became a by-word and a reproach against Carthage, in consequence of her notorious violations of her public engagements. The stigma has been transmitted down to the present time, and will remain for ever uneffaced. Who would not lament that a similar stigma should be affixed to any member of our confederacy? If there be anyone so thoroughly imbued with party spirit, so destitute of honor and morality, so regardless of just feelings of national dignity and character, as to desire to see any of the states of this glorious union dishonored, by violating their engagements to foreigners, and refusing to pay their just debts, I repel and repudiate him and his sentiments as unworthy of the American name, as sentiments dishonest in themselves, and neither entertained nor approved by the people of the United States.

Let us not be misunderstood, or our feelings and opinions be perverted. What is it that we ask? That this government shall assume the debts of the states? Oh! no, no. The debts of Pennsylvania, for example? (which is, I believe, the most indebted of all the states.) No, no; far from it. But, seeing that this government has the power, and, as I think, is under a duty, to distribute the proceeds of the public lands; and that it has the power, which the states have not, to lay duties on foreign luxuries; we propose to make that distribution, pay our debt to the states, and save the states, to that extent at least, from the necessity of resorting to direct taxation, the most onerous of all modes of levying money upon the people. We propose to supply the deficiency produced from the withdrawal of the land fund by duties on luxuries, which the wealthy only will pay, and so far save the states from the necessity of burdening the poor. We propose, that, by a just exercise of incontestable powers possessed by this government, we shall go to the succor of all the states, and, by a fair distribution of the proceeds of the public lands among them, avert, as far as that may avert, the ruin and dishonor with which some of them are menaced. We propose, in short, such an administration of the powers of this government as shall protect and relieve our common constituents from the embarrassments to which they may be exposed from the defects in the powers or in the administration of the state governments.

Let us look a little more minutely at consequences. The distributive share of the state of Illinois in the land proceeds would be, according to the present receipts from the public lands, about one hundred thousand dollars. We make distribution, and she receives it. To that extent it would, then, relieve her from direct taxation, to meet the debt which she has contracted, or it would form the basis of new loans to an amount equal to about two millions. We refuse to make distribution. She must levy the hundred thousand dollars upon her population, in the form of direct taxation. And, if I am rightly informed, her chief source of revenue is a land tax, the most burdensome of all taxes. If I am misinformed, the senators from Illinois can correct me.

[Here Messrs. Robinson and Young explained, stating that there was an additional source in a tax on the stock in the state bank.]

Still the land tax is, as I had understood, the principal source of the revenue of Illinois.

We make distribution, and, if necessary, we supply the deficiency which it produces by an imposition of duties on luxuries, which Illinois cannot tax. We refuse it, and, having no power herself to lay a duty on any foreign imports, she is compelled to resort to the most inconvenient and oppressive of all the modes of taxation. Every vote, therefore, which is given against distribution, is a vote, in effect, given to lay a land tax on the people of Illinois. Worse than that, it is a vote, in effect, refusing to tax the luxuries of the rich, and rendering inevitable the taxation of the poor—that poor in whose behalf we hear, from the other side of the chamber, professions of such deep sympathy, interest, and devotion! In what attitude do gentlemen place themselves who oppose this measure—gentlemen who taunt us as the aristocracy, as the friends of the banks, and so forth—gentlemen who claim to be the peculiar guardians of the democracy? How do they treat the poor? We have seen, at former sessions, a measure warmly espoused, and finally carried by them, which they represented would reduce the wages of labor. At this session, a tax, which would be borne exclusively by the rich, encounters their opposition. And now we have proposed another mode of benefiting the poor, by distribution of the land proceeds, to prevent their being borne down and oppressed by direct taxation; and this, too, is opposed from the same quarter! These gentlemen will not consent to lay a tax on the luxuries of the affluent, and, by their votes, insist upon leaving the states under the necessity of imposing direct taxes on the farmer, the laboring man, the poor, and all the while set up to be the exclusive friends of the poor! [A general laugh.] Really, sir, the best friends appear to be the worst enemies of the poor, and their greatest enemies their best friends.

The gentlemen opposed to us have frightened themselves, and have sought to alarm others, by imaginary dangers to spring from this measure of distribution. Corruption, it seems, is to be the order of the day! If I did not misunderstand the senator from South Carolina, he apprised us of the precise sum—one million of dollars—which was adequate to the corruption of his own state. He knows best about that; but I should be sorry to think that fifty millions of dollars could corrupt my state. What may be the condition of South Carolina at this time I know not; there is so much fog enveloping the dominant party, that it is difficult to discern her present latitude and longitude. What she was in her better days—in the days of her Rutledges, Pinckneys, Sumpters, Lowndeses, Cheveses—we all well know, and I will not inflict pain on the senator by dwelling on it. It is not for me to vindicate her from a charge so degrading and humiliating. She has another senator here, far more able and eloquent than I am to defend her. Certainly I do not believe, and should be most unwilling to think, that her senator had made a correct estimate of her moral power.

It has been, indeed, said, that our whole country is corrupt; that the results of recent elections were brought about by fraudulent means; and that a foreign influence has produced the great political revolution which has just taken place. I pronounce that charge a gross, atrocious, treasonable libel on the people of this country, on the institutions of this country, and on liberty itself. I do not attribute this calumny to any member of this body. I hope there is none who would give it the slightest countenance. But I do charge it upon some of the newspapers in the support of the other party. And it is remarkable, that the very press which originates and propagates this foul calumny of foreign influence has indicated the right of unnaturalized foreigners to mingle, at the polls, in our elections; and maintained the expediency of their owning portions of the soil of our country, before they have renounced their allegiance to foreign sovereigns.

I will not consume the time of the senate in dwelling long upon the idle and ridiculous story about the correspondence between the London bankers and some Missouri bankers—a correspondence which was kept safely until after the presidential election, in the custody of the directors of what is vaunted as a genuine locofoco bank in that state, when it was dragged out by a resolution of the legislature, authorizing the sending for persons and papers. It was then blazed forth as conclusive and damning evidence of the existence of a foreign influence in our presidential election. And what did it all amount to? These British bankers are really strange fellows. They are foolish enough to look to the safety of their money advanced to foreigners! If they see a man going to ruin, they will not lend him; and if they see a nation pursuing the same road, they are so unreasonable as to decline vesting their funds in its bonds. If they find war threatened, they will speculate on the consequences; and they will indulge in conjectures about the future condition of a country in given contingencies! Very strange! They have seen—all the world is too familiar with—these embarrassments and distresses brought upon the people of the United States, by the measures of Mr. Van Buren and his illustrious predecessor. They conclude, that, if he be reëlected, there will be no change of those measures, and no better times in the United States. On the contrary, if general Harrison be elected, they argue that a sound currency may be restored, confidence return, and business once more be active and prosperous. They therefore tell their Missouri banking correspondents, that American bonds and stocks will continue to depreciate if Mr. Van Buren be reëlected; but that, if his competitor should succeed, they will rise in value, and sell more readily in the market. And these opinions and speculations of the English bankers, carefully concealed from the vulgar gaze of the people, and locked up in the vaults of a locofoco bank, (what wonders they may have wrought there, have not been disclosed,) are dragged out and paraded, as full proof of the corrupt exercise of a foreign influence in the election of general Harrison, as president of the United States. Why, sir, the amount of the whole of it is, that the gentlemen, calling themselves, most erroneously, the democratic party, have administered the government so badly, that they have lost all credit and confidence at home and abroad, and because the people of the United States have refused to trust them any longer, and foreign bankers will not trust them either, they utter a whining cry that their recent signal defeat has been the work of foreign influence! [Loud laughter in the galleries.]

Democratic party! They have not the slightest pretension to this denomination. In the school of 1798, in which I was taught, and to which I have ever faithfully adhered, we were instructed to be watchful and jealous of executive power, enjoined to practice economy in the public disbursements, and urged to rally around the people, and not attach ourselves to the presidential car. This was Jefferson’s democracy. But the modern democrats, who have assumed the name, have reversed all these wholesome maxims, and have given to democracy a totally different version. They have run it down, as they have run down, or at least endangered, state rights, the right of instruction—admirable in their proper sphere—and all other rights, by perversion and extravagance. But, thank God, true democracy and true democrats have not been run down. Thousands of those who have been deceived and deluded by false colors, will now eagerly return to their ancient faith, and unite, under Harrison’s banner, with their old and genuine friends and principles, as they were held at the epoch of 1798. We shall, I trust, be all once more united as a fraternal band, ready to defend liberty against all dangers that may threaten it at home, and the country against all that shall menace it from abroad.

But to return from this digression to the patriotic apprehension, entertained by senators, of corruption, if the proceeds of the public lands should be distributed among the states. If, in the hands of the general government, the land fund does not lead to corruption, why should it in the hands of the state governments? Is there less danger from the fund if it remain undivided and concentrated, than if it be distributed? Are the stale governments more prone to corruption than the federal government? Are they more wasteful and extravagant in the expenditure of the money of the people? I think that if we are to consult purity and economy, we shall find fresh motives for distribution.

Mr. President, two plans of disposing of the vast public domain belonging to the United States, have been, from time to time, submitted to the consideration of congress and the public. According to one of them, it should not be regarded as a source of revenue, either to the general or to the state government. That, I have, I think, clearly demonstrated, although the supporters of that plan do press the argument of revenue whenever the rival plan is brought forward. They contend that the general government, being unfit, or less competent than the state governments, to manage the public lands, it ought to hasten to get rid of them, either by reduction of the price, by donation, by preëmptions, or by cessions to certain states, or by all these methods together.

Now, sir, it is manifest that the public lands cannot be all settled in a century or centuries to come. The progress of their settlement is indicated by the growth of the population of the United States. There have not been, on an average, five millions of acres per annum sold, daring the last half century. Larger quantities will be probably hereafter, although not immediately, annually sold. Now, when we recollect that we have at least a billion of acres to dispose of, some idea may be entertained, judging from the past, of the probable length of time before the whole is sold. Prior to their sale and settlement, the unoccupied portion of the public domain must remain either in the hands of the general government, or in the hands of the state governments, or pass into the hands of speculators. In the hands of the general government, if that government shall perform its duty, we know that the public lands will be distributed on liberal, equal, and moderate terms. The worst fate that can befall them, would be for them to be acquired by speculators. The emigrant and settler would always prefer purchasing from government, at fixed and known rates, rather than from the speculator, at unknown rates, fixed by his cupidity or caprice. But, if they are transferred from the general government, the best of them will be engrossed by speculators. That is the inevitable tendency of reduction of the price by graduation, and of cession to the states within which they lie.

The rival plan is, for the general government to retain the public domain, and make distribution of the proceeds, in time of peace, among the several states, upon equal and just principles, according to the rule of federal numbers, and, in time of war, to resume the proceeds for its vigorous prosecution. We think that the administration of the public lands had better remain with the common government, to be regulated by uniform principles, than confided to the states, to be administered according to various, and, perhaps, conflicting views. As to that important part of them which was ceded by certain states to the United States, for the common benefit of all the states, a trust was thereby created, which has been voluntarily accepted by the United States, and which they are not at liberty now to decline or transfer. The history of public lands held in the United States, demonstrates that they have been wasted or thrown away by most of the states that owned any, and that the general government has displayed more judgment and wisdom in the administration of them than any of the states. Whilst it is readily admitted that revenue should not be regarded as the sole or exclusive object, the pecuniary advantages which may be derived from this great national property, to both the states and the union, ought not to be altogether overlooked.

The measure which I have had the honor to propose, settles this great and agitating question for ever. It is founded upon no partial and unequal basis, aggrandizing a few of the states to the prejudice of the rest. It stands on a just, broad, and liberal foundation. It is a measure applicable not only to the states now in being, but to the territories, as states shall hereafter be formed out of them, and to all new states, as they shall rise, tier behind tier, to the Pacific ocean. It is a system operating upon a space almost boundless, and adapted to all future time. It was a noble spirit of harmony and union that prompted the revolutionary states originally to cede to the United States. How admirably does this measure conform to that spirit, and tend to the perpetuity of our glorious union! The imagination can hardly conceive one fraught with more harmony and union among the states. If to the other ties that bind us together as one people be superadded the powerful interest springing out of a just administration of our exhaustless public domain, by which, for a long succession of ages, in seasons of peace, the states will enjoy the benefit of the great and growing revenue which it produces, and in periods of war that revenue will be applied to the prosecution of the war, we shall be for ever linked together with the strength of adamantine chains. No section, no state, would ever be mad enough to break off from the union, and deprive itself of the inestimable advantages which it secures. Although thirty or forty more new states should be admitted into this union, this measure would cement them all fast together. The honorable senator from Missouri, near me, (Mr. Linn,) is very anxious to have a settlement formed at the mouth of the Oregon, and he will probably be gratified at no very distant day. Then will be seen members of congress from the Pacific states scaling the Rocky mountains, passing through the country of the grizzly bear, descending the turbid Missouri, entering the father of rivers, ascending the beautiful Ohio, and coming to this capitol, to take their seats in its spacious and magnificent halls. Proud of the commission they bear, and happy to find themselves here in council with friends, and brothers, and countrymen, enjoying the incalculable benefits of this great confederacy, and, among them, their annual distributive share of the issues of a nation’s inheritance, would even they, the remote people of the Pacific, ever desire to separate themselves from such a high and glorious destiny? The fund which is to be dedicated to these great and salutary purposes, does not proceed from a few thousand acres of land, soon to be disposed of; but of more than ten hundred millions of acres; and age after age may roll away, state after state arise, generation succeed generation, and still the fund will remain not only unexhausted, but improved and increasing, for the benefit of our children’s children, to the remotest posterity. The measure is not one pregnant with jealousy, discord, or division, but it is a far-reaching, comprehensive, healing measure of compromise and composure, having for its patriotic object the harmony, the stability, and the prosperity of the states and of the union.

IN DEFENCE OF MR. WEBSTER.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 1, 1841.

[AT the session of congress, the term of which expired with the administration of Mr. Van Buren, the honorable Daniel Webster resigned his seat in the senate, preparatory to taking office under president Harrison, as secretary of state, which had been offered to him by the president elect. Mr. Bates, of Massachusetts, having presented to the senate the credentials of the honorable Rufus Choate, who had been elected senator in the place of Mr. Webster, the latter took his seat this day, (first of March,) when Mr. Cuthbert, of Georgia, made some remarks reflecting on the political character of Mr. Webster, in connection with Mr. Clay, as his associate in the senate, which called out Mr. Clay in reply, and occasioned the following debate.]

MR. CUTHBERT said, that on the resignation of the late senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. Webster,) he had charged upon that senator certain opinions on the subject of southern institutions. This had led to a discussion, in the course of which he, (Mr. Cuthbert,) had pledged himself to prove certain points. The most important point was, that Mr. Webster had avowed the doctrine, that congress had full power to prohibit the slave-trade between the states. The next point was, that the legislature of Massachusetts had maintained the same doctrines, and quoted the opinions of that senator, (Mr. Webster,) to sustain them. He had pledged himself to produce the document to support and justify the charge.

After some discussion as to the point of order, and Mr. Cuthbert being permitted to proceed, he then desired the clerk to read an extract from a paper which he sent to the desk. It purported to be a memorial drawn up by a committee, of which Mr. Webster was a member, expressing the opinion, that congress had the power to prohibit the slave-trade between the states.

Mr. Cuthbert then animadverted upon the remark made by Mr. Clay, on the twenty-second of February, complimentary to Mr. Webster, and spoke of three great crises in the history of the two gentlemen when they differed in opinion—namely, on the late war with Great Britain; on the compromise tariff; and on the subject of abolition petitions.

Mr. Clay regretted extremely that he had been called out in this way. The discussion of the other day had, he ventured to say, satisfied every member of that body, with the exception of the senator from Georgia. He agreed with the senator from Vermont, (Mr. Phelps,) that it was all out of order. There was no necessity to create an occasion for the discussion. The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts was soon to be nominated to that body, and then would be the proper time to bring out all the opposition to him. But the senator from Georgia had appealed to the courtesy of gentlemen, and he, (Mr. Clay,) was not willing to refuse the request.

No error could be greater than to judge of human character by a single act, a single sentiment or opinion. We were not to expect perfect coincidence in every thing abstract and practical.

[Mr. Cuthbert here addressed the chair.]

Mr. Clay said, I cannot be interrupted, Mr. President. I will not permit an interruption. The practice is much too common, and especially at the other end of the capitol. The senator from Georgia will have ample opportunity to reply when I have concluded. What was the question; what the subject of difference in the discussion? The senator from Georgia alleges that the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts has expressed an opinion, in Faneuil hall, it was believed, that congress had the power to regulate the trade in slaves between the states. On this subject great diversity of opinion exists. The power to regulate did not imply the power to prohibit. Congress possesses the power to regulate foreign commerce, but it has no right to prohibit it.

But the senator from Georgia has adverted to the fact, that I and my distinguished friend (Mr. Webster) have agreed on some questions, and disagreed on others. Is there any thing unusual or singular in this? The senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) and the senator from Georgia, are now on the same side; have they always agreed? Was the gentleman from Georgia ever a nullifier? [Mr. Cuthbert said, no.] No. I presume there are many points of policy on which those gentlemen differ. The only correct method of judging, is, to take human nature in the tout ensemble, and not undertake to determine by a single instance.

The senator from Georgia has referred to three subjects in which I have differed with the gentleman from Massachusetts. The first was, the late war with Great Britain. Mr. Webster had regarded that war as unnecessary, and in that I think he was wrong. But there was another war; a domestic war; a war waged by general Jackson against the prosperity of the country; and where stood the senator from Georgia in that war? The gallant Webster contended for the people through this long war, with persevering ability, but the senator from Georgia was on the other side.

In regard to the compromise act, the gentleman from Massachusetts had been opposed to that healing measure. But how was it with other senators, with whom the gentleman from Georgia was now coöperating? The senator from Missouri, (Mr. Benton,) and the senator from New York, (Mr. Wright,) both voted against the compromise; but the gentleman finds no difficulty in acting with those gentlemen because they disagreed with him on that measure.

As it regards abolition, so far as I know the opinions of Mr. Webster, he is just as much averse to it as the senator from Georgia himself. That there is danger impending, no one will deny. The danger is in ultraism. The ultraism of a portion of the south on the one hand, and from abolition on the other. It is to be averted by a moderate but firm course; not being led off into extremes on the one side, or frightened on the other. Mr. Webster and myself have differed on some subjects, have coincided on others; and the senator from Georgia might have referred to an instance in which he himself had voted with Mr. Webster, and in opposition to me. I allude to the tariff of 1824. The substance of the charge is, that Mr. Webster and myself have agreed on certain matters, and disagreed on others; and if the senator from Georgia should undertake to compute the several agreements and disagreements, he would have to work out a more difficult problem than a friend of mine in the other house, who had tried to ascertain whether Vermont or Kentucky was the banner state.

ON THE VETO OF THE FISCAL BANK BILL BY PRESIDENT TYLER.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, AUGUST 19, 1841.

[A FEW days after the inauguration of general Harrison as president of the United States—on the seventeenth of March, 1841—he issued a proclamation convening an extra session of congress on the thirty-first of May, on which day both houses assembled, and formed a quorum. President Harrison having died on the fourth of April, was succeeded by the vice-president Tyler, who, in his message to congress, recommended, among other matters, the adoption of measures to create a fiscal agent for the convenience of government, and the regulation of the currency. A bill to establish a fiscal bank of the United States was reported, and, after discussion, passed the senate by a vote of twenty-six to twenty-three, and the house, by one hundred and twenty-eight to ninety-one. On the sixteenth of August, president Tyler, much to the surprise and regret of those to whom he owed his election, returned the bill to the senate, with his objections, and on the nineteenth, the executive message being under consideration, Mr. Clay addressed the senate as follows; to which Mr. Rives replied, and the same day Mr. Clay made his rejoinder to Mr. Rives, in the remarks following this speech.]

MR. PRESIDENT, the bill which forms the present subject of our deliberations, had passed both houses of congress by decisive majorities, and, in conformity with the requirement of the constitution, was presented to the president of the United States for his consideration. He has returned it to the senate, in which it originated, according to the direction of the constitution, with a message announcing his veto of the bill, and containing his objections to its passage. And the question now to be decided is, shall the bill pass, by the required constitutional majority of two thirds, the president’s objections notwithstanding?

Knowing, sir, but too well that no such majority can be obtained, and that the bill must fall, I would have been rejoiced to have found myself at liberty to abstain from saying one word on this painful occasion. But the president has not allowed me to give a silent vote. I think, with all respect and deference to him, he has not reciprocated the friendly spirit of concession and compromise which animated congress in the provisions of this bill, and especially in the modification of the sixteenth fundamental condition of the bank. He has commented, I think, with undeserved severity, on that part of the bill; he has used, I am sure unintentionally, harsh if not reproachful language; and he has made the very concession, which was prompted as a peace-offering, and from friendly considerations, the cause of stronger and more decided disapprobation of the bill. Standing in the relation to that bill which I do, and especially to the exceptionable clause, the duty which I owe to the senate and to the country, and self-respect, impose upon me the obligation of at least attempting the vindication of a measure which has met with a fate so unmerited, and so unexpected.

On the fourth of April last, the lamented Harrison, the president of the United States, paid the debt of nature. President Tyler, who, as vice-president, succeeded to the duties of that office, arrived in the city of Washington, on the sixth of that month. He found the whole metropolis wrapped in gloom, every heart filled with sorrow and sadness, every eye streaming with tears, and the surrounding hills yet flinging back the echo of the bells which were tolled on that melancholy occasion. On entering the presidential mansion, he contemplated the pale body of his predecessor stretched before him, and clothed in the black habiliments of death. At that solemn moment, I have no doubt that the heart of president Tyler was overflowing with mingled emotions of grief, of patriotism, and of gratitude—above all, of gratitude to that country, by a majority of whose suffrages, bestowed at the preceding November, he then stood the most distinguished, the most elevated, the most honored of all living whigs of the United States.

It was under these circumstances, and in this probable state of mind, that president Tyler, on the tenth day of the same month of April, voluntarily promulgated an address to the people of the United States. That address was in the nature of a coronation oath, which the chief of the state in other countries, and under other forms, takes, upon ascending the throne. It referred to the solemn obligations, and the profound sense of duty, under which the new president entered upon the high trust which had devolved upon him, by the joint acts of the people and of Providence, and it stated the principles, and delineated the policy, by which he would be governed in his exalted station. It was emphatically a whig address, from beginning to end—every inch of it was whig, and was patriotic.

In that address the president, in respect to the subject matter embraced in the present bill, held the following conclusive and emphatic language.

‘I shall promptly give my sanction to any constitutional measure, which, originating in congress, shall have for its object the restoration of a sound circulating medium, so essentially necessary to give confidence in all the transactions of life, to secure to industry its just and adequate rewards, and to reëstablish the public prosperity. In deciding upon the adaptation of any such measure to the end proposed, as well as its conformity to the constitution, I shall resort to the fathers of the great republican school for advice and instruction, to be drawn from their sage views of our system of government, and the light of their ever glorious example.’

To this clause in the address of the president, I believe but one interpretation was given throughout this whole country, by friend and foe, by whig and democrat, and by the presses of both parties. It was, by every man with whom I conversed on the subject at the time of its appearance, or of whom I have since inquired, construed to mean that the president intended to occupy the Madison ground, and to regard the question of the power to establish a national bank as immovably settled. And I think I may confidently appeal to the senate and to the country, to sustain the fact, that this was the contemporaneous and unanimous judgment of the public. Reverting back to the period of the promulgation of the address, could any other construction have been given to its language? What is it? ‘I shall promptly give my sanction to any constitutional measure, which, originating in congress,’ shall have certain defined objects in view. He concedes the vital importance of a sound circulating medium to industry, and to the public prosperity. He concedes that its origin must be in congress. And to prevent any inference from the qualification, which he prefixes to the measure, being interpreted to mean that a United States bank was unconstitutional, he declares, that in deciding on the adaptation of the measure to the end proposed, and its conformity to the constitution, he will resort to the fathers of the great republican school. And who were they? If the father of his country is to be excluded, are Madison, (the father of the constitution,) Jefferson, Monroe, Gerry, Gallatin, and the long list of republicans who acted with them, not to be regarded as among those fathers? But president Tyler declares, not only that he should appeal to them for advice and instruction, but to the light of their ever glorious EXAMPLE. What example? What other meaning could have been possibly applied to the phrase, than that he intended to refer to what had been done during the administration of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe?