was even ostentatiously used, thrown in their faces, and driven down their throats. And now for the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. EwING.] That Senator had favored Mr. B. with a few words quoted from a speech of his. He had read it as he found it, and as Mr. B. had spoken it, and never in his life had he been better understood. The Cherokee treaty, the Florida war, and innumerable bills, all of which, he said, were for working the machinery of Government, providing for the pay of officers of Government, and for improving the condition of the country, belonged to the working of Government machinery. Mr. Jefferson's purchase of Louisiana for fifteen millions of dollars was not extravagant, and it would not be charged as the means of working Government machinery. At that time men charged it to the expenditures for the support of the common family. He would now say a word on the subject of a surplus. No word in the English language had been so much abused as this, for the last twelve months. Gentlemen asked last year for a division of the surplus. But did they put it in the bill? No; it was not surplus, but appropriated money, which they recaptured and distributed among the States. Mr. B. here read over several appropriations which had not been expended. These, he said, were unexpended balances from the last year, because the appropriations were made too late. But they would never be abandoned, and the taxes must be kept up for the purpose of paying them. On the 1st of January next, there would be ten or twelve millions of unexpended appropriations. Now, he asked, what is surplus money under our laws? Here he read from the law, that appropriations were valid for two years after their passage. This act, he said, had been in force forty years, and this bill would go to violate it. No word, then, was more abused than the word surplus. Gentlemen were unwilling to insert the reserved $5,000,000, as over and above all appropriations. The revenue, Mr. B. maintained, was in greater danger in the United States Bank than in the deposite banks. But what had the Government to do with banks? They were built on the surplus money, banks upon banks. We had already seen the fatal effects of this measure on this session. All kept it in their eye, and stood together, resisting appropriations and a reduction of the revenue, and swelling the amount. What effect had this measure on the bill sent to the other House, on the 25th of February, for reducing the revenue? If there had been no scheme for distribution, that bill would have been acted on immediately. But now, by this scheme, that bill lay paralyzed, and probably dead forever. It would be seen that, when the revenue was to be reduced, the surplus party would stand together and vote against it. It would be so on appropriations; their vote would be one and indivisible, and they would be for raising the duties on the 1st July, 1842, and for raising the price of the public lands. Let gentlemen take their course. Those who voted for this bill would also vote for a permanent distribution, and to raise the duties in the tariff of 1842, and to deny pre-emption to settlers. Whatever might be their intentions, such would be the effect of their votes. Mr. BUCHANAN must say, in candor, to the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] that he had entirely failed to convince him he was wrong. Of one thing, however, he had convinced him, and that was that the Senator, in fact if not in profession, was one of the very best tariff men in the country. Let him succeed in supporting this amendment which had been adopted by the House; let him succeed in establishing a system of distribution as the settled policy of the country; and then what will be the inevitable consequence? High taxes upon imports will be maintained for the purpose of [FEB. 28, 1837. raising money to distribute; we shall no longer hear of reducing the revenue of the country to its necessary expenditure; we shall then have no difficulty in disposing of the surplus; it will go to the States as a matter of course; and our whole system of government will thus be changed. For my own part, (said Mr. B.,) I should be sorry to reduce the tariff below the proper limit. I am in favor of affording to our domestic industry all the incidental protection which can be yielded to it in raising the reve nue necessary for the wants of the Government. Indeed, if any thing could reconcile me to the doctrines of the Senator, it would be the protection which they must necessarily afford to our manufactures. Let this amend ment pass the Senate, as it has already passed the House, and who can believe that the tariff will ever be reduced? If all the surplus money which can be col lected by this Government is to be distributed amongst the several States, this will perpetuate high duties for ever. It is not, however, either my intention or my wish to quarrel with him on this account. If he will, by advocating this system of policy, force upon us a high tariff, my constituents will bear their part of the dispen. sation with Christian fortitude. I am sorry now to believe in the truth of the declaration of the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. BENTON,] that the land bill is a lifeless corpse. I have clung to that measure, through good report and through evil report, until it has been abandoned by all its other friends, and I am left as the only mourner of its unhappy fate. Dead and gone, as it appears to be, I shall not do its memory so much injustice as to compare it with the system of distribution which its former friends have now adopted in its stead. The land bill would be the safety-valve, the regulator of our system of revenue and expenditure, without in flicting any of the evils on the Federal Government which must flow from annual distributions of the sur plus in the Treasury. What is the theory of our Government under the con stitution? Congress possess the power to levy and collect taxes. For what purpose? To accomplish the great objects specified in the constitution. This power of levying taxes carries with it an immense responsibility. The representatives of the people, when they know that all the money they appropriate must be taken from the pockets of their constituents, will be careful to expend it with economy and discretion. But we possess a vast reservoir of wealth in our public lands, so irregular in its current that, in one year, it pours into the public Treasury twenty millions, and in the next it contributes but one tenth of that sum. This deranges all our legis. lation, and renders all great interests of the country fluctuating and insecure. It encourages extravagant appropriations by Congress, and banishes economy from our legislation. It leaves every interest in doubt and uncertainty. In one year, when we have more money than we know how to expend, we hear the cry that the tariff must be reduced; the revenue must be diminished to the necessary expenditures of the Government; protection must be withdrawn from our manufactures. The next year, perhaps there may be a reaction. Speculation in the public lands may have exhausted itself, and the re ceipts of the Treasury from this source may be greatly diminished. What comes then? The tariff must be raised; the duties on imports must be increased to meet the necessary wants of the Government. Thus the public mind is kept in a perpetual state of excitement. No domestic interest can calculate upon any fixed and steady protection. We are in a state of continual doubt, public opinion fluctuating with the fluctuations in the sales of the public lands. None of the great interests of the country can ever flourish, unless they can calculate, with some degree of confidence, upon some steady and certain course of legislation in relation to themselves. Now, sir, a distribution of the proceeds of the public lands among the States would remedy all these evils, and correct all these anomalies of our system. It would secure to us a settled policy, upon which the country might rely. It would draw off from the General Government this eccentric source of revenue, and distribute it among the States. We should then be left where the constitution intended to place us. The Government would then be administered on its original principles. All our expenditures would then be derived from the taxes which we might impose on the people, and the tariff would thus be rendered fixed and certain. What ever protection might then be afforded would be stable. Under such circumstances, an incidental protective duty, comparatively small, would be of more real value than a much larger one, subject to all the risk and uncertainty which now exist. A manufacturer, whilst embarking in business, would not then dread lest the policy of Congress might change before he could get into successful operation. There would then be no taxes raised from the people to be distributed among the people. We should hear no more of surpluses. Combining some such a disposition of the proceeds of the public lands with an arrangement, as to the lands themselves, which would be satisfactory to the new States, the system might thereby be rendered perfect and permanent. I am strongly impressed with the belief that a plan might be devised which would meet the approbation of all reasonable men in the new States, whilst the just rights of the old States would be amply secured. But all hope of such a consummation has almost departed. The friends of the land bill have cast it aside. Even the Senator from Kentucky has abandoned the promising child which he had adopted and nursed so long and so tenderly, and is now caressing and cherish. ing the ill favored bantling which is now before the Senate. In Has any argument which I urged when I first addres sed the Senate been answered by the gentleman from South Carolina? [Mr. CALHOUN.] He says that it is a reflection upon the virtue and patriotism of the American people and their representatives, to suggest that they would withhold the necessary appropriations from the Federal Government, because the States might expect to receive what would remain unexpended in the Treas ury at the conclusion of each year. Can this inference be fairly drawn from my argument? Every wise legislator, of every age, in framing any plan of government, has always taken care that the duty of those who were to administer it should not clash with their interests. other words, that those who were to work the machine should not have any strong feeling opposed to its sucessful operation. Man, in his best state, is but a frail being. If you place his interest upon the one side and his duty upon the other, the history of the human race abundantly proves that he has too often abandoned his principles for the sake of promoting his private advantage. Lead us not into temptation, was the prayer of Him who best understood human nature. Am I, then, to be charged with reflecting upon the American people, because I be. lieve they will be influenced by the motives which have swayed all mankind from the beginning? What wise man would ever think of establishing a constitution which would place the interest of the Governors in op. position to a correct and efficient administration of the Government? Would not this be emphatically the case, if you say to the Senators and Representatives in Congress that you shall have every dollar of surplus in the Treasury at the end of each year, for the use of your own States, which you can withhold from national ob. jects? I would ask the Senator, if he were about to [SENATE. erect a house, and desired to have it elegantly and substantially built, whether he would put a given amount for that purpose into the hands of his agent, upon condition that the whole surplus which he could save, after the work was completed, should be his own property? This would be offering him a premium to be faithless to his trust. No, sir; I deny that, in applying to the American people the laws which govern human nature generally, I am treating them with disrespect. 1 merely say that they are mortal men, and not angels. I should be the last man to distrust their patriotism, because I firmly believe that, comparing them with the rest of mankind, they are, in the mass, more pure and more virtuous than any other nation upon the face of the earth. Our own history presents us a useful lesson upon this subject. Let us refer to the days of the confederation; and what was then the state of things? Did the different State Governments pay into the Federal Treasury their contingents, which were due upon every fair principle? Would the debts of the Revolution have ever been dis charged, had the old confederation continued to exist? No, sir. The members of the State Legislatures refused to tax the people of the respective States for these purposes. They were placed in such a position that their duty to the Government of the confederation was at war with the interests of their constituents; and the conse. quence was, that Government became a mere shadow-destitute of power, and incapable of performing its most necessary functions. Yet these men, who refused to perform their duties, were the very men who had perilled every thing in the cause of liberty. I voted for the deposite bill of the last session on the very principles then maintained by the Senator from South Carolina. At that time we heard nothing from him which would authorize us to infer that he intended to make the extreme medicine of the constitution its daily bread. [Mr. CALHOUN here explained. He said that the bill introduced by him at the last session contained a distri bution for several years.] Mr. B. continued. I was perfectly aware of that fact; but with whom did this portion of his bill find favor? Is it not notorious that he abandoned it himself? He advo cated the bill as an extreme remedy for an extreme case, and justified the measure from its absolute necessity. We The patient was then in a state of the most alarming plethora. The danger of apoplexy was imminent. bled him copiously in order to save his life. But now, if we are to believe my friend from Georgis, [Mr. KING,] whose opinions upon this subject are entitled to great consideration, our patient will ere long be as lank and lean as the knight of La Mancha. He is now threaten. ed with a galloping consumption. Shall we, then, Sangrado like, continue to bleed? When the symptoms change, the treatment should be different. Although I do not concur with the Senator from Georgia in the opinion he has expressed in regard to the future state of the Treasury, yet I cannot perceive the least necessity, under existing circumstances, to pass another deposite bill. I can never consent to make that which was an exception, under a peculiar state of things, the general rule of our conduct. It is so rendered still more emphatically by attaching this amendment to a common apprepriation bill. If you introduce this policy, as a general system, you will change the whole theory and practice of our Government. What effect will this principle probably produce upon the State Governments at home? They are now frugal and careful of the people's money, because their expend. itures are derived from taxes levied upon the people. The members of the State Legislatures are placed in that condition of responsibility to their immediate constituents, which necessarily secures prudence and economy in making appropriations. But let the flood-gates of the national Treasury be opened, let copious streams of money flow in upon them, and you will have wild and extravagant schemes for spending it, which may be ru inous to the States themselves. They will thus involve themselves in debts, and rely upon the national Treasury to pay them. This will produce pressure upon their representatives to get as much as they can from the General Government, and give as little as they can to national objects. I would put a question to my friend from Arkansas, [Mr. SEVIER.] We have removed and are about remov. ing all the Indians east of the Mississippi to the country west of his State and that of Missouri. These turbulent and restless savages will all be imbodied on the Western frontier of these States. The Government are bound by every principle to yield their citizens protection. Chiefly for this necessary purpose, the Senate has passed a bill to increase the rank and file of the army. Does the Senator believe that the bill will ever become a law, should we adopt the system of distributing surpluses among the States? [Mr. BENTON exclaimed "never, never,”] The two principles are as much opposed to each other as light and darkness. If the surplus derived from taxation is to be annually given to the States, all appropriations in Congress will fail, unless such as may be made under the pressure of immediate and pressing necessity. I voted for the deposite bill last year because no other practicable mode existed of relieving the Treasury, and removing the money from the deposite banks. But no such necessity now exists. No man now knows whether there will be a surplus or not. If there should be, as I think there will, it will be small, unless, indeed, this very bill should create it by defeating those measures in the other House necessary for the defence of the country, and the reduction of the revenue to the standard of our expenditures. [FEB. 28, 1837. tribution was an evil which ought not to be encouraged; and if it must take place, the next Congress could provide for it. Were they afraid to trust them with the question, and would they therefore legislate not only for the present, but for futurity? There was as much evil in too much legislation as in too little, especially in legislating for evils which might or might not exist. Mr. W. said he had no interest in the deposite banks. They were not of his party, but of the party opposed to the administration. If gentlemen would investigate, they would find that, in every instance, there was either a majority of the stock opposed to the administration, or a majority of the directors; and all the hue and cry against the deposite banks was made by the political friends of those who controlled them. Mr. W. there. fore had no interest in them on political grounds. But the strongest objection to the amendment (provision) was that it was an improper mode of legislation. And in what situation would this species of legislation place some of the Senators who last year opposed appropria tions for these fortifications, but would vote for them this year with a small amendment added, which had no connexion with the original bill? [Mr EWING, of Ohio, said nearly every one voted for the bill last year.] Mr. W. said he spoke from the record; he would not recite it, but refer to it. Let gentlemen look at it themselves. Mr. W. was for making proper appropria tions for the welfare of the country, but he protested against this log-rolling system of legislation, connecting together subjects totally distinct, and compelling mem bers to take both or neither. Mr. WEBSTER said the Senator from New Jersey was certainly under a mistake. A bill for certain new works was opposed at the last session. But the bill known as the common fortification bill was not opposed. Mr. BENTON said perhaps there would be found in this fortification bill a part for new works. Mr. NILES and Mr. CRITTENDEN also addressed the Senate on the subject of the amendment of the House to distribute the surplus revenue; after which, The Senate took a recess. EVENING SESSION. DISTRIBUTION QUESTION. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill from the House, making appropriations for fortifications, &c. for the year 1837, the question being on a motion to strike out the section of the bill which provided for a deposite of the surplus revenue, on the 1st of January next, with the several States. The debate was continued to a late hour with much earnestness, when the question was taken on the motion above stated, and decided as follows: YEAS--Messrs. Benton, Black, Browr, Cuthbert, Ew. Mr. WALL said he voted for the distribution bill of the last session, but he never did intend to adopt the principle as one upon which he would act in all future circumstances, or which he would make into a system. If circumstances should be the same at that time, he would act upon it according to his judgment. But they were now entirely different. It was not now the question how the money in the Treasury on the 1st of January, 1838, should be disposed of, but whether they should now sanction, by a deliberate act, a system of log-rolling legislation. The bill, without this distribution provision added to it, providing for the common defence of the country, was distinctly within the limits of the constitution. Who would not say that it was his duty to provide for the defence of the country? The bill to which this amendment was ingrafted was introduced in the House on the 21st of December, 1836, (the same billing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Ala failed last year,) and was acted on, so far as concerned the appropriations, in the Senate bill till the 27th of February. In the original bill there were appropriations for fortifications in Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Maryland, Virginia, Louisiana, and Florida, and one or two others. These provis. ions were for defence, and were clearly and unequivocally constitutional. But when it was brought to the Senate, there was connected with it a measure for dividing, not what was now a surplus, but a surplus which depended upon prophecy. Mr. W. was not willing to legislate on prophecy. There might or might not be a surplus on the 1st of January, 1838; and if there might not be, Mr. W. would not make provision for what might not take place. If there should then be a surplus, there would be men here then as honest and faithful as now, and there would be time enough for them to legislate on facts. All acknowledged that dis bama, King of Georgia, Linn, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Parker, Rives, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Walker, Wall, Wright--26. NAYS-Mes rs. Bayard, Calhoun, Clayton, Crittenden Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Moore, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Southard, Spence, Swift, Tomlinson, Webster, White--19. So the motion to strike out the provision for the dis tribution among the States of the surplus revenue on the 1st of January next, was decided in the affirmative. And, thus amended, the bill was ordered to a third reading. The various bills which were yesterday ordered to a third reading were severally read a third time and passed, The bill concerning pilots came up on its third read. ing. Mr. CALHOUN objected to it, as relating to a subject which required considerable attention, and as one which MARCH 1, 1837.] Light-houses-Post Office Department, &c. he was rather disposed to think properly belonged to the several States. Mr. WALL explained the objects of the bill in detail, and urged the importance of its passage. Mr. WRIGHT also spoke in favor of the bill; and it was then passed. LIGHT-HOUSES, &c. The Senate proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill making appropriations for lighthouses, light-boats, buoys, &c., for the year 1837. Mr. DAVIS from the committee, offered various amendments to the bill, (mostly inconsiderable,) one of which requires the Navy Commissioners to examine the premises before any appropriations shall be applied; which amendments were all adopted. Mr. CALHOUN expressed his high approbation of this amendment, objecting, however, to the whole system, and especially to the practice of making appropriations before the examinations are actually made. The bill was still further amended, on motions of Messrs. RUGGLES and HENDRICKS, and was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. Mr. RUGGLES stated that the aggregate amount appropriated by this bill was something over $500,000. POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. On motion of Mr. ROBINSON, the bill to give security to correspondence between the United States and foreign countries was amended by a substitute, providing for an increase of the number and compensation of clerks and watchmen in the Post Office Department, and for the erection of a new building for that Department. Mr. ROBINSON stated that the Postmaster General had recommended to the committee a reduction of postage, as there was a large surplus of money in the Department. A majority of the committee were, however, of the opinion that it ought to be applied in increas ing mail facilities; for which purpose this substitute was now introduced. Mr. KNIGHT stated that the minority of the committee were of the contrary opinion. The substitute for the bill was adopted as the bill, which was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and subsequently passed. FRENCH AND NEAPOLITAN INDEMNITIES. Mr. WRIGHT moved the consideration of a bill anticipating the payment of indemnities accruing to citizens of the United States, under the convention with France of the 4th of July, 1831, and that with the Two Sicilies of the 14th October, 1832. Much discussion was excited by this motion; but it was at length agreed to. The bill was then reported, and ordered to its third reading, by yeas, and nays as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Buchanan, Clayton, Ewing of Ohio, Hubbard, Kent, Linn, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Parker, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Southard, Tipton, Walker, Webster, Wright-20. NAYS--Messrs. Black, Davis, Hendricks, Moore, Swift, Tomlinson, Wall, White-8. Many other bills were taken up, considered as in Committee of the Whole, ordered to a third reading, and pass. ed; when the Senate adjourned. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1. CHEROKEE INDIANS. Mr. SOUTHARD presented the memorial of 2,500 Cherokee Indians, both east and west of the Mississippi, in relation to the treaty with their tribe ratified at the last session of the Senate, remonstrating against that treaty as fraudulent in its origin, and oppressive in its VOL. XIII.-64 [SENATE. effect, and praying an investigation of the subject by Congress. Mr. S. moved that the memorial be laid on the table and printed. Mr. PRESTON opposed the printing, as a useless expense, and as tending only to create pernicious agitation. Mr. SOUTHARD disclaimed all disposition to debate the question; but, after stating the nature of the petition, appealed to the Senate in behalf of what he represented as the wish of the great body of the Cherokee nation, that the late treaty should be examined into. It was too late in the session to hope for any action in the case, but he hoped the printing of the memorial would not be. fused. Mr. TIPTON, after referring to the late period of the session as not allowing of debate upon such a question, moved to lay the motion to print upon the table; which was agreed to. BOOKS FOR COMMITTEE ROOMS. The resolution introduced by Mr. WALL, for supplying the committee rooms of the Senate with various works published by order or under the superintendence of Congress, was read a third time; and the question being on its passage Mr. WALL explained its provisions, and stated that the total sum to be expended under the resolution would not much exceed $800. Mr. EWING moved to amend it by adding to the list of works in the resolution Elliott's Debates and Diplomatic Correspondence. Mr. SOUTHARD supported the resolution in a few remarks. Mr. BENTON went at length into a speech in opposition to the resolution, which he deprecated as itself a useless expenditure, as scattering the books which ought to be kept together under the care of the Secretary, and as leading to the establishment of a library for each committee room, &c. Mr. CALHOUN joined the opposition to the measure, as but the commencement of a system of expense, &c. On motion of Mr. BENTON, the resolution was laid on the table. TEXAS. Mr. WALKER called up his resolution for the recognition of the independence of Texas, on which a debate of much interest arose. Mr. W. advocated his resolution by a speech of much earnestness, in which he pressed the claims of Texas for recognition with much devoted ardor. He was followed by Mr. PRESTON, on the same side, who went into an extensive review of the history of Mexico, from the period of her recognition by our own Government to the present time, whence he deduced the argument that she never had, in fact, exercised control over Texas, and was in no condition now to enforce her claims of sovereignty. He then went into a similar review of the history of Texas, past and present, and argued to show that she was fully capable of performing the duties and sustaining the responsibilities, both domestic and foreign, which belong to an independent Government. Mr. NORVELL said that, somewhat more than two months ago, the President had transmitted a message to the Senate of the United States, concerning the civil, political, and military condition of Texas, and its relations with Mexico. In that message he observed the following passage: "It is true that, with regard to Texas, the civil authority of Mexico has been expelled, its invading army defeated, the chief of the republic himself captur ed, and all present power to control the newly organized Government of Texas annihilated within its confines. But, on the other hand, there is, in appearance at least, an immense disparity of physical force on the side of Mexico. The Mexican republic, under another Executive, is rallying its forces under a new leader, and menacing a fresh invasion to recover its lost dominion. Upon the issue of this threatened invasion the independence of Texas may be considered as suspended; and were there nothing peculiar in the relative situation of the United States and Texas, our acknowledgment of its independence at such a crisis could scarcely be regarded as consistent with that prudent reserve with which we have heretofore held ourselves bound to treat all similar questions." [MARCH 1, 1837. ent Power, and deemed it expedient to despatch a minister to that country. Mr. N., therefore, submitted a substitute for the original resolution, declaring "that whenever information, satisfactory to the President of the United States, should be received, that Texas has in successful operation a civil Government, capable of performing the duties and of fulfilling the obligations of an independent Power, it will be expedient to acknowledge the independence of that republic." It would, he said, be observed, that while the language and spirit of his amendment were similar, in most respects, to the reso lution adopted by the Senate at the last session upon the same subject, there was this material variation, in the amendment, from the resolution: that was an abstract and general declaration; this devolved upon the Presi dent the responsibility of deciding when such a state of things might exist as to justify the recognition of Texian independence. The amendment would obviate the necessity of delaying this recognition until the next session of Congress, if, in the judgment of the President, it could be safely and wisely made before that time. Mr. WALKER objected to the amendment, as not advancing the Texian cause beyond the point at which it stood last session. Mr. CALHOUN also opposed the amendment, and spoke for a short time in support of Mr. WALKER's rego It is true, sir, (said Mr. N.,) that this second invading army has not penetrated into Texas. It is true that not a hostile foot is to be found in Texas. But it is equally true that the late chief of the Mexican republic has been released from imprisonment by the Texian Government, and that he has returned home. It is probable that this course was agreed upon by both of the contending parties, with the understanding that, if public sentiment in Mexico should be found to authorize it, the Mexican chief would himself lead the way in recognising the independence of Texas. If no such understanding had taken place, was it certain that another invasion of Texas, more formidable than the first, would not be attempted? In either event, it would be more prudent in this Government, more wise, more consistent with the deli-lution. cate relations which exist between the United States and Mexico, to wait until we see the result of the return to that country of the Mexican chief, before we venture upon the decisive measure of recognition, and of throw-only the legislative but also the executive functions of ing additional embarrassment in the way of a peaceful adjustment of our serious differences with Mexico. The policy of this Government, with regard to foreign nations and to the domestic contests which take place among them for power, had, from the time of Washington to the present day, been cautious, prudent, and strictly impartial. We have always waited until their new Governments had acquired stability, and were placed beyond the probability of change, before we recognised their independence. The Executive of this country could not, it would be remembered, be induced to acknowledge the independence of the Spanish American republics, until they had carried on their struggles with Spain for several years; and this, too, when we had no serious differences to adjust with that monarchy. The contest for Texian independence has not been going on for more than one year. We have, at this time, difficulties of such magnitude with the republic of Mexico, that the President of the United States had recommended reprisals against her. The Senate, two days ago, unanimously voted against the adoption of any such hostile measure towards that republic. And could they now, consistently with that vote, prematurely commit the peace of the nation? Could they now, honorably, take advantage of the weakness and distractions of Mexico, and recognise the independence of Texas, without knowing what course the Mexican chief himself would take on the subject? Would this be magnanimous? A short delay would remove all difficulty. This delay would not be incompat. ible with the indulgence of all our sympathies for the Texians. In a month or two we should learn the views of Santa Anna in relation to Texas. In the mean time, the Executive, charged with the foreign relations of the country, ought to be permitted to act according to circumstances, upon his own responsibility, with respect to the acknowledgment of Texian independence. This course would be in harmony with the action of the other branch of the Legislature on the subject. They had made an appropriation to enable the President to send a diplomatic agent to Texas, whenever he should receive satisfactory evidence that she was actually an independ Mr. CLAY inquired whether the resolution was intended to be followed up by any, and what, legislative action. lle objected to the resolution, as covering not the Government. Though he should prefer that the question should lie over a little longer, yet, if the ques tion were put to him in any shape in which, as a legisla tor, he was called to give an affirmative or negative vote, he should, in conformity with the principles on which he had always acted in reference to the South American States, give an affirmative answer. But there would then remain behind the very grave and important question of annexation; on which he would at present express no opinion. They were entirely distinct questions; and a vote on the one would not commit any man on the other. As the question would come up, however, on the appropriation bill from the House, he should prefer, if agreeable to the mover, to move at present that it be laid upon the table. Mr. WALKER said that there would be no inconsist ency in adopting his resolution, and then voting on the item in the appropriation bill. The latter was contingent in its character, but this resolution gave a positive expression of the opinion of the Senate. He contended for the propriety of such an expression of opinion, and against casting the whole burden of responsibility on the Executive. Mr. BUCHANAN, after expressing his best wishes for the success of Texas, and his confident hope of it, contended that this was not the moment in which it be came us to act. Every one knew that the success of Texas, thus far, had been achieved mainly by men and resources drawn, in fact, from the people of the United States, though without any recognition of its Govern ment; and as the people of Texas had adopted a resolu tion that, as soon we should recognise their independ ence, they would immediately apply for reception into the United States as a State of this Union, we might expose ourselves, in the view of the world, to the strong est suspicions of a departure from that impartiality which we had always observed toward other nations. As Santa Anna had had his life given him by the people of Texas, and was likely to return with acclamations to the Gov ernment of Mexico, would it not be better to wait and see whether he would not fulfil the promise he had been understood to have made of using his great influence in |