SENATE.] Public Lands. [JAN. 31, 1837. which were to be fulfilled so soon as the dominant party got the control of both Houses of Congress. Not only had the complaint been heard in that chamber, but similar language had been held on another floor which he would not name. There, too, reproaches had been uttered as to the non-fulfilment of engagements. He wished to understand what these engagements were. In the mean while, he could assure the gentleman from New York [Mr. TALLMADGE] that, in the year 1842, Congress would have no trouble whatever with the public lands. Pass this bill, and the next effort would be to remove, first, one restriction, and then another, until all restrictions were gone. What had been the practical effect of all settlement laws, in all countries, from the day when our forefathers landed at Plymouth until this day? The settlement laws of France, of Spain, as well as Great Britain? Those laws granted land on condition that such and such a number of emigrants should have been collected; that such and such improvements should have been made; such and such houses erected, and clear-ciple of pre-emption, the Senator from Kentucky must ing and cultivation accomplished. But where, or when, in what country, or at what time, have such conditions ever been complied with? They had invariably been disregarded, either from their inherent impracticability, or from a failure of power in the parent State to enforce them. And just so it would be in this case. The liberal grant of his parent Commonwealth had been intended for the benefit of the entire Union, and not of eight or nine States only. He had waited in the hope of seeing the representative of that Commonwealth upon that floor rise in his place, and solemnly enter his protest against this perversion of the munificent grant of that ancient and venerable Commonwealth, from which they had both derived their origin. But he had been disappointed. The gentleman from New York might spare his precautions; there was an end of the public lands, and of all revenue to be derived from that source. Mr. SEVIER briefly replied, and explained, in what he had said with respect to assurances, he had referred to the language contained in that best of all the papers which had ever proceeded from General Jackson, his veto on the land bill, in which the President had said that the public domain ought to be sold at a price barely sufficient to cover the cost of survey and the expenses of the land sale. And when the Executive soon to be installed into office was inquired of with respect to his future course, his reply was, that he should follow in the steps of his illustrious predecessor. He thanked God that he was not a great man himself, for he had observed that those who were had more blighted hopes and bitter disappointents than he should ever be able to bear. Mr. CLAY reminded the Senator from Arkansas that he had said something about assurances to be fulfilled when the parties should obtain a majority in the Senate. Mr. SEVIER explained this to refer to assurances which he had himself given to his constituents, and to nothing else. He was Mr. WALKER expressed his determination to vote for the amendment offered by Mr. TALLMADGE. confident that if the bill did not pass, the year 1842 would see the whole public land in the hands of speculators. led out, among the different States of the Union. Their vote, like his own, would ever have been given against a proposition of that kind. Whatever opinion that Senator might hold as to the course which the representatives of Virginia ought to pursue, he should be governed by his own convictions in regard to his own duty. The Senator had predicted that under the operation of this bill, and before the year 1842, the whole of the public domain would have passed out of the hands of the United States into the possession of other people; but if such would be the effect of this bill, what might be expected to be the result of the law as it now stood? In less than half that time the whole body of the public land would be in the possession of the speculators. It was the scope and intent of this bill to restrain the spirit of greedy speculation, and to preserve the public domain in the hands of the Government for the benefit of the whole people of the Union. It was this which had procured for the bill his zealous support. As to the prinbe aware that it formed a feature of the Virginia laws, as it did in fact of those of every State in the Union. It was a principle eminently equitable. Without pretending to as intimate an acquaintance with the unfortu nate class of individuals who had been treated with such great severity in the present debate, he did know that many of them at least were undeserving of the viturperation which had been cast upon them. He was personally acquainted with many of the favorite sons of Virginia, (some of them members of the late convention for revising the constitution of that State,) who were now in the wilds of the West, occupying land which belonged to the Government, and which they were ready to pay for, but which had not yet been exposed for sale. In this, how much soever it might be against the theory of the law, there was no violation of its spirit. He was well aware that, by the common law, to set one's foot on the land of their neighbor, without permission first ob tained, was a trespass. If he should visit the honorable Senator from Kentucky at Ashland, it would be a tres. pass according to the strictness of the law; yet was it so held in practice? The law which forbade the settling on lands of the United States had been passed at a period very different from the present, and on considerations which did not now apply. It had been enacted rather for the protection of the settlers than out of a jealous regard to the rights of the Government. Some of the best blood of Virginia was now in the West, and claiming protection from the representatives of that State on this floor. Their situation demanded his sympathies and respectful consideration; and it was a feeling of this kind toward worthy men, whom he personally knew, that had first convinced him of the injustice of some of the pictures which had here been presented of the class of individuals opprobicusly denounced as squatters. He had risen not to discuss the bill. He was not prepared to do so. The great consideration which induced him to advocate the bill was, to arrest the enormous surplus revenue, the mischievous effect of which was convulsing and devastating the country. And if the honorable Senator had looked at the act of Virginia, accepting her portion Mr. RIVES said that he was very sorry that he had in the distribution of the deposites, and at the protest disappointed the wishes and expectations of the Senator then raised against the exercise of such a power, he from Kentucky-wishes which he did not doubt had been would have been at no loss for reasons why Mr. R. could entertained in all kindness to himself; but he was really at not concur with him. To the policy which created a loss to understand on what the expectations of that gen- such a surplus he had invariably been opposed. He had tleman had been founded. If he knew any thing of the never thought that because Virginia, with whatever lib. sentiments and course of his predecessors, they had ever erality, had bestowed her domain upon the Union, she uttered their voice against all propositions which went was to play the dog in the manger, and be ever on the to make the public domain a common fund, in the sense watch to prevent others from obtaining that which she in which that Senator understood the term; that is, as a had so freely given away. No; Virginia had never ex fund to be parcelled out, or to have its proceeds parcel-hibited a spirit of that sort, and he trusted she would ever remain a stranger to it. Virginia, looking to the future destinies of the country, had made it a fundamental stipulation in her deed of gift, that this territory should be erected into independent States, not less than three nor more than five. But how could we expect these States ever to populate and flourish, unless the General Government extended a paternal protection over those hardy settlers who had their habitations on our Western frontier? That was the policy of this bill, while at the same time its effect would be to diminish the surplus revenue. A conviction of this had led him to advocate the bill, nor could he have expected that such a course would have exposed him to the rebuke of the honorable Senator from Kentucky. Mr. CLAY rejoined. He had no right to rebuke the Senator from Virginia; and though that gentleman might feel what he said as a rebuke, he had not so offered it. Mr. C. then referred to the terms of cession, which provided that the land was to be a common fund for the benefit of all the States, Virginia inclusive, and then went on to insist that the provisions in the bill operated in practice to withhold from the citizens of Virginia advantages which it conferred on the people of the new States. On this ground it was that he had expected the protest of her representatives. The bill for the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands among the States was not under discussion; but one of the brightest, one of the best and purest of that gentleman's predecessors, and whose immediate successor he believed he was, had voted for that bill; and no one of his predecessors had ever advocated a prospective pre-emption law, a law which inflicted one of the deepest stabs on the rights of the States which had ever been perpetrated by the General Government. The Senator advocated this bill as a measure to restrict the sales of the public land, and prevent a surplus in the Treasury; and what did it do by way of restriction? It threw open to the occupancy of pre-emptioners 180 millions of acres of land, now beyond their reach, in addition to the 120 millions now in the market. It was true Virginia had a pre-emption law and a settlement law, but they were enacted under totally differ ent circumstances. They were for the benefit of men who combated our then unsubdued Indian tribes, and, in making and maintaining their settlements, risked their lives; and Mr. C. now knew but a single man in Kentucky who was in the possession of land so obtained. The remarks he had thrown out had been made in perfect kindness. He did regret the course of the honorable Senator, for that gentleman and himself might be said to have a common origin; the one having his lot cast in the more ancient portion of the Commonwealth, the other in that part of it more recently settled, and since become independent; and he still regretted that he did not enjoy the advantage of the distinguished talents and great influence of that Senator in resisting schemes which he deemed to be wild and delusive. Mr. RIVES made a brief reply, and referred to one of his predecessors who had incurred a similar rebuke from the same source, and on a like account, four or five years ago. He denied that the bill excluded Virginia from an equal participation with other States, in the enjoyment and advantages of the public lands. Her citizens could obtain portions of the public domain by cultivation, without a personal residence. As to the extending of the right of pre-emption to 180,000,000 acres, in addition to the 120,000,000 already in market, it was but an instance of that exaggeration which had too much characterized the present debate. Where was the honorable Senator going to get a sufficient army of preemptioners to invade and seize upon these 180,000,000 acres at a quarter of a section apiece? Statements of this kind were calculated to frighten the imagination, [SENATE. but they never should frighten him from the course of his public duty. Mr. MORRIS asked leave to lay an amendment on the table, which he proposed to offer as a substitute for the bill as amended by the committee; which was grant ed, and it was ordered to be printed. Mr. MORRIS then moved that the Senate adjourn; which motion was rejected: Yeas 20, naj s 26, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Moore, Morris, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Southard, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster-20. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Linn, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Walker, White, Wright-26. The question was then taken on agreeing to the amendment as reported by the Committee on Public Lands, as amended, and decided in the affirmative: Yeas 26, nays 19, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Linn, Lyon, Moore, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Walker, White, Wright-26. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Kent, Knight, Morris, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Ruggles, Soutbard, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster-19. The bill was then reported to the Senate as amended; and, on motion of Mr. CLAY, it was ordered to be printed as amended. The Senate then adjourned. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1. LAND FRAUDS. The resolution, formerly offered by Mr. NICHOLAS, calling on the Secretary of the Treasury for information obtained by special agents in relation to alleged frauds on the public lands in the State of Louisiana, being under consideration Mr. CLAY proposed to amend the resolution by stri king out Louisiana, and extending the inquiry to all the States and Territories. Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to a general inquiry; but, as a particular charge of fraud had been made in relation to his own State, and as he was desirous to protect its citizens against all unjust and injurious charges, he would prefer that his resolution should remain distinct from any resolution for a general inquiry. Mr. EWING, of Ohio, said he hoped the Senator would at least permit his resolution to be so far amended as to call for a return of the papers on which charges in relation to citizens of Louisiana had been made at the last session, which papers had been returned from the Senate to the Department. Mr. NICHOLAS intimated his belief that those charges were, to a considerable extent, founded on anonymous letters. Mr. EWING said he had not depended on such letters. The principal letter on which the charges were founded was from the district attorney for the western district of Louisiana; and he claimed it as an act of justice to all, that the same papers on which charges were made at the last session should again be brought before the Senate, that the report on the subject might contain the information on which charges were founded. Mr. LINN inquired whether individuals who might be implicated would have an opportunity to rebut the charges of fraud which might be brought against them. Mr. SEVIER spoke at some length against sending out special agents at all to inquire into cases which had been long considered as settled. It hindered the issuing of land patents, and was highly injurious to innocent persons. He was opposed to every kind of reinvestigation on this subject. Mr. CLAY offered his amendment, which was adopt ed, for instituting a general investigation, as an addition to Mr. NICHOLAS's resolution. On motion of Mr. EWING, the resolution of Mr. NICHOLAS was amended so as to call on the Secretary of the Treasury for information otherwise obtained, as well as by special agents. The resolution, as amended, was then adopted. Mr. NORVELL moved an amendment to the fourth section of the bill, providing that it shall not be cons'rued so as to affect the selections of land which have been or may be made for the salt springs belonging to Michigan. Mr. WALKER did not consider that the amendment was at all necessary, for the provisions of the bill covercd what the Senator was desirous of accomplishing. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. BROWN moved an amendment to the fourth section, making it retrospective in its character in regard to pre-emption settlement. Mr. B. said he offered this amendment with a view to obviate the objection entertained by some gentlemen that the section, as it stood, would hold out a sort of bounty to persons residing in the old States to emigrate to the West. Now, should the amendment prevail, no such temptation would be held out as under the existing section. Mr. RUGGLES moved to amend the amendment so as to confine the operations of pre-emptions to settlemen's prior to the 1st of December, 1836. Mr. BROWN accepted the modification; and The question was then taken on the amendment as amended, and it was adopted by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Dana, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hubbard, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, McKean, Morris, Niles, Page, Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Robbins, Ruggles, Swift, Tallmadge, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, White--30. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, King of Alabama, Linn, Lyon, Moore, Nicholas, Norvell, Robinson, Sevier, Tipton, Walker, Wright-17. Mr. EWING, of Ohio, submitted an amendment to compel the individual entering a pre-emption to occupy and cultivate his land six months previous to such preemption. Mr. WALKER disapproved of the proposed amendment, and said if the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio should prevail, he would vote against the bill. Mr. EWING, of Ohio, said that, according to the bill, as it was, a man had nothing to do but to remain a day or two on the land to entitle him to a settlement. Mr. BROWN said, almost every gentleman seemed to think that some bill should pass. Now, if this amendment prevailed, the bill would be greatly impaired in the estimation of many Senators. The gentleman from Ohio was mistaken in saying that the bill required a mere temporary residence; it required not only occupancy, but cultivation also. [FEB. 1, 1837. Mr. WALKER hoped that the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina would prevail; if not, a prin ciple would be introduced in the bill which ought not to find its way there. Such a principle could not be found in any bill heretofore passed of this character. If, then, this new principle should be inserted, he was prepared to abandon the bill; and he would ask for the yeas and | nays. Mr. CLAY said that, if the Senator from Mississippi should vote against the bill, as he threatened to do, it would be no great calamity. As for himself, he would vote against it if no one else did. What! would it be pretended by any Senator, that a man, by remaining a day upon the public lands, should be entitled to pre-emption? Was that the right upon which gentlemen would grant the right of pre-emption? No; actual cultivation and possession was necessary; this was the practical operation of the pre-emption laws which had heretofore been passed. This requirement should be insisted upon by the present bill; and the requirement proposed to be inserted in the bill, of a six months' residence, was only, he repeated, carrying out the intention of the old pre emption laws. Mr. RUGGLES remarked that he was desirous that a bill should pass restricting the lands to actual settlers, but he considered three months would be long enough. The question was taken on the adoption of the amendment, and it was carried. Mr. RUGGLES moved to strike out "six," and insert "three;" which was lost. The debate was continued by Messrs. BAYARD, NILES, CRITTENDEN, BROWN, CALHOUN, and PRESTON, when Mr. WALKER moved a reconsideration of the vote on the motion of the Senator from Maine, to insert “three” instead of “six,”and asked for the yeas and nays; which being taken, were: Yeas 28, pays 18. So the vote was reconsidered; and, On taking the question on Mr. RUGGLES's motion to strike out "six," and insert "three," it was agreed to. On motion of Mr. RUGGLES, the bill was amended so as to require an actual occupation and cultivation of the tract three months prior to the entry of a pre-emption. Mr. MORRIS moved to amend the bill by adding a clause requiring the individual purchasing on a preemption to have erected a dwelling-house on the land, and to have resided therein the term of three months. Mr. CALHOUN asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. Mr. SEVIER moved to lay the bill and amendments on the table, and asked for the yeas and nays on the question; which being ordered, the question was decided in the negative, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Moore, Morris, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Sevier, Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Webster-20. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Linn, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Rves, Robinson, Ruggles, Strange, Tallmadge, Walker, Wall, White, Wright-26. Mr. MOORE moved that the Senate adjourn; which motion was rejected: Yeas 20, nays 25, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Moore, Morris, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster--20. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, Linn, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Walker, White, Wright-25. After some remarks from Messrs. MORRIS, BAY. ARD, WALKER, EWING of Ohio, and EWING of Illinois, the amendment of Mr. MoRRIS was rejected: Yeas 21, nays 25, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Morris, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Ruggles, Southard, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, White--21. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, Linn, Lyon, Moore, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Swift, Tallmadge, Walker, Wright--25. Mr. NORVELL moved to amend the bill by providing that the restriction which confines the benefits of this act to citizens of the United States shall apply only to the pre-emption system. Mr. N. observed that the section, as it now stands, was the adoption of a policy never before known in the United States in the sales of the public lands. After some words from Mr. LINN in favor of the amendment, Mr. NORVELL said that if he had thought that the motion would prevail, he would have moved to strike out the ninth section altogether, as it ought not to be in the bill at all. Mr. WEBSTER asked if it was the intention of the Senate, in a bill giving so great a bounty as this bill, to extend it to every man in England, France, and Ireland? Would they extend the privilege of entering lands for their children to fathers in foreign countries, when the friends of the bill, with so much reluctance, consented that it should be extended to those in the old States? Mr. W. moved to amend the ninth section, so as to restrict the privileges of pre-emption and settlement for children, to citizens of the United States; which was agreed to. The question was then taken on Mr. NORVELL'S Motion to strike out the ninth section; which was rejected: Yeas 9, nays 22, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Hendricks, Linn, Lyon, Norvell, Robinson, Sevier, Walker-9. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Black, Calhoun, Clayton, Crittenden, Dana, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Moore, Morris, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Robbins, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tomlinson, Webster, White, Wright-32. Mr. RUGGLES moved to strike the 8th section from the bill. [This is the section permitting fathers in the old States, or mothers, in case the fathers are dead, to enter a section of land for the benefit of minor children.] Mr. HUBBARD called for the yeas and nays on the question, which were ordered, and after some remarks from Mr. RUGGLES, the motion was rejected: Yeas 12, nays 26, as follows: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2. [SENATE. Mr. NICHOLAS presented the credentials of the Hon. ALEXANDER MOUTON, Senator elect from the State of Louisiana, vice Mr. PORTER, resigned. Mr. MOUTON then appeared, was qualified, and took his seat. COPY-RIGHTS TO FOREIGNERS. Mr. CLAY said that he begged leave to present to the Senate a memoir or address from certain living authors of Great Britain. Among the subscribers to it would be recognised some of the most distinguished names in the literary world-names (said he) with which we have been long familiar, and whose admirable productions have often instructed and delighted us all. They represent that, owing to the want of legal protection in the United States, they are deprived of the benefit here of their literary property; that their works are published without any compensation being made to them for their copy-rights; that they are frequently altered and mutilated, so as to affect injuriously their reputations; and that an arrangement which they, or some of them, had made with booksellers in the United States, to secure a fair and just remuneration for their labors, had been defeated by the practice of other American booksellers. They therefore request the passage of a law, by which their right of property may be protected. I am quite sure, Mr. President, (continued Mr. CLAY,) that I need not say one word to commend this address to the attentive and friendly consideration of the Senate, and every member of it. Of all classes of our fellowbeings, there is none that has a better right than that of authors and inventors, to the kindness, the sympathy, and the protection of the Government. And surely nothing can be more reasonable than that they should be allowed to enjoy, without interruption, for a limited time, the property created by their own genius. Unfortunately, but too often dependent upon that alone, if they are deprived of it, they are bereft of the means of subsistence. The signers of this address may, with more confidence, indulge the hope of the passage of the law which they solicit, from the consideration that, according to the liberality of the British practice, the security of copy-right is not restricted to British subjects, but is equally enjoyed by foreigners. And I understand that there are instances of American authors who have availed themselves of it. Mr. President, when we reflect what important parts of the great republic of letters the United States and Great Britain are, and consider their common origin, common language, and similarity of institutions, and of babits of reading, there seems to me to be every motive for reciprocating between the two countries the security of copy-rights. Indeed, I do not see any ground of just objection, either in the constitution or in sound policy, to the passage of a law tendering to all foreign nations reciprocal security for literary property. Mr. C., in conclusion, moved that the memorial be YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Fulton, King of Ala-printed, and referred to the Committee on the Library. bama, Linn, Moore, Morris, Niles, Page, Ruggles, Sevier, Wright-12. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Brown, Clayton, Crittenden, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Georgia, Nicholas, Norvell, Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Robbins, Robinson, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tomlinson, Walker, Wall, Webster, White-26. Mr. PRESTON said he had no doubt of the general propriety of the direction proposed to be given to the memorial; all subjects of this kind were properly brought before the Library Committee. But the subject was one of some difficulty; there was a large and meritorious class of authors in this country, who had a direct interest in securing to the authors of Great Britain the copy-right to their works, because copies of these works were sold without the expense of a copyright, and thus came in free and injurious competition with the works of American authors. But, then, publishers had an opposite interest, to seize upon foreign works without price, and republish them. The consequence was, that the labor of foreign authors was converted to the use of publishers here, who often sent into the market a most despicable article in point of execution, entirely unworthy of the state of the arts in this country. Publishers, therefore, had arrayed themselves against the object of this memorial; and the subject, therefore, resolved itself into a complicated question of free trade and protection of the mechanical arts, with which is numbered the art of printing. On this subject Mr. P. was not now prepared to decide. They had two authors to our one, and were, therefore, more interested in the protection of mental labor; while we published three or four books to their one, and were, therefore, more interested in protecting publishers. Mr. P. was understood to suggest that the subject ought to go to the Judiciary Committee. Mr. GRUNDY remarked that the Judiciary Commit. tee had already as much before them as they could properly perform, and it was therefore impossible for them to give this subject that attention which was due to its intrinsic merits. He therefore moved that the memorial be referred to a select committee of five, expressing the desire that he might be excused from serving on such committee. Mr. CALHOUN said he was aware that the interest of booksellers in the United States was adverse to the object of this memorial; but he did not suppose that it was of a character or nature such as required its rejection. The works for which copy-rights would be secured in this country constituted but a small portion of the entire literature of Great Britain or this country; and of the works of the distinguished names on this memorial, the copy-right of a great portion had expired, which was, therefore, subject to free publication; and perhaps it would not be thought proper to revive the right in this country. By several living foreign authors, an attempt had been made to secure their property in this country, by designating the booksellers in the United States by whom alone their works were to be published. The attempt, however, proved impracticable, for other booksellers also published their works without license, so as entirely to deprive them of the bencfi s of such property in this country. Mr. C. thought the proper committee was that on the Judiciary, though he would not object to a select committee. Mr. BUCHANAN said when this question came to be considered it would be a vexed and difficult question. He would not discuss it now, but he saw an interest involved far beyond that of publishers, to whose interest he would pay a smaller regard; and that was the interest of the reading people of the United States. Cheap editions of foreign works were now published and sent all over the country so as to be within the reach of every individual; and the effect of granting copy-rights asked for by this memorial would be, that the authors who were anxious to have their works appear in a more expensive form would prevent the issuing of these cheap editions; so that the amount of republications of British works in this country, he thought, would be at once reduced to one half. But to live in fame was as great a stimulus to authors as pecuniary gain; and the question ought to be considered, whether they would not lose as much of fame by the measure asked for, as they would gain in money. It was especially well worthy of the committee to go beyond publishers, and ascertain what would be the effect on the acquisition of knowledge in this vast country. Mr. GRUNDY's motion to refer the memorial to a special committee was then carried; and the Chair appointed Messrs. CLAY, PRESTON, BUCHANAN, WEBSTER, and EWING of Ohio, to compose the committee. PUBLIC LANDS. [FEB. 2, 1837. the day, being the bill limiting the sales of the public lands, and having slated the question to be on the following sections, moved by Mr. MOORE, as amendments to the bill: "And be it further enacled, That all lands which have been offered for sale twenty or more years, and remain unsold, shall hereafter be sold at fifty cents per acre; all lands which have been offered fifteen or more years, and less than twenty years, shall be hereafter sold at seventyfive cents per acre; and all lands which have been offered ten or more years, and less than fifteen years, shall hereafter be sold at one dollar per acre: Provided, That not more than one hundred and sixty acres shall be sold to any one purchaser, nor to any other than actual settlers, at such reduced prices. "And be it further enacted, That any person who shall make the necessary proof, as required by the fourth section of this bill, that he has occupied or cultivated any portion of the public lands subject to entry at private sale, such person shall have the pre-emptive right in the purchase of one quarter section, to include the land so occupied or cultivated, at one dollar per acre." Mr. MOORE addressed the Senate as follows: Mr. President: When I had the honor to present to the Senate last evening the amendments now under its consideration, I said great injustice had been done that class of our fellow-citizens who first emigrate and take possession of the public domain, by that severe denun ciation that had been so liberally dealt out against them from several quarters upon this floor. Having been an early emigrant myself to the section of country in which reside, and having some knowledge of the character of the many privations which those with whom I have been associated had to encounter, and which are common with all early emigrants to a new country, it was natural that my sympathies and sensibilities should be excited. But, sir, I am well aware these missiles and censure were not thrown particularly at Alabama; and as they have been met and replied to by others, I shall endeavor only to give a brief explanation of the opera tion of former pre-emption laws, as relates to the State of Alabama. Sir, the only pre-emption law in that long catalogue brought to view by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. BENTON] in which any portion of the citizens of this State have had any interest, is the law of May, 1830, which was limited in its operation to one year only; and the act of June, 1834, which re-enacted the provisions of the law of 1830, and continued its operation for two years. These laws have had an application in one or two counties only in the whole State of Alabama; and, in truth, it may be said that the citizens in but one county have been benefited to any considerable extent. These citizens, although not in affluence, are as honest, as worthy, and respectable, as the population in any other quarter. And what, let me ask, is the character of the boon presented by the pre-emption laws to which I have referred? The only advantage has been the protection it gave the poor man from a competition with the more wealthy land speculator in the purchase of his little home, one quarter section, which had been made valua ble only by means of his own labor bestowed upon it. Sir, it is due to my constituents that I should state one fact, which is much to their credit and honor, which is this: I have never heard of any attempt to perfect titles under these pre-emption laws by a resort to "corrup tion, perjury, subornation of perjury, or other improper means," about which we have heard so much as having occurred in other quarters. There is another fact which I take great pleasure in The President having announced the special order of bringing to the view of the Senate. This very county of |