Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Robinson, Ruggles, Tipton, Walker, Wright-17.

NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Hubbard, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Morris, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Southard, Swift, Wall, White--23.

Mr. RUGGLES moved to amend the 8th section by inserting before the word "child" the word " "male," so as to give a parent the privilege of purchasing the public land only for his male children under 21 years.

Mr. BUCHANAN said that he hoped that no such amendment as that would be assented to. He had al most rather lose the whole section than vote to exclude the ladies.

Mr. CLAY demanded the yeas and nays.

Mr. MOORE said, if any distinction was to be made, he would rather give the exclusive privilege to children of the other sex.

The question being taken, the amendment was negatived by nearly the whole Senate, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Niles, Ruggles, Wright-3. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Linn, Lyon, Moore, Morris, Nicholas, Norvell, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Robinson, Southard, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Walker, Wall, White-38.

Mr. NILES moved to amend the bill in the 8th section, in that part of it which requires a parent to swear that no previous entry has been made in the name of said child under the provisions of this act, by striking out the words "in the name of said child," and inserting in lieu thereof, "by said parent;" but before any question was taken on this amendment, a question of order was made, viz: whether the 8th section could be amended at all, inasmuch as the Serate had refused a motion to strike it out, and had thereby determined to retain it entire.

The question was argued for a long time. The rules were appealed to: the Chair doubted, and the Senate could extricate itself from the difficulty only by determining, with common consent, to reconsider the former vote, by which a reconsideration had been refused. This brought them back to the point at which they had started in the morning, and presented the question whether the 8th section should be stricken out or retained in the bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN had no idea that such opposition would have been made to this section. He had consulted with Western gentlemen before he offered his amendment to it, and he had thought it would meet their approbation. The bill, as it stood, confined the sales of the public lands to those who are in the West. He thought the people of the West would feel the paralyzing effects of the bill, should it pass in its present shape, although they express their willingness to make a sacrifice to diminish the surplus revenue. He was willing to reduce the revenue derived from the sales of the public lands to effect that object. But, when he was asked to vote for a bill which would cut off his own constituents from deriving any advantage from it, he could not agree to it. He was willing, at an early stage, to meet the feelings of gentlemen from the West; but now he was willing to let the section stand or fall upon its own merits; and, if necessary, he was willing to put his vote against the adoption of this or any similar

amendment.

[SENATE.

might not be incorporated in this bill. Was there any one present who admitted that the lands of the Government in market were now offered for sale below their intrinsic value? He would not vote for a proposition to raise the price, because he did not believe the lands were worth more than one dollar and twenty-five cents. But, if he believed in the opinion re-echoed in that body, he should feel it his duty to move to raise the price. He believed the minimum price of the Government was high enough, nor did he think that public policy would admit of its being raised. Entertaining this opinion, he would not admit that it was a privilege conferred on a citizen, to give him an opportunity of purchasing the public land, unless he wanted to use it.

He believed it was a privilege, when a man wanted a farm to cultivate, that he should have land at the lowest price. Mr. W. argued that it was not to be supposed that lands could be sold at the end of ten years, when the country would of course be very much improved in every respect, at the same price as at the present time, though, according to the argument of gentlemen, it would appear that such was to be the case. His judgment was this: that the interests of the whole Union, and of those who live where the lands are located, required that Congress should put them into their hands at as low a rate as reason would dictate, and as rapidly as the growth of the country would permit. But when a sort of pre-emption right was opened to a man, unaccompanied with a settlement, that was not the way to promote a settlement of the lands. Mr. W. concluded with saying that he hoped the vote might be reconsidered, for he had no wish that it should be stricken out, but only modified so as to make it acceptable to the Senate.

After further debate, the question of reconsidering was decided in the negative (so as to retain the section in the bill) by yeas and nays, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, King of Alabama, Linn, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Tipton, Walker, Wright-21.

NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clayton, Crittenden, Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Morris, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Southard, Spence, Swift, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, White-22.

The question now recurring on Mr. WHITE's amendment, it was modified, on motion of Mr. NOBELL, by inserting a clause protecting from the operation of the bill all lands reserved by any of the States for salt springs or for purposes of education.

Mr. WALKER inquired of the Chair whether, in case Mr. WHITE's amendment should be adopted, it would be in order for him to amend it, by adding thereto the second section of the bill as it at present stood? This led to another discussion on the question of order, when, to relieve the Senate,

Mr. WHITE consented to move, instead of his first amendment, to strike out the second section of the bill, with notice that if that motion succeeded, he should follow it by another, to strike out the residue of the bill, and insert his amendment, as before proposed.

After further difficulty as to questions of order, Mr. WHITE withdrew this motion, and renewed that he had before made, viz: to strike out the whole of the bill excepting the first section, and to insert, in lieu thereof, the amendment quoted above.

After some remarks from Mr. EWING of Ohio and Mr. LINN,

Mr. DAVIS went into a speech of considerable length (which, however, he was, through indisposition, unable to conclude) in opposition to the general principles of the bill.

Mr. WEBSTER, desirous to give him an opportunity to conclude his remarks to-morrow, moved an adjournment; but the motion did not prevail, being rejected, by yeas and nays, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Moore Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Southard, Spence, Swift, Tiptor, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster-21.

NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Linn, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Walker, White, Wright-25.

Mr. RUGGLES now moved to amend the bill in the seventh section, in the following clause: "That all the lands of the United States shall hereafter be subject to purchase at public auction or private entry, in subdivisions not less than a quarter-quarter section," by striking out that clause, and inserting, in lieu of it, a provision that every purchaser under the provisions of the bill should be required to enter his land in not more than four separate parcels, nor in less than a quarter-quarter section.

Mr. WALKER opposed this amendment with warmth. Mr. EWING advocated it, and explained that under the bill as it stood a purchaser might enter his two sections of land in not less than 32 distinct portions of 40 acres each; and provided he cultivated 3 of these, he might enter the remaining 28 in any State or Territory where there was public land to sell, and that without striking a stroke on either of them.

Mr. WALKER took the contrary position, and argued to show that the purchaser would have to cultivate a small part of each tract.

Mr. EWING insisted upon his first position, contending that the words of the bill would bear that interpretation. Mr. WALKER declared that, should this amendment prevail, it would destroy the bill altogether, and be should be obliged to vote against it.

Mr. RUGGLES supported the views given by Mr. EWING, and went on to show that, under the 8th scction, a man who had ten children might, unless this amendment prevailed, enter 350 separate small tracts of land, wherever he pleased.

It being now past 5 o'clock, Mr. CLAY moved an adjournment; but the Senate refused to adjourn: Yeas 22, nay's 24.

The question was then put on the amendment proposed by Mr. RUGGLES, and carried, by yeas and nays, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Crittenden, Dana, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Morris, Niles, Page, Prentiss, Rives, Robbins, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, White-24.

NAYS--Mes rs. Benton, Black, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Linn, Lyon, Moore, Nicholas, Norvell, Robinson, Sevier, Tipton, Walker, Wright--17.

This vote being announced from the Chair,

Mr. WALKER gave notice that he should vote against the bill.

On motion of Mr. DAVIS, the bill was further amended in the second section, in that clause which declares "that hereafter no one person shall be permitted to purchase more than two sections," &c., by striking out the word "one." 39

Mr. DAVIS further proposed to add at the end of the 5th section a proviso, that if any land claimed under the pre-emption clause should, at the time, be worth more than $5 an acre, no pre-emption should issue; the Commissioner of the General Land Office being empow ered to ascertain the fact.

[FEB. 4, 1837.

Mr. SEVIER demanded the yeas and nays on this motion, when it was decided in the negative, as follows: YEAS--Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Webster-16.

NAYS-Messrs. Bentor, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Linn, Lyon, Moore, Morris, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Tipton, Walker, Wall, White, Wright-28.

The question was now at length put on Mr. WHITE'S amendment, and decided in the negative, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Black, Calhoun, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Hendricks, Kent, Moore, Norvell, Preston, Robinson, Sevier, Walker, Webster, White-14.

NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Linn, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Prentiss, Rives, Robbins, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Wright-29.

Mr. WALKER observed that, as the bill now stood, it could not receive his vote; and as the amendment of the Senator from Tennessee had failed, there remained but one more effort to save the bill; with which view he moved that it be recommitted to the Committee on Public Lands.

On this motion Mr. DAVIS demanded the yeas and nays

Mr. LINN now inquired whether the Senate, in case the motion to recommit should prevail, would possess any security that they should not be led into the same labyrinth of difficulties through which they had just pass. ed, unless the committee were furnished with some in structions to guide them. In order to give the chairman of the Land Committee time to sleep on the matter, and then to prepare a draught of such instructions as would probably be acceptable to a majority, he moved that the Senate do now adjourn; which motion prevailing, The Senate accordingly adjourned.

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 4.

COPY-RIGHTS TO FOREIGNERS. Mr. CLAY presented a list, on parchment, of additional names of British authors to the address which he had submitted to the Senate the other day, and which, by mistake, he had not then received. He moved that it be printed with the other names attached to the address, and be referred to the select committee raised on that subject; which was accordingly ordered. He also moved the appointment of an additional member of the select committee; which was ordered.

Mr. C. also presented a petition from sundry American authors, praying amendments in the copy-right law. They represent the importance of native literature, and the propriety of extending to it reasonable encouragement. They state that, owing to the fact that booksellers in this country can possess themselves of and publish new works as they issue, from time to time, from the British press, without any charge on account of the copyright, American authors of similar works are unable to obtain for their copy-rights a fair compensation. They therefore pray that a just security may be given by law to British authors, for the property which they have in their intellectual productions.

Mr. C. understood that the course of this business was, that American booksellers have their agents in Great Britain, who, as soon as a new work makes its appearance, transmit it to them by the first packet. Sometimes it is received from the packet at the Nar

FEB. 4, 1837.]

rows, and the vessel being detained there a short time, from some cause or other, by the time she arrives at the wharves the work is published and ready for distribution. This extraordinary despatch is effected by means of steam presses, and the hundreds of hands employed by some of the booksellers. The consequence is, that the work is often slovenly published, on bad paper, with bad types, and omitting maps, diagrams, engravings, and other illustrations. This the first publishers feel themselves constrained to do, lest some rivals shall publish a cheaper edition than that which they have issued. Purchased in this defective form, no one can get the genuine production of the British author without sending abroad for it, as is sometimes done.

Mr. C. understood that the business of republishing in this country late British works was principally confined to two highly respectable houses in New York and Philadelphia, of whom he did not mean to say one word in disparagement. They merely availed themselves of the actual state of things, and undoubtedly placed the American public under obligations for supplying them so rapidly and so cheaply with the latest effusions of the British mind.

If the foreign author is justly secured in his rights of property, the practical consequence will probably be, that he will sell his copy-right to some American pub lisher, the work will be carefully and deliberately printed, without mutilation or abstraction, and will be in a condition worthy of preservation.

The petitioners, besides manifesting towards their literary brethren abroad a sense of justice and liberality, pray for some alterations of the law adapted to their own condition.

Mr. C. moved the reference of the petition to the select committee heretofore appointed; which was ultimately ordered accordingly.

Mr. NILES, referring to the memorial from American authors, said they had gone one step beyond what had ever been done. They were not satisfied with obtainthe right to the productions of their own minds; they asked Congress to prohibit, for their benefit, the use of the productions of others, This he opposed at considerable length.

Mr. PRESTON, with a view to correct an erroneous impression which might have been made by his remarks the other day on this subject, said he was not adverse to granting copy-rights to foreign authors. All he meant to say was, that he saw difficulties and embarrassments in the way. He had formerly expressed himself in favor of this grant to foreign authors, which might have been a motive for sending petitions on the subject; and all his inclinations were still decidedly in favor of the proposed measure. He believed, also, that Congress possessed the constitutional power to pass it, and by that part of the constitution which provides for the promotion of knowledge.

We had been in the daily habit (Mr. P. said) of ap: propriating to our use the productions of minds beyond the Atlantic, without any recompense. We had luxuriated in the works of Sir Walter Scott without any remuneration to him, at the time when he was toiling night and day to pay a debt; when, if he had received from us the thousandth part of the value of his works, the debt would have been paid. Mr. P. had always regarded this as an instance of ingratitude, which of itself induced him very strongly to the support of this measure.

Mr. CLAY, in reply to Mr. NILES, said he was very glad of the benefit of his suggestions, and they would doubtless receive the special attention of the committee. But he thought he would be satisfied that no such mischief was intended as he supposed. The whole object was to put foreign authors on the same footing on which our own authors are in England.

[SENATE.

Mr. C. thought the extension of copy-rights would not, on the whole, make any addition to the cost of the books. They were now made up in great haste, consequently a poor article, and at a great expense, which must be paid in the sale of the article; when, without this haste and consequent extraordinary expense, the copy-right might be paid for, and a still better article be procured in proportion to its value. But even if it were not so, we ought to scorn to do an act of injustice to a foreigner, by appropriating his works without compensation; and especially when such compensation was made to our own authors in foreign countries.

The reference and printing were then ordered, as above.

ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESI DENT.

Mr. GRUNDY, from the select committee appointed to consider and report on the mode of examining and counting the votes for President and Vice President, &c., and whether any votes have been given by persons not competent under the constitution, made a special report thereon; which was read.

The report states that in some instances not more than four or five electors have been chosen in some of the States, who are officers of the General Government, (deputy postmasters,) and that such votes are, in the opinion of the committee, not in conformity with the provisions of the constitution; but at the same time the few votes thus given will not vary the result of the elec tion, as it was not contemplated by any one that the appointment of one ineligible elector would vitiate the vole of his State. The report concludes with recommending the adoption of the following resolutions:

Resolved, That the two Houses shall assemble in the chamber of the House of Representatives, on Wednesday next, at 12 o'clock, and the President of the Senate shall be the presiding officer; that one person be appointed a teller on the part of the Senate, and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to make a list of the votes as they shall be declared; that the result shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall announce the state of the vote, and the persons elected, to the two Houses assembled as aforesaid, which shall be deemed a declaration of the persons elected President and Vice President of the United States; and, together with a list of votes, be entered on the journals of the two Houses.

Resolved, That in relation to the votes of Michigan, if the counting or omitting to count them shall not essentially change the result of the election, they shall be reported by the President of the Senate in the following manner: "Were the votes of Michigan to be counted, the result would be, for A. B. for President of the United States, votes. If not counted, for A. B. for President of the United States, -votes. But in either event A. B. is elected President of the United States." And in the same manner for Vice President.

Mr. NORVELL arose and said that the resolutions

were joint resolutions. The first prescribed the usual manner in which the two Houses assembled together on the second Wednesday in February, for the purpose of counting the votes for President and Vice President of the United States. To this, of course, he had no objection. The second resolution, in relation to the votes of Michigan, declared, in substance, that if they were not essential to the election of a President, they should be announced, but need not be received as good. Their reception, then, as sound votes, depended upon a contingency which it was known would not happen. He called for a division of the motion of the Senator from Tennessee, in order that he and his colleague might have an opportunity of recording their votes against the sec

SENATE.]

ond resolution. Michigan, when the people of that State gave their votes for presidential electors, was a sovereign State, acknowledged to be such by an act of Congress of the United States. She was now, before her electoral votes were to be counted, a sovereign State of this Union, acknowledged to be such by another act of the Congress of the United States. He had, therefore, risen to enter his most solemn protest, in behalf of the people of Michigan, against any decision of this body, or of Congress, which would, even by implication, have the effect of preventing their electoral votes from being counted for President and Vice Presi dent of the United States; and upon the motion to adopt the second resolution, he requested that the yeas and nays might be taken.

Mr. GRUNDY observed that the committee were unanimous for reporting the second resolution objected to by the gentleman from Michigan. The same course had been pursued with regard to the State of Missouri, and under the like circumstances; and when Senators recollected that this was the very place where the rock lies which may destroy this Government, they would perceive that the committee had good reasons for recommending the resolution objected to. Suppose (said Mr. G.,) the two Houses should differ and separate, and suppose the House should refuse to send for the Senate again: where will be your President or Vice President? Though he had been one of the most anxious for the admission of Michigan, yet he thought it better, under the circumstances, that her vote should not be counted, except in the way provided for by the second resolution. To count the vote could do no good, inasmuch as it would not vary the result; and it might do harm. No man was more anxious than he was for the admission of Michigan; yet he must express the opinion that she was not a State of this Union when she gave her vole.

Mr. NORVELL said that, if this Union should ever receive a shock, as intimated by the Senator from Tennessee, it would arise from the practice of injustice by this Government towards one or more of the States of the confederacy, and not from the right decision of such questions as the one now pending. The reception of the votes of a State entitled to vote for the Chief Magistrate of the nation, by whom she, as well as the other States, was to be governed, could never endanger the Union. The result of the late election, he knew, could not be varied by the votes of Michigan; and less hazard would, therefore, be encountered at this time in properly deciding the question upon receiving the votes of States in similar circumstances with Michigan, than at any other time. The case of Missouri, quoted by the Senator from Tennessee in support of the second resolution, was not, upon this point, a case analogous to that of Michigan. Missouri was a State when her electors were chosen, but she was not a State of the Union when the two Houses of Congress assembled to count the electoral votes for President and Vice President. She was not admitted until some months afterwards; but the State of Indiana did present a precisely analogous case to that of Mich gan. Indiana, when her electors were chosen, had formed her constitution and State Government; but she was not admitted into the Union until some time in the succeeding December. She became, however, a member of the Union before the electoral votes were counted. When the two Houses assembled, and, in counting the votes, came to those of Indiana, objection was made to their reception. The two Houses separated. Some discussion arose in both on the subject; but, before the point was directly decided by either, a message was sent by the House of Representatives to the Senate, that they were ready to proceed in the count. When they came together again, the votes of Indiana were counted, and recorded among the electoral votes of the other States.

[FER. 4, 1837.

Such is exactly the situation of Michigan. But he had not risen to provoke debate. His object was simply to protest against the principle of the second resolution reported by the Senator from Tennessee, and to ask for himself and his colleague the poor privilege of recording their names against it. He did not know that they would be sustained by the vote of any other Senator present.

Mr. CLAY said that the committee had followed exactly the course adopted in the case of Missouri; and the Senators from Michigan would see that there was to be no exclusion of their votes, though no use might be made of them. Whether they were counted or not, the result would be the same. Now, when gentlemen reflected for a moment upon the operations of this Government, the difficulties to be settled, the important questions pending, and especially the one as to the election of a Chief Magistrate, they would see at once the necessity of avoiding doing any thing which would have the effect of creating excitement, or throwing any difficulty in the way at this particular juncture, when they were about to decide on so very important a question as would have to be disposed of on Wednesday next.

With regard, then, to what the Senator from Michigan [Mr. NORVELL] had said as to Michigan being simi larly situated to Missouri and Indiana, when they were admitted into the Union, and yet they were permitted to vote, he could not agree with him. The case of Michigan was not exactly that of Missouri, nor that of Indiana. The act of Congress passed admitted her on certain conditions, and, having accepted those condi tions, she became a State, and performed all her functions as a State, and had given her votes for President and Vice President; and but for the formality of this resolution, which was deemed necessary by the committee, she was put upon precisely the same footing as the States which had been mentioned. Whilst, then, he admitted there was some slight difference between the case of Michigan and that of Missouri and of Indiana, he could not adinit that Michigan should vote, except in the manner pointed out in the resolution; for he thought, under all the circumstances connected with this matter, it would be better to take the course recommended by the committee.

Mr. CALHOUN temarked that, notwithstanding what was said by gentlemen to the contrary, during the debate on the admission of Michigan, they would now see that she was a State, de facto, at the time she formed her constitution. Now, if they applied the reason of that case to this, what was the result? Michigan was not a State in this Union when her Senators were elected, nor when she voted for President and Vice President. The case was really a clear one, and any reason which would exclude these votes ought to have excluded her Senatore from taking their seats on this floor. He did not believe that doubtful questions of this kind should be waived; and this question should be settled at once. should, therefore, feel himself bound to vote against the resolution.

He

Mr. LYON asked what course the committee would have recommended in case the vote of Michigan had varied the result. Would Michigan in such case be deprived of her vote? Mr. L. referred to the vote of Indi ana, which, under similar circumstances, had been counted, and contended that Michigan was as much entitled to count her vote as was the State of Indiana. He thought the Senate would not make so unjust a discrimination between the two States as the resolution contemplated, and he would unite with his colleague [Mr. NorVELL] in protesting against it.

Mr. GRUNDY, replied that the gentleman could not expect him to answer a question which the wisest of their predecessors had purposely left undetermined.

What might be done under the circumstances adverted to by the Senator from Michigan, should they ever oc cur, the wisdom of the day must decide.

Mr. PRESTON concurred in all the views taken by his colleague in regard to this question. He confessed his inability to perceive any difference between admitting the Senators to take their seats in that body, and admitting Michigan to vote as the other States of the Union would vote. Looking at the matter in every point of view, he was willing that she should be allowed

to vote.

After a few words from Messrs. WEBSTER, GRUNDY, and CLAY,

The question was taken, and the first resolution reported by the committee was adopted, without division; and the second was adopted: Yeas 34, nays 9, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Dana, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Linn, Moore, Nicholas, Page, Prentiss, Rives, Robbins, Robinson, Sevier, Southard, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wright-34.

NAYS-Messrs. Calhoun, Fulton, Lyon, Morris, Niles, Norvell, Preston, Walker, Wall-9.

Some struggle took place as to the order of business. Mr. BUCHANAN expressed his hope that the land bill would be taken up, and some final disposition made of it, so that the other business of the country might proceed.

Mr. WALKER expressed the same desire, and said that it was his intention to move that the bill be recommitted to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. WEBSTER inquired of Mr. WALKER whether, in the general bill reported by the latter to-day, there was not one section exactly the same as one of the sections in this land bill?

Mr. WALKER replied in the affirmative.

Mr. WEBSTER then observed that it was contrary to the rules of the Senate that they should have two bills before them at the same time for the same thing. He had no objection, as at present advised, to the principle to which the section related, which was that of the pow er of a State to tax the public lands within its bounds as soon as sold, and made the inquiry only that the due order of business might be preserved.

The Senate then proceeded to take up

THE LAND BILL.

And the question being on the motion of Mr. WALKEn to recommit the bill to the Committee on Public Lands,

Mr. WEBSTER inquired whether the motion had not been to recommit the bill, with all the amendments thereto, which had been agreed upon in the Senate, to the Land Committee.

The CHAIR replied that, by a rule of the Senate, when a bill was recommitted to the committee which had reported it, all amendments dropped, of course, and it went back to the committee in its original form.

A discussion arose on the point of order, which occupied the Senate for a considerable time, but which was finally arranged by the adoption of two distinct motions: one to recommit the bill, (which went back in its naked form;) and another to commit to the same committee the several amendments made thereto, with the understanding that the committee would not, in again reporting the bill, change the great and leading points on which the Senate had come to a deliberate decision; though, on points of minor consequence, and on those not decided, they would be considered as at liberty to modify it at pleasure.

[SENATE.

Before the question of recommitment was decided on, Mr. CALHOUN addressed the Senate. I sincerely hope (said Mr. C.) that the motion for recommitment will not prevail. The session is now far advanced; but a single month more remains, and this bill has already occupied more than its due share of the time and attention of the Senate. The discussion which it has undergone has shown that there exists in this body a great diversity of opinion, not on the details only, but on the principle of the bill. A large portion of the Senate are under the impression that nothing ought to be done; and among the residue who are in favor of some bill, the differences of opinion seem to be irreconcileable. If we recommit the bill, the inevitable consequence will be that we shall have a new set of propositions to amend it, and a vast deal of time will be wasted in vain attempts to reconcile things essen. tially irreconcileable. For myself, I believe the bill to be radically wrong; and that no modifications which it is likely to assume can ever render it right. I had intended to say something on the general subject, but it is now late, and I forego much of what it was my pur pose to have submitted to the Senate. I will, however, as briefly as possible, throw out one or two leading views in regard to it.

The professed object of this bill is to restrict the sales of the public land; to put down speculation, and to prevent the accumulation of a surplus revenue. Plausible objects, I admit, and such as sound well to the car; but the practical operation of the bill which promises them will, as I apprehend, lead to results very different indeed. So many and so subtle are the means by which those in power are able to fleece the community without the people themselves being sensible of it, that the contemplation of it is almost enough to make any lover of his country despair. I have long been sensible of this; but if I was called upon to select an instance which more than others forcibly illustrates the truth of the remark, I would refer any one who doubted to the present bill. When we closely examine its provisions, we shall perceive that, so far from repressing, its effect will be to secure and consummate the most enormous speculation which has ever been witnessed on this continent. This speculation has been produced by those in power, and the large profits they hope to realize are to be consummated by the passage of this bill. The chairman of the committee himself has told the Senate that a body of the public lands, greater in extent than the largest State in the Union, has been seized upon by speculators. The Senator from Georgia [Mr. KING] states the amount at from thirty to forty millions of dollars. This may be an over estimate, but at the lowest calculation the amount cannot be less than twenty-five millions. What has produced this vast investment? What has thus suddenly rendered the public lands an object of such enormous speculation? What but the state of the currency? Our circulating medium has nearly doubled within the space of three years. It has increased from an average of six dollars and a half per head, to an everage of ten dollars. And what has been the natural and the inevitable effect? The rise in the price of every thing, the price of which is not kept down by some legal provision; the price of provisions and of labor have nearly doubled, while the price of land has continued fixed by force of law. Is it, then, any thing wonderful that land under this restraint should have become an object of speculation? There lies the root of the evil. This enormous augmentation of the circulating medium has filled all the channels of ordinary business to repletion, and the over flow finds an outlet in speculation. But who have been the authors of this state of things? Every Senator can answer the question. Every body knows that it has been the work of those in power. They began the experiment in