Imagens das páginas


ern society had been far less agitated, and he would venture to predict that its condition would prove by far the most secure, and by far the most favorable to the preservation of liberty. In fact, the defence of human liberty against the aggressions of despotic power had been always the most efficient in States where domestic slavery was found to prevail. He did not admit it to be an evil. Not at all. It was a good—a great good. On that point, the Senator from Virginia and himsels were directly at issue. Mr. RIVES said he had no disposition to get up a family quarrel on a theoretic question between those who were practically agreed. It was certainly very remarkable that the Senator from South Carolina should take him to task for representing him as defending slavery in the abstract, when every word he had since uttered went directly to prove that such was his opinion. Every remark he had made tended to that, and to nothing else. There thcy differed. Though he (Mr. R.) came from a slaveholding State, he did not believe slavery to be a good, either moral, political, or cconomical; and if it depended on him, and there were any means of estecting it, he would not hesitate to terminate that coexistence of the two races to which the Senator from South Carolina had alluded, and out of which the present state of things had grown. Yet none had therefore reason to doubt that he should defend the rights growing out of the relations of slavery to the uttermost. No interfercnce with that relation could be

attempted without great and abiding mischief; and, if

such attempts were persistcd in, they must and would inevitably lead to the rupture of those ties which row bound the States in happy union. Great as might be the evil, no remedy for it had been found; and if any were to be devised, it must proceed from those only who suffer the evil; nor would the constitution tolerate the remotest interference by others. When such interference should be sorcibly attempted, Mr. R. was prepared to throw himself into the breach, and to perish in the last ditch in defence of the constitutional rights of the South. But he was not on this account going back to the exploded dogmas of Sir Robert Filmer, in order to vindicate the institution of slavery in the abs' ract. Mr. CAL110 UN complained of having been misrepresented. Again domic d having pronounced slavery in the abstract a good. All he had said of it referred to existing circums' at:ces; to slavery as a practical, not as an abstract thing. It was a good where a civilized race and a race of a different description were brought to. gether. Wilerever civilization existed, death too was found, and luxury; but did he hold that death and luxury were good in thconsclves? He believcd slavery was good, where the two races coexisted. The gentleman from Virginia held it an evil. Yet he woull defend it. Surely if it was an evil, mo; al, social, and political, the Senator, as a wise and virtuous man, was bound to exert himself to put it down. This position, that it was a .noral evil, was the very root of the whole system of operations against it. That was the spring and wellhead from which all these streams of abolition proceedcd—the effects of which so deeply agitated the honorable Senator. Mr. C. again adverted to the successful results of the experiment thus far, and insisted that the slaveholders of the South had nothing in the case to lament or to lay to their conscience. He utterly denied that his doctrines had any thing to do with the tenets of Sir Robert Filmer, which he abhorred. So far from holding the dogmas of that writer, he had been the known and open advocate of freedom from the beginning. Nor was there any thing in the doctrines he field in the slightest

degree inconsistent with the big est and for nci. ples of freedom.

.#bolition of Slavery.

[ocr errors]

[Feb. 6, 1837.

Mr. WEBSTER could not perceive the cause of that

warmth which had been exhibited by the Senator from Virginia, while he was so strenuously toxhorting other gentlemen to keep cool. He did not, however, complain of it. ble Senator bad never heard him say nore in disapprobation of slavery than had been uttered by the Senator himself this day. He had used almost the very words of the petition which so greatly offended him, in de. claring slavery to be an evil, social, moral, and political. Nor could that Senator express more strongly the want of power in the General Government to interfere with slavery in the States than Mr. W. had often and always done. The Senator had said, however, that those only were interested in this subject who were suffering in the immediate presence of the evil. This Mr. W. could not but consider as a great mistake. Mr. W., though living in a Northern State, and a State non-slaveholding, felt that evil, too, from the train of consequences which it inevitably drew after it. He had as deep an interest in the peace and the preservation of the Union as the Senator f om Virginia. But what was there for that gentleman to complain of in the conduct of his fellow Senator? Some of thcm had received many abolition petitions. Had they presented them from day to day, and annoyed the Senate by a perpetual repetition of the same thing? Was not this the first time they had been brought forward? Mr. W. demanded the exercise of some candor and justice towards Senators situated as they were; and he should take care that such representations were here made as should remove srom thena inputations which were not deservcd. He had himself presented petitions to-day which had been accumulating in his drawer for two months. And he had presented then at the same time with other gentlemen. He had not debated the subject at large, but had confined himself simply to a renewed expression of the opinion that it would be a better and more prudent course to refer the petitions to a committee, and have a report upon them. This was not a novel opinion. It had beca entertained by others in that body; and a former member from Virginia had Îmbodied it in a motion. He had expressed no opinion in which Southern gentlemen the mselves had not heretofore concurred. Where, then, was the right to complain? But an honorable gentleman from Georgia [Vir. Curlin Enr] had gone out of his way to bring into this debate a paper which somebody had given him, and which referred to opinions said to have been expressed by Mr. W. some twenty years ago. In those opinions, as here stated, Mr. W. saw nothing to retract, Neither now nor at any time, in that body or out of it, h d any one heard from him any other opinion touching slavery in the abstract, or the power of Congress to interfere with it within the States, than had been expressed by the honorable Senator from Virginia him. self. His origin, his associations, his c ducation, his babi's of thought—all had taught him that slavery was an evil, and he held it to be an evil, moral, social, and political. Mr. RIVES thanked the Senator from Massachusetts for the edisying lesson of coolness he had given him. He admitted the perfect justncss and propriety of it in a gentral sense. But he begged leave to remind the honorable Senator that the spectator of a battle, occupying a distant and secure position, might look on with great serenity; while those who were in the midst of the conflict, desending their lives and persons from the point of the bayonet, would reasonably exhibit a very different temper and demeanor. The gentleman himself, if it so pleased his fancy, might disport himself in to sing squibs and firebrands about this hall; but those who are sitting upon a barrel of gunpowder, liable to be blown up by his dangerous missiles, could hardly be expected to be quite so calm and philo-ophic.

But this he must observe, that that honora. .

FEB. 6, 1837.]

.4bolition of Slavery.


The honorable gentleman claims great merit for the forbearance of himself and his friends, in holding back their memorials, and presenting them all at once. Now, sir, for myself, I had much rather take the medicine in broken doses, than in so large and overpowering a potion. Gentlemen have gone on, accumulating their petitions, day aster day, and now come forward and precipitate them upon us like an avalanche. If these papers were presented one by one, as they are received, in the ordinary course of business, and permitted to take their quiet course to that “tomb of the Capulets” which the previous decisions of the Senate had prepared for them, I could find in my philosophy fortitude enough to bear it with patience. But when an entire day is set apart and consecrated to the business of presenting these memorials, in a long drawn and solemn succession, there is something in such a scenic parade which is well calculated to aggravate the annoyance to the sensibility of Southern men. Here we are, sitting day after day, among our brethren from the other States, perfectly unconscious of danger, while their desks are constantly filling with these combustible materials, and we know not the hour when we may be blown up by some great explosion. Permit me to say to honorable gentlemen that there is something of precariousness and insecurity in this situation, which is far from being comfortable. The gentleman from Massachusetts has taken occasion also to say that he had expressed no opinion, in regard to slavery, which was not sanctioned by my own sentiments. Now, sir, has the gentleman ever heard from me any thing to countenance his broad and dangerous notions of interference with the subject of slavery in this District? As to the evil, or otherwise, of slavery in itself; as to the existence or non-existence of a power in this Government to interfere with it in the States; these are mere abstract questions, leading to no practical consequences. The real and only practical question is as to the interference of Congress with the subject of slavery in this District. Here is the fulcrum on which the whole lever of abolition turns; and if you give a foothold here, it is virtually a surrender of the whole ground. The surrender of this “vantage ground” to the abolitionists, if I have not misunderstood the vote of the honorable Senator against rejecting the prayer of the petitioners during the last session of Congress, is precisely what he has already done, and is prepared still to do. To i must now (said Mr. R.) address a few observations to the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhous] in regard to the controversy he has thought fit to get up with me in regard to the merits of the institution of slavery. ... I may say, sir, without fear of contradiction, that no Senator has exhibited a more determined spirit o resist any interference with the subject of slavery than I have done. I deny wholly the power of this Government to act, in any manner whatever, on the subject, either here or in the States. I have been con. stantly ready to take the highest ground which has been proposed by any Senator iiere for repelling this inter. ference, by voting at once not to receive the petitions. But, sir, while I have been thus prepared and deter. mined to defend the constitutional rights and vital interes's of the South at every hazard, I have not felt myself bound to conform my understanding and conscience to the standard of faith that has recently been set up by *ome gentlemen in regard to the general question of slavery. I have not considered it a part of my duty, as a representative from the south, to deny, as has been gone by this new school, the natural freedom and equality of man; to contend that slavery is a positive good; that it is inseparable from the condition of man; that it must exis', in some form or other, in every political community; and that it is even an essential ingredient in Vol. XIII.—46

republican government. No, sir; I have not thought it necessary, in order to defend the rights and the institutions of the South, to attack the great principles which lie at the foundation of our political system, and to revert to the dogmas of Sir Robert Filmer, exploded a century and a half ago by the immortal works of Sidney and Locke. This is a philosophy to which I have not yet become a convert. It is sufficient for me to know that domestic slavery, whether an evil or not, was an institution existing at the time of the adoption of the constitution; that it is recognised and sanctified by that solemn instrument; that there is no right in this Government or in the other States, under any pretext whatever, to interfere with it; that, in regard to the slaveholding States themselves, it was entailed upon them by a foreign and unnatural jurisdiction, in opposition to their own wishes and remonstrances; that there is now no remedy for it, within the reach of any human agency, and, if there were, it must be originated and applied by those only who feel the evil; and that any interference with it by this Government, or the other States, would, in violating the most sacred guarantees of the constitution, rend the Union it. self asunder. In pursuing this course, I have the satisfaction of reflecting that I follow the example of the greatest men and the purest patriots who have illustrated the annals of our country—of the fathers of the republic itself. It never entered into their minds, while laying the foundation of the great and glorious fabric of free Government, to contend that domestic slavery was a positive good—a great good. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Marshall, the brightest names of my own State, are known to have lamented the existence of slavery as a misfortune and an evil to the country, and their thoughts were often anxiously, however unavailingly, exercised in devising some scheme of safe and practical relief, proceeding always, however, from the States which suffered the evil. Mr. Jefferson’s writings, from the “Notes on Virginia” to the latest emanations of his great and patriotic mind, are full of the testimony he has borne on this question, in the most impressive language. In following such lights as these, I feel that I sin against no principle of republicanism, against no safeguard of Southern rights and Southern policy, when I frankly say, in answer to the interrogatory of the gentleman srom South Carolina, that I do regard slavery as an evil--an evil not uncompensated, I know, by collateral effects of high value on the social and intellectual character of my countrymen; but still, in the eye of religion, philanthropy, and reason, an evil. But, evil as it may be, it is now indissolubly interwoven with the whole frame of our society; and, if remedy there be for it, that remedy can come from the hand of Omnipotence only. In the mean time, it is inviolably protected by the sanctuary of the constitution itself, and no attempt can be made to disturb it without aiming a parricidal blow at that instrument, which forms alike the security of the rights and liberties of the whole nation. In occupying ground like this, I feel that I rest on solid and tangible principles, the force and justice of which every mind must acknowledge. On the contrary, by putting the defence of Southern rights on the abstract merits of slavery, as a positive good, as a natural and inevitable law of society, you shock the generous sentiments of human nature, you go counter to the common sense of mankind, you outrage the spirit of the age, and alarm the minds even of the most liberal and patriotic among our fellow-citizens of the other States, for those great fundamental truths on which our common political institutions repose. Un. favorable revulsions only, in the public sentiment, can be expected from bold abstractions of this kind; and nothing, I verily believe, has given so strong, an im: pulse to the cause of the abolitionists as the obsolete and [Feb. 7, 1837.

SENATE.] Mexico—-Abolition of Slavery, &c.

revolting theory of human rights and human society, by which, of late, the institution of domestic slavery has been sustained and justified by some of its advocates in a portion of the South. Sir, the true line of principle and policy is to stand upon the solemn guarantees of the constitution, the impregnable position of our acknowledged and indisputable rights; and, in the name of those rights, and of the peace and harmony of the Union, I now call upon the patriotism of the Senate to apply the only quietus the subject admits, by laying the motion to receive these memorials on the table. The debate was further continued by Messrs. CUTHBERT, WALL, RIVES, CALHOUN, and EWING; when, On motion of Mr. HUBBARD, the motion to receive the memorial was laid upon the table, by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAs—Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clayton, Cuthbert, 1)ana, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Lyon, Moore, Nicholas, Norvell, Page, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Spence, Strange, Walker, White, Wright—31. NAxs—Messrs. Clay, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Knight, Morris, Niles, Prentiss, Robbins, Southard, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster—15. The Senate then adjourned.


The following message was received from the President of the United States, through Mr. Jackson, his private secretary:

To the Senate of the United States:

At the beginning of this session, Congress was informed that our claims upon Mexico had not been adjusted, but that, notwithstanding the irritating effect upon her councils of the movements in Texas, I hoped, by great forbearance, to avoid the necessity of again bring. ing the subject of them to your notice. That hope has been disappointed. Having in vain urged upon that Gov. ernment the justice of those claims, and my indispensable obligation to insist that there should be “no further delay in the acknowledgment, if not in the redress of the injuries complained of,” my duty requires that the whole subject should be presented, as it now is, for the action of Congress, whose exclusive right it is to decide on the further measures of redress to be employed. The length of time since some of the injuries have been committed, the repeated and unavailing applications for redress, the wanton character of some of the outrages upon the prop. erty and persons of our citizens, upon the officers and fiag of the United States, independent of recent insults to this Government and people by the late extraordinary Mexican minister, would justify, in the eyes of all nations, immediate war. That remedy, however, should not be used by just and generous nations, confiding in their strength, for injuries committed, if it can be honor. ably avoided; and it has occurred to me that, consider. ing the present embarrassed condition of that country, we should act with both wisdom and moderation, by giving to Mexico one more opportunity to atone for the past, before we take redress into our own hands. To avoid all misconception on the part of Mexico, as well as to protect our own national character from reproach, this opportunity should be given, with the avowed de. sign "no,"ll preparation to take immediate satisfaction if is shoulo.o.o. be obtained on a repetition of the demanj for it. . To this end, I recommend that an act be passed *hof reprisals, and the use of the naval force of the United States, by the Executive, against Mexico, to

United States.

enforce them, in the event of a refusa', by the Mexican Government, to come to an amicable adjustment of the matters in controversy between us, upon another demand thereos made from on board one our vessels of war on the coast of Mexico. The documents here with transmitted, with those accompanying my message in answer to a call of the House of Representatives of the 17th ultimo, will cnable Congress to judge of the propriety of the course heretofore pursued, and to decide upon the necessity of that now recommended. lf these views should sail to meet the concurrence of Congress, and that body be able to find in the condition of the affairs between the two countries, as disclosed by the accompanying documents, with those referred to, any well-grounded reasons to hope that an adjustment of the controversy between them can be effected without a resort to the measures I have felt it my duty to recommend, they may be assured of my co-operation in any other course that shall be deemed honorable and proper. ANDREW JACKSON. WAshi NgtoN, February 6, 1837. The message was read; and, On motion of Mr. BUCHANAN, it was ordered to be printed, together with the accompanying documents, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. ABOLITION OF SI.A.V FINY. Mr. MORRIS presented an abolition petition from Ohio; which was read, at his request. Mr. WALKER moved that it be not received. Mr. HUBBARD moved to lay this motion on the table; which was done accordingly, (by yeas and nays, on the call of Mr. MoRn is,) as follows: YEAs–Messrs. Bay and, Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Lyon, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Parker, Preston, Robinson, Ruggles, Strange, Walker, White, Wright—27. - Nays—Messrs. Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Knight, McKean, Morris, Niles, Prentiss, Robbins, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson—11.


Mr. BAY ARD presented the preamble and resolutions of the Legislature of Delaware, instructing their Senators to introduce and support a resolution to rescind the expunging resolution of Mr. Bentos, and to restore the journal of the Senate to the state in which it was besore this act of violence was committed upon it.

Mr. B. said it would be impracticable, or at least improper, to obey these instructions at this session of Congress, as Mr. Boston's resolution must be regarded as expressing the sense of the Senate as at present composed. But be gave notice that, in compliance with these instructions, he would introduce such a resolution at the next session, and would do so at every succeeding session, as long as he should continue a Senator, till the object shou'd be accomplished; which attempt be hoped would be followed up ty, every Senator from Delaware. Being thus actuated by the same spirit of continuance which had been so much lauded by the Senator from Missouri, and which in his case had proved so successful, he hoped the day was not distant when they would restore the journal, and make it what he believed was, at this moment, the public sentment of the people of the He moved (after, its reading) that the resolution be laid on the table, and printed.

Mr. BROWN said he did not doubt the perseverance of the gentleman. He would also vote for printing the document, as a matter of respect to the Legislature of Delaware; though, in one case which he instanced, he Feb. 7, 1837. 3

Foreign Aggression upon American Slave Property–Distribution of Books, &c.

[SEN Atr.

believed a motion to print such a document had not been carried.

The motion to print and lay on the table was then car. ried.


A resolution offered by Mr. CALhou N, calling on the President for information in regard to the aggression committed by the authorities of Bermuda on a Southern vessel, freighted with slaves, which was driven by distress into the ports of Bermuda, coming up for consideration—

Mr. CALHOUN observed that the cases referred to in the resolution presented one of the greatest outrages ever committed on the rights of individuals by a civilized Power. The resolution proposed to ask from the Presi. dent copies of any correspondence that may have taken place with the British Government relative to the seizure, by the British authorities, of the slaves who were corried as passengers in two American vessels. One of these vessels had sailed from Wilmington, in the State of North Carolina, for New Orleans, having on board some slaves, the property of a gentleman removing from that State to the State of Mississippi; and she was wrecked near New Providence, where the slaves were | forcibly seized and detained. The Legislature of North Carolina had, in consequence, expressed their disapprobation of such unwarrantable conduct, and unanimously passed resolutions calling upon the General Government to institute an inquiry into the matter. The other case was that of a vessel bound from Alexandria, in the Dis. trict of Columbia, to Charleston, South Carolina. Having met with very stormy weather, she was forced into the port of Bermuda, where the British authorities took possession of the slaves, and set them at liberty. He insisted that there was not a clearer constitutional question than that a vessel sailing from one port of the United States to another was as free from search as the territory of the United States itself; and when a vessel was forced by stress of weather into a foreign port, she was entitled to commiseration on account of her situation. The claims of humanity, he held, were, in such cases, to be superadded to the laws of nations. These points being so clear, he was astonished that outrages of this kind had been committed for the last three years. He did not doubt, for a moment, but that the Executive had done his duty, and exercised his accustomed vigilance, in reference to these matters. But still he (Mr. C.) was at a loss to perceive how it happened, after such a lapse of time, that the slaves had not been restored, nor any compensation made to the owners. Now, this resolulution he had introduced for the purpose of getting in

formation on the subject, and in order that justice might be done to our citizens. t At the suggestion of Mr. GRUNDY, Mr. CALHOUN modified his resolution, so as to insert in it the words “provided the Presivent does not deem it incompatible with the public interests;” and the resolution, thus amended, was adopted.


[blocks in formation]

committee cou'd do nothing to assist the Senate on the subject. Mr. LINN suggested the propriety of throwing all such documents into the library. He said he was perfectly willing to do so with his; and would make a motion to that effect to-morrow, unless some other Senator would do so. Mr. SK.VIER said that, if this resolution should not be carried, he should vote that the documents in the possession of the older members should be restored. Mr. RUGGLES said that those could not be recovered which had been carried away, and some of the Senators would be unwilling to restore what they had received. He thought it was best to serve all alike. It had been said that it was stolen property. If it were so, he was disposed, like the Senator from Arkansas, [Mr. Sevi ER, ) in regard to the public lands, to take his share of the spoils, whatever might be hereafter. Mr. BENTON suggested two amendments to the resolution: first, to strike all out, and direct the members who had received such documents to restore them; and if that should fail, he would then move that the Secretary should get the documents at the lowest price for which they could be obtained. He would also move hereafter that each Senator should be furnished with the legislative history of the time during which he should remain in Congress. On motion of Mr. WALKER, the resolution was laid on the table. The Senate resumed the consideration of the


And the question being on the adoption of the amendments to the bill reported from the Committee on the Public Lands— The amendments were read, and Mr. WALKER, chairman of the Land Committee, explained, seriatim, the several points in which the bill, as now reported, differed from the shape in which it had been recommitted. The sum amounted to this: that, instead of requiring occupation and cultivation for two years, in order to a patent, it required only one year; that, in order to a preemption, the land must have been occupied, resided on, and cultivated, prior to the 1st of December, 1836; that a parent must enter land for his children at private sale, and not over two sections for them all, (instead of a section for each child;) and that four quarter-quarter sections might be entered. Mr. RUGGLES moved to amend the bill in the fourth section, so as to require that the proof of cultivation, &c., by two competent witnesses, should be made “to the satisfaction of the register and receiver,” before whom it is to be proved. The motion was resisted by Mr. WALKER, as being unnecessary, inasmuch as if proof was to be made to any one, it must, of course, be proof to his satisfaction, or the thing was not proved to him. A long discussion ensued, in which it was insisted by the advocates of the amendment, that, as the bill pointed out how the fact in question was to be proved, viz: by the oath of two competent and disinterested witnesses, unless the amendment should be inserted, all discretion would be taken away from the register and receiver, and he must be obliged to receive an affidavit of two such witnesses as proof of the fact, though he might personally know to the contrary, or though a hundred witnesses should testify the reverse. A law argument on this point took place between Messrs. BAYARD and BLACK. Mr. EWING proposed that the inhabitation or cultivation itself should be required by the bill, and not the mere proof of it by two witnesses; the mode in which it should be proved might be added, if necessary; but,


Public Lands.

[Fen. 7, 1837.

as the bill now stood, the fact of inhabitation or cultivation was nowhere required. An affidavit was all that was required. He suggested a modification of the amendment, so as to effect this object by requiring a “residence for three months prior to the 1st of December, 1836, and that the same be proved before the register and receiver by two disinterested and competent witnesses.” But this was rejected, as follows: YEAs—Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Morris, Niles, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Southard, Spence, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, White—23. NAys—Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Linn, Lyon, Moore, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Page, Rives, R binson, Sevier, Strange, Walker, Wright—25. The amendment as at first proposed, requiring the proof to be made “to the satisfaction of the register and receiver,” was then agreed to, as follows: YEAs—Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Clayton, Crittenden, Dana, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Moore, Morris, Niles, Page, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Southard, Spence, Swist, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, White–24. NArs–Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Linn, Lyon, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Walker, Wright—22. Mr. SWIFT proposed to amend the 4th section, so as to provide that no pre-emption be granted to any individual for more than “one legal subdivision” of the public land. But it was rejected, as follows: YEAs—Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Morris, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Southard, Spence, Swift, Tomlinson, Wall, white—20. Nars—Messrs. Benton, Black, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Linn, Lyon, Moore, Mouton, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Tipton, Walker, Wright—25. Mr. RUGGLES moved to amend the 7th section by striking out the clause about quarter-quarter sections, and inserting a provision that all land purchased under the first five sections of the bill should be taken in subdivisions, according to the public surveys; that none should be entered in less than quarter-quarter sections, and in not more than four subdivisions by one individual. Mr. R. spoke at some length in favor of the amendment, as necessary to prevent purchasers from roaming over the whole public domain, and selecting, in small parcels of 40 acres, all the choice spots, leaving the residue comparatively valueless. As the bill now stood, a man might enter twenty-one different tracts, in all the States and Territories where the public lands lie. After a discussion of some length, in which the amendment was opposed by Messrs. MOORE, BLACK, and WALKER, and defended by the mover and Mr. Ew ING of Ohio, it was rejected, as follows: Yeas--Messrs. Byard, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Dana, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Kent, Kng of Seo'ga, Knight, Morris, Prentiss, Preston, Robins, Rogeles. Southard, Spence, Swift, Tomlinson, waii Webster, White—23. 2. NA* TYossrs. Benton, Black, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Koło {..."; Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, , Lonn, Lyon, Moore, Mouton, Nicholas,

[ocr errors]

Mr. MOORE moved an additional clause, introducing the graduation principle, and secoring the pre-emption right of persons who had been deprived of their land by the location thereon of Indian reservations. After a brief discussion, in which Mr. MOORE and Mr. SEVIER took part, the amendment was rejected, as follows: YEAs–Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Fulton, Hendricks, King of Alabama, Moore, Morris, Nicholas, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Walker, White–14. Nars-Messrs. Bayard, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clayton, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Grundy, Hubbard, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Linn, Lyon, Mouton, Niles, Norvell, Page, Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Southard, Spence, Strange, Swift, Tomlinson, Wall, Wright—29. Mr. KING, of Georgia, moved, as an amendment in the 4th section, to insert a proviso, “That the applicant shall make oath that he has not received the benefit of any pre-emption law heretofore passed.” Mr. K. stated that the object of this amendment was to break up the business of professional squatters. The object of Congress, he said, was to encourage settlement and cultivation. The restraint on squatting, which was in the 4th section of the bill when recommitted, had been left out in this bill by the committee. This proposition, he said, was unanimously accepted by the committee at the last session. Mr. BLACK opposed the amendment, because no such restraint on speculators existed. Mr. WALKER also opposed the amendment, because he could see no reason why a pre-emption right should not be granted in a subsequent case as well as in a preceding. .# MOORE said all the new States were not treated with equal justice by this bill. He had endeavored, by his recent amendment, in part to remedy this injustice in regard to his own State, but it had been voted down. Mr. KING, of Georgia, said this bill was a great deal worse than when recommitted. It was now not a bill to encourage settlement and cultivation, but purely to encourage squatting and speculation. He called for the yeas and nays on the question; which were ordered. Mr. MOORE vindicated his constituents from all opprobrious epithets, and remarked that the bill had been framed by the political friends of the Senator from Georgio. The amendment was rejected, as follows: Yr As—Messrs. Bayard, Brown, Calhoun, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Morris, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, White—22. NAY's – Messrs. Benton, Black, Buchanan, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, liubbard, Linn, Lyon, Moore, Mouton, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Walker, Wright—23. Mr. KING, of Georgia, moved an amendment in the 4th section, disallowing the occupancy of any land to which the Indian title had been not only extinguished, but from which the Indians had been removed. On this amendment a debate of some spirit arose, chiefly between the mover and Mr. M00RE, of Alabama, in the course of which some rather sharp things were said, on the one side, respecting the treatment of the Indians by Georgia, and, on the other, of the character of those who had left Georgia to settle on Indian reservation: in Alabama. The amendment was rejected, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Bayard, Clayton, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Nicholas, Prentiss, Robbins, Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, White—16.

« AnteriorContinuar »