to ceding their lands and removing west of the Mississippi. They actually refused to treat, and left the ground, and the treaty was at last made with a comparatively small number of chiefs; nor could it have been effected at all, but for the insertion of an article which provided that such Choctaws as were desirous to remain, and should notify that desire within a given time to the United States agent, should have lands reserved for them, in the following proportion: every head of a family, one section; for every child over ten years of age, half a section; and for every child under ten years, a quarter of a section. The agent was a man of intemperate and careless habits; and when the Choctaws applied to him, giving notice of their intention to remain on their lands, he in some cases refused to receive the application, and in other cases to record it. Proclamation having been made for the sale of the lands, a number of these Indians, who supposed that they were safe in the possession of their lands, had the land sold from under them. Application was immediately made to the President of the United States, who, on being aware of the hardship of the case, issued an order reserving from sale enough land to make up to these Indians the loss they had sustained, and appointed an agent to locate these floating titles, subject to the subsequent decision of Congress. These locations were familiarly known by the title of contingent locations, and were laid down on the very best lands in the State of Mississippi. As soon as it came to be known that this provision was made for the satisfying of the claims of Choctaw Indians whose lands had been improperly sold, those claims became an object of eager speculation. Large speculating companies and subcompanies were formed, to take advantage of this state of things. Agents were sent by them across the Mississippi, to that portion of the nation which had removed under the treaty, and a large number of claims were collected from among them. All these claims were located on the banks of the Mississippi, or on rich bottoms and islands in the neighborhood of the bayous, and embraced some thousands of sections of the finest land in Mississippi. A bill had been introduced at the last session, by the Committee on Private Land Claims, the effect of which would be to confirm all these locations, and thus to sanction one of the most stupendous frauds which had been attempted since the days of the famous Yazoo scheme. The object of Mr. BLACK's amendment was so to alter the bill of the last year (which has not become a law) as to prevent the confirmation of these claims, and to provide for their examination, by a board of commissioners, before whom the Choctaws were to prove their claims in person, and which declared all previous sales of their floating rights null and void.

Mr. B. said he was willing to modify his amendment, if it was thought best, so as to allow to the Indians who should make good their rights before the commissioners the amount in money for which their lands were sold.

Mr. EWING, of Ohio, advocated the amendment, though he considered it as not sufficiently guarded.

Mr. BAYARD replied at length, vindicating the bill as reported last year by the Committee on Private Land Claims, (to which he belongs.) He contended that the bill did no more than fulfil the treaty stipulation to which the faith of the United States had been pledged. The Indians who wished to remain were entitled to the amount of land which that treaty gave them. By the gross and oppressive misconduct of our own agent, they had been deprived of these rights, and turned out of house and home, when reposing on the good faith of this Government. It was indispensable that somebody should have taken up their cause, and made an effort to get them justice; and it was rather too much to expect that persons who had gone to great trouble and expense for that purpose should be so very disinterested as not to require some

[SBNATE.

share in the land which, but for them, would have been lost entirely. He denied, however, that the bill of the last session went unconditionally to confirm the contingent locations. It appointed a board of commissioners, before whom the rights of the Indians must be substantiated by competent proof, such as would be received at common law, before a court of justice. He disclaimed all desire to encourage speculation, or foster speculators on Indian rights; and he therefore introduced several amendments into the bill, with a view to obviate the evils which Mr. BLACK had stated; one of which provided that the land to be given to the Indian in exchange for that of which he had been deprived should not greatly exceed it in value. Another of them declared all compacts made by the Indians for the disposal of these claims to be null and void, and reserved a decision upon them until the next session of Congress.

Mr. WALKER, in pursuance of instructions from the Legislature of Mississippi, strenuously opposed the bill as reported by the committee. He also opposed the amendments proposed by Mr. BAYARD, greatly preferring that of his colleague, [Mr. BLACK,] on which he demanded the yeas and nays.

Mr. PRESTON, after a course of general observations on the practical difficulty and even impossibility of making any arrangement in favor of these Indians which would not immediately be seized upon by the superior sagacity of the whites, and converted to their own advantage, suggested that the best plan of getting rid of the whole difficulty would be to allow the Choctaws, who had been unjustly deprived of their lands, to enter the same quantity in any lands of the United States subject to private entry; not that he had the least idea that they would hold these lands, for he had no doubt that, before a year was passed, they would all be converted into money, which money would all be expended in a drunken frolic. But this would satisfy the claims of justice on the Government, and those Choctaws would then be left to follow the destiny of the residue of their tribe, who had gone west of the Mississippi river.

Mr. WHITE thought the most prudent course would be to appoint a board of commissioners to make diligent inquiry into the facts of the case; the number of heads of families; the number of their children over and under ten years of age; the notification of their intention to remain; the lands they had occupied, and the prices at which those lands had sold; and to make a full and accurate return to Congress; and let Congress decide on the whole case, as thus presented.

[The above presents a concise view of the substance of a debate of a protracted and desultory character, which occupied the Senate till a late hour.]

The bill was then laid over till Monday.

THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO. Mr. BUCHANAN, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, presented the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the message of the President of the United States of the 6th instant, with the accompanying documents, on the subject of the present state of our relations with Mexico, report:

That they have given to this subject that serious and deliberate consideration which its importance demands, and which any circumstances calculated to interrupt our friendly relations with the Mexican republic would necessarily insure. From the documents submitted to the committee, it appears that, ever since the revolution of 1822, which separated Mexico from Spain, and even for some years before, the United States have had repeated causes of just complaint against the Mexican authorities. From time to time, as these insults and injuries have occurred, demands for satisfaction and redress have been

made by our successive public ministers at the city of Mexico; but almost all these demands have hitherto proved unavailing.

It might have been expected that, after the date of the treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, concluded between the two republics on the fifth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, these causes of complaint would have ceased to exist. That treaty so clearly defines the rights and the duties of the respective parties, that it seems almost impossible to misunderstand or to mistake them. The committee, notwithstanding, regret to be compelled to state that all the causes of complaint against Mexico, which have been specially noticed in the correspondence referred to them, have occurred since the conclusion of this treaty.

We forbear from entering into any minute detail of our grievances. The enumeration of each individual case, with its attendant circumstances, even if the committee were in possession of sufficient materials to make such a compilation, is rendered unnecessary, from the view which they have taken of the subject. These cases are all referred to in the document No. 81, entitled "Claims on Mexico," in the letter of instructions from Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Ellis of the 20th of July, 1836, and in the subsequent correspondence between Mr. Ellis and Mr. Monasterio, the acting Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs.

If the Government of the United States were disposed to exact strict and prompt redress from Mexico, your committee might, with justice, recommend an immediate resort to war or reprisals. On this subject, however, they give their hearty assent to the following sentiments, contained in the message of the President. He says: "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 property and persons of our citizens, and upon the officers and flag 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 honorably avoided; and it has occurred to me that, considering 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."

[FEB. 18, 1837.

measures will be immediately adopted as may be neces sary to vindicate the honor of the country, and insure ample reparation to our injured fellow-citizens. They leave the mode and manner of making this demand to the President of the United States.

Before concluding their report, the committee deem it necessary to submit a few remarks upon the conduct of Mr. Gorostiza, the late envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the Mexican republic to the Uni ted States. In regard to that functionary, they concur fully in opinion with Mr. Forsyth, that he was under the influence of prejudices which distorted and discolored every object which he saw whilst in this country. On the 15th of October, 1836, he terminated his mission by demanding his passports. And for what reason? Be cause the President refused to recall the orders which he had issued to the general commanding the forces of the United States in the vicinity of Texas, directing him to pass the frontier, should it be found a necessary meas ure of self-defence; but prohibiting him from pursuing this course unless the Indians were actually engaged in hostilities against the citizens of the United States, or he had undoubted evidence that such hostilities were intended, and were actually preparing within the Mexican territory.

A civil war was then raging in Texas. The Texian troops occupied positions between the forces of Mexico and the warlike and restless tribes of Indians along the frontiers of the United States. It was manifest that Mexico could not possibly restrain by force these tribes within her limits from hostile incursions upon the inhabitants of the United States, as she had engaged to do by the 33d article of the treaty. No matter how strong may have been her inclination, the ability was entirely wanting. Under such circumstances, what became the duty of the President of the United States? If he entertained reasonable apprehensions that these savages meditated an attack from the Mexican territory against the defence. less citizens along our frontier, was he obliged to order our troops to stand upon the line, and wait until the Indians, who know no rule of warfare but indiscriminate carnage and plunder, should actually invade our territo ry? To state the proposition is to answer the question. Under such circumstances, our forces had a right, both by the law of nations and the great and universal law of self-defence, to take a position in advance of our frontier, in the country inhabited by these savages, for the purpose of preventing and restraining their incursions.

After such a demand, should prompt justice be refused by the Mexican Government, we may appeal to all nations, not only for the equity and moderation with which we shall have acted towards a sister republic, but for the necessity which will then compel us to seek redress for our wrongs, either by actual war or by reprisals. The subject will then be presented before Congress at the commencement of the next session, in a clear and distinct form, and the committee cannot doubt but that such

When these discretionary orders were issued to General Gaines, they were immediately communicated to Mr. Gorostiza, in the most frank and friendly spirit. The fullest explanations of the whole proceeding were made to him, and he was over and over again assured that this occupation of the Mexican territory, should it become necessary, would be of a limited, temporary, and purely defensive character, and should continue no longer than the danger existed; that the President solemnly disclaim ed any intention of occupying the territory beyond the Sabine, with the view of taking possession of it as belong ing to the United States; and that this military movement should produce no effect whatever upon the boundary question.

The committee believe that Mr. Gorostiza ought to bave been satisfied with these explanations. But they

FEB. 20, 1837.]

failed to produce any effect upon his mind. Without instructions from his Government, he retired from his mission upon his own responsibility. This was not all. Before he left the United States he published a pamphlet, containing a portion of his correspondence with our Government and with his own, from which latter it ap pears that, whilst engaged upon the business of his special mission here, he was making charges of bad faith against the United States to the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations. The committee will not enlarge upon the glaring impropriety of such conduct. The publication of such a pamphlet by a foreign minister, in the country to which he has been accredited, before taking his departure, can be considered in no other light than as an appeal to the people against the acts of their own Government. It was a gross violation of that diplomatic courtesy which ought ever to be observed between in dependent nations, and deserves the severest condemn tion. This act was still more extraordinary when we consider that it almost immediately followed the note of Mr. Dickins to him, of the 20th October, 1836, assuring him that the President would instruct Mr. Ellis to make such explanations to the Mexican Government, of the conduct of that of the United States, as he believed would be satisfactory.

The committee regret to learn, from the note of Mr. Ellis to Mr. Forsyth of the 9th of December last, that the Mexican Government has publicly approved of the conduct of its minister whilst in the United States. They trust that a returning sense of justice may induce it to reconsider this determination. They are willing to believe that it never could have been made, had that Government previously received the promised explanation of the President, contained in the letter of Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Ellis of the 10th December, 1836, which, unfortunately, did not reach Mexico until after the latter had taken his departure. This letter, with the President's message at the commencement of the present session of Congress, cannot fail to convince the Mexican Government how much they have been misled by the represent ations of their minister.

After a full consideration of all the circumstances, the committee recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Senate concur in opinion with the President of the United States, that another demand ought to be made for the redress of our grievances from the Mexican Government, the mode and manner of which, under the 34th article of the treaty, so far as it may be applicable, are properly confided to his discretion. They cannot doubt, from the justice of our claims, that this demand will result in speedy redress; but should they be disappointed in this reasonable expectation, a state of things will then have occurred which will make it the imperative duty of Congress promptly to consider what further measures may be required by the honor of the nation and the rights of our injured fellow-citizens. Ordered, That 2,000 extra copies of the above report be printed.

And then the Senate adjourned.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20.

COPY-RIGHT LAWS. Among the memorials presented to day was one by Mr. CLAY, from a very large number of persons, who stated themselves to be American authors and friends of literature, calling the attention of Congress to the subject of copy-right laws, and expressing an anxious wish that those laws might be so modified as to extend their benefits to foreign authors. Mr. C. further remarked that the evidences in favor of the measure of granting copy-rights to foreign authors were so strong as not

[SENATE.

to leave a doubt on any and of its favorable reception by the country Under these circumstances, he said be should call up the bill granting such rights as soon as convenient. The memorial was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

PAPERS OF MR. MADISON.

The Senate proceeded to the consideration (on its third reading) of the following joint resolution: "Resolved, &c., That the Joint Committee on the Library be, and they are hereby, authorized and empowered to contract for and purchase, at the sum of thirty thousand dollars, the manuscripts of the late Mr. Madison, referred to in a letter from Mrs. Madison to the President of the United States, dated the fifteenth of November, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, and communicated in his message of the sixth of December, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, conceding to Mrs. Madision the right to use copies of the said manuscript in foreign countries as she may think fit."

Mr. CALHOUN said this resolution from the Committee on the Library proposed to appropriate $30,000 to accomplish the object proposed. The facts, he said, were these: Mr. Madison, under the impression that these papers would be favorably received by the public and by publishers, had levied several legacies upon them, one of some thousands of dollars to the Colonization Society, and some smaller ones to other public charities, in addition to some private bequests. But, so far from his anticipations having been realized, it seemed that Mrs. Madison was unprepared to run the risk of publishing them at all, and on this account had applied to the President in relation to them. He had recommended to Congress to purchase them; and the Committee on the Library had consequently made this report.

Every one (Mr. C. said) was ready to render to the memory of Mr. Madison all possible respect. But the questions involved in this case were of a constitutional character, and it was therefore impossible for Mr. C. to vote for the proposition. The question was, have Congress the right to make this appropriation? The constitution gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, to pay the debts of the Government, and to provide for the common defence and general welfare. It was under this provision of the constitution that Mr. C. understood this appropriation was to be made.

In reference to this clause of the constitution there had long been a diversity of opinion. From the very commencement of the Government, the two great parties in the country were divided upon it. One of these parties conceived that, by these words in the constitution, Congress had the right, in promoting the general welfare, to appropriate money to any and every object which they believed would be conducive to the promotion of the general welfare. The other party, at the head of which was Mr. Madison himself, believed this power was limited by the constitution, and that Congress have no right to make an appropriation, unless authorized to do so by a specific provision of the constitution. These two schools had existed from an early stage of the Govern ment to the present time. Mr. Madison, in his celebrated report of 1799, had given his views on the subject, in the most clear and conclusive language, which required not one word from Mr. C. He would ask the Secretary to read the passage on the 23d, 24th, 25th, 26th, and 27th pages of the report.

[The Secretary then read the passage indicated by Mr. CALHOUN.]

Here, Mr. C. said, Mr. Madison, by a very able argument, had proved, beyond all controversy, that Congress has the power only to make specific grants, and that no more than specific powers are vested in them by that clause of the constitution. The opposite doctrine

involved unlimited power in the possession of Congress. Mr. C. would not repeat the argument Mr. Madison had also predicted what Mr. C. feared he should see fulfilled, that the opposite argument would lead to consolidation, or was consolidation itself, and that the consequent effect would be a monarchy. What was prediction in 1799, was already, Mr. C. said, in part realized. We had not yet arrived at the stage of monarchy, but the executive department was in a fair way of absorbing the whole powers of the system.

[FEB. 20, 1837.

Monroe, a man eminently devoted to the principles which his colleague had commended; a strict republican as to his political character; and this Mr. P. believed was done without the dissent of any party or any individ ual, and without the slighest objection.

The fame of this illustrious man, and the debt which we owed him for all he did for our institutions, demanded that we should do nothing on the present occasion to show a want of respect for him or his senti

ments.

The question now before the Senate, Mr. C. said, was whether Congress had the power to purchase the copy-right to Mr. Madison's papers, which, in the present state of political feelings, were regarded of little or no value in the money market. Mr. C. regarded it as truly deplorable, that these invaluable papers, which threw a light upon the constitution which had never been shed upon it before, should be deemed of no value by the public, absorbed with party politics and the low love of gain, so that such a work could not be published. But where, Mr. C. asked, was the special power in the constitution for Congress to publish such a work? This was a solemn question, the answer to which should be shown not by precedent, but by the constitution. The practice of Congress, Mr. C. said, had been most loose on this and all other points. But the real question was, whether there was such a power in the constitution. The chairman of the committee had not rested his argument on this, but on the broad general principle that these papers would throw a new and brilliant light upon our institutions, and constitute a new era in their history, and in the progress of the human mind; thus promoting the general welfare by the diffusion of intelligence, for which Congress had no authority in the constitution. Mr. C. felt that his position in opposition to this resolution was a painful one; but the opinions of Mr. Madison, which were the text book of Mr. C., and of those with whom he acted, demanded that he should not abandon it. He had spoken as briefly as possible, and wished chiefly for the opportunity of recording his vote against the proposition.

Mr. PRESTON said he concurred fully with his colleague in all the principles laid down in the celebrated report of Mr. Madison, as an argument upon the constitution; and he considered his refutation of the oppo site doctrines, under the constitution, to have been unanswered, and were wholly unswerable. But, acquiescing fully in the views both of his colleague and of Mr. Madison, Mr. P. said he could still conscientiously vote for this resolution. On the grounds to which his colleague had alluded, this resolution ought not to pass. But Mr. P. believed they had no application whatever to the case in hand. In the examination of these papers, the committee came to this general result: that these papers were part and parcel of the constitution and of the muniments of our Government, being not only connected but in a manner identified with them, as much so as were the journals of the convention. These journals (he said) had been published by authority of an act of Congress in 1819, under the administration of Mr.

It was objected to these reports that they were not in fact official. But what right have Congress to publish the official proceedings of that body more than the unof ficial? The publication of both proceeds on the same ground, that they are part and parcel of our frame of government, being an exposition of the views of those who formed the constitution, and, therefore, best showing its true meaning.

In the same way (Mr. P. said) Congress found it convenient to publish the journals of the old Congress under the confederation, and no one hesitated, on any side, And yet these papers had no more than a historical connexion with our present form of Government, and were by no means so free from objections, founded on the principles of Mr. Madison's report, as were the papers of Mr. Madison now in question.

There were still other precedents which might be relied on, and among them was the purchase by Congress of the papers of General Washington, at $25,000, without any serious objection. And there was another still more remarkable example in regard to our revolutionary history. Mr. P. also adduced some other precedents of less importance. He said the Library Committee would, in his view, have been entirely justified in purchasing, on their own authority, the papers of Mr. Madison, to deposite in the Library, if there had been no ulterior view to their publication.

Mrs. Madison had stated that the offers made her for the papers in question were not satisfactory. It was to be supposed they were not very great. But the committee did not feel themselves authorized to inquire what Mrs. Madison intended to do with the money which she might derive from the work. The proposition on her part was to sell thus much of her property to the Congress of the United States; and whether there were legacies on that fund or not was not for Congress to inquire. They might just as well ask whether the printer whom they employed would give away his money for this or that object, or whether he would spend it in gambling, drunkenness, or debauchery. For these things Congress were not responsible.

Mr. P. said he deemed the history of the Government as of very great value, and he felt extremely desirous that the greatest possible light should be thrown upon it; so strong was this feeling, as to cause in him some self-distrust as to his estimate of the very great value of the work now in question. But he was by no means disposed to construe the constitution merely by the words it contained, but he thought it exceedingly desira ble to know the views and intentions of its framers, which must be regarded as the only true spirit of the instrument. Mr. P. made various other remarks, still further illustrating and enforcing his views.