Ject of the gentleman from Tennessee, in offering his resolution, was understood and approved of by all parties, and he hoped the amendment would be rejected, and the question put upon the original resolution. He had no doubt it would pass. Mr. KNIGHT said, that gentlemen did not yet seem to understand his proposition. It did not go to the effect that the Senate should elect the individual who should send in the lowest proposals. It was merely calling for information; the Senate could choose whom they pleased. The whole length and breadth of his proposition was to get information, that they might act upon the subject understandingly. The question was then taken upon Mr. KNIGHT'S amendment, and lost. The question then recurred upon the adoption of Mr. EATON'S resolution. [SENATE. keepers, as to the printer; that they were all provided for by the constitution. In former times, very learned and worthy men had passed the resolution fixing the choice of printer, and he considered the experience of nine years as worth something in matters of legislation. But, according to the gentleman from Maryland, no person but the President of the United States could appoint the officers of the Senate. Mr. CHAMBERS repeated the reasons to show that the printer was the officer of the Senate, and asked how he could be considered the officer of the Government at large, or any one of the other departments of the Government, constituted, directed, controlled, and destroyed as he was by the Senate alone. The instances mentioned of the Secretary and Sergeant-at-arms, were precisely analogous in principle to that of the printer. The power of the Senate to appoint them was derived from the same clause in the constitution, and it had never been deemed necessary or proper to invoke the aid of the House of Representatives or the President to direct our proceedings in relation to their appointment. He would, however, ask the gentleman from Tennessee, whether the printer to the Senate was, or was not, an officer of the Senate? Mr. EATON apologized for the misconstruction he had put upon the remarks of the gentleman from Maryland, and replied to his question, that the printer was not an officer of the Senate. Mr. CHAMBERS.-If he is not an officer of the Senate, whose officer is he? He is elected by the Senate, and if he is not the officer of the Government, or of a Department, it necessarily followed that he was the officer of the Senate. Mr. CHAMBERS said he had never been satisfied that this was a proper subject for legislation. The constitution had, by the most express terms, given authority to the Senate alone to choose its own officers, and he could not perceive the propriety of calling in the aid of the other branches of the Government to assist them in exercising this power. He read the clause of the constitution conferring the power. The only question is, whether the printer be the officer of the Senate, and he presumed no doubt could be entertained about it. He was not the officer of the Government, regarding it as composed of the three legislative branches: they do not unite in his election, in the designation of his duties, nor do they exercise any control over him. He was appointed by the Senate alone; his duties were directed by the order of the Senate; and, as had been assumed in debate, and he supposed properly Mr. WOODBURY asked for the reading of the amendassumed, his official existence might be terminated by them.ment, and it was read accordingly. If, then, he be the officer of this body, and the constitution gave to this body the sole power to appoint, it was necessarily the constitutional right of the Senate alone, to determine the manner of their proceeding in the appointment. The only argument which he could anticipate was, that the joint resolution of 1819, (which had all the forms of a law,) had still left the act of appointment to be performed by the Senate. This argument admitted legislation on the subject to be entirely unnecessary and superfluous. But it is not exactly in conformity with the facts of the case: the resolution of the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. EATON) goes upon the principle, that the law must be altered before the Senate can control the manner of their own proceedings; it looks to the provisions as binding upon the Senate in its substance and in its form, and professes to derive all our authority, not from the constitution, whence it arises, but from this legislative act. The propriety of revising the whole system seemed to be conceded by some, because they were already persuaded the prices paid were extravagant; by others, because they had doubts, and by others because they were willing to receive information. By repealing the law or joint resolution of 1819, the power of the Senate would be made to rest, as he thought it should, upon the positive provision of the constitution; and at a future and convenient day in the session a committee might be raised to regulate the system of duties, emoluments, and other matters connected with it, as the deliberate judgment of the Senate should find to be proper. These considerations induced him to move to strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert the following: "That the joint resolution, approved the 3d of March, 1819, entitled A resolution directing the manner in which the printing of Congress shall be executed, fixing the prices thereof, and providing for the appointment of a printer or printers,' be, and the same is hereby, repealed." Mr. EATON replied, that the same principle applied also to the election of the Sergeant-at-arms, and the Door A division of the question was then called for, and it was determined first to take the question on striking out. Mr TAZEWELL said, if he understood the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland, it went to do away with the whole of the joint resolution of 1819. Nine-tenths of that resolution goes to describe the duties of the printer. Did the gentleman mean to do away with the resolution altogether? I will read the resolution, (said Mr. T.) for the gentleman's information. [Mr. T. read that part of the resolution which describes the manner in which the work shall be done, and then added] and in this way it goes on. Surely the gentleman does not mean to do away with all this. If this be his object, or if it be not, let me make a remark or two. Is there no danger of the two Houses, in electing their printer, coming into contact? for, while the printer to one shall do his work in pica, the printer to the other may do it in brevier, &c. Hence the necessity for the joint resolution, defining the manner in which the work shall be done, to produce a uniformity in its execution, and in the prices. With regard to a violation of the constitution, he disagreed with the Senator from Tennessee, and concurred with the Senator from Maryland, that the printer to the Senate was an officer of the Senate, and this he derived from the constitution The constitution had prescribed the powers of Congress, and provided for the passage of such and such laws. But it is said we must not use in our laws the terms made use of in the constitution. And why not? The constitution provided for the impeachment of Judges, declared the tenure of their office-that they should hold them during good behaviour, &c. &c.; and shall we not say that Judges may be impeached, and fix the words of the constitution. And do you, in using them, do tenure of their office? Every law may contain the exact that which is wrong? With regard to the printing of Congress, each House had always the power to appoint their printer, and each House had always exercised it; but mischief had resulted from the mode of appointment, and to prevent its recurrence again, the joint resolution of 1819 was passed. In this, both parties agreed. Some le SENATE.] gislation on the subject was necessary. resolution, however, should be preserved. The Lead Mines in Missouri. [DEC. 18, 1828. The spirit of the The time might arrive when the Senate might wish to act upon the subject, and to repeal a part or the whole of the resolution; if the concurrence of the House was not obtained, they would be shorn of their own powers, and be deprived of a proper control over their printer, &c. He approved of the principle that a majority should govern, in all cases. Mr. CHAMBERS again took the floor. If (said he) the honorable Senator had attended to the remarks he had submitted, he would have perceived that the course proposed by him did not involve the inconveniences suggested. He had suggested the repeal of the resolution of 1819, not with a view to leave the prices and duties of the printer entirely unprovided for, but expressly with a view to the future action of the Senate upon it, when a more perfect and satisfactory system should be provided. All who had addressed the Senate on the subject, except the Senator from Missouri (Mr. BENTON) had expressed a willingness to see this matter in charge of a committee; he could only judge of the opinions of those who had not engaged in debate by looking to the apparent concurrence in opinion of those who did, and he had thus been led to believe the Senate was prepared to act upon the subject with effect. In this state of things, the resolution of the Senator from Tennessee, (Mr. EATON) is stripped of every claim to the consideration of the other legislative branches except as to its asking their authority and permission to enable us to prescribe the mode in which the constitutional power of this body is to be exerted. The Senator from Virginia, (Mr TAZEWELL) says it is entirely proper that the Legislature should enact laws in the very words of the constitution, and instances the case of the Judges. The constitution authorizes and directs Congress to legislate on the subject of Courts and Judges: and although it would seem to be very unnecessary and idle legislation to introduce amongst other enactments this, that Judges should hold their commissions during good behavior, yet it would seem to be a most strange and singular idea, that an act of Congress should be passed, having no other object but exclusively to enact, in the very words of the constitution, that "Judges shall hold their offices during good behavior." Such, he contended, was the case now before the Senate. The sole object of the resolution he proposed to strike out was, to clothe the Senate, by the authority of a law, with a power which they already possessed, derived from the constitution. Mr. C. then modified his amendment, by adding to it the words," so far as the same refers to the appointment of printers." Mr. NOBLE said, he did not wish to intrude but we had all to answer for our sins, and he presumed we should all have to do it on the same plan. The resolution had not yet been referred to a Committee. He thought it should take that course, and he would move its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary. If it did not go to that Committee, he should be in favor of referring it to the Committee on the Contingent Expenses of the Senate. It would then come under the eye of the intelligent gentleman from Illinois, (Mr. KANE) who, from his remarks to-day, had evidently given his attention to the subject. If in order, he would move that the resolution and amendment be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The question being taken on referring the subject to the Committee on the Judiciary, it was determined in the negative. Mr. NOBLE said he would make another motion, and that was, to refer the matter to the Committee on the Contingent Expenses of the Senate. He begged leave to say that he had no object in view, but to get at the merits of the case. If he was now called upon to vote, he might do it in the dark. He hoped the Senate would agree with him as to the necessity of a reference. The motion of Mr. NOBLE was decided in the negative. Mr. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, said he was satisfied that the Senate had the right to elect its own officers, in its own way, and without the concurrence of the other House. He was in favor of the resolution, as offered by the gentleman from Tennessee, but thought it did not go far enough. The question was then taken on striking out the original resolution, and negatived. The question then occurred on engrossing the resolution for a third reading, which was carried in the affirmative. THURSDAY, DEC. 18, 1828. THE LEAD MINES IN MISSOURI. The bill for the sale of the lead mines in the State o Missouri (introduced by Mr. BENTON) was taken up and considered as in Committee of the Whole. Mr. BRANCH said, he should like to hear the reasons assigned for the passage of the bill, as he did not see the necessity of disposing of the public property in this manner. They were already hurrying the property into market faster than there was any occasion for; and there was no reason, in his mind, why these mines should be exposed to sale. Mr. BENTON said, the same subject had been frequently before the Senate, and had, during the last session, he believed, passed this body, and been sent to the other House. The facts had often been exposed to the consideration of the Senate, and of committees, and very elaborate reports had been made, filling several hundred pages, of their proceedings. This bill did not apply to the lead mines of the Upper Missouri, but was confined to those within the bounds of the State of Missouri. Those upon the Upper Missouri were first discovered about the year 1720, and had been worked from that time to the present; but the mines in Missouri had been, for a long time, unworked; the land had been but scratched over, or had been dug some fifteen or twenty feet. The mines in Missouri were very little profit to any body, and reports from that section stated, that very little was received from them; they were neither profitable nor desirable property to the Federal Government. This bill barely authorized them to be offered for sale; it did not order their sale; there was no coercion on the contrary, the notice of the sale was not of the ordinary kind. Public notice was to be given in every State in the Union, in some newspaper, six months before the sale. It was five and twenty years since Louisiana came into the possession of the United States, and it was five and twenty years since these mines were discovered: an early law of Louisiana provided for the reservation of certain of these lands, so that they could not be sold. He thought it time to have them explored, and made productive. He did not see why the gentleman from North Carolina opposed the bill, and wished to stretch the sceptre of barrenness over the whole of the State of Missouri. The Government would be no loser by the sale; and, if no advantages were to accrue to the Government of the United States, or to any body else, by keeping the mineral country of Missouri in a state of barrenness, why should the bill be opposed? Mr. BRANCH replied, that it was generally conceded, that, where authority was given to the President of the United States, or to any of the Departments, that it was equivalent to saying that the power might be exercised; and, although the authority given by this bill was discretionary, only, he conceived that it would, in fact, be peremptory; for, if the President of the United States had liberty to dispose of these lands, he would be importuned by speculators until he had thrown the whole into the market. And why should they force the sale of what it was not necessary to sell, and why should the State of Missouri be so anxious to have them disposed of? Is not this the wealth of the country? Is not this the general treasure, purchased by the public money? Is Missouri alone interested in these lead mines? No, Sir, this is the public property. He would ask the honorable senator, if the mines belonged to the state of Missouri, whether he would be so willing to throw them into the market now? Would he not keep them until there was a demand for them? Would he not wait until a more propitious period? He [Mr B.] thought he would. Mr. BARTON said, the Senate must be well acquainted with the fact, that, at the time the State of Louisiana was purchased, the Missouri mines were but little known, and that the general idea was, that they were immensely valuable. Among the first laws passed by the State of Louisiana, was one making large reservations of land, in the neighborhood of these mines Since that time, much more was known of the mines than at that early period. It was now known, that almost the whole of the southern part of the State of Missouri, which was a broken and poor country, was a mineral country. It was also known, that the most valuable lead mines in the United States were north of the State of Missouri. The Spanish lead mine was there, and the whole of the valuable mineral country was in a triangle, made by the boundary line of Missouri and the Mississippi river. It was necessary for the United States to cover this country with tenantry, and their mines were almost inexhaustible. The whole of this other country had been examined, and people were anxious to work it. The mining business was known to be extremely uncertain, and it also was extremely fascinating; it was something like gambling, exciting high hopes, which were frequently not realized. Under the present United States' laws, several cases had occurred in which lands had been sold to individuals, and lead ore afterwards being discovered upon the lands, the patents were withheld. Now the Government did not want these lands; they had already inexhaustible stores in the Spanish mine, the Fever river lead mines, in the State of Illinois, and upon the east and west sides of the Mississippi. The project of this bill was not to force the sale. The gentleman from North Carolina had supposed, that, because the Government could dispose of them, they must necessarily; but it did not follow; the President of the United States might have firmness enough to resist improper importunities. He would state a case of the difficulty of which he had complained. In the village of Belle Vue, a tract of land had been sold by the Government to an individual as long ago as the year 1806; lately, ore has been discovered, not upon his tract, but in the neighborhood of it, in another part of the town, in consequence of which his patent had been withdrawn. Under this state of things, in the course of time, almost the whole State of Missouri will be reserved, and withheld from sale, and subject to this system. The mines on the Upper Missouri, and north of the State, were so much more valuable, and, as they were worked, the settlers and laborers had left the State of Missouri and gone up to them. This bill only abolished the law of reservation and restriction, which had been found to be extremely injurious to that country, and which must ultimately be the ruin of it. Mr. CHANDLER observed, that, as the gentlemen from Missouri must know more of the subject than they who lived at a greater distance, he would ask them if this land had ever been surveyed by authority of the Government, and whether there were any reports upon the subject; if so, he should like to see them, that he might have some more information, and make up his mind-as it might be advisable to sell all these lands, or it might be better to sell only a part. There were always many speculators about a new country, and, as the gentleman from North Carolina very justly observed, if the President once had the liberty, he would be constantly importuned until he had thrown the whole of them into the market. The PRESIDENT here read an amendment to the bill, [SENATE. which had been reported by the Committee on the public Lands, and stated that the question would be upon the amendment; which was explained by Mr. BARTON. Mr. BENTON then replied, that very ample reports had been made, both by Government agents and others. The United States appointed an agent there, many years ago, with a salary of $1,500 dollars per annum, who had examined the country; and reports had also been made by persons who had been a long time resident in that country. As it was early in the session, he was willing the bill should lie over, that the gentleman might examine the reports on the subject. The question being taken on the amendment proposed by the committee, it was adopted, and the bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. Adjourned to Monday. MONDAY, DEC. 22, 1828. The Senate was principally occupied this day in discussing a bill for the relief of Susan Decatur et al. TUESDAY, DEC. 23, 1828. COMMERCE OF THE WEST. A bill" allowing duties on foreign merchandise, imported into Louisville, Pittsburg, Cincinnati, and St. Louis, to be secured and paid at those places," was taken up and considered. Mr. WOODBURY (Chairman of the Committee on Commerce) said, this was the same bill which had been before that Committee, and passed the Senate, at its last session, but was not acted upon in the House of Representatives. Full security was afforded to the public, by its provisions, that the duties would be paid; and, as the convenience of the merchants of the Western country would be promoted, and the public lose nothing by the proposed arrangement, he saw no obstacle to the passage of the bill. Mr. MARKS said, he recollected that, two sessions since, he had presented a memorial from the merchants of Pittsburg, praying that that place might be made a port of entry. Since that time, he had understood that the citizens of Pittsburg did not require the passage of a law on the subject; they were altogether indifferent to its passage, and he was not certain whether they would approve of it. He merely rose to give the Senate this information. It was altogether immaterial to him what order the Senate took upon the bill. Mr. WOODBURY said, the gentleman from Pennsylvania had not, certainly, paid attention to the provisions of the bill. He would state, for his information, that the bill did not provide for the establishment of ports of entry: it was not the intention of the committee to make such a provision. It was at first contemplated; but, for himself, he was against it. The bill provides merely that the duties on goods to be imported into Louisville, &c. shall be secured to be paid at those places: the bonds will then be sent to New Orleans, and paid at such places as the collector of that port might direct. While on the floor, he would state that an amendment had been made to the bill, at the last session, which was not contained in it as introduced by the senator from Missouri, viz. to include "Nashville, in the State of Tennessee," as one of the places at which, also, duties on foreign merchandise might be secured to be paid. For the purpose of extending the same privilege to that place, he would move that the words he had named be inserted in the bill. The motion of Mr. W. prevailed. Mr. MARKS explained, that he had not paid attention to the provisions of the bill, and repeated, it was immaterial to him whether it passed or no. Mr. BENTON stated, that the object of the bill was to give facilities to those persons in the Western country who were engaged in foreign commerce. The bill was under the consideration of the Committee of Commerce, when a distinguished senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LLOYD] was its Chairman. He approved of making the places named in the bill ports of entry. Since then, that committee had contemplated a different method, which was considered more safe. For years past, foreign goods had been imported into the Western country, consigned to merchants into the interior, from the Port of Liverpool in particular. New Orleans was the port of delivery, and the consignees had to pay two or three per cent. to commission merchants to attend to the transshipment of their property, and the security of the duties upon it. This was one hardship. Another was, the great advance of money which it cost them to have the business attended It was a fact, that some of the interior towns were nearer to the Gulf of Mexico than New Orleans was fifteen years ago. These merchants can attend to their own business quite as well, if not better, than it is now attended to at New Orleans, and the Government be equally secure in the payment of the duties, while it would be a great accommodation to those merchants, if the bill should pass. As far as the change contemplated by the bill was known, it had given general satisfaction; it would be of great advantage to the commerce of the West, if it should become a law, and, certainly would be of no material injury to the country. He, therefore, hoped it would pass. The question was then taken on ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading, and decided in the affirmative. to. SCHOOL LANDS IN ALABAMA. A bill" authorizing the relinquishment of the sixteenth section granted for the use of schools in Alabama, and entering of other lands in lieu thereof," was then taken up for consideration as in Committee of the Whole. [The bill provides, that, where the 16th section in each township, granted for the use of schools, was unproductive, it should be given up, and four quarter sections of other lands, of good quality, entered in lieu thereof.] Mr. CHANDLER said, he should like to hear a satisfactory explanation given why the State of Alabama should have a preference over other States in relinquish ing unproductive school lands, and selecting four quarter sections of land, of good quality, in lieu of a whole section. Mr. KING called for the reading of the memorial of the Legislature of the State of Alabama, instructing their Senators and Representatives to attend to the subject of the school lands. [The memorial was read, stating the unproductive quality of some of the school lands, and the wish to be authorized to select others in their stead.] [DEC. 23, 1828. were very indigent, and could not pay the expense of schooling; and it was because sufficient means could not be collected from the lands granted, that a change of lands was required, to defray that expense. Mr. CHANDLER said, that, from what he could understand, the good lands in Alabama were divided into quarter sections. His object was, to strike out the provision for granting four quarter sections in lieu of the section to be surrendered, and to give section for section, if the change must be made. He foresaw that this matter would not end here. Grant this request of the State of Alabama, (said he) and other States would ask for a similar privilege, where the same advantage was to be obtained. He had no doubt of it. Mr. BARTON said, he thought the request of the State of Alabama unreasonable. She had made the compact with the United States, and, he thought, to use a common phrase, that she ought to be contented with her bargain. He thought there was a principle involved in this grant, and he did not see where the thing would stop. There was not a single one of the new States, which had been admitted into the Union upon similar terms, but what had many poor sections, and which would make the same request; therefore, if this bill pass at all, he thought an amendment should be introduced, providing for extending the same privilege to all the other States. He preferred, however, not beginning this system at all. Mr. CHANDLER then moved to amend the bill by striking out the provision for selecting other lands from land districts, and inserting from townships. Mr. KING said, he was under the impression, when he introduced the bill to the Senate, that it would pass without any opposition. He had supposed that the Senate of the United States was the last body in the world that would throw out any obstacles to the instruction of youth. The Government, when it laid out the lands, had provided that every township of six miles square should have a certain portion allotted to it, and set off, for the benefit of schools. Now it appeared that a great portion of this land turned out to be good for nothing; and were they to be told that it was a compact made with the Government? He said, if they were to be confined to the very township in which the present lands were located, in nine cases out of ten the passage of the law would be worth nothing at all. The location of this sixteenth section was accidental: some of the lands were good, some of them very valuable, and the towns in which such were situated were lucky; but in other townships the sixteenth section was a mere pine barren, and worth nothing at all; and they merely asked for the liberty to change their lands for some which belong to the United States, but for which the Government had been unable to obtain the minimum price of one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre. He had submitted to the first amendment without saying a word, although he knew that it would, in many cases, cut off the applicants altogether from the benefit intended. Mr. K. then stated, that the object of Government in setting apart the 16th section of land in each township was to provide for the education of indigent children. A great proportion of country in that State, particularly the part from which he came, it was well known, was barren and unproductive. Where the sixteenth section proved The gentlemen from Missouri had opposed this request to be good land, and answered the purpose for which it of the State of Alabama, because he was afraid the thing was granted, there was, of course, no wish to relinquish would become general, and that other States would make it; this was the case where it was in the vicinity of a similar applications; he had no such fear. Much of the stream, and laid low; otherwise, it was valueless, and al- land of Alabama was entirely unproductive and worthless; together unfit for the purpose for which it was granted. some of it, through which the streams run, was valuable In such cases, a sufficiency could not be raised from the and settled, but the other, which was mostly pine barrens, land to contribute to the payment of schooling; the poor was not worth the cultivation, and the settlers upon this could, in consequence, obtain nothing, and, therefore, the country who were not able to educate their children, askdesire to give it up, and enter other land in its stead-suched of the Government that privilege. Suppose other States lands as has been offered at public sale, and would not bring the minimum price. This was no departure from the original system. The object was, if there was any object, to grant lands which should help to defray the expenses of education, and not those which were altogether unproductive. The lands might as well have been withheld. The people for whose benefit a change of lands was asked did come forward, being similarly situated, would the Senate of the United States say that they had made a compact, and that, if they could not afford to educate their children under it, that it could not be helped-that they had made a bargain? If other States came forward, in such a situation he should have no hesitation in giving them the privilege they requested. He Mr. CHANDLER still supported his amendment. thought the State of Alabama had made a bargain with the Government, and he believed that the State of Alabama had been bought with the proceeds of other States. Mr. BELL said, that the original contract with Alabama was to give certain lands for the purposes of education. It was now desired that the 16th sections might be given up, and other lands selected in their stead. Why extend this privilege to Alabama more than to any other State? Had this been the contract with Alabama, it would be right to do so. But did Government make any such contract? No. Whether good or bad, it was the 16th section in each township that was given, and no provision made for an exchange of lands. If there was no such provision made, then the grant of other land would be by way of donation. Then where was the right of Alabama to require other lands? She had no more right to do so than Vermont, or any other State. And if the privilege was extended to her, of selecting lands, then should it be extended to other States. All had the same claim. What answer would be made to other States who might put in the same claim? If I vote for this bill (said Mr. B.), I shall be bound to as sist all others. The old States certainly had as good a claim to the public lands. They were purchased with the common funds of all, and all had an equal right to receive donations. He again asked, Why be more generous to Alabama than to other States? For his part, he could see no difference existing between them. as [SENATE. Mr. BENTON rose to protest against the doctrine inculcated by the gentleman from New Hampshire, that the lands thus apportioned by Congress to the States were donations. The same thing had been brought up years ago, and dissolved and vanished when it came to be looked into. Instead of the States receiving a donation from Congress, there was not an instance in which the new States would not return them their school lands, toss their right to them upon the tables, for the privilege of taxing the Federal lands within their sovereignties. The State of Alabama presented a request for the privilege of doing that which ought to be settled by the local Legislature upon the spot; but, so far from Alabama having the power to settle her own matters as she pleased, and thought proper, they were brought here to be decided by Representatives from twenty-four States, who knew nothing, and could know nothing, about the matter. The gentlemen from Maine and New Hampshire had observed, that other States had as good a claim as the State of Alabama; but the old States were not obliged to come State of Maine was not obliged to come here: for, some here for the settlement of their own private affairs. The forty or more years ago, when the States of Virginia and Georgia were throwing their vast domains upon the altar of the public good, Massachusetts retained her lands; and when the separation took place, Massachusetts and Maine settled their own affairs among themselves. Instead of such a state of things, the whole machinery of the Governfigure in one of their papers. He thought every thing of ment was obliged to be moved to change a single letter or the kind belonged to the States, and ought to be settled by the local Legislatures. He had risen only to protest against the idea that these school lands were donations to the States. They were sales, sales on severe terms, made between one arrived at maturity and one a mere minor. Mr. BELL said, that he did not intend to convey the of Alabama; and if what he had said bore that construction, it was unintended on his part. What was the contract? The contract was, that the sixteenth section, and no other, whether valuable or not valuable, should be the property of those who purchased the townships. If it had been the contrary, Alabama could come here and claim, as a matter of right, the fulfilment of her contract. What he had said before, was, that, if the Government took back the sections, which were worthless, and gave the State of Alabama good lands, worth four or five thousand dollars, that the whole difference in the value would Mr. KANE said he did not consider this an application of the State of Alabama for any benefit, but a request that the United States would carry into effect the original intention and spirit of the compact between the two Governments. The sixteenth section was not selected as the section to be set apart for school lands, because there was any peculiar virtue in the number sixteen, but because the number sixteen happened to come in the center of the townships. The new States had all of them agreed not to levy taxes upon the public lands for a certain period of years, on condition that Congress should give such portion was thought expedient for the benefit of the public schools; but gladly would every new State rescind the contract with the Federal Government, and give up to Congress every "sixteenth section," for the privilege of taxing the United States' lands within their limits, and appropri-idea that the sixteenth section was a donation to the State ating the money to the support of her schools and her government. Congress had been induced to make this compact with the several new States, upon three grounds: In the first place, it was for the interest of the Government to have the benefits of education dispensed, and provision made for it, because it procured the more rapid settlement of the public lands. In the second place, it was a matter of contract; the Government had agreed to give certain privileges to the new States for the privilege of holding its lands within the bounds of those States, free of taxes. The third ground was, that the privilege to the States was an act of parental duty, which Congress had the power to exercise, and which they must suppose it was disposed to exercise, for the benefit of the new States. All Alabama asked Congress to do, was, what Congress intended to do. It was not the intention of Congress to give one township a "sixteenth section" worth something, and another a section worth nothing for, if that is the case, it is plain that they intended to educate the children of one township, and leave those of another unprovided for. Congress had no intention of acting thus partially, and it appeared to be their duty now to put the matter right. Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, considered that, when the bargain was made, a portion of land was granted for a certain purpose-the education of children; and if it so happened in Alabama, that the sixteenth section turned out to be good for nothing, the Government were bound to carry into effect their intention. The ground he went on was, that they intended to give a something; and if that be a donation; and, if this donation was made to Alabama, The amendment offered by Mr. CHANDLER was then rejected, 14 to 18, and the bill reported to the Senate as amended. The amendment made in Committee of the Whole was confirmed. |