an estimated sum, not in the Treasury, but which may be during the year, and can only be ascertained at the end of the year, and cannot be known in the month of June. It is reversed because it is uncertain whether the estimated revenue of the year will be received, to guard against error, accident, and variations of the revenue. There has never been a surplus of two millions. There have been frequent deficiencies-and if we appropriate all the estimated receipts of the year, you will find the Treasury often exhausted; and this is the reason that he had, while he felt any responsibility for the administration of the Treasury, steadily resisted any attempt to repeal the 4th section of the Sinking Fund act. [JAN. 15 to 19, 1829. No objection having been made, the motion to postpone was withdrawn, and the bill was referred to a committee, consisting of Messrs. DICKERSON, BRANCH, BELL, HAYNE, and SANFORD. Adjourned to Monday. MONDAY, JANUARY 19, 1829. SABBATH MAILS. Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, to whom had been referred several petitions in relation to the transportation and opening the mails on the Sabbath day, made a report, concludMr.DICKERSON combated the remarks of Mr. JOHN-ing with a resolution, "that the committee be discharged STON and Mr. M'LANE, and observed that, if there was no money in the Treasury, not appropriated, there would be none to distribute among the States. He took a different position, however, and thought that something might be divided. Take the canal in Delaware, for instance, as an example: If the money appropriated for this object had remained in the Treasury, it might have been applied, as proposed by the bill. There was more or less money appropriated every year for similar objects, of which he could not approve, and which ought, in his opinion, to have been divided among the States. The opposition of the Senator from Delaware seemed to rest on the fact that she would receive but 9,000 dollars as her proportion, agreeably to the mode in which it was proposed to be divided; but, if she could receive three or four hundred thousand, then we should have the support of the gentleman. He had supposed that amendments would be offered to the bill; had no idea it would pass as proposed by him and he was willing to give time to mature the bill to suit the wishes of gentlemen. He had supposed that one gentleman might wish it so framed as to take effect at a future day; another might wish so to amend it as to take a part only of the money unappropriated in the Treasury. These were proper modes of amendment, and he would have agreed to them; but he saw no necessity for the indefinite postponement of the bill. He hoped the motion would not prevail, unless the passage of the bill would not subserve the interests of the United States. He would say more, but the hour was late, and he was not disposed to consume the time of the Senate. Mr. BRANCH, after a few remarks, said, that he was not able to speak at that time, and if it was not trespassing too much upon the patience of the Senate, he would move an adjournment: which motion prevailed. THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1829. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill "to distribute a portion of the revenues of the United States among the States"-the question being on a motion of Mr. BERRIEN, for the indefinite postponement of the bill. Mr. DICKERSON said he had not supposed, when he offered this bill to the consideration of the Senate, that it was in an unexceptionable form. He expected that it would excite considerable discussion, and that it would be referred to a committee, to receive such modifications as should be thought expedient Presuming that the minds of the Senators were made up upon the subject, he would move that it be referred to a select committee. The PRESIDENT said that a motion to refer was not in order, the motion to postpone having precedence. Mr. BERRIEN said, he was not disposed to interefere, and prevent the gentleman from New Jersey from modifying his bill so as to make it acceptable. In order, therefore, that the gentleman might have an opportunity to amend the bill, he would withdraw his motion to postpone. The PRESIDENT remarked that the yeas and nays having been ordered, the motion to postpone could not be withdrawn without the unanimous consent of the Senate. from the farther consideration of the subject." Mr J. moved that the reading of the report be dispensed with, and that it be printed. He requested that more than one copy for each Senator should be provided, that he might send copies to his constituents. He believed that legislation upon the subject was improper, and that nine hundred and ninety-nine in a thousand were opposed to any legislative interference, inasmuch as it would have a tendency to unite religious institutions with the Government. Mr. CHAMBERS moved that one thousand copies be printed, and Mr. HAYNE, that three thousand copies be printed, for the use of the Senate. Mr. CHANDLER said he had no objection to the printing of any number of copies, except as to principle: it did not appear to him that it was right to order a large number of copies to be printed until the Senate knew what it was, and that they should not be ordered until the report had been read, as it might seem to imply that they approved of the report. Mr. JOHNSON said he had moved to dispense with the reading of the report, because he did not wish to trouble the Senate with the reading of any of his reports. He believed that these petitions and memorials in relation to Sunday mails, were but the entering wedge of a scheme to make this Government a religious instead of a social and political institution; they were widely circulated, and people were induced to sign them without reflecting upon the subject or the consequences which would result from the adoption of the measure proposed. There was nothing more improper than the interference of Congress in this matter. Mr. CHAMBERS disagreed with the gentleman from Maine, that ordering a large number would imply any assent to the principles adopted in the report. Neither did he agree with the gentleman from Kentucky, that the adoption of the measure prayed for would have a bad tendency, and that legislation upon the subject would be improper. Some had asserted that this measure did tend to unite religious with our political institutions, and others had asserted that such would not be the result. The petitioners took an entirely different ground. They said that the observance of the Sabbath was connected with the civil interest of the Government. He did not mean to be understood, however, as having formed any opinion upon the subject. Mr. JOHNSON said he would state, in justice to himself, that he believed the petitioners were governed by the purest motives; but if the gentleman from Maryland would look at the proceedings of a meeting at Salem, in Massachusetts, he would find, it did not matter what was the purity of motive; that the petitioners did not consider the ground they had taken as being purely that the Sabbath was a day of rest; they assumed that it was such by a law of God. Now some denominations considered one day the most sacred, and some looked to another, and these petitions did, in fact, call upon Congress to settle what was the law of God. The Committee had framed their report upon principles of policy and expe JAN. 20, 1829] Northeastern Boundary.—Supreme Court.-Cumberland Road. diency. It was but the first step taken, that they were to legislate upon religious grounds, and it made no sort of difference which was the day asked to be set apart, which day was to be considered sacred, whether it was the first day or the seventh, the principle was wrong. It was upon this ground that the Committee went in making their report. Mr. ROWAN called for the reading of the report; which was read. The resolution that the committee be discharged was then adopted; and three thousand copies of the report were ordered to be printed. NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. The following resolution, submitted by Mr. McKINLEY, on the 15th of January, was taken up for consideration: "Resolved, That so much of the President's message as relates to the appointment of the King of the Netherlands, umpire for the decision of the controversy with Great Britain, relating to the Northeastern boundary of the United States, be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations; and that said Committee inquire whether, by the treaty of Ghent, and according to the constitution of the United States, the President alone has power to make said appointment." Mr. McKINLEY said, that it appeared by the treaty of Ghent, that several questions remained undecided; but, that their decision was provided for by a reference to some friendly Power. One of those questions had been decided by the Emperor of Russia. He wished to be understood, that, in offering this resolution, he did not intend it to operate in any manner as a party question. The predecessor of the present President of the United States having established a precedent in the appointment he had referred to, the great question in his mind was, whether the President of the United States had the power to make such an appointment. The treaty of Ghent provided that the boundary between the United States and Great Britain should be left to the Commissioners to be appointed by the two Governments; and in case they could not agree, as another expedient, it was to be left to the umpirage of some friendly Power, whose decision should be final and conclusive. It seemed to him that this award might be considered the conventional law of the United States until the umpire had decided, and his decision would be the supreme law of the land. It then came to the question, whether the President had power to make a treaty. The Government of the United States was bound to abide by the award of the umpire, and consequently could exercise no discretion. The Senate exercised no influence in this case, and consequently a treaty was made by the President. No one would pretend that the treaty of Ghent was a treaty of limits; it was a mere provisional treaty, providing expedients for the settlement of this question. By the constitution of the United States, it was the duty of the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint commissioners, ambassadors, &c. It was a question whether the Power selected as an umpire was not, ipso facto, a minister of the United States. If he is not a minister, where and how does he derive his authority to act for the United States? The President of the United States had power to make treaties and arrangements with individuals within the bounds of the United States; but it was provided that all nominations of ambassadors should come before the Senate. If no foreign prince was eligible to the office of minister of the United States, no foreign prince could make a treaty for the United States. In the present case, the faith of the United States was solemnly pledged to abide by this award, and the faith of the country would be violated if that pledge was not redeemed. Now, would a treaty, based upon the award of an umpire, be binding upon the people of the United States, if there was no power to appoint this umpire? Here was [SENATE. an anomaly. The faith of the Government was pledged to TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1829. 6 Mr. WEBSTER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported " An act in addition to an act, entitled An act to amend the Judicial System of the United States." Mr. WEBSTER said, it was known that the Supreme Court was now holden by four Judges only; the Judge of the second circuit was recovering from a severe illness, and it was supposed he was now on the road; and the Judge of the Southern circuit had met with an accident, and was delayed in one of the Carolinas. What rendered the passage of the bill peculiarly necessary, was, that if, within ten days after the time settled for the meeting of the Court, there was not a quorum of the Judges assembled, the Court must adjourn, and the session be lost. If one of the four Judges now here should be taken sick tomorrow, the Court would be broken up, and the session closed. The second section of the bill provided, that, when less than four of the Judges were assembled, they should adjourn from day to day, until twenty days after the first meeting, and then adjourn until the next annual session. If there was no objection, the subject was so important, that he would ask for the second reading at the present time. No objection being made, the bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. [Subsequently, the bill was reported as correctly engrossed; and, on motion, was read a third time, passed, and sent to the House of Representatives.] CUMBERLAND ROAD. The bill providing for the extension of the Cumberland Road westwardly from Zanesville, in the State of Ohio, was next taken up. Mr. HENDRICKS said, that, unless some objection was made to the passage of the bill, it was not worth while to go into a history of the road; it now went very near Zanesville, and this bill merely authorized its extension. Mr. BRANCH said, he could wish that this bill and every other similar bill could be postponed until the great question about the expenditure of the public money was settled. There was now a proposition before Congress, it was well known, which would settle this question; and would it not be well to postpone this bill until that time? Congress had been expending million after million, more than enough to pay the national debt, unjustly and partially. They could not avert the evil, but they might mitigate it; and he could wish the gentleman from Indiana would consent to postpone the bill, and lay it upon the table. Let us do justice, said Mr. B.; I do not wish to raise a revenue for the purpose of distributing it over the country; but let us adopt some principle to make our taxes as small as possible. A bill for this purpose was now before a special Committee, and he wished to hear their report before acting farther. He then moved to lay the bill upon the table, and asked the yeas and nays upon the question. The motion was lost-Ayes 16, Noes 25-as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bell, Branch, Chandler, Chase, Dickerson, Foot, Hayne, Iredell, Prince, Sanford, Smith, S. C. Tazewell, Tyler, White, Willey, Woodbury-16. SENATE.] Land Claims in Missouri.-Claim of Maison Rouge et al. NAYS-Messrs. Barnard, Barton, Benton, Bouligny, Burnet, Eaton, Hendricks, Johnson, Ky., Johnston, Lou., Kane, Knight, Marks, McKinley, McLane, Noble, Ridgely, Robbins, Rowan, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, Md., Thomas, Webster, Williams-25. Mr. BENTON said he would make some inquiry of the Committee who reported the bill, which would perhaps supersede the necessity of his offering an amendment. The bill, as read by its title, was for extending the road westwardly. Westwardly," was a very indefinite expression. The route for this road was marked out in the time of Mr. Jefferson, 20 years ago; there had been a great struggle made in Ohio and Kentucky to get the road turned off South, through Kentucky. All he wished to know was, whether the words of the bill were such as would carry into effect the original design of the Cumberland Road. Mr. HENDRICKS explained, that the bill provided for extending the road from Zanesville, through the States of Indiana and Illinois, to St. Louis, in the State of Missouri. Mr. BENTON replied, that the explanation was sufficient. All he wanted was certainty. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1829. LAND CLAIMS IN MISSOURI. The bill for the final adjustment of land claims in the State of Missouri was taken up. Mr. BARTON rose in explanation of the objects of the bill. It was introduced, he said, in consequence of the Legislature of Missouri having taken up the subject, and asked that measures might be taken to produce a final decision with regard to the unconfirmed land claims in that state. The particular plan provided in the bill for the adjustment of these claims had been proposed by the Committee as the most convenient one that could, in their opinion, be fallen on; but the bill was open for amendment, as it was of more importance to the State of Missouri that a final conclusion should be put upon the claims than as to the mode of doing it. The particular plan proposed in this bill was introduced in the Senate in the year 1824; the bill passed, and was sent to the other House for concurrence, where the plan of sending the claims to a Board of Commissioners for adjudication was substituted insaead of it. Mr. CHANDLER thought it was premature to act upon the subject at this time, as there was a law upon the subject limited as to time. He thought it better to let the subject rest until the old law should expire. [JAN. 21, 1829. sident and Senate, in addition to the Recorder; which amendment was adopted. Mr. PRINCE was entirely in favor of the bill, and hoped it would be passed. It occurred to him, however, that it should be amended so that, when there were conflicting claims, the evidence should be reported to Congress. He accordingly moved an amendment having that object, which was agreed to. Mr. BARTON then moved to fill the blank in the first section of the bill with the words "first day of August next," (the day on which the commission is to commence) and to insert a provision fixing the salaries of the Recorder and Commissioners at fifteen hundred dollars each; which was carried. On motion of Mr. CHANDLER, The bill was so amended as to make it the duty of the Recorder and Commissioners to assign, in their reports, "the reasons for their opinions so given." The bill was then ordered to a third reading. CLAIM OF MAISON ROUGE ET AL. The Senate then proceeded to the consideration of the bill" to provide for the legal adjudication and settlement of the claims to land therein mentioned." [This is a bill providing for the settlement for the large claims of Maison Ronge, Bastrop, and Winter, which have been so long before Congress; and which was now proposed to be referred to a judicial decision.] Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, said the bill had been postponed at his request, and he would now call the attention of the Senate to a few observations. He was opposed to the passage of such a bill, because he was well assured that its provisions were contrary to the constitution. It was not competent for Congress to enact such a law, for no suit could be authorized which was contrary to constitutional principles. It was on that ground that he was opposed to it. The constitution of the United States did not authorize, or sanction the principle; it did not authorize any citizen to sue the United States; and if the constitution did not give the right, the right could not be conferred by legislative enactment. There had been a time when suits were brought by individuals against some of the States, but the power had been regarded as one of an extraordinary nature, and it had been taken away. The right to sue a State did not now exist, if it ever did it was expressly taken away; and yet Congress, by the passage of the bill, would assume to give the power which had been withheld. He was opposed to the bill on principle, on constitutional principles. He would not say that he was hostile to the claims, for he would be glad to lay his hand upon the evidence upon which they were founded; but he was opposed to the manner of settling those claims without constitutional authority, for which it was the object of the bill to provide. The cases reported were those of considerable magnitude. They had been recommended to Congress for decision: Congress had taken them into consideration, and the claims of Maison Rouge were once discussed for three weeks. He would offer, in opposition to the law which was proposed to be passed, the constitution of the United States. stitution would show that no such power could be ex Mr. BENTON was in favor of the bill. It was the copy of one which passed the Senate four years ago, went down to the House, and was not acted upon there; another bill, referring these claims to the Judiciary, being preferred by the House of Representatives, and sent up to the Senate, where it become a law. This law applied to claims of the same character both in Missouri and Arkansas, and in the latter place has answered a good purpose; in Missouri rather worse than no purpose at all. Many claims were settled in Arkansas, where three judges presided; all were condemned in Missouri, where one judge presided. The same law, applying to the same class of claims ad-ercised by Congress. ministered by judges appointed by the Federal Government, has been construed just as differently as yes and no. It produced great discontent to have decisions in Arkansas one way, and decisions upon the other side of an invisible line, another way. Mr. B. was in favor of the bill; it was the copy of one drawn by himself four years ago; but he wanted an amendment, by having some other officers, or commissioners, associated with the Recorder. Mr. BARTON then submitted an amendment providing for the appointment of two Commissioners, by the Pre The con Mr. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, regretted that the gentleman from South Carolina should have had any difficulty in laying his hands on the papers in relation to the claims under consideration, &c. &c. because he was satisfied that the bare allusion to them was calculated to have a much more unfavorable bearing on the subject than if the papers were produced; and he was disposed to postpone the consideration of the subject a sufficient time to enable the gentleman to examine the testimony, as he was decidedly of opinion that the production of them would convince the Senate of the necessity of speedily passing upon the claims. The titles to all these claims were of a similar character. That of Bastrop embraced about one million of acres of the richest portion of Louisiana, and was founded on a contract with the Spanish Government, signed by the King of Spain himself, six years before the country passed under the jurisdiction of the United States. We acquired that country, said Mr. J., under a contract that Congress would respect the claims to lands, which were founded on grants from the Spanish Crown; and in part fulfilment of that contract, a Board of Commissioners was constituted to investigate and report on the claims. That Board did report, and reported that the claims embraced in this bill were good; but Congress, unwilling to give to the Commissioners, and reserving to it self the power of final decision on them, they had remained as yet unadjusted. When the Commissioners made their report, Congress was applied to for a confirination of their awards; and various opinions were entertained respecting them when the application came before the Senate. Some of the Senators believed that the claims were valid, others were of an opinion that they were illegal, and ought not to be confirmed; while a much larger portion of the Senators believed that this body was not a competent tribunal to try their validity. The claimants, said Mr. J., had now waited for twenty-five years, in the vain expectation of a final decision for or against them; much injury had resulted to them, and to the State, from the protracted delay; and inasmuch as the Senate had decided that it was not a competent tribunal to pass upon their claims, it followed, as a matter of justice, that they ought to be sent to a judicial tribunal. The claims being founded on a written contract with the Spanish Government, the performance of the conditions of which had been suspended, it was incumbent on the United States, either to constitute a judicial tribunal to try their validity, or to fulfil the terms of the contract. Mr. J. did not himself assert that the claims were perfectly legal and valid, but that they were such as presented the most colorable title that the nature of the case would admit of. There was one consideration which should induce Congress to make some speedy and final distribution of the subject; it was this: the lands embraced in the claim were situated in one of the richest counties of the State of Louisiana, which, in consequence of the unsettled nature of the titles, remained waste and uncultivated. Moreover, whatever decision Congress might make on the subject, it could not annul the titles already existing; nor sell the lands; for if you proceed to sell, said Mr. J., the claimant can sue the person you sell to-thus reducing the price of the land sold to little or nothing, creating endless confusion, and retarding the settlement of the country for ten or fifteen years. With regard to the claim of Maison Rouge, which comprehended only about 200,000 acres, it stood upon the same foundation with that of Bastrop; and was granted about the same time, and upon the same conditions, which he (Mr. J.) was informed by his colleague had been complied with. That, however, he waived, as the evidence went not to invalidate the titles, which were as well known in New Orleans, as the Declaration of Independence was in other parts of the United States; indeed, their validity was a matter of such notoriety, that the only question to be raised in Louisiana, was with regard to their location: and that question was one, which the Courts alone were competent to decide. The locations, however, were made by the Surveyor General, an officer of great skill, and high character, and whose handwriting was as well known as that of any man in the United States, as early as 1797, and recorded among others, in a book kept by him for that purpose. Now if it were shown that the locations were recorded in the proper book, it would prove beyond a question that they were made in [SENATE. 1797. With regard to the third class of claims embraced in the bill, the lands granted to Winter and his two sons, the titles were precisely similar to the others; and this, as well as the others, could be settled by no other mode than that of a court constituted for the purpose. It was important to the public, to the State of Louisiana, and due to the faith of the nation, pledged to these people, that the claims should be finally disposed of. The titles had been held up for twenty-five years; many of the original claimants were dead, and he knew that many were held by minor children, and, on this account, the hardship of protracting the decision was the greater. Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, said, that Congress were called upon continually to act upon such claims, and yet the gentleman was solicitous to have a special act passed for the legal adjudication of those particular claims only. The power to decide such claims rested with Congress. The gentleman might shake his head, but he felt assured he was right. Congress has already negatived such claims, and that is the reason why a new mode of settlement is sought to be obtained, in which the parties may be benefited by a supposed sanction of Congress. Maison Rouge's claims had been brought before Congress by Cox, and had been debated for two years. After three weeks' discussion at one session, the claims were rejected, and he then found it convenient to take another course. The course of deciding claims to land had been varioussometimes they were before Congress; again, they were found in Court; and sometimes the claims were laid before Commissioners; sometimes they were disposed of in one way, and sometimes in another, and seldom for the public good, unless they were brought before, and decided by, the constitutional authority. The parties here apply for authority to sue the United States. They apply for an act to authorize them to institute an action in the nature of a writ of right. The treaty has not pointed out the manner of deciding their claims, and what authority had Congress to give a right which is denied by the Constitution, in order to supply the defect of the treaty? In ordinary cases of claims to lands, when the parties fail in their application to Congress, they withdraw; and have these claimants a better right than others? Mr. S. was opposed to giving the right of action, when the constitution refused it. The King in Great Britain could not be sued, nor could the United States be sued in this country. Is this a claim against the Government of the United States? If it is, why don't the parties take possession of the land? If they were to take possession, then the legal course might be pursued. Sir, the principle of this bill is brought from another country. It is unknown to our constitution. If the right is not given by the constitution, to what extent will the principle be carried? Where would it end? Sir, there was a general bill embracing all claims, and those claims, in particular, which are now provided for by this bill, and that gentleman was opposed to it. Now, the claimants ask for an action of writ of right-a thing unknown to the constitution. The gentleman did vote against the general bill, and now he would have a particular bill. I can perceive no motive for not settling the claims; I can perceive no motive for calling on Congress for that which the constitution does not authorize Congress to give. I perceive, however, that certain gentlemen smile when the constitution is mentioned; but I, for one, am not disposed to violate it. [Here Mr. S. read from the constitution some of its provisions on the powers of the Judiciary.] The constitution, said Mr. S., could not be construed to authorize Congress to give a right which did not exist under the constitution. Why borrow precedents from England? But admitting that the constitution gives the right, why shall one man or set of men be provided for, when others might be entitled to the same privilege? Is there any justice in that? If this bill should pass, all SENATE.] Claim of Maison Rouge et al. claimants, without distinction, will be entitled in justice to a writ of right. Sir, let the principle be uniform and universal, if it must prevail. Mr. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, thought the bill providing for all the unsettled claims in Arkansas, Missouri, and Louisiana, much more calculated to violate the constitution than the one now before the Senate. He did not rise, however, to enter any farther into the discussion; but to make an explanation in answer to some remarks of the gentleman from South Carolina. The reasons why these claims had been withdrawn, when previously before the Senate, were, that great diversity of opinion existed in regard to them, and they were withdrawn for the purpose of presenting them in such form as more readily to answer the views of many of the Senators. Mr. J. recollected that, when these claims were presented to the other House, the claimants were told that if any of their number would sue the occupants, obtain judgment, and bring the decision before Congress, there would then be no difficulty in passing upon their claims. One person pursued the course pointed out. He went into Louisiana, commenced suits, and the result was, that every one who was sued, abandoned the land and his improvements, rather than to enter into a contest where he had no title; because he had settled on the land believing it to be the property of the United States. With regard to the claim of Bastrop, there were no conflicting titles; settlers had received their land on the principle of donations, and every man living on the grant had as good a title as the grantee himself. The real difficulty with respect to these claims, he would state to the Senate. The original grantee had entered into a contract with the Spanish Government, which was partially fulfilled. By this contract, the Government bound itself to pay the grantee a certain sum of money for every person he put upon the land. Afterwards finding that there was no money in the Treasury with which to comply with the terms of the contract, the Government suspended the settlements, and ordered that none farther should be made without giving a previous notice of two years. Under these circumstances, the question was, to how much land was the grantee entitled? If he had only performed one half the contract, is he entitled to one half of the land, or to how much? These questions, as he had before observed, could only be determined by a judicial tribunal. Mr. BENTON sympathized with the State of Louisiana. She had been hardly dealt with. She had been a part of this confederacy for twenty-five years, and in all that time no more than 200,000 acres of land had been sold by the Federal Government. [Mr. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, said only 185,000.] This is keeping the country a desert so far as the action of the Federal Government is concerned. At the same time, her private claims, to the amount of a million and a half of arpens, remained unconfirmed, to the great injury of the claimants. They could not make beneficial improvements; they could not make dykes and levees; they could not sell to any advantage; and they were subjected, as Mr. BENTON believed, to the payment of taxes. [The Senators from Louisiana, Messrs. JOHNSTON and BOULIGNY, in answer to a look of inquiry from Mr. BENTON, said they were subject to taxes.] All this is hard upon the claimants; but the State was a party to the injury. She suffered for want of population; for want of cultivation; for want of taxes; for want of dykes and levees. The whole upper country, the States up the river, was interested in having Louisiana populated. New Orleans was their magazine and their store. house; it was the most exposed point in the Union; and upon every alarm of invasion, real or imaginary, the people of the upper country were called out. They had always gone with alacrity; would forever go with alacrity. But the State ought to have means of defence [JAN. 21, 1829. within herself, and the first of these means was popula- Mr. BARTON did not agree with the gentleman from Messrs. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, and SMITH, of South Carolina, made some additional observations: after which Mr. PRINCE offered an amendment to the fourth section of the bill, the object of which was, to allow an appeal to the Supreme Court; but Mr. HAYNE suggesting that the object of the gentleman was already provided for by the bill, in directing the Attorney for the United States to take an appeal in case of an adverse decision, the motion to amend was withdrawn by Mr. PRINCE. On the question of engrossment for a third reading, Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, called for the yeas and nays; and the question being taken, it was decided in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, as follows: Chambers, Chase, Eaton, Foot, Hendricks, Johnson, of NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Branch, Chandler, Dickerson, |