Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

FEB. 10, 1829.]

South Carolina Protest.

ed of disrespect towards Mr. Madison, when dissenting from his principles; we endeavor to save the most precious work of his hands from being deformed, if not demolished, by the applications of the doctrines he has recently advocated.

[SENATE

It is known to many who now hear me, that the late Rufus King, in his place on this floor, and on various other occasions, explicitly denied the right of imposing duties upon imports, for the purpose of promoting manufactures; and, "though last not least," Thomas Jefferson-who, when living, was called the "Apostle of Liberty," and who has been almost canonized since his

That Congress has a right "to regulate commerce," and, under that power, may, in a proper case, resort to countervailing commercial regulations, is no more doubt-death-in one of the latest acts of his illustrious life, has ful, than that they may declare war, or raise money by a direct tax, or by duties upon imports. But that these powers may be resorted to as the means of directly promoting manufactures, or that they may be rightfully used for such a purpose (a purpose entirely different from, if not opposite to, that for which they were granted), is a proposition which will sanction any abuse, however extravagant, and leaves no limit to the powers of the Federal Government except its own arbitrary discretion. If the tariffs of 1824 and 1828 had, in truth, been designed to raise revenue, or intended as countervailing commercial regulations; if they had looked to commerce at all, and had not, in fact, been yielded to the importunity of the manufactures, and been designed exclusively for their benefit; there might have been some color of reason and justice in the attempt to bring them within the pale of the constitution. But when it is perfectly notorious that the end and aim of these acts was exclusively the protection of manufacturers, by a system destructive of free trade; when we know, from our experience, on recent occasions, that any attempt, on the part of Great Britain, to lessen her duties, and to open the door to a more unrestricted intercourse, instead of being met by a corresponding disposition on our part, is immediately followed up by new prohibitions and restrictions, lest foreign manufactures should be introduced into the country, and the people should be inflicted with the curse of obtaining their supplies from abroad cheaper than they could be procured at home; it appears to us to be little short of mockery to be told that the power of thus promoting manufactures arises out of the power of " regulating commerce." The State of South Carolina makes up its issue with the Federal Government on this point, whether her rights may be destroyed, and her interests sacrificed, under the forms of the constitution, but in direct violation of its spirit, and by a manifest departure from the true meaning and intent of that instrument.

I repeat, however, that it is not my intention to enter, at large, into the argument at this time. I shall content myself with merely opposing to the authority of Mr. Madison the venerable names of Pinckney, of King, and of Jefferson. I am not one of those who bow to the authority of great names; but it may be well to show, that, if authorities are to govern, they are not all on one side. It will be recollected by the Senate that the late Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, Rufus King, of New-York, and Mr. Madison, were the three last survivors of that band of statesmen who framed the instrument we are now called upon to expound. It appears from the journals of the Convention, that Mr. Pinckney exhibited a draught of an entire constitution, from which many parts of that finally adopted were borrowed; and it is known that he, as well as Mr. King, assisted largely in the deliberations of the Convention. Now, sir, from the time when this protecting system became the subject of public discussion and of controversy, up to the period of his death, it is known to me, personally, that Mr. Pinckney uniformly declared that it never was the intention of the framers of the constitution to conier on the Federal Government the power of promoting manufactures; that a proposition to that effect actually failed, as the journals of the Convention prove; and that, if such a construction had been contended for, at that time, the constitution would never have received the assent of the delegates of the Southern States.

VOL. V.-8

given us the authority of his great name, and denounced
the usurpation" in language that ought to sink deep
into the minds of the American people. I know, sir, that
the authority of Mr. Jefferson has lately been quoted in
favor of this abuse of power. But when we look to his
report of 1793, on the authority of which he is charged
with this political heresy, it is discovered that it treats
exclusively of countervailing commercial regulations; of
"protecting our citizens, their COMMERCE and NAVIGA-
TION," from the "prohibitions," &c., of foreign nations,
by "counter prohibitions, duties, and regulations." Mr.
Jefferson no where asserts that a system of protecting
duties may be rightfully resorted to as the means of direct-
ly promoting domestic manufactures. He states, indeed,
(what no one would attempt to deny) that one of the in-
cidental effects of such regulations may be the promotion
of manufactures, just as they always have received, and,
from the nature of things, always must receive, the pro-
tection arising out of a state of war, or incident to a sys-
tem of duties imposed exclusively for revenue. But, sir,
here is the declaration of Mr. Jefferson himself as to the
power of Congress in relation to one of the very acts
which the State of South Carolina has, in this protest,
denounced as unconstitutional. In Mr. Jefferson's let-
ter to Governor Giles, dated 16th December, 1825, speak-
ing of the "usurpations of the Federal Government,”
and in special reference to the tariff of 1824, he says:
"It is but too evident that the three leading branches of
that [the Federal Government] are in combination to strip
their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers re-
served to them, and to exercise, themselves, all functions,
foreign and domestic. Under the power to regulate
commerce,' they assume, indefinitely, that over agriculture
and manufactures; and call it regulation, too, to take the
earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that
too the most distressed, and put them into the pockets of
the other, the most flourishing of all." After this, what
candid man will pretend to doubt the opinion of Mr.
Jefferson? If it can be shown that, on any previous oc
casion, Mr. Jefferson used language on this subject sus-
ceptible of misconstruction, here is conclusive proof that
he died as he had lived, "true to the faith."

But, I feel that I have trespassed unreasonably on the indulgence of the Senate. Before I take my seat, however, it may be proper to notice one of the remarks of my colleague, which, I have reason to believe, has been the subject of some misapprehension. It may be supposed that, in alluding to the denunciations against the citizens of South Carolina, proceeding from certain meetings held during the last summer, in the States of Maryland and Kentucky, he had imputed to the States themselves the sentiments which he has marked with his just reprobation. I am sure that my colleague concurs. with me, and with the people of South Carolina, im seeking for the indication of public opinion, in these States, not from the meetings obviously springing from party excitement in a great political struggle, but from those other more numerous assemblages, headed by men of the highest character and talents, by whom ample justice has been done to the patriotism and public spirit of the South. Sir, we shall cherish the belief until it shall be torn from us by stubborn facts, that the great meetings in Maryland and Kentucky, whose proceedings have been immortalized by the eloquence of a McMahon and a Barry, presented a faithful expression of the sentiments of the

SENATE.]

Public Lands.

[FEB. 10, 1829.

great body of the people in those States-sentiments few remarks which it seems proper for me at this time to which will ever be gratefully remembered and cordially reciprocated by the people of South Carolina.

Mr. DICKERSON, in reply to the remarks of Mr. SMITH, upon the Committee on Manufactures, showed that the State of South Carolina had never experienced the least disrespect in regard to her memorials; but that they had been printed, and were on file.

Mr. SMITH said, if the Chairman of the Committee on Manufactures would show him a succinct report upon these memorials, he would ask the gentleman's pardon. Mr. DICKERSON replied, that he considered reporting a bill as reporting against the remonstrances. The protest was then ordered to be printed.

PUBLIC LANDS.

Mr. HENDRICKS presented the following joint resolution of the Legislature of the State of Indiana, on the subject of the right which that State has to the unappropriated lands within her boundaries.

"Resolved, &c. That this State, being a sovereign, free, and independent State, has the exclusive right to the soil and eminent domain of all the unappropriated lands within her acknowledged boundaries, which right was reserved for her by the State of Virginia, in the deed of cession of the Northwestern territory to the United States, being confirmed and established by the articles of confederacy, and the constitution of the United States.

"That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested, to use every exertion in their power, by reason and argument, to induce the United States to acknowledge this vested right of the State, and to place her upon an equal footing with the original States, in every respect whatsoever, as well in fact as in name.. "That his Excellency the Governor be requested to transmit a copy of this resolution to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, and to each of their Excellencies the Governors of each of the following States, to wit: Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, requesting them to lay it before the Legislatures of their respective States for consideration, and requesting them to adopt similar measures, if they should deem it expedient."

make. The Legislature have not, in these resolutions, presented the Senate with many arguments in support of this claim, nor is it my purpose at this time to detain you with arguments. The basis of this claim, though but partially, is very strongly set forth in the resolution referred to-the solemn stipulation of the State of Virginia,. in her deed of cession, that that portion of the ceded territory now forming the State of Indiana, should, when admitted into the Union, be received as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever; and the inviolability of these conditions as solemnly though silently guaranteed by the United States, on receiving that cession. It is believed that the pledge of these lands for the payment of the national debt, then existing, does not in the least interfere with this construction: for a long period of time was expected to intervene that period and the admission of this State into the Union; and thirty-two years did actually intervene, in which time it was competent to have sold the lands, or a part of them, and extinguish the debt. That this was the expectation is confidently inferred from the history of those times; and that it never could have lands after they should have fallen within the boundaries been the intention of Congress to interfere with those of States admitted into the Union, seems to be quite cershould be deprived of territory for the benefit of the tain-the article of confederation declaring, that no "State

United States."

It is believed that the compact not to interfere with the primary disposee of the soil, and not to tax the lands for Government to hold the soil of that State for any other a specified period, cannot confer power on the Federal purposes than those pointed out by the constitution, even if that compact had emanated from authority unquestionably competent to make it, and had been based on policy with this compact as long as it has the form of existence as unquestionable. There is no disposition to interfere in the statute book. But its validity is questioned, having been made by the people of the territory before the State

she does hold. She holds as a sovereign, and subjects the soil of the State to the uncontrollable action of her Legislative power.

was admitted into the Union, and its irrevocable character, as well as the perpetual obligation which it attempts to impose on the people of the State, is believed to be a dereliction of a fundamental principle of our institutions, which asserts the right of every free people to change Mr. HENDRICKS, in presenting these resolutions, their constitutions and laws, from time to time, as their said, it had become his duty to present to the Senate wisdom and experience may direct. Nor does it seem to Resolutions of the General Assembly of the State of In- strengthen the pretensions of right, to assert that the Gendiana, on the subject of the public lands within the limits eral Government may hold the soil of the State as an inof that State. These resolutions, said he, are similar individual may hold; for it is by no means in that character character to those of the State of Louisiana, a few days ago presented by a Senator from that State. They are also in some degree similar to the spirit of a memorial of the State of Illinois, recently presented to the Senate by a Senator from that State. In these resolutions, the Legislature of Indiana has solemnly declared that the State, being sovereign, free, and independent, has the exclusive right to the soil and eminent domain of all the unappropriated lands within her acknowledged boundaries, and that this right was reserved to her by the State of Virginia, in the deed of cession of the Northwestern territory to the United States-grounds which, if tenable, as I verily believe they are, strongly appeal to the justice and to the pride of the Senators and Representatives of that magnanimous State.

The Legislature of the State of Indiana have instructed her Senators and her Representatives to use every exertion in their power to induce the Congress of the United States to acknowledge this right, and to place her on an equal footing with the original States. In thus, sir, performing the first duty required of me by these resolutions, that of presenting them to the Senate, I hope I shall not be considered obtrusive in a very

But, if in error on these constitutional questions, still there is another point of view that demands our serious attention-the policy, the expediency, of continuing to assert this claim over the unappropriated lands of one-third of the States of this Union. It is true, that various propositions come from various quarters relative to the future disposition of the public lands; yet it is very certain that, all are dissatisfied with the present system, and anxiously demand a change. It must be obvious to every one, that while the public lands remain in the hands of the Federal Government, the new States will not, they cannot, be satisfied; because Congress is, and must ever be, entirely incompetent to legislate understandingly on the subject; and in saying this, surely no one will understand me as speaking disrespectfully of the National Legislature. I appeal to the Representatives of the old States, whose duties do not require them frequently to look into this matter, and ask them if they feel conscious of knowing very thoroughly the land system of the New States. I am very certain that a large majority will answer in the negative.

[blocks in formation]

And the reason is obvious: they have other duties quite sufficient to occupy their attention. They are more intimately concerned with the shipping, the commercial and the manufacturing interests of the country. These are their primary interests. But, were they ever so well acquainted with the land laws, is it possible for the Senators and Representatives of the old States ever to acquire that local knowledge of the country, its present condition, and future prospects, which is absolutely necessary to correct legislation? The Legislatures of the States are well acquainted with all these things. They know the qualities of the soil, the necessities of the people, and are better judges of the measures calculated to promote the prosperity of the country for which they legislate.

Need I say that the new States are disturbed and restless on this subject? Does this present a novel spectacle at the present day? Are many of the other great interests of the country less disturbed and restless? Look at some of them. The shipping interest complains of high duties on articles indispensably necessary in ship building, and of the depressed condition of their navigation. The merchants complain of the distraction of their business by the auction system, and the Southern States are groaning under the pressure of the tariff. The final extinguishment of the public debt is a period which is generally expected to afford relief. This period will probably arrive in about four years, and we shall then be able to reduce the revenue from twenty-five to ten or twelve millions. At this period the public lands will be released from the debt, for the payment of which, in the opinion of many, they are pledged, and, that difficulty removed, this is the period in which it seems pretty generally expected that the lands will be given up to the States. This event, I fondly hope, is not even so far distant. I hope that, if the constitutional ground of this claim should be resisted, that considerations of expediency alone will be sufficient to induce Congress to give the million received from the public lands, to the sovereignties of the States. On sheer calculation, this Government would be the gainer: for the increased population of the country would soon pay you more than that million in custom house duties on imported goods. No one can doubt that the settlers of every new State, in a short period of time, pay more to the Government on dutiable goods than they do for their lands. This, then, would make it good policy to give the lands away to actual settlers, rather than to retard the settlement of the country; because, by so doing, the industry of the people, and the means of consumption of imported goods, would be greatly increased.

There is not, [said Mr. H.] as I believe, any question in this Government less understood than the present one. The Senators of the old States seem to have fastened about their recollections the 1,000,000,000 of acres of public lands, and forget that nine-tenths of this is without the limits of the United States. This vast amount, at $1 25 per acre, is on paper an enormous sum; while the facts are, that your sales in all the States and territories, have averaged less than 1,000,000 per annum, and that, while you had 100,000,000 in market. They seem to overlook the fact, that giving it to the States is but giving it to their own citizens who emigrate to the new States: for locking up the country by the power of the Union, fixing a high minimum for the second and third-rate lands, and draining the new States of a circulating medium through the land offices, is directly preventing emigration to the country, It is, indeed, depriving the poorer classes of the old States of the means of procuring lands in the new States, and of living there, It is a policy which rallies round the landed interest; and the wealth of those States is oppressive to the poor, and, Pharaoh-like, refuses to let the people go. It is a policy which, if well understood, would be as little favored in the old States as in the new. I have said that the final payment of

[SENATE.

the national debt is a period looked to for alleviation of the public burthens. We have, to be sure, heard it asserted on this floor, not long since, that a party, or class of individuals, existed in this country, favorably inclined to a continuance of the debt; and who, for the sustenance of the manufacturing interests, would keep up the existing revenue. This class of politicians I believe does exist; but, for myself, can only say, that, though in favor of the manufacturing interests of the country, to this class I do not belong. I am for paying the debt, and believe that the ten or twelve millions necessary for the current expenses of the Government, including internal improvements, can be so imposed as sufficiently to protect the primary manufactures of the country: for then we may hope that many of them will have grown from infancy to manhood, and will need little protection. The debt once paid, the shipping and commerce of the North, and the agriculture of the South, may be partially if not wholly relieved from their burthens, and that then, if not sooner, the new States may fairly and sanguinely expect the Federal Government to acknowledge their right of sovereignty over public lands within their limits. An administration pursuing this line of policy will best promote the peace and harmony, as well as the real interests of the country. This policy consummated, would indeed bring the golden days of this republic; and that President of the United States who shall adopt and pursue it, will deserve the fairest page in the history of his country.

The reference being ordered,

Mr. NOBLE said it had become his duty, in connection with the remarks of his colleague, to present to the Senate a memorial to the Legislature of Indiana, relative to the continuation of the Cumberland Road within the limits of Indiana

Mr. N. having presented the memorial referred to by him, he then proceeded to remark, that it would ever afford him pleasure to promote the views of the Legislature of his State; but there were questions of policy on which he could not, consistently with his declared principles, obey the instructions of that Legislature. If he was to be proscribed for such opinions, he could not help it, and was not much disposed to fear it. His removal from office, and even his removal from life, would create no great chasm in human affairs. He believed that Congress would never assent to a relinquishment of the national domain to the States in which it lies; and, to hold out the idea that such a relinquishment would ever be made was injurious to the prosperity of the new States. Mr. N. spoke of the compacts under which the new States came into the Union, and expressed his opinion that the new States were disposed to adhere to them. He dwelt also upon the injustice of depriving the old States of their share in the public lands. Those States had protected the new settlements; they had been liberal in the mode adopted for disposing of the land; and in the mode for collecting the sums due for those lands. Through their indulgence and support, the new States had grown up to their preent population and strength. The resolution which he held in his hand was from the same Legislature which had adopted the resolutions presented by his colleague; and it looked to the fulfilment of the compacts on the part of the State, and on the part of the United States.

He moved the reference of the resolution, presented by his colleague, to the Committee on Public Lands, which was ordered accordingly.

WEDNESDAY, FEB. 11, 1829.
COUNTING ELECTORAL VOTES.

At twelve o'clock the members of the Senate repaired to the chamber of the House of Representatives, where the votes were counted, and the Vice President made proclamation of the result. [See the proceedings of the House

SENATE.] Purchasers of Public Lands.—Sinking Fund.-Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. [FEB. 12 to 24, 1829.

of Representatives of this day.] After returning to the Senate chamber,

Mr. TAZEWELL said, the joint committee appointed for that purpose had ascertained and reported the result of the election for President, and had directed him to move that a committee of one be appointed to join a committee on the part of the House, to inform ANDREW JACKSON that he has this day been elected President of the United States

Mr. TAZEWELL was then chosen the committee on the part of the Senate.

THURSDAY, FEB. 12, 1829.

The Senate was chiefly occupied this day in the consideration of Executive business.

FRIDAY, FEB. 13, 1829.

Nothing of sufficient interest occurred this day to give rise to debate. Adjourned to Monday.

MONDAY, FEB. 16, 1829.

A great many private bills were acted upon this day, and the Senate also sat a long time with closed doors.

TUESDAY, FEB. 17, 1829.

Mr. CHANDLER then withdrew his motion for commitment, and the bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

Mr. NOBLE then moved that the bill be engrossed and read a third time to-day.

The CHAIR said that it would be necessary to give the Committee on Engrossed Bills leave to sit during the sitting of the Senate.

Mr. NOBLE made the motion accordingly; but the unanimous consent of the Senate being necessary to carry it, and objection being made, the motion did not prevail.

THURSDAY, FEB. 19, 1829.

The Senate were chiefly engaged this day in the consideration of Executive business.

FRIDAY, FEB. 20, 1829.

THE SINKING FUND.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, from the Committee on Finance, to which was referred certain resolutions on the 12th of January last, in relation to the Sinking Fund and the public debt, made a report thereon, which was not read; and, on motion of

Mr. SILSBEE, it was ordered that one thousand extra

The Senate sat with closed doors for four hours this copies be printed. day.

WEDNESDAY, FEB. 18, 1829.

PURCHASERS OF PUBLIC LANDS.

On motion of Mr. NOBLE, the bill to revive and continue in force the several acts making provision for the extinguishment of the debt due to the United States by the purchasers of the public lands, was taken up for consider

ation.

Mr. NOBLE said, he conceived it to be his duty to make some observations in support of the bill. In a brief but impressive speech, he urged on the Senate the necessity for its passage; stated the impoverished situation of many of these purchasers of public lands; and his belief that, if the extension of time for payment, contemplated by the bill, was not granted, their property, acquired by many years' hard labor and toil, would be taken from them; they would be stripped of their all, &c.

Mr. CHANDLER inquired whether the bill had been reported on by a Committee.

The CHAIR answered in the negative; it had not yet been committed.

Mr. CHANDLER then moved its reference to the Committee on the Public Lands.

Mr. NOBLE had no other objection to the reference than the delay which might thereby be occasioned; indeed, as the session was so near its close, and as it was known that some of the members of the Committee on Public Lands were seriously indisposed, it might be that no report would be made on the subject. He invited the attention of the Senate to this, as he conceived, important matter, and hoped they would not allow the session to pass, without acting on a subject which involved some of the best interests of the Western country.

Mr. CHANDLER had no wish to retard the passage of the bill; it was, in his opinion, one of those important matters which ought to go to a committee, and therefore he made the motion. Whatever course the Senate should determine upou, however, would be satisfactory to him.

Mr. RUGGLES, in a few remarks, advocated the early passage of the bill; stated that it was a transcript of a law already in existence, which expired in July next, and the only object was to continue that law in force for one year longer, viz. till the fourth day of July, 1830, &c.

On the motion to print,

Mr. McLANE said that, while he had no objection to the printing, he owed to himself to state that, to the conclusion of the report on the first resolution to which it related, he dissented from a majority of the committee. The report in regard to the other resolutions, independent of its reasoning and the grounds of which the conclusions were predicated, had his assent. Without detaining the Senate at this time, he would take the opportunity of explaining his views at large when the report should be called up for the consideration of the Senate. Adjourned to Monday.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1829.

No business, to occasion debate, was transacted this day.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1829.

CHESAPEAKE AND DELAWARE CANAL. Mr. HENDRICKS moved that all the orders of the day, previous to bill No. 91, be postponed, and that the Senate take up that bill, entitled "An act to authorize a subscription to the stock of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company."

This motion was opposed by Mr. BENTON, upon the ground that it was unfair to give this bill precedence over others equally important, which were upon the table, and would come before it in regular order.

A very animated debate ensued, in which the motion was supported by Messrs. KANE and McLANE, on the ground of its importance, and that, if not taken up now, it would not be during the session; that the whole work upon the canal would thereby be delayed another year, and that a refusal to consider it was equivalent to rejecting the petition of the Company. It was according to usage to give important bills preference over minor ones, and the only question was, whether the present bill was of sufficient importance to take it out of its regular course.

Mr. BENTON and Mr. HAYNE opposed the motion as calculated to derange the order of business, as an unfair course towards other very important measures, which would be delayed, and as altogether unparliamentary.

Mr. BENTON expressed himself with much warmth in relation to bills which he had reported, and in which he felt an interest, and concluded by calling for the yeas

[blocks in formation]

and nays on the motion of Mr. HENDRICKS, which were ordered, and were as follows: Yeas 19, Nays 18.

So it was decided that the bill" to authorize a subscription to the stock of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company" should have the preference: and that bill was accordingly taken up.

Mr. TAZEWELL stated, that he had received, from the Directors of the Dismal Swamp Canal Company, a memorial of a nature similar to the one upon which this bill was founded, and which he had not presented to the Senate, because he had not anticipated the course which had just been pursued by the Senate, and had therefore concluded that no measure of the kind could pass through both Houses at the present session. It was due to a portion of the citizens he represented to present and press this measure upon the attention of the Senate; he should press it to a certain point, and there he should leave it, because he was opposed to the whole system, from the beginning to the end. He now, therefore, moved a recommitment of this bill, in order that an amendment might be made to it to include a subscription for a certain number of Shares of the Dismal Swamp Canal, and the two could go together. It was well known what his opinions were; he should vote against the bill, if the amendment was adopted.

Mr. HENDRICKS hoped the bill would not be recommitted for any such purpose, and he knew no argument so strong against the measure as that, if it was recommitted, it would not be reached again during the present session. He hoped the motion would not be adopted, because the effect would be to destroy both measures.

Mr. TAZEWELL had but one remark to make. It was well known that it was the general opinion, that, during the short session of Congress, no business of this kind would be acted upon. When he received the memorial in question, he entertained this opinion, and having no conception that the Senate of the United States would postpone all their orders of the day for the purpose of taking up particular bills, he had not presented it. He now, however, had felt it to be his duty to make the motion to include a subscription for stock to the Dismal Swamp Canal, in the present bill, and the Senate might dispose of it as they pleased.

Mr. NOBLE said, if gentlemen were decidedly opposed to a measure upon constitutional principles, he could not see the propriety of their moving amendments to bills for the purpose of destroying them, saying, at the same time, that they should vote against the bill, even if their amendment prevailed. If the gentleman from Virginia was unwilling to spend the public money for great national objects, why could he not let the people of Delaware and of Pennsylvania, who had no such scruples, enjoy the benefits of the system? For himself, when he was opposed to an object, he placed his vote and his remarks directly in opposition to that object, and did not endeavor to destroy a bill by indirect means.

Mr. HENDRICKS said, he would withdraw his opposition to the motion, if the gentleman from Virginia could state, in his place, the sums necessary to be applied to the Dismal Swamp Canal.

Mr. TAZEWELL replied that he had left the paper at home, and he was now under the necessity of adopting this course.

Mr. McLANE wished the gentleman from Virginia would withdraw his motion. He should vote for an appropriation to the Dismal Swamp Canal, when the subject was presented to the Senate in a distinct form. But was it not apparent that the course proposed would kill both measures? In this case he felt himself justified in making an appeal, and he did appeal to gentlemen not to allow this measure to pass over without being acted upon. The advocates of the bill had never, in a single instance, opposed any similar bill, from any part of the country. It

[SENATE.

would have been easy for them to have opposed the Louisville and Portland Canal bill; to have amended it and recommitted it, for the purpose of destroying it. But, in cases of this kind, they discarded all local considerations, and voted for the passage of all bills which were for the public good. He appealed to the liberality of Senators, and to the gentleman from Virginia himself. It was apparent that the success of his motion would be the means of rejecting the bill, therefore he should vote against laying it on the table, and against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Virginia; not because he was opposed to an appropriation for the measure proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, but because the effect of it would be to kill both measures.

Mr. TAZEWELL, in reply, repeated, that it was not supposed business of this kind would be acted upon at the short session; accordingly, he had exercised the sound discretion of a Representative of the people, and supposing it impossible to pass the measure, he had not proposed it. The Senator from Delaware, in receiving a memorial from the directors of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company, thought differently; he had presented it, and it had been acted upon He had no other course than the one he had pursued; and when gentlemen accused him of resorting to indirect measures, they most unquestionably did him injustice. He should vote against this bill, and he should vote against all propositions of the kind, whatever quarter they came from. There were certain States that entertained the belief, and they had avowed it, that there was such a thing as State sovereignty; their Representatives in Congress, upon the pledge of gentlemen, had said that they entertained the same belief; and what did it come to? Gentlemen say, if you entertain the opinion that you have no right to this money, give us, who entertain different opinions, all the revenue we can apply to these objects; and, for God's sake, continue in the same opinion, that there may be fewer to divide the spoil. He represented a country which had lived heretofore without the aid of the General Government. The opinions they entertained upon this and some other subjects they had taken up maturely and deliberately; we have always gone together, and we shall always entertain them. We will continue to live without the aid of this Government; we will turn neither to the right hand nor to the left in relation to this subject; and we will neither bend the knee nor doff the cap to obtain aid from this or any other administration.

Mr. McLANE said, he did not design to impute to the gentleman from Virginia the use of indirect means for the purpose of killing the bill; he had only stated that such would be the effect of the measure, if adopted; he had only said, if it was recommitted, it was rejected; and if there should be a failure of both measures, who was gratified? Why, the gentleman from Virginia; because, from his motion to amend, the bill was killed entirely. He read from the journal to show, that, when this bill was originally before Congress, the gentleman from Virginia had made a motion similar to that which he had made today, which had been rejected.

Mr. NOBLE also added a few words in explanation of what he had said when up before.

Mr. WEBSTER said, he felt bound to say, he could see nothing exceptionable, or out of the common course, in the measure proposed by the gentleman from Virginia ; and, although he should not vote with him, yet it seemed that this method of killing the bill was perfectly natural, perfectly parliamentary, and perfectly fair. Every amendment, whether proposed by those opposed to the bill or not, was worthy of the consideration and respect of the Senate; and there was nothing more conformable to parliamentary usage and practice, than, when a measure was on its passage, for those opposed to it to propose amendments, to make it better and more agreeable to

« AnteriorContinuar »