into an account of dollars and cents. He asked whether the public lands were to be debited with the expenses of the removal of the Indians and the payment of agents. The trustee was bound to give all the benefit to the person for whose trust he held the money, and the person for whose use and benefit the trustee undertook to apply his money faithfully had a right to expect the full benefit. He spoke of the great importance of the purchase of Florida to the country, and especially the southern States, in preventing a lodgement of a foreign enemy, independent of its pecuniary value. He had no doubt that, after deducting these sums improperly debited to the public lands, and allowing a reasonable sum for all necessary appropriation, there would be enough left to fully equal the amount proposed for distribution. He would not go into so labored an argument as some others to show what would be left in the Treasury.

At the close of the last quarter, there was in the Treasury thirty-one millions; and, at the end of the next quarter, there would probably be thirty-three millions, and they had in bank stock, nominally, seven millions, but which would probably be equal to seven millions five hundred thousand dollars, and by adding these sums together, they had at the end of the year about seventytwo millions. To avoid every thing like mistake, he deducted three millions five hundred and sixty-seven thousand dollars, and still there would be upwards of sixty-seven millions left. The late Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. McLane) had estimated all the ordinary wants of the Government at fifteen millions, and, taking that as the data, there would still be twenty-five millions left; and he confidently asked, if, after all the wants of the Government were provided for, there would be twenty-five millions needed, unless they increased the army and navy to an unreasonable extent? He cited documents from the War Department to show that a great increase of the army was not wanted, and that the notion of fortifications, on the scale contemplated, was exploded, as not calculated for general defence; and they were useful only at certain important points; and that a board of examination had been recommended to point out the most eligible points for their erection; and that it was not recommended to go on with all the fortifications this year, but to expend the appropriation this year in completing those already begun. Forts, if not manned and armed, might serve the enemy as a place of security and annoyance, instead of defence against them. The radicals in 1822-'3-'4, and '5, were in favor of the fortification system. They might think they could take the lead and regulate public opinion on that subject; but they would find that public opinion would regulate them, if they saddled a standing army on the country. These armies employed to fight for the Government would think it necessary to do their voting, and the militia of the country would rise en masse, and vote to abolish them. They might give what they pleased for their navy, and get out all the timber they could to build all the ships they could, and they could not consume the surplus. He understood there was a project started to invest the surplus in stocks-but that would increase the difficulty, and instead of getting clear of the surplus, they would have an increase of it.

The Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads had brought to bear a steam power to help them to get rid of it; and to that system he entered his solemn protest. The Postmaster General had now the power to make contracts with these steam car companies for the transportation of the mails; and if he had not the power, he was in favor of giving it to him. He argued at very considerable length against the measure proposed by the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, to show the difficulties in which it would involve the Government in becoming connected with these companies; and if the

VOL. XII.-81

[SENATE.

power was doubted, in passing the distribution bill, this Post Office bill was still more objectionable. He relied upon the sound integrity of the Chief Magistrate in reconsidering his former views, when he found the people desired this distribution of the surplus. If, then, they had money enough, and none of these projects were received with the same favor as this, the question was, whether it would not be sound policy to adopt it. It was said that its passage would have the effect to destroy a spirit of manliness, which was necessary to keep the federal Government in tone. When the people would understand that the money they received was not a gratuity or a bounty, but was taken from their own funds, and returned to them, they would not be decoyed into useless experiments. He would never think of distributing, except in cases of an extraordinary accumulation like the present. The State Governments understood quite as well how to manage their affairs as the United States did to manage its affairs, and would make a judicious disposition of the quota they would respectively receive.

Another difficulty was suggested. There was a number of new States, and some going to be admitted; and if they went into the system of dividing the revenue from the public lands, the old States would hold on to the high prices, and never consent to the reduction of them. It was right for gentlemen from the new States, who really thought so, to oppose this bill. But he did not believe the objection well founded. They must always suppose an integrity and magnanimity of character in the thirteen old States, upon which they could rely for justice. He had been raised in a new State himself, and he was ready to say that the moment he voted for the distribution, he should be as ready to vote for a reduction, so as to enable the inhabitants of the new States to purchase land for a home for themselves and families. He had voted against the amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. WALKER,] because he did not think it could answer the purpose intended, but declared himself friendly to a gradual reduction that would benefit the settlers, let the fate of this bill be what it might, and would vote for a graduation principle, such as would protect the honest settler. If any thing should put him out of humor on that subject, it would be because his own State had not received any thing from the general Government. He spoke of the facili ties loans from banks afforded to combinations for the purposes of speculation, and of the inability of those not concerned in them to compete with them in the purchase of public lands. Those speculators lived upon their wits instead of their labor. He closed by portraying the general benefits that would result from the passage of the bill, which would check this system of speculation, and bring back a return of a wholesome and sound currency; it would be the means of sustaining these banks; it would be invested in internal improvements and general education, and none of the other projects ought to come into collision with it, as there was money enough for them all. It was returning to the States what was their own money, and he would never consent that they should be treated as infants, incapable of acting for themselves.

Mr. WALKER submitted the following amendment: which was to strike out the distribution according to the last census, and insert a distribution according to the compound representation of the respective States in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Mr. W. said that if this distribution bill should be forced upon us, whether he should vote for or against it, he wished to see it made as perfect as posible. That his amendment was in accordance with that feature of the constitution which regarded the States as coequal sovereignties, which provided for their equal represent

SENATE.]

[APRIL 25, 1836.

Mr. CLAYTON returned his thanks to the gentleman from Mississippi for his kind intentions towards little Delaware, though she would be very glad to get the proportion allotted to her in the shape it came from the committee. Should any member in favor of little Delaware come before them on a future occasion, he would be happy to receive the gentleman's support; but, for the present, he must beg to decline his proffered kindness. The bill gave to Delaware her proportion; not according to the ratio of her representation in the other House; not according to the number of her Senators and Representatives in both Houses; but apportioned her share of the distribution on the basis of her federal population, which was the only true and just principle of distribution. With this Delaware would be satisfied.

Mr. CLAY opposed the amendment, as not in accordance with the provisions of the deed of cession from the State of Virginia, declaring that the lands given by her should be held for the common benefit of all the States then in the Union, and those that might thereafter come into it; and that the distribution should be made in proportion to the burdens borne, respectively, by the several States, of the general expenses of the Government. The amendment, therefore, of the Senator from Mississippi would be unconstitutional; the only true principle of distribution, complying with the terms of the deed of cession, was on the basis of federal population.

Mr. WALKER replied, disclaiming any disrespectful reference to Delaware, and eulogizing her valor and patriotism at the period of the Revolution. He said that if the distribution proposed by him violated the terms of cession, so did this bill; for it proposed to give a certain additional per centage of the proceeds of these lands to some States, and not to others. Mr. W. denied that his proposition violated the terms of the compact. These terms (admitting even that they remained in force after the adoption of the constitution) did not grant these lands as a common fund to the several States in proportion to their population, but upon a different ratio, nameJy, in proportion to "their usual respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure." Now, (said Mr. W.,) the usual general charge" in carrying on this Government, is not in proportion to population. The exporting States, of which Mississippi is one of the largest, bear a proportion in sustaining this Government, both in war and in peace, far beyond their population. In war they bear nearly the whole pecuniary burden; for their great staple falls to a mere nominal price, whilst home manufactures rise in value; and in peace, the tariff, from which we derive our revenue, whilst it is thought to aid the manufactures of the North, depresses the value of the Southern staples. In any point of view, the charges upon the people of the Union are not in proportion to population. It is true, direct taxes are in proportion to the federal population, and we are told taxation and representation go together; but taxation and representation do not go together, in their full

sented in the Senate. If representation is to be the criterion, that criterion, under our constitution, should be the representation in both Houses of Congress, as he (Mr. W.) proposed. If taxation was to be the criterion, direct taxation would furnish no practical rule on the subject. Direct taxation was one only of the modes of supporting this Government-a most unusual one-and Mr. W. thought it probable would never be resorted to again. The usual general charge" upon the States is the tariff; and this does not operate in proportion to population.

Whilst, Mr. W. said, he was no believer in "the forty bale theory," yet he proceeded to prove that, under the tariff system, the exporting States bear more than their proportion of the charges of conducting the Government; it affects them both as consumers and exporters, whilst those States that export nothing are affected as consumers only. Mr. W. then pointed to that clause of the bill which proposed to distribute the proceeds of the sales of the lands in 1840 and 1841, according to the last census, whereas they should, according to the theory of the bill, be distributed according to the next cen sus, which will greatly increase the share of Mississippi, and ought to be done if the present ratio was retained. Mr. NILES made some remarks in favor of the amendment. He said these lands were ceded as a common fund, to pay the debts of the confederation and carry on the war; and if they were considered a fund belonging to the States, there was much reason to believe they belonged to them as sovereignties; but if they were the exclusive property of the Union, then there was an arbitrary power in the Government over their distribution. He regarded the whole scheme as an indirect system of internal improvement, and in carrying it out a regard ought to be had to the distribution among the States according to their respective wants and necessities; they ought to give the most to those that needed it most. Some States had just commenced their internal improvements, and would need more than others. The State of New York had finished hers, and would not need any assistance. If there was any principle in this bill, it was in favor of this amendment. The States had formerly stood upon equal footing, and little Delaware then stood up as an equal with Virginia. He belonged to one of the small States, and was opposed to the whole scheme; but if they were to be bought up, he wanted as high a price as he could get.

Mr. CLAYTON referred to the deed of cession from the State of Virginia, to show that the principle contained in the amendment was unconstitutional. The deed of cession required that the distribution of the fund arising from these lands should be made according to the respective proportion contributed by them of the general charges and expenditures of the Government. Now, could the gentleman from Mississippi tell him that Mississippi and Delaware paid a proportion of the expenses of the Government, equal to the proportion of their Senators and Representatives in Congress? and if not, how the distribution proposed by his amendment (taking the additional amount given to these two States from the other States) would be just? Now, the apportionment on the basis of federal population was the only just one, because it was on that basis that the direct taxes were apportioned. Mr. C., after taking a view of the two messages of the President recommending a distribution of the surplus revenue on the basis of federal population, and reading copious extracts from it, said that the distribution on that basis, as recommended by the President, was the only just one, and that he heartily agreed in opinion with him. By apportioning the distribution according to the representation in the other House,

Delaware would be treated with great injustice, because she had but one Representative, and wanted but a frac tion of population, according to the apportionment of Representatives, to entitle her to two; while a distribution, according to the number both of Senators and Representatives, would give Delaware three shares, though she was entitled to but two, or nearly two, and would be unjust to the large States.

Mr. WALKER said he had not said the additional per centage was unequal; he had only said it was not, according to the proposed ratio of federal population, and, therefore, if this ratio could be departed from in the one case, it could in the other, as proposed by him, (Mr. W.) That the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] must be hard pressed for argument when he rallied the friends of the bill against a just amendment, by saying it had emanated from him, (Mr. W.,) an enemy of the bill. Mr. W. said it was true he had feared the policy of the bill was to defeat pre-emption laws, to keep up the price of the public lands, to keep up the tariff on the lands of the West, whilst it was reduced in all other cases; and that he had deeply lamented the failure for the present of this amendment reducing the price for four forty-acre lots in favor of actual settlers only, which would have greatly benefited the poor man and the actual cultivator of the soil. But, he had not told the Senate how he should now vote. Since this bill was introduced, the old States had, he feared, become more and more rigid in regard to the settlers in the new States-that they were now opposing pre-emptions as well as a reduction of the price. That as regards the settlers, the speeches of gentlemen in their favor were very good things; but when gentlemen spoke one way for the settlers, and voted another way against them, their speeches amounted to less than nothing. That no provision, as regards any ratio of distribution was designated by the constitution; and that to disregard the representation of the States in the Senate altogether, was to make an approach towards breaking down the State sovereignties and consolidating the Government.

Mr. W. said there were peculiar reasons why the principle of distribution which he proposed now might be very just at this period, and yet not constitute a standing precedent. All the new States (but one) are small States, whose fund would be increased by the principle he proposed to adopt; and that this would be only returning to the people of the new States, who paid into your Treasury nearly all this fund, a large ratable proportion of the moneys paid by themselves. Mr. W. said if he had proposed to divide this fund equally among all the States, without regard to population, there might be some ground to complain; but when his proposed distribution adopted the compound ratio of representation in both Houses, fixed by the constitution, it would come much nearer to a just basis, under existing circumstances, than the last or the next census.

Mr. CLAY said that the gentleman from Mississippi, it was true, offered strong inducements to Delaware to obtain the support of her Senators to his amendment, and, these failing, he had offered another, by way of compliment to her Senator, and that had also failed-the Senator from Delaware's sense of justice outweighing all other considerations. The gentleman referred to the inequality in the bill which gave the 12 per cent. to the new States. Now, if the Senator's sense of justice towards the old States was so strong as to induce him to move to strike out this provision, and he could get the gentleman from the other new States to agree with him, he (Mr. C.) did not know that he would persist in a desire to retain it. Mr. C. then went on to show that the distribution according to the basis of federal population was the only just one, and urged the Senate not to adopt the amendment, as going to defeat the bill.

[SENATE.

Mr. PORTER observed, in reply to Mr. WALKER, that as the Senator from Mississippi had not given any pledge to vote either for or against the bill, he was still open to conviction, and he hoped he might be induced to go for it. Now, he had made up his mind to vote for the bill, and, being friendly to it, he dreaded the effect the amendment would have in the other House. In the Senate the small States were strong, but in the other House the tables would be turned; there will (said Mr. P.) be forty to one against us. He therefore could not vote for the amendment, as he believed it would defeat the bill.

Mr. BLACK observed that he had carefully examined the deed of cession from the State of Virginia, and was satisfied, after full reflection, that the amendment of his colleague conflicted with its provisions. He was therefore compelled to vote against it.

The question was here taken on Mr. WALKER'S amendment, and it was rejected: Yeas 6, nays 37, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Ewing of Illinois, Linn, Niles, Robinson, Walker-6.

NAYS-Messrs. Black, Brown, Buchanan, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, McKean, Mangum, Moore, Morris, Naudain, Nicholas, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Robbins, Shepley, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tomlinson, Webster, White, Wright--37. The Senate then adjourned.

TUESDAY, APRIL 26.

TEXAS.

Mr. MORRIS presented the proceedings of a large and respectable meeting of the citizens of Cincinnati, on the subject of the struggle for freedom now going on in Texas, and suggesting the expediency of acknowledging the independence of that country. Mr. M. asked that the proceedings might be read, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. KING, of Alabama, suggested to the Senator from Ohio, whether it was not going too far, in the present aspect of the affairs of Texas, to refer these proceedings to a committee. However strong, he said, our feelings might be in favor of these unfortunate men who were struggling for the preservation of their dearest rights, as well as for their very existence, and however deep our abhorrence and detestation of the cruel and tyrannical conduct of their invaders, yet he thought that the acknowledgment of their independence at this time, or the adoption of any measure looking to it, seemed to be premature. He admitted there was a strong feeling on this subject pervading every portion of this country, and it was natural that it should. The people of this country could not but deeply sympathize with those who were contending for the dearest rights of man, and must necessarily feel a powerful sense of indignation at the blood-stained atrocities which had marked the desolating progress of their cruel oppressors. This was all very natural; but for the Senate to interfere in the present state of affairs, he thought was prema. ture; and he suggested to the gentleman from Ohio, whether the best course would not be to lay the proceedings on the table.

Mr. WALKER said that he hoped the motion to lay these proceedings upon the table would not prevail; that such a course would not be expressive of the sense of the people of the United States; that the sympathies of the American people were deeply excited in regard to the situation of Texas; that there were thousands of American citizens invited by Mexico to participate in the blessings of a federal Government and of free insti

tutions--invited to settle the wilderness and defend the Mexicans against the then frequent incursions of a sav age foe, and now attempted to be trodden down beneath the feet of the most sanguinary despot and usurper that had ever disgraced the annals of the world; that, in point of fact, Santa Anna and his priests and mercenaries were the rebels, and not the people of Texas; that it was Santa Anna and his party who had prostrated the federal Government of Mexico, and were now attempting to establish upon its ruins a central military despotism; that the people of Texas had fought for the federal constitution of 1824, and adhered to it until all hope of its preservation had been extinguished; and that then, and then only, when the only alternative presented was to receive the chains of a usurper, or resist unto death, they had nobly unfurled the flag of independence, resolved to maintain their liberties or perish in the conflict. Nobly, gloriously, had they maintained the unequal contest; they would perform deeds of valor that would challenge a comparison with any thing in Greek or Roman history. Such men could not be vanquished. No! the sun was not more certain to set in the western horizon, than that Texas would maintain her independence, and that we would acknowledge it. The death of the murdered heroes at the Alamo, of prisoners of war massacred in cold blood by the orders of a ruthless tyrant, would call down upon him the vengeance of earth and Heaven. It had excited a thrill of horror throughout this Union, and was now bringing the evidences of public feeling before this body. Let us now, then, give to these proceedings in favor of Texas that respectful reference to which they are so justly entitled, and which, whilst it does not now violate the neutrality of this Government, will cheer onward, in the hour of gloom and danger, a people who are imitating the example of the patriots of our own Revolution, and whose destiny will be the same.

Mr. MORRIS was well assured that this was a question of great delicacy, and that they should proceed with much caution. He agreed with his friend from Mississippi that the public mind was much excited on the subject, and that the sympathies of our people were deeply roused in favor of the suffering Texians. As a citizen, individually, he accorded fully with the feelings expressed in the proceedings of this meeting, but as an American Senator he felt that he ought to act with some caution. He believed that the people of Cincinnati spoke the united voice of the whole State, and that their meeting would be followed by other meetings, not only in Ohio, but in every part of the Union. He was willing to lay the proceedings on the table for the present, as suggested by the Senator from Alabama, and the more so, as he had been informed that similar memorials would be presented from other parts of the United States, when the Senate, having the sentiments of the country more generally expressed, might think proper to call up the proceedings, and act on them.

The proceedings were then laid on the table.

DUTIES ON IMPORTS.

Mr. DAVIS, pursuant to leave, introduced a bill to amend the act entitled "An act to amend the several acts imposing duties on imports;" which was read a first

time.

Mr. D. moved the second reading of the bill, and said it required a word of explanation. It would be remembered by all that the tariff of imports underwent an entire revision in 1832. It would be seen that, in passing such a law, it was not convenient to enumerate all articles of merchandise, as it would render an act too voluminous. Articles of merchandise were, therefore, as far as they conveniently could be, classed. In doing this, it brought goods of like character, and subject to

[APRIL 26, 1836.

like duties, together; but some kinds of merchandise were mixed in their character, being made of different materials, as of cotton and wool, silk and wool, or cotton and silk, and thus it became difficult sometimes to assign such articles to their proper class.

It had so proved in regard to lead, which, in its unmanufactured state, was subject to a heavy duty of three cents a pound, while in some of its manufactured states it was only liable to fifteen per cent. It was, therefore, immediately introduced in the form of busts, and then applied to any purposes for which lead was needed, being substantially, for all purposes, considered as unmanufactured. Yet the courts held that it was manufactured lead in this form of busts, and subject to a duty only of fifteen per cent. It became necessary to pass an explanatory act, to carry into effect the real purpose of the law, by giving suitable protection to the produ cers of lead, and busts are now on the footing of unmanufactured lead.

The bill now introduced is to meet a like unexpected construction of the law. The second section of the law, after providing specific duties for carpets, baizes, &c., says, "and upon merino shawls made of wool, all other manufactures of wool, or of which wool is a component part, and on ready-made clothing, fifty per cent." Worsted goods were imported into New York, and not being otherwise provided for in the act, the collector decided that they were manufactures of wool, and fell under the above provisions. The importer thought otherwise. He admitted that worsted is made of wool, but denied that a cloth made of worsted was a manufacture of wool. He paid the duty, reserving to himself the right to sue for the excess, and recover it back. The suit was instituted, and has lately been decided in the Supreme Court of the United States; and although we all here, when the law was made, believed what was made of wool was a manufacture of wool, yet the court decided that worsted cloth was not a manufacture of wool, and therefore that worsted shawls were not embraced in the provision referred to. Having thus decided, it became necessary to determine what duty such goods must pay. No specific provision for them could be found, and the question was admitted to be full of difficulty; they were, however, assigned a place among certain silk goods. The object of this bill is only to restore the legitimate purpose and meaning of the act of 1832; otherwise injustice will doubtless be done to both wool grower and manufacturer, as goods will be contrived for various purposes, and be extensively introduced under this construction of the law. Having thus explained his object, he would move that the bill be referred to the Committee on Manufactures, and hoped for their speedy action upon it.

The bill was then read a second time, and referred to the Committee on Manufactures.

LAND BILL.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill to appropriate, for a limited term, the proceeds of the public lands, &c.

Mr. CLAY rose to address the Senate in support of the bill. He observed that more had been already urged, with great ability, in its support, by those who had preceded him in debate, than was necessary to convince even the most skeptical of the great benefits to be derived from it; and had he consulted the feelings both of that body and of himself, he should have remained silent, acquiescing in what had been said in behalf of this measure. But regarding it as one of great and unmixed public good, conducive in all its results to the benefit of this whole country, he could not reconcile it to a sense of duty to leave the burden of the argument on his friends, able as they had shown themselves to be.