Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

DEC. 17, 18, 1827.]

Duties on Imports.—School Lands in Indiana.

lature have been convened. The proposition would then
be fairly before the People, and no act would take place
in which they were not disposed to acquiesce. He sug-
gested this to the gentleman from Indiana, as a prudent
modification of this bill.
greater, he would have proposed it himself; but, the
Were the quantity of land
amount being small, he only threw out this suggestion.

Mr. HENDRICKS said, that he did not distinctly hear
the gentleman's remarks; but, in relation to the sugges
tion, he, (Mr. H.] did not feel prepared to offer any amend-
ment to the bill. He should wish the bill to pass in its
present form. But, if the gentleman desired to examine
its merits, or to offer any amendment, he had no objec
tion to laying it on the table, the more especially as his
colleague was not now in his seat.
to lay it on the table; which was agreed to.
He therefore moved

DUTIES ON IMPORTS.

Mr. HAYNE said, he had received a communication, conveying a memorial, which he was requested to present, and to which he would call the particular attention of the Senate. It related to a subject of great importance, and advocated those principles of free trade in defence of which we had already waged two wars, and on the preservation of which, he was persuaded, the prosperity and permanence of the Union depended. The memorial was signed by no less than fifteen hundred and sixty-two inhabitants of Boston and its vicinity; and he was assured, that there were among the names of the memorialists, many of the most enlightened, learned, and disinterested citizens of that metropolis, and not a few of the most intelligent and reflecting of her manufacturers, all of whom had here united in a decided remonstrance "against any increase of duties on imports, and especially "on the important and essential article of woollen manufactured goods." The memorial was written with great ability, and contained facts and arguments, which Mr. H. could not bring himself to believe, would be disregarded by any enlightened Legislature. There was displayed, throughout, a pervading good sense, and a practical knowledge, which, added to a tone of candor and moderation, could not fail to secure for the memorial the most respect ful consideration of the Senate. Mr. H. said, he wished that it might be now read, in order that the attention of the Senate might be seriously called to a subject, certainly second in importance to none that could come be fore them during the present Session. Mr. HAYNE said, he could not take his seat without expressing the satisfaction he felt in receiving the unequivocal evidence afforded by this memorial, that the cause of "free trade and unrestricted industry" was not yet lost in the East. league [Mr. SMITH] and himself would, in a few days, submit to the Senate the memorials from South Carolina, on the same subject, and he could not but hope that the united efforts of the agriculturists, merchants, and "judicious manufacturers," might yet save the country from the evils of the "prohibitory system." Mr. H. then submitted the following letter, which was read:

His col

"Boston, Dec. 12th, 1827.

Sir: The Committee of the citizens of Boston, and the vicinity, opped to an increase of duties on imports, have the honor, herewith, to forward to your care a memorial on this important subject, of which they request an early presentation to the Senate, and such an advocat of its principles as shall seem to you called for, by the arguments therein contained, as applied to the interests of the whole Nation. There are, Sir, among the names of the memorialists, those of many of tar most enlightened, learned, disinterested citizens, and not a few of the most intelligent, judicious, and reflecting, of our Manufacturers daviction that the best interests of the country are involved in this ption, and will be promoted by the abandonment of any further Ecation of this system of high duties. The Committee have the to be, sir, with great respect, your very humble servants, Bath, Geddard, Lemuel Shaw, Isaac Winslow, William Goddard, Each Silsby, Thomas W. Ward, Edward Craft, Lot Wheelwright, Brary Lee, R. D. Shipherd, Samuel Sweet, William Foster, Daniel Parker, Joseph Baker, Samuel C. Gray, Committee,

of Cotton and Woollens. The Committee have the most entire

To the Hun, Robert Y. Hayne, Washington,"

10

[SENATE.

zens of Boston and its vicinity, against an increase of duMr. HAYNE then submitted the memorial of the citities on importations; which was read, ordered to be printed, and on motion of Mr. H. referred to the Committee on Manufactures.

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1827.
SCHOOL LANDS IN INDIANA.

State of Indiana to sell the lands heretofore appropriated
On motion of Mr. NOBLE, the bill to authorize the
to the use of Schools in that State, was taken up.
this bill, or say much upon it. He, however, disapproved
Mr. BARTON said, it was not his intention to oppose
of the practice, which seemed to be gradually becoming
general, for States to sell out the lands appropriated for
believed, had been commenced by Ohio; but Ohio was
specific objects, although he allowed that, in the present
differently situated from the other Western State's, In
case, the quantity of land was small. The practice, he
the year 1802, when Ohio was admitted into the Union,
she declined acceding to that clause in the cr,mpact, in
relation to reserves of land for schools, which vested the
36th section in the several towns.
in Congress, which vested those lands in Ohio in the Le-
gislature, and, consequently, gave it a righ to sell them.
He supposed that Ohio might have sold
In 1804, a law passed
out applying to the United States. But it was not so with
the other States. They had not obi
in which the lands had been appropriated.
ected to the manner

.hese lands with

the townships must be consulted, and give their consent, before the lands could be disposed of. A glance at the His view of the matter was, nat the inhabitants of all geographical map of those States would convince the Senate that no satisfactory measure could be taken on that head. be perceived, were not now inhabited at all. His objection, therefore, was, that it was impossible for the sale to A great number of the townships, it would be made fairly in relation to most of those townships, which were at present merely nominal. If the Legisla ture would provide against any future difficulties arising out of the sale, there might be no impropriety in passing the bill; and if the Senate was willing to trust the Legislature, so be it.

member from Alabama, that when a bill was formerly passed in Congress, for the same purpose, in relation to He had, however, been informed by the that State, all the townships had not been willing to accede to the disposal of the lands.

withheld from the State of Indiana that which they had Mr. NOBLE said, that he should regret if the Senate Legislature of Indiana had, by their resolution, instructed him, with others, to ask for the passage of a bill similar granted to the States of Ohio and Alabama. That the to the one now before the Senate. If gentlemen will turn their attention to the act of Congress, of April 19, 1816, in relation to the School Lands in question, they will find that the section numbered sixteen, in every Township, and, when such section had been sold, other lands, vere trict for the use of Schools. The fact of the Legislature applying to Congress for permission to sell the lands, is to be granted to the inhabitants of the Township or Dis. an evidence that they are not productive, and the informa tion is derived from the members of the Legislature. The bill is sufficiently guarded. The power to sell the lands, and to invest the money in some productive fund, which is to be applied for the use of Schools in the Townships, solely, and for no other purpose, can never be done without the consent of the inhabitants of the Township. Mr. N. said, he thought that the gentleman from Missouri might be mistaken-that he was well aware that the Legislature would never sell the lands in Townships inhabited, or partially so their object would be, when they brought it into market, to obtain the best price possible,

:

SENATE.]

Imprisonment for Debt.

[DEC. 19, 1827.

and never to sell it for the minimum price; that, in pro- Revolution, [General SUMPTER,] from the horrors and portion to the fund becoming productive, so would edu- mortification of a jail. The same barbarous law could cation flourish. The reason to him was clear. To sell have torn from his home and his family the illustrious the land as wild lands, for less than the minimum price, author of the Declaration of our Independence. These would be folly; and to offer it for sale in a township un- two cases only served to place before the public the ininhabited, could not be expected, because the competi-famy of the system in more conspicuous colors. But he tion would be too great, as the section of land would be cared not whether the law affected the high or the low. surrounded by lands superior in quality, belonging to the He protested against it before God, who made men free Government, and always in market. The sole object of and equal. His duty, as a Representative and as a man, the Legislature would be to protect the fund for the bene- was to protect the rights of the lowest as well as the highfit of the inhabitants of the several townships by the con est of the community. sent of each, and to sell only in the portions of the country that was strongly inhabited. It has happened that, in some instances, those, who have leased the school lands, have rendered them unproductive, instead of productive, by cutting and disposing of the timber, selling and disposing of the stone. There had been instances, that school lands were the place of resort for timber and stone, by those who had no lease. He concluded by saying, that, for the purpose of preventing, in time, the naked soil alone remaining for the inhabitants of the townships, the power had better be placed in the hands of the Legislature, with the consent of the inhabitants as to the future disposition of them.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1827.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

The bill to abolish imprisonment for debt, having been made the special order of the day for this day, was then taken up.

He did not pretend to say, that the abolition of imprisonment for debt would not sometimes favor dishonest debtors. He would admit that dishonest men would sometimes be relieved by it. But was that an argument against it? As well might the advocates of torture oppose its abolition, because confession of guilt had sometimes been extorted from the sufferer on the rack. One thing he knew, that the malicious and vindictive would be disarmed of this their legal weapon of persecution. He also knew that honest and unfortunate debtors would be protected against the cruel and selfish creditor. He was not disposed, however, to censure those views of the subject which differed from his own. Our Creator had so constructed the human mind, that the most highly gifted in intellect are not exempted from prejudice. In that situation was Paul, when he verily thought he was doing God service by persecuting the followers of our Saviour. It would hardly be thought that the community, and the many enlightened men who denounced this system as cruel and barbarous, were deluded on the subject. No. He was convinced in his own mind, that the delusion was on the other side of the question. But, Sir, said Mr. J. it is not sufficient for the establishment of a principle, that it is denounced by me or others.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, rose, and said, that, if any member of the Senate was opposed to the bill on principle, he would willingly give way to hear the objec He was prepared to prove it-First, as to mesne protions to it, that he might have an opportunity of meeting cess. The first provision in the bill is to provide against them at some other time, as he did not feel inclined nor the vexation of holding a defendant to bail upon mesne prepared to enter upon the merits of the question as fully process-that is, to abolish imprisonment upon mesne proas he could wish. It was not from levity that he persist- cess. He had in his hand an authority to prove that holded in pressing this bill upon the Senate. It was no playing the defendant to bail previous to the trial of the cause, thing which he had gotten up for his amusement, or the had its origin in judicial usurpation. The judges in amusement of others. He presented it under a solemn England had, by legal fiction, changed the remedy which sense of duty, as one of the most important, one of the the common law had given to the plaintiff. The defendgravest and most solemn subjects which was ever brought ant could not be arrested and held to bail by the capias, Before a legislative body, at any time, in any country. or any other writ; he was liable only to a summons. The His greatest object on the present occasion was, to call plaintiff was obliged to give, upon the commencement of the attention of the distinguished men whom he saw in his suit, pledges of prosecution, that it was not vexatious, such numbers around him, to this subject. He would but that he had an honest substantial cause of action. make bold to say, that, but for the prejudices which were He was obliged to give, not John Doe and Richard Roe, so powerful over human reason, and which so often sub- but a real and sufficient security. The judges, by a cruel dued the human mind into an acquiescence to the worst and absurd fiction, founded upon the pretence that the evils, imprisonment for debt would be considered as ty- plaintiff was as pure as the angels, and the defendant as rannical, oppressive, and absurd, as the Spanish Inquisi-dark as Erebus, substituted John Doe and Richard Roe tion. He had not risen to fatigue the Senate with read- for the pledges-supposed again, that the summons had ing authorities, although he had the books before him; been served upon the defendant, and that he had refused nor to detain the Senate with the perusal of the various to answer to the suit, and going on still further with their letters which he had received upon this subject from malicious, malignant falsehoods, called legal fictions, the every part of the United States. These letters, he said, defendant was supposed to have no property, and he was were laden with the most painful details of the cruel ope- preparing to fly his country, in order to take his body ration of the law of imprisonment for debt. He alluded by the capias, as the first step in the action upon which to them because some might tell him, as he had been told bail was required, or the defendant put into prison, Here on former occasions, on the threshold of his remarks, that is a complete summerset; the plaintiff released from all there was no actual suffering from this source; that im- obligations on his part, viz. pledge of prosecution to seprisonment for debt in this free and happy land was merely cure the defendant against his malice, and the defendant nominal. But I know, sir, that the evil is a crying one. deprived of his liberty wherein he had been always free It stalks among the People from Maine to Georgia with from molestation. This practice of the ancient Britons, heavy and gigantic steps, spreading in its course desola- which secured to them freedom from arrest for debt, was tion and distress. The cries of the sufferers reach us changed by legal fictions and judicial usurpations. They from the South, and are still louder from the North and did not deprive the debtor of his personal liberty upon the East. Nothing at this moment but public opinion mesne process. He thanked God that the foul stain was and the charity of South Carolina saved the distinguished blotted from the escutcheon of his native State, Kentucky. citizen of that State, one of the most gallant heroes of our No freeman of Kentucky can be enclosed for debt, nor

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

cast into prison. You may deprive him of his property, and that is correct, where he owes it. There was a time, not long since, when it was otherwise. I have seen honest and valiant men, who had fought gallantly for their country, looking through the iron grates of a jail, for debt. But that time is past, never to return in the State of Kentucky. It had always been his opinion, and was yet his opinion, that an honest debtor, but whose misfortunes had prevented a punctual payment of his debt, to be cast into prison by his creditor, would feel absolved from all moral obligations to that man, at whose instance he had been deprived of liberty. One day, one hour, of virtuous liberty is worth an eternity of bondage. Mr. President, let me propose one question to you: Suppose I contract to pay a certain sum of money, or to do a certain thing, and it is entered into my bond, as a condition, that, if, upon failure on my part to pay the money, or to perform my covenant, I should be subject to loss of life, or limb, or liberty, and, farther, suppose I did fail, would not the courts relieve me from the penalty, as a violation of the constitution and the laws of the country? And if I cannot, under the constitution and laws, make myself a voluntary slave, how can I, under the same constitution and laws, be made an involuntary slave? I have not language, Sir, forcibly and eloquently enough to picture to you, like Sterne, the wretched victim of civil imprisonment, lying in his dungeon on his straw bed, counting the dismal days and nights of his confinement, and pining under that sickness of the heart which arises from hope deferred. But, let me ask if such confinement be not worse than the most abject slavery? It may be said, that the insolvent laws will afford relief. In addition to the other just principles and provisions of the bill, the best insolvent law which I have ever seen is incorporated into this bill, which was proposed by my worthy friend from Georgia, [Mr. BERRIEN.]

But it is in vain to tell me of the insolvent laws as they now exist or can exist without the provisions of a bill like this. I have now before me a letter from W. Woon, of New York, who informs me, that, within less than two years, one thousand nine hundred and seventy-two persons have been received into the debtors' jail in that city. In some instances, men have been imprisoned for a sum as small as two or three dollars, with neither food nor bed except what was furnished by the Humane Society, a quart of soup for twenty-four hours; whereas the crimi. nal, in Bridewell, receives three meals per day, a bed, and often clothing. While we applaud the exertions of these benevolent Societies, and rank Wм. Woon and its other members with the benevolent HOWARD, to be held up to mankind as worthy of imitation, we sit here with our arms folded, without seeing that these just praises to these benevolent Societies, and worthy individuals, press more indelibly the stain of cruelty and barbarism upon our National character. It is not my object to place the debtor upon any better grounds than the creditor. I wish to place them upon a perfect equality; there is as much honesty and integrity in the debtor part of the com. munity as in the creditor part, and no more: all men, under the same circumstances, are nearly alike; give the property of the debtor to the creditor, till the debt is paid, if the property can be had; but, under all circumstances, give the debtor his liberty-he never sold that. It is beyond value or price-the law does not authorize him to dispose of it. He can only forfeit it by crime, by villainy. Imprisonment for debt, by some, is supposed to be used as coercive means. Be it so; and what then? It is very evident that the hardships of coercion can only fall on the honest debtor.

If the debtor be a villain, and refuses to pay that which he owes, and is able to pay, his money, and the friends whom his money will gain him, will relieve him from all the hardships of your coercion-others say this imprison

[SENATE.

ment for debt is in satisfaction of the debtor's bond; that the honest debtor, too, must pay the pound of flesh; this is already answered; for I hold that a man cannot subject himself, without crime, to the loss of liberty. Mr. President, I am impressed with the belief, that, unless the reJation of debtor and creditor in this wide, populous, and increasing Republic, be essentially changed, evils will sooner or later result from it, which, combined with other causes, will prove disastrous to our national liberty, happiness, and independence. I am not one of those who entertain the opinion, that nations, like individuals, necessarily pass through the stages of youth, maturity, and decline. It is true, this has been the case with many nations. We now read, in the pages of ancient history, of the splendid existence of Greece and Rome. But, in reality, they no longer exist-with many other renowned nations, they have all sunk beneath the all-devouring hand of time, and some latent principles of bad government. In very truth, we may say, that this is the freest Government on earth; and we might go farther, and say, it is the only free Government on the globe. These revolutions in States, Empires, and Kingdoms, have naturally made historians, philosophers, and statesmen, indulge in the remark, that States, like individuals, must pass through infancy, manhood, old age, and death. The causes which have produced, and are now producing, the same results, are to be found, not in the order of nature, but in some vice, some bad principle, inherent in their institutions. When the population of Rome, on a certain critical occasion in the existence of that renowned Commonwealth, rose in rebellion, and retired to the Mons Sacer, or the Sacred Mount, it was owing entirely to the power of the creditor over his debtor; because the creditors exercised the power given them by the laws with cruel persecution and severity towards their debtors-citizen soldiers, who were revered for their public virtue, their gallantry, their public services, and could exhibit the deep scars which they had received in battle with the enemies of their country, could show to the populace the scars and stripes, fresh bleeding, inflicted upon them by their merciless creditors, by whom, with their wives and children, in some instances, they have been doomed to bondage. I have observed, that I do not believe that States and Kingdoms are doomed, by the decree of Heaven, to die as man dieth. I do not see how that consequence should follow. The materials of States and Kingdoms are always com. posed of the same materials at every stage of their exist. ence, of rational and intelligent beings, moral agents, and always endowed with the same senses and same capacities by nature, and at all times capable of sustaining free institutions. The inquiry becomes more important to us, why these changes? I have no doubt that they arise from causes perfectly within our control, if we will it. Whatever has a tendency to degrade the human mind, or to infringe the unalienable rights of property, of conscience, of speech, of the press, and of personal liberty, in the smallest degree, has a tendency to destroy the best Government on earth. I will not pretend to say that imprisonment for debt alone will produce this result; but it is making great inroads upon free Government in the United States. And if, after the lapse of many years, the occasion should arrive-and Heaven grant that ages and ages may pass over before it does arrive-when some medita tive Volney shall wander among the ruins, not of Palmyra and Persepolis, but of this proud Capitol, now the seat of free and enlightened deliberation, mark me, sir, if he does not trace our downfal, in part, to the fierce contentions arising between debtors and creditors. This is the time to apply the remedy to the evil, which is growing with our rapid growth, and increasing with the unparal leled increase of population. This is the time, in the vigor of our institutions, to free our legislation from this foul stain, which the law of civil improvement has stamped

SENATE.]

Public Lands.

upon it; and to place on a secure and permanent basis the
rights and happiness of our citizens. If, Mr. President, all
the Empires, Kingdoms, States, and Republics, of the earth
were here met with us this day in Council, in what would
Not in extent of
we be willing to compare with them?
territory, for Russia exceeds us in that; not in wealth and
grandeur; not in commerce and manufactures, for many
nations equal and some surpass us in them; nor in science
and arts, nor in salubrity of climate, nor fertility of soil,
for in these blessings other nations may compete with us:
but it would be in our free institutions that we might
proudly compare with them; in civil and religious liberty;
in the freedom of speech and of the press; in the right of
each citizen freely to pursue his own happiness. These
principles are sealed with the blood of our fathers.
us not prove treacherous to them in one of their most es-
sential particulars: for imprisonment for debt is a violation
of those sacred rights, and perhaps the only exception to
the freedom of the citizen.

Let

In conclusion, Mr. J. said, he was unwilling, at this time, to trespass further upon the indulgence of the Senate: He had spoken without notes, and without intending to have said as much at present; upon some other occasion, in the progress of the bill, he might attempt more fully to explain the history of imprisonment for debt, and to show that it originated in judicial usurpation and legal fictions, and had been supported by tyranny. He entreated the Senators to turn their attention to the subject, and to open their ears to the cries, which were loud to those who would listen, of the unfortunate and distressed debtors, and to decide on the bill without delay.

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1827.

THE PUBLIC LANDS..

Mr. HENDRICKS submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the Committee on the Public Lands be instructed to inquire into the expediency of ceding and relinquishing, in full property, the public lands, within the limits of the new States, to the several States in which they lie.

Mr. HENDRICKS said, that, in offering this resolution for the consideration of the Senate, it was, perhaps, proper for him to make a few remarks. It would be recollected, that, at the last session, in the form of an amendment to the bill proposing to graduate the price of the public lands, he had offered the same proposition, though in another form. The proposition of last session was one to which the attention of the Senate had not been very much directed. It was considered a novel proposition, a bold one, and there is little doubt that, by many accustomed to look to the public lands as a source of revenue, more important than they ever yet have been, or promise hereafter to be, it was deemed an unreasonable proposition. The bill and the amendment were laid up on the table, having received a very partial examination, and, for want of time, were permitted there to rest, with out discussion, till the close of the session."

lic lands, as the representative of a new State he could
not but feel a deep interest in the proposition, and he
did believe, that, when the subject should be fully can-
vassed by the Senate, the constitutional argument, and
the question of expediency, would alike preponderate
in favor of the new States, and strongly admonish of
He believed
the propriety of an absolute transfer of the public lands
to the several States in which they lie.
that the Federal Government had no constitutional power
to hold the soil of the States, except for the special pur.
poses designated by the Constitution, such as the erec-
tion of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other
needful buildings, and even for this purpose, the consent
of the Legislatures of the States was necessary, by the
express language of the Constitution.

He was well aware that the cessions from the States,
and the pledge that the proceeds should be applied to
the payment of the national debt, were usually resorted
to as the authority of the General Government to held
the lands in the States; but these authorities, connected
with the history of the times, which show the intentions
and views of the actors of that day, instead of showing
the right of this Government, might, in his opinion, be
safely relied on to sustain a contrary position. It surely
was the intention of Congress, and of the States, ced-
ing waste and unappropriated lands to the Union, that
the new States to be formed should be received into the
Union as sovereign and independent States, and on an
equal footing with the original States, in all respects
whatever; and nothing could be more clear than that
this was the intention of the framers of the Constitution.
To maintain the equality of the States, it had even ex-
It had in some de-
tended favors to the small States.
gree balanced numbers in the large States, with poli-
tical power in the small States. The equality of the
representation in the Senate was an instance of this.
To Senators who hold to the letter of the Constitution,
and who deny to the Federal Government all powers not
clearly expressed, he might safely appeal. To those
who deny the power of Congress to interfere with the
sacred soil of a State, so far only as might be necessary
for the location of a road or canal, he might speak with
If, according to their doc
the greatest confidence.
trine, Congress cannot thus temporarily occupy a small
portion of the soil of a State, surely, they would agree
with him in saying that Congress cannot permanently
hold, in full property, the entire soil of the new States.

If, then, the constitutional argument should be with him, that Congress has no power to become or to remain, the lord of the soil of the new States, no one would contend that the compacts ought to be binding; for, if they are not based on the Constitution, they impose no obligation on the States. But, if even based on the Constitution, it was in the power of the new States, on the principle of free agency, to make them, or to refuse to make them. If the new States had refused to make them, then the objects attained by them would have been defeated. And what were those objects? That And if this object had not been the new States should never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil. attained by the General Government, would not the converse of the proposition have been the consequence would not the inference have been irresistible, that the new States might have interfered with the primary disposal of the soil? Here it would, no doubt, be said, that But this was the new States, refusing to enter into these compacts, could have been kept out of the Union. ground untenable; for the new States were, by the ordinance of 1787, guarantied admission into the Union, Believing, as he did, that the sovereignty, freedom, with a population of 60,000, on an equal footing with and independence of the new States were much impair- the original States, in all respects whatever. Mr. H. said, that arguments of expediency, almost ined, and that their equality with the old States was entirely taken away by the present condition of the pub-numerable, might be urged in the present case.

With a view of preventing this state of things, and that a full discussion of the principles contained in the proposition might be had at the present session, he had, at this early period, presented it to the Senate. The bill to graduate the price of the public lands would again be introduced, and, in all probability, be again reTo this ferred to the Committee on the Public Lands. committee he wished to have this subject also referred. The Senate would then have the aid of their examinations and report, and be the better prepared for a vote upon the question.

It

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

DEC. 20, 1827.]

Public Land--Imprisonment for Debt.

seemed to him that whenever the subject should be fully examined, it would appear that an estimate had heretofore been put upon the public lands, far above their real value. The public lands had been in market up wards of forty years, and the whole receipts into the Treasury had been about thirty-six millions. We had now in market more than one hundred millions of acres, and for the last years the receipts had frequently been below a million, while the whole revenue of the country, in those years, had ranged from twenty to twentyfive millions. This view would show how small is the portion of our whole revenue derived from the public lands. This million, if indispensable to the Treasury, could easily be supplied in some other way. It could be laid on other objects of taxation, which would neither be seen nor felt, and the new States would rise to a level of equality with the old States. The new States would then be relieved from what he considered an unconstitutional and dangerous dependence on the old States and on the Union.

Nor had this proposition any thing to do with the great mass of these lands. The public lands in the new States amounted to little more than 200 millions of acres, and perhaps fifty millions of this had been given away in military bounties, and other donations, together with the public sales. The residue, subject to the action of the present land system, would be eight or nine hundred millions. With an unlimited control over this vast scope of country, the General Government ought to

be satisfied.

Surely, said Mr. H. the Legislatures of the States are better qualified than the Congress of the United States, to dispose of the public lands, as the condition of their respective States require. They better know than we possibly can know, how to graduate the price agreeably to the quality, and when to give pre-emption rights and donations to actual settlers. The people of the new States should look to their own Legislatures for the regulation of the public lands, and Congress should be left to pursue, with undivided attention, the national interests submitted to their care by the Constitution of

the United States.

But, there was another consideration, more weighty still. It was, that the public lands in the hands of the General Government, offered to the new States the strongest inducements to a dissolution of the Union, for, the Union dissolved, the lands would instantly become the property of the States, and all such inducements ought most carefully to be guarded against.

He had already glided further into the discussion than he intended when he rose. He hoped, that, at the proper time, the Senate would be favored with the reflections of others, much more capable of doing justice to this very important subject than himself. He would at this time no longer detain the Senate.

A resolution submitted yesterday by Mr. PARRIS, for the erection of suitable buildings for the Courts of the United States, in the several States, was considered and agreed to, after having been amended, on motion of Mr. P. so as to embrace a provision for the preservation of the records of the Courts.

Mr. PARRIS remarked, that the Courts of the United States were, in many of the States, unprovided with suitable buildings, and were necessitated to depend upon the courtesy of the State Courts for the use of their rooms. It was to remedy this evil, and to procure the requisite accommodation for them, that he proposed this tesolution. The preservation of the records of the Courts Was a matter of great importance, and no regulation for that purpose had hitherto been made.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

The bill to abolish imprisonment for debt was then taken up, and, after several amendments proposed by

VOL. IV-2

[SENATE.

Messrs. BERRIEN, EATON, CHANDLER, HAYNE,
KANE, and RIDGELY, which were agreed to, Mr.
JOHNSON, of Kentucky, moved that the bill be made
the special order of the day for Tuesday next.

Will

Mr. TAZEWELL rose, and said that, as the bill was now open to discussion upon its details, he would say a few words, more by way of suggestion to the friends of the measure than of argument against it. Whether the object of the bill was useful or necessary, and whether the public was now displeased with the power enjoyed by the plaintiffs, were questions of great importance, and would be fully discussed at a proper stage of the progress of the bill. He did not rise to debate the question, whether the abolition of Imprisonment for Debt would be useful, necessary, or proper. It was his design only to say a few words upon the method by which it was proposed to obtain this object. His remarks would be directed to the machinery by which it was to be done. They wished to effect an abolition of Imprisonment for Debt; and how do they propose to do it? By removing from the laws of the land a certain process. Now, to every gentleman who has any knowledge of law, it is evident that this cannot be safely done. they say, that in taking away this single process, they can leave the laws exactly minus that process? No man of legal knowledge would say so. For the various processes are so connected, that it is impossible to disjoint one from the context without injuring and disorganizing the whole system. They are so amalgamated, that, to abstract any portion, would be to decompose and destroy the whole. To do this, without producing such an ef fect, was a scheme beyond the skill of the greatest statesman that ever lived, so were the laws under our system woven into and connected with each other. He would state some cases, which might-nay, which, he was confident, must arise, were this measure to go into effect. In the State of Virginia we follow the English law, which we have handed down to us by our forefathers. Real estate is not subject to execution for debt. But lands can be seized to pay a debt by an indirect process, which is equally efficient, and ensures to the creditor the real property of the debtor. For instance, you take the body of the debtor, and incarcerate him: you then say to him, you must release your lands for the payment of my demand, and until you do, you remain a prisoner. This is done by the means of a cupias ad satis faciendum. Now, if the capias ad satisfaciendum is taken away, what power is there remaining over the lands of the debtor? What safety will there be to the creditor, whose debtor is possessed of real estate alone? body of a debtor is, by the operation of this act, to be free of imprisonment; and, it matters not whether the debt be five shillings or five thousand dollars, still the operation is uniform. But, if an individual agree to do a specific act, and fail in its performance, you have jurisdiction over his body, because this Bill does not extend to Chancery cases. Then the operation of it will be this: The man is released who owes five shillings in money; but the man who agrees to do a specific thing, not worth half that value, may be imprisoned. Is this an equal operation? Is it not partial in the extreme? These two statements, of what he believed would be the operation of the Bill, were merely given to illustrate the opinion which he entertained, of the operation of The Bill the Bill as it now stood before the Senate. would effect, perhaps, too much, and certainly in some respects, too little--probably more in some points, and less in others, than its friends desired. therefore, submitted to the advocates of the Bill, whether it would not be better to make some gene. ral arrangement to cover all the ground which the title of the Bill seemed to indicate, by making some general arrangement by which the exemption from imprison.

The

Mr. T,

« AnteriorContinuar »