If the word expense, alone, could have reference to the payment of the Commissioners, who should hold the I might cease with my remarks here as to the right of Treaty, and all other persons employed for the object, soil and taxation, being inseparable, but I will not. together with the provisions to be furnished at the treaty In the Constitution of the United States, you will find ground, I should not be so fearful of consequences as to two important provisions. The first reads: "The Con the second proposition of my colleague. The term ex-gress shall have power to dispose of, and make all nee pense will include blankets, clothes, scarlets, calicos, saddles, horses, and, in short, every article furnished the Indians with whom you treat.

Let me repeat, if Congress pass a law fixing the price of land in Territories, at so high a price that it cannot be bought, and the States in selling their lands are bound to conform to the law, and the States liable to the expenses of extinguishing the Indian title-in the latter case, the People of the States would be oppressed, and in the former, the settlements of the States would be defeated.

The treaty-making power is lodged where it ought to be, in the hands of the President of the United States,

APRIL 2, 1828.]

Graduation of the Public Lands.

[SENATE

of the prices of the public lands, (heretofore offered at public sale,) commencing on the 4th of July, 1828, and ending the 4th of July, 1832, for one dollar per acre to seventy-five cents per acre and fifty cents per acre, and after the latter period, at twenty-five cents per acre.

confederation, that the cession act of Virginia, ordinance for the government of territories, and the Constitution of the United States, are frauds, and so were intended in their consummation to operate upon the sovereignty of new States to be admitted into this Union? To prove the argument, you must advance one step further, and The second section goes upon the same principle of prove the People of the territories to have been guilty graduation in reference to the public lands, with this difof a fraud; because, under acts of Congress authorizing ference, it is confined to the lands hereafter to be of them to hold a Convention for the purpose of framing a fered at public sale, and after the sale, the principle ap. Constitution, in the same acts, there are express prohibi-plies. tions against the States taxing the soil of the United States, and the People by ordinances subjoined to their Constitutions, declare that the new States to be admitted, have no power to meddle with or tax the soil of the United States. I am aware that the Senators are tired of the subject, and will not detain them on this pomt longer than to say a few words. The arguments of my colleague, I insist upon it, he has abandoned. The reason I assign for my assertion is this: If his argument be correct, (and I would sooner trust him than myself,) his propositions cannot be true. The moment Indiana, or any other new State, was admitted into this Union, the State possessed sovereignty; and if by virtue of the sovereignty she had a right to tax the soil belonging to the United States, the proposition to cede the lands to the new States, upon two conditions, was entirely uncalled for. The sovereignty was complete, upon the admission of the State into this Union.

Sir, if the State of Indiana had a right to tax and claim the soil within her boundaries, belonging to the United States, why make the appeal to Congress to cede? Should | it be true that the lands belong to Indiana, why call upon Congress? Why not take the power into our own hands? If the arguments be correct as presented, the new States are safe, and let them proceed without delay to send out their own surveyors, abolish the land offices of the United States, drive them out of the States, and establish their own. To settle the differences between the United States, the new States, or any one of them, the judicial power of the Federal Government, in relation to public lands, is all sufficient, and that, too, without resort to arms. The new States never will be induced nor seduced to array themselves against this Union.

If any State had attempted to seize upon the public lands, under color of authority, and the controversy submitted to the Federal Courts, the decision would have been against her, as it was in the celebrated case from Obio, when the Legislature of that State attempted to tax and drive beyond her limits the Banks of the United States, on which occasion, a distinguished lawyer, Mr. Hammond, bore a conspicuous part. The costs accruing in the controversy between the State of Ohio and the United States, I know not the amount.

For my own part, sir, I shall never legislate without the consent of those I represent, to involve them in disputes, and the payment of taxes.

Legislation is but a compromise of opinion; and if we would not tread upon each others heels too much in projects, and all unite to adhere to engagements, contracts, cession acts, ordinances, constitutions, which have been adopted, for the benefit of the whole Union, and merely content ourselves by claiming on the part of Congress to fulfil their engagements with the new States, making the roads promised, and such other objects, for the mutual benefit of all, we should discharge our duty fully, and accomplish more for the new States, and for the interest of the Union.

The bill to graduate the price of the public lands, &c. as introduced by the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. BBNTON, and every portion of it, is worthy of considera

fion.

The first section of the bill provides for the graduation

The third section refers to a written permission on behalf of an individual to be obtained from the Registers of the Land Offices and Receivers of Public Moneys, to settle on any half quarter section of land within their respective districts which shall remain unsold for the space of one year after having been offered at fifty cents per acre; upon condition that, if the individual shall forthwith settle thereupon, and cultivate the same for five consecutive years, and being a citizen of the United States at the end of that time, the said individual upon proof of settlement, cultivation, and citizenship, shall have a patent for the half quarter section donated. This section is for the benefit of the poor.

The fourth section merely refers to the fees of land officers.

The fifth section is all important; and that it may be fully appreciated, I use the words: "And be it further enacted, that all the land which shall remain unsold for one year after after having been offered at twenty-five cents per acre, shall be, and the same hereby is, ceded in full property to the States in which the same lie. Mr. President, in a few minutes I am done with the subject, except to vote. The five sections contained in the bill, violates no one act of the Government from the date of the articles of confederation, nor the Constitution of the United States, up to the present date. All of the provisions of the bill proceed upon the ground of expediency, and for the mutual benefit of all; and every sentence is marked with consideration and profit for the whole Union.

The fifth section is peculiarly interesting to the whole Union, though, at the first blush, might not appear so, but when examined, and its effects, it will appear. The operation is this, that when the lands cease to be of little or no value, or, in other words, the refuse lands within the limits of the new States, they cease to be a common benefit for the whole Union. Should this state of of things exist, the expenses of keeping up your land of fices will result in the costs to the whole Union, and overrun the profits, and therefore the lands no longer be a common benefit for all. Then will be the true time for the States to operate, and open her sales of the lands as the States may direct, without being embarrassed by Congressional acts or the force of the treaty-making power. If, however, as I before observed, the Congress of the United States will subunit propositions to the new States for their full acceptation or rejection, and the States consent to take the lands at a price they may agree on, I am content.

With my voice to tax the people of the new States, by the operation of the treaty-making power, without their consent, the people of Indiana must so direct me.

Some explanatory conversation took place between Messrs. NOBLE and HARRISON.

Mr. BARTON offered a substitute for the bill, to fix the price of public land at one dollar per acre, and in cases where land should have been exposed for sale five years, to allow any individual to settle upon it; and, after hav. ing occupied it for five years, to receive a certificate from the land office.

Mr. BENTON moved that the bill lie on the table until to morrow. Agreed to.

SENATE.]

Judicial Process.-Payment of Interest to States.

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 1828.

JUDICIAL PROCESS.

On motion of Mr. KANE, the bill to regulate judicial process in the States admitted into the Union since the year 1789, was taken up, and a substitute for the bill proposed by the Committee on the Judiciary being under consideration, a debate of great length occurred, in which Messrs. BERRIEN, ROWĂN, JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, and WHITE, participated.

Mr. WHITE then moved to amend the bill by striking out the word "now" from the third section. The object of this motion was, to include the laws which might hereafter be passed by the Legislatures of the several States, in relation to final process, so that the rules relative to execution, which the States might hereafter adopt for their local courts, should be adopted in the United States'

Courts

This motion was opposed by Messrs. WEBSTER and JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, and supported by Messrs. ROWAN and WHITE. Messrs. TAZEWELL and BERRIEN also made a few remarks; when the question recurring, and the yeas and nays having been ordered, on motion of Mr. ROWAN, the motion was rejected.

Mr. BERRIEN then moved an amendment to the third section, purporting to give the power to the Judges of the Courts of the United States in the several States, to adopt any rules which may be made, from time to time, by the State Legislatures, for the regulation of the State Courts; which was discussed by Messrs. ROWAN, BER RIEN, JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, and TAZEWELL; and the question being taken, the amendment was agreed

to.

The bill having been reported to the Senate, Mr. WHITE renewed his motion to amend, by striking out the word "now" from the fifth line of the third section, which was decided in the negative.

The amendment, as amended in the Committee of the

Whole, having been agreed to, Mr. ROWAN moved to insert, in the 14th line of the first section, the words "in matters of form," so as to restrict the Judges of the United States' Courts from framing other rules in relation to mesne process, than such as related to matters of form. This motion was briefly discussed by Messrs. BERRIEN, ROWAN, WEBSTER, and TAZEWELL, and was negatived.

The bill was, after further debate, finally ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

FRIDAY, APRIL 4, 1828.

PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO STATES.

On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, the bill making further provision for the payment of interest on money's expended during the late war, for the public defence, by the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, was taken up.

[APRIL 3, 4, 1828.

just principle which applied to the case, was to indem nify the States from loss by the operation. The erroneous Auditor had defeated entirely this object. In Maryland, construction put upon the law of Congress by the Third the amount loaned to the United States was borrowed by the State, and before the reimbursement by the United States the State had paid off that loan by a transfer of United States' six per cent. stock. In some of the other States the amount loaned to the United States had been derived from the sales of stock owned by the State, and bearing an interest. In these cases the States lost the interest to the same extent as if they had borrowed the money at the given rate of interest, and had paid that interest regularly. In Pennsylvania, the State had funds in the Treasury, and by advancing it to the United States was compelled afterwards to borrow, on interest, to raise money to supply the place of it, thus experiencing the same loss in the result. The Auditor, however, felt him self bound by the letter of the act of Congress, and had not allowed interest in any case, except where the States had paid interest on the specific fund, which furnished the means of advancing to the United States, and only so long as payments were made to discharge that interest. In the case of Maryland, for illustration, (and the princi ple is the same in regard to the other States,) interest ceased to be allowed to her so soon as she disposed of her United States' stock, and paid off the loan, although the very act of disposing of that stock caused to her the loss of the dividends on it, equal, and rather more than equal, to the interest she claimed. Yet, the money lost being dividends, and not interest paid out of her Trea sury, the Auditor did not feel authorized to pay interest fully provides for this mischief, and properly enacts, that, beyond that period. The amer.dment of the committee where loans or advances have been made, interest shall be paid from the time of the advance to the time of pay

ment.

to meet another difficulty. Reimbursement had been The amendment now proposed by him was intended made by partial payments. The whole amount, in the half of it would be lost in any event. But, from time to case of Maryland, had never been reimbursed, and onetime, partial payments were made, as the Auditor became satisfied of their propriety. Mr. C. read from a statement the sums and dates. By the decisions of the Supreme courts of Maryland, and, he understood, the laws of al Court of the United States, and by the decisions of the the States concerned, whenever a payment is made in part discharge of a debt consisting of principal and in terest, it is proper to apply so much of the sum paid as i equal to the interest accrued, to the extinguishment o the interest in the first place, and the residue to the dis charge of part of the principal. The Treasurer of the Western Shore of Maryland had earnestly contended for this principle in the settlement of the interest accoun with the United States, and made an able argument of the subject. The Auditor, however, opposed the tech Mr. CHAMBERS moved to amend the amendment re-nical difficulty that the sums reimbursed were paid a ported by the Judiciary Committee, so as to make the principal, and could never thereafter be considered as in payments heretofore inade, applicable in the first case terest, in whole or in part. The Treasurer, in his opinion to the extinguishment of interest. He gave a history of was clearly right, and the Auditor as clearly wrong. If the claims which the States had preferred, and contend-by an act of Congress, the payment of a claim bearing in ed that the law to which this bill is a supplement was interest was directed, and, thereafter, partial payment tended to effect the same object which would be attained by adopting his amendment. The United States, by reimbursing the money, had adopted the principle that the debt was properly created, and by the act of Congress directing interest to be paid, had avowed the principle that the States ought not to sustain a loss by providing those means of defence which the safety of their lives and their property required, and which the United States ought to have furnished; but which the total want of means made it impossible for her to furnish. The only

should be made, there can be no doubt the final adjust ment would be made in the mode claimed by Maryland By directing interest to be paid to those States, Congres had, in effect, directed the adjustment to be made, as the claim had originally been acknowledged with interes The State, in its pecuniary transactions, pays accordin to this principle; and if, in discharging itself of the del contracted in providing this very fund, partial paymen had been made to its creditors, the same principle woul have been applied. Citizens of the State were governe

BIL 4, 1828.]

Payment of Interest to States.

[SENATE.

the same principle, in paying or receiving their debts. was opposed to this proposition; indeed, he was opposed rown laws recognize the propriety of it, and common to the whole bill, as against the course hitherto pursued dence and justice require that, where one part of a by Congress, and which had been acted on for thirteen bt being interest, is unprofitable, and another part be-years for a change of which he saw no good reason. principal, is productive, the creditor should first reve payment of that portion which is unproductive, if e debtor cannot satisfy both.

He did not intend to argue that the bill proposed any thing radically wrong; but it unsettled a principle that had been long established and understood. He saw no He presumed the committee had intended the amend- probable end to the system which this bill would coinent reported by them to have this effect; but, know-mence, as interest must be paid on all similar claims to the preconceived opinions of the Auditor, from an ex- an indefinite amount. mation of the correspondence on the subject, he condered it necessary to insert language which could ad

it of no doubt.

The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. it was decided in the affirmative-16 to 11.

Mr. TYLER moved an amendment, that the rate of inrest should be the same as that paid by the States for oney raised for the benefit of the United States; which as explained by Mr. TYLER, who stated that, when irginia was called on to raise money to carry on the war, r Treasury was empty, and she resorted to loans; at at time the funds could not be obtained lower than 7 8 per cent. which was paid. He could not doubt for moment that the United States would see the justice of ying the rate of interest given by the State for this mo ey, which was expended in no prodigal spirit, but with patriotic desire of aiding the great cause in which the untry was then engaged.

Mr. CHANDLER thought there ought to be but one ite of interest in all these payments. There never was, t believed, an instance in which the United States had aid more than legal interest. The moneys paid by the tates had been sometimes paid advantageously, as they ad applied their depreciated Bank notes to the public ervice.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, had not understood the gentleman from South Carolina, on a former occasion, to have stated that the money advanced by that State was hired by the State for the public service, but that the money had been drawn from the State Bank. It was also stated, that the dividends on the remaining funds had been 12 per cent. Hence, he supposed, it was argu ed that the advances cost the State 12 per cent or that that was the rate of interest. He did not see how the State could come in and claim per centage on the money, according to what the Bank might have made upon it, had it not been drawn out of the vaults for the public service.

Mr. HAYNE considered that South Carolina was entitled to be placed on the same footing as the other States. He refrained from any remarks, at present, on the general principle, as they would be more appropriate in a more advanced stage of the bill.

Mr. WEBSTER said he had no objection to the amend- Mr. WEBSTER observed, that the gentleman from nent, with a lumitation, so as to confine the amount of in- Ohio [Mr. RUGGLES] had said that he could see no end to erest, over the legal rate, to the period during which it the system which this bill would have the effect to estaas pail. After the exigency was over, the rate of in- blish. hope, said Mr. W., we shall never see an end of erest would be the legal rate. He, therefore, wished it, until all the claims of the States are settled, exactly as be amendment might be modified, so as to fix the limita- we would settle the claims of individuals. This bill proon to the time during which the extra interest was paid.vided for claims of peculiar merit. The loans of money Mr. TYLER agreed to the suggestion, and modified on which interest was to be paid were of a different nature is amendment accordingly. from incidental advances made on unexpected occurrences. Where some emergency calls for an advance on the part of a State, the principal alone would be refunded: but where the State was called upon by the General Government to borrow money, to be applied to the general defence, the case was materially different. Had the States offered these loans to the General Government, and sought in this manner to draw interest upon their funds, and raise those funds from their own resources, they would have no right to ask for more than legal interest. For instance, to take a case. If a State have stock which is worth 13 per cent. above par, and sees fit to make a loan of the proceeds of that stock to the Go. vernment, it has no claim beyond legal interest. But if the State is asked by the General Government to loan of other individuals the required money, and were necessi Mr. TYLER's motion to amend was then agreed to. tated, in doing so, to pay an exorbitant rate of interest, Mr. HAYNE observed that a new principle seemed the Government was, he considered, bound to pay that about to be adopted, and he thought it ought to be ap-rate as long as it was paid by the State, and afterwards, plied uniformly to all the States. Ile should, therefore, THove to insert South Carolina after Virginia, so as to extend this provision of interest to that State, as well as to

Mr. WEBSTER observedthat legal interest was differnt in different States. In some it was eight, in others scen, and in others six per cent. The principle on which is bill was founded, was that, when the United States pplies to the States to advance money, the expense to hich those States are subjected, by complying with the equisitions of the General Government, ought to be reanded.

thers.

until the time of closing the account, to pay legal interest only. He hoped some principle would be settled on which those claims should be adjusted. It was an erroneous opinion, that because the States advanced their Mr. RUGGLES said, that, when the bill for the pay- own funds, drawn from their Banks, that no claim for inment of interest to the State of South Carolina was be- terest upon such loans was just. The funds of a State re the Senate, he had felt it to be his duty to oppose it. deposited in the vaults of a Bank were not dead. And law upon this subject had been for many years set- he would ask, whether the loss of interest upon that moand that bill he considered an innovation. Moneyney was not the same, whether drawn from a Bank or often been loaned by the States to the General Go- loaned from an individual? The only difference in the ment; but no interest had been paid upon these two cases would be the rate. It was true, it might be s; and he considered the principle on which it was urged, that the State in such cases stood in different poheld to be, that it was expended in the common sitions-in one it was the agent, in the other a party. e, and for the public good. The proposition now be- But, said Mr. W., I never could understand why the the Senate went to establish a new mode of compen- States were not entitled to interest upon their loans. , which went even further than the bill for the re- The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. RUGGLES] says that the of South Carolina, and which he thought hostile to money is expended for the common cause--the public principle bitherto adopted by the Government. He good. Now, that is the very reason, in my mind, why

SENATE.]

Payment of Interest to States.

[APRIL 4, 182

they should be paid out of the common funds of the Ge- interest upon them, would never be received. The i neral Government. The principle was the same as investigation of the accounts at the Treasury Departmen case of a loan made by an individual. It was optional was the cause of the delay mentioned by the gentlema with the State to loan the money or not. The Govern- from Georgia. Certainly it did not attach to the officer ment calls upon the States for these advances. One State of the State. As to the objection of the gentleman from will loan her funds, another will not. Thus far the case Ohio, that the rule had been adopted to pay no intere is the same as though individuals had been applied to. on these claims, he [Mr. C.] would refer him to the a And why is not the similarity carried through to the end? in favor of Virginia, in which the Government pledg Why is not the State to be treated as an individual would itself to pay the sums expended, both principal and int re? He believed it the cheapest money of which the rest. We, therefore, said Mr. C., ask Congress mere Government had ever availed itself. It was true there to adopt that mode of adjusting the interest of the might be something in the suggestion of the gentleman claims which the highest judicial tribunal in this count from Maine, that there had been instances in which the has adopted. The principle has been settled; and th States had paid out their depreciated currency. Any in- remaining question is as to the form. The gentlem cidental transaction of that nature did not affect the main from Ohio had gone over the objection which it wou question. And he wished to be informed whether there have been proper to urge at the time of the passage was any principle on which the Government might be the law agreeing to pay the interest on the advanc exempted from the payment of interest on money bor-made by the States. He hoped Congress would do rowed by the States, at its own request. If any such the States what they were bound to do to their own c principle existed, he hoped it would be stated.

Mr. COBB said that the principle on which the Government had hitherto refused to pay interest on advances of money was this: that, although a balance was due the claimant, yet the time that intervened between the exist ence of the debt and its being presented for payment, and on which interest would be demanded, was caused by the delay of the claimant, and not from any fault on the part of the Government. But, said Mr. C., it is well to inquire how this money was expended on which these States ask interest. Why, so it is: Virginia took the noney to carry on the war. She did not borrow the money to give to the United States. But it was expended by her own officers; and, until their accounts were presented at the Department, the Government could not know what amount was due to Virginia. So it was with South Carolina. Until the State officers presented their accounts, and proved their claims, the Government could not adjust them; and, as this delay was no fault of the United States, they did not consider themselves bound to pay interest during this delay of bringing in the ac counts. He believed it was the same with Maryland and the other States provided for by the bill. The United States has always been willing to pay the demands as soon as presented with sufficient vouchers. But the Senate was now about to establish a novel principle, which he warned them to avoid, as it would establish the principle of paying interest on all claims that might be present. ed, and which might have remained unliquidated for a series of years, which he thought was peculiarly danger

Mr. CHAMBERS remarked, that, notwithstanding the rule adopted in settling the claim of Mr. Stetson, he hoped the claims of these States would be settled equitably. The principle on which he grounded his support of the bill, was, that in any transaction between an individual and the Government, the same rule ought to be observed as between two individuals. If this was a correct rule, why should it not apply also to transactions between the General Government and the States? In relation to Maryland, he remarked, that when these advances of money were made, they had no alternative but to submit to the ravages of our enemies, or proceed on their own funds. In that time of general panic, it was not to be supposed that the accounts of the moneys expended could be kept with the most satisfactory accuracy; and, when presented at the Department, they were found to lack that perfect order and mercantile regularity necessary for their ac ceptance. A large amount, therefore, of the claims, and

zens.

Mr. MARKS explained, at some length, the circu stances under which the money advanced by Pennsyl nia had been loaned [but which we cannot give, as o reporter was unable to hear distinctly the remarks of th gentleman.] He observed that the greater part of t sums loaned by Pennsylvania were applied to the pa ment of the troops kept up a Presque Isle, for the d fence of the shipping which was built there. The a counts had been presented in 1818, and all paid, with th exception of 13,000 dollars. He saw no reason why i terest should not be paid on this loan as well as on ind vidual advances.

The amendment offered by Mr. HAYNE was the agreed to.

Mr. KNIGHT moved to amend the bill by inserting additional section, providing for the payment of intereste moneys advanced by Rhode Island; on which some conve sation occurred between Messrs. BARNARD, KNIGHT COBB, and CHAMBERS.

Mr. HAYNE said, that, if this was a new principl and was to be applied to other States, he knew no reas why it should be withheld from Rhode Island. As the objection urged by the gentleman from Georg [Mr. COBB] that the money was disbursed by the Sta officers, he [Mr. H.J thought it strengthened the cla

Mr. COBB said the gentleman misapprehended him He had stated that the reason why interest was not f merly paid, was because the accounts were not brough in. It could not be expected that the United Stat would pay interest, until they knew what was the amou due to the States, and on which it was to be paid. T gentleman from Maryland said that two hundred an thirty-thousand dollars of the claims of that State ha been paid, on their being presented at the Department with interest upon the amount. He says that there one hundred and seventy thousand dollars which has n been adjusted; and it is on this latter sum that interes is now to be paid. And he would ask whether the vernment was bound to pay interest on claims, of which the State of Maryland had not brought forward the ev dence? He put the question to the Senate and to the gentleman himself.

Mr. KNIGHT said the case of Rhode Island was no the same as that of other States. In the accounts re dered against the Government interest was not charged The amount would not be very large-being interest fo about three years on one hundred and twenty thousan dollars. But, as the principle was applied to other State he thought Rhode Island equally entitled to its bench

Mr. BARNARD rose to say one word to the gentlema from Georgia, The time, as he thought, when interes ought to commence on these loans, was when the su were disbursed from the State Treasuries. It made