Funding for the digitization of this title was provided by R.J. Taylor, Jr. Foundation.
About News & planters' gazette. (Washington, Wilkes County [sic], Ga.) 1840-1844 | View Entire Issue (July 29, 1841)
•SPEECH OF MR. HABERSHAM, • 01’ GEORGIA, On the Distribution and Pre-Emption Bill, Delivered in the House of’ Representatives, July 2an ! 184!. On motion of Mr. W. C. Johnson, tiie House resolved its<-!finto Committee ofthe Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. Lawrence, of Pennsylvania, in the chair,) on the hill to appropriate the proceeds of the sales of the public lands and to grant pre-emption rights. The pending question being on motion of Mr. Clifford to stiike out the enacting clause— Mr. Habersham said that he would make no apology for intruding upon the attention of the committee at this time. Ile had been sitting here through two sessions, and had not occupied, during that time, one hour in debate ; nor had lie occupied more than ten minutes of the present session. If some gentlemen, who were so anxious to save time, but who always took care to be fully heard themselves on every important ques tion, would but occasionally give a silent vote, and allow to others a chance to be heard once or twice during the session, there would, perhaps, be more time saved than there was now. lie, therefore, as he had already said, would make no apology for presenting his views at this time. His object was to present, in as succint a way as was possible, the motives and views which would govern his vote. He did not hope to suggest one single new argument or new idea ; for he believed that every argu ment for or against this bill had been al ready suggested in the debate. All he as ked was the poor privilege of culling from the mass of arguments which had been made a few of the reasons why he would vote against the bill. My hon. friend from Ma ry land, [Mr. Win. Cost Johnson,] who in troduced this bill, and opened the debate up on it, bad, in concluding bis remarks, ex pressed the hope that the bill would be ta ken out of committee by the close of the week. Mr. H. said he was certainly not disposed to see the time of the House wast ed, nor was indisposed to see the debate closed with the week : lor he was among the most anxious to save time ; but lie tho’t lhat those who bad an opportunity of ex pressing their views should be courteous e nough to allow to others a like opportunity. Mr. H. said, 1 fully concur with the hon orable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cooper] in the hope that this nation may use its resources in such manner as to make them the means of adding to its pros perity and welfare in every respect, lie felt high gratification, as well as pride, in seeing the extraordinary improvements which had been made, and were still in pro gress, in every pari of the Union. He felt an especial gratification and pride in ob serving what bad been done, was doing, and would soon be accomplished in his own State. In two or three years at most, the great seaport of his o\\ n State, Savannah, Avould enjoy a continuous steam-transpor tation by way of the Tennessee river, from the falls of the Missouri, the falls of the Mississippi, the great northern lakes, ar.d from Pittsburg; and by the Flint river, with the Gulf of Mexico. It was, there fore, with some reluctance that lie would vote against this bill : for, although his State had within herself ample resources to accomplish this great work, yet, in the pre sent pressure upon her treasury and her people, her share of these proceeds would be convenient, though not absolutely neces sary to the completion of her great works; but, in this instance, lie felt himself bound to look to the expediency of this bill ; and while lie was anxious that the great work of internal improvement and education in the Stales should go on, yet he Avas unwilling to consent so to cramp and hamper the means and resources of the General Gov ernment, as to disable it from protecting and defending the States from foreign ag gression. In presenting his views on this bill, Mr. 11. said he would, for convenience-sake, in reply to the arguments which had been ur ged in its favor, consider that all the argu ments which could be so urged, had been presented in the published speech of his friend from Maryland, [Mr. Wm. Cost Johnson,] who, as chairman of the commit tee, had opened the debate on this bill.— That, from the distinguished talent and great ingenuity of his friend, and from the conviction that his friend, for his own sake, as well as from the pressing wants of his own State, had presented for the considera tion of the committee all that could be pre sented in favor ofthe bill, he (Mr. H.) would feel safe in assuming that that speech did not contain all the strong arguments in fa vor ofthe bill: for that reason he would make his (Mr. H.’s) argument apparently a reply to that speech, although he really intended it as a reply to all the speeches which had been made in favor of the bill, and he begged hisfriend from Maryland so to understand it. It is insisted that the public lands are a common fund, to enure to the equal benefit of all the States then existing, or to be cre ated, in the ratio and on the terms created by the deeds of session. To this position I readily accede ; and I also admit that, by the Constitution, Congress has power to dis pose of these lands or their proceeds, proi'i ded such disposition “ does not prejudice the claims of the United States, or of any partic ular State.’ Thisclauseof the Constitu tion, with this limitation, is in accordance with the terms ofthe original grants cr ces sions of the States, and preserves the trusts precisely as they were originally created by the grants. The grants of Virginia, N. Carolina, arid Georgia, arc, “forthe useand benefit of the said States (all the States) ac cording to their usual respective proportions in the general expenditure, and for no other purpose whatsoever.” The Constitution, article 4, section 3, gives Congress the pow er “ to dispose of, and make all needful re lations respecting the said territory.” If the clause had stopped here, the power would have hern general and unlimited : 1 Mt it is limited by the words which follow : “ this power shall not be roust rued to preju dice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” These claims are embraced in the terms ofthe original grant ; the power under the Constitution is limited by the terms and conditions of the grant ; and that grant, us made by the three States 1 have named, is, that the lands should be a common fund for the use of all the. States, according to their resp'clior proportions in the general expenditure. The Constitution, therefore, and these grants, are in entire accordance with each other. I agree, then that Congress has the power to dispose of these lands, or their proceeds, in such mode as it may think best, subject, however, to the above limitation. It may sell the lands and use the proceeds as a common fund for the equal benefit of all the States; or it may divide the proceeds among the Slates “ according to their respective proportions in t he general expenditure.” The Federal Government, then, is a trus tee for the States now existing, or which hereafter may be created ; bound to ad minister the trust for Uro benefit of the States in proportion * their respective shares in the general expenditure. If this be so, then it cannot be questioned that the most certain and exact inode of doing jus tice among the States would bo to put the proceeds in the common fund for general expenditure, after first deducting the costs and charges of the trust; and whenever there may be a surplus, not required for general expenditure, that then, and then only, to distribute that excess or surplus in duo proportion among the States. This would be the rule if the trust were a pri vate trust, and seems to be the only mode by which exact justice shall orcan be done in the distribution of the trust fund, and is in entire accordance, or very nearly so, with the principle and practice adopted in the former distribution. That was a distribu tion of a large surplus then in the common Treasury, and not needed for the general expenditure. Certainly no inquiry was made, it was not with the view to fix the a mount to be distributed. When there is u permanent large surplus in the common Treasury, not needed for the common wants, then I agree that such surplus ought to Le distributed but not otherwise. Now, let me ask, is the distribution pro posed by this bill in accordance with the just and equitable mode of administration and distribution of the trust fund, which I have just laid down ? 1 answer no; and will sustain this negative by the admission of facts made by the honorable gentleman himself, and by the provisions ofthe bill.— He admits that on the Ist of September, IS -38, the apparent expenses of tiie trust ex ceed the income to that date by the sum of $4,319,621 17. 1 this is so, there is an end ofthe argument as far as it rests on the fact that there is a surplus, and of the expedien cy of distributing it. But he denies that this is the fact, although he admits that it would so appear from the statement of the Secretary. To prove that the balance is the other way, he says : That there has been appropri ated for colleges, acade mies, &c., in the States in which the lands lie, 12,000, 000 acres ; which valued at $1 50, is $18,000,000 That in addition there has beetl given to the same States 5 per centum of the proceeds of sales, equal to about 5,000,000 The amount granted in pay to the army not less than 25,000,000 That all these oughtto becre dited to the proceeds of the lands. If these gifts to the States in which the lands lie, amounting, as stated by the gen tleman, 1o $23,000,000, have been made without authority by the trustee, who, I would ask, are the injured parties? We cannot hesitate to answer that if any party has a right to complain, and to demand re. dress ofthe trustee, it is the old States are the injured party ; no other answer can be given. And here, I will ask, how does the bill, now before the committee, propose to give redress to the old States for this inju ry or wrong? Why, by granting to the new Slates ten per centum more of the gross proceeds of the sales, and a large ad ditional proportion of the lands ; and then, after deducting all the expenses of every kind incurred iu surveying the lands, and selling them, to distribute the nett proceeds which remain, not among the old States on ly, but among all the States, in the ratio of their representation on this floor under the new census. This is certainly a strange way of making compensation to tho old States for the large gifts which had been already made to the new States out of the common property. How would the gentle man like to be treated in this manner in the distribution of a private trust-fund in which he was interested, and what would he say to the trustee ? But, says the gentleman, the $25,000,- 000 given under military warrants, were given to pay the common debt of the Slates, and ought of course to be charged to the U nited States. Much of this was given to pay revolutionary services, and Avas, there fore, one of the express debts to pay which the lands Avere ceded by the States; that part, therefore, Avas very properly expend ed by the trustee, and Avas for the benefit of all. But, even admitting that this is char geable to the United States, have not the States received ample remuneration in the $28,000,000 already distributed among them, nominally, it is true, as a loan ; but avlio dreams that the States will ever be called upon to pay that money back ? Will those avlio are supporting this bill ever call upon them to do it ? Does not this bill, in effect, cancel that debt ? But passing by these objections, and ad mining, as I do, that if there is a permanent large surplus in the common treasury be yond the annual expenditure, such surplus oughtto be distributed among the States, I Avould ask, does such or any surplus exist? It would be strange, indeed, to admit that such surplus does exist in the face of the bill now before the House, based upon the [ late report of the Secretary ofthe Treasu ry, proposing u loan of $12,000,000, us ne cessary to ne et the immediate demands upon ili. Treasury, and especially when i that report suggests that such loan cannot safely he made ior a shorter period than 8 years, if the payment is to depend on the ordinary revenue, exclusive of the proceeds ofthe public lands; and this too on the supposition that there will he no extraordi nary expenditure, and that peace Avill he preserved ivith all nations. Again, it Avould be strange to admit such surplus to exist, in the very teeth ofthe report of the Secretary Avltich exhibits tho probable aggregate defi cit at the end ofthe next year, according to his estimate, to be $16,088,215, arid to which deficit we may add some eight or ten millions more for the payment of the just claims of individuals and of States—mak ing in all a debt of something like $25,- 000,000, for which Ave are now liable. It that, instead of a surplus, there is a deficiency certainly of $16,000,- 000, and probably of $25,000,000 at the least. But his honorable friend from Maryland, [Mr. Johnson,] had stated, that if the ex penses ofthe trust ivere paid, and there ivas a surplus of the proceeds, that surplus ought to he distributed, even if there Avas a general deficit in the Treasury, because these lauds never had been considered as a source of national revenue. In reply to this, I say that ever since these lands Avere ceded to the United States, they have al- Avays been considered and treated as com mon revenue, and used as such. As evi dence of this, he Avould refer to the report of the Committee on Manufactures of the Sen ate, in 1832, made by an honorable and ve ry distinguished gentleman, then and now a member of that body from Kentucky, [Mr. Clay.] See Senate document, 448, Ist ses sion, 22d Congress. That report used the folloAving language : “ Government may employ the proceeds of the public lands, as a part of the ordinary revenue, or in any other manner consistent with the Constitu tion. There may he revenue without tax ation.” The report recommends distribu tion, only because the proceeds arc not wanted for expenditure. Here, then, I have high authority to sustain me in the ground I have taken against the position of the gentleman from Maryland, that these proceeds are revenue to be disposed of by Congress in any manner it may think pro per, subject to the conditions and limita tions of tho trust. The dividends on the ■•lock held by the United States in the late Bank were revenue, though not a tax. The honorable gentleman from Mary land, contended, that the fact that the Trea sury Avas empty and in debt beyond its means to pay, avhs no argument against this proposed distribution, and produced, in support of this position, the example Avhich Congress had sot after the close ofthe Re volution, by assuming the debts of the States, although the Treasury Avas then empty and very greatly indebted, which debts were subsequently paid out of the common Treasury. Was there not, l Avould ask, a wide difference between the two ca ses—a difference as Avide as the poles, both in the fact and in the principle ? Were those debts, in fact, State debts? True, they had been contracted by the States on their individual responsibility, but for the common benefit of all in a common cause, and forthe defence ofthe rights, property, and liberties of all —not forthe belief;! O* any particular State, but for the whole na tion. Was that not a case in Avhieli the General Government not only ought, but Avas bound in justice to assume the payment cf the debt out ofthe common fund ? Con gross acts on the same principle now, and has alivays done so. If a State expends her money in suppressing insurrection, repell ing foreign invasion, or in any manner for the general and public good, Congress does refund, and alivays has refunded, the a mount to her. But ivhat ivas tho ease noiv under con sideration ? It was a case in which the States have voluntarily incurred the debts ; debts not intended for the general benefit, a 1 though the works for ivhich they ivere in curred may ultimately prove so. They are debts incurred in the construction of ivorks of internal improvements within their respective limits—improvements especially intended to promote the interests ofthe par ticular Slate, differing also from the debt of the Revolution, and other debts usually as sumed by Congress, in the fact, that ivliile those ivere incurred involuntarily, these have been incurred voluntarily. Here, then, is a vast difference in point of fact, as ivell as in principle! In this matter I ivish to be fully under stood. lam as great an advocate for inter nal improvements in and by the States as any one. I will again repeat, that lam gratified, both as a man and as a citizen of the United States, to see the i'ast improve ments now made and in progress in my oivn State, and ivhich ivill in a year or tivo be completed by her oivn means. But I can not, as a representative of that great State, stand here and assent to a measure ivhich I consider altogether objectionable in the pre sent state of the common Treasury. Most ardently do I desire to see all the States re lieved from their load of debt, but I cannot consent to afford that relief in the mode noiv proposed, ana ivith the probable results of that mode which are now staring me in the face ; an increased tariff to supply the de ficiency created in the revenue ; call after call by the States upon Congress to furnish out ofthe common fund money to meet their ivants, or satisfy their extravagances; when no money remains in the Treasury, then a call to pledge the credit ofthe Federal head to raise it; lastly, an immense national debt and high duties and taxation of all sorts, as in England, to pay evci: the inter est of that deb!. Is this a bugbear? the march has already begun. First, a loan to the States ofthe surplus funds in the Trea sury ; then a conversion of that loan into a gift; now a demand for a distribution of these proceeds, ivhen the Treasury is not only empty, but largely in debt. Thus far is history already. What next ? It mav be a ghost created by my oivn imagination. God grant it tnay he :>. Th” gentleman from Maryland lias sta ted, that if there was not a surplus in the Treasury now, a surplus might be easily created, by laying a duty of 20 per cent, on all articles imported, except some enumer ated articles, such as specie, tin, &c. n mounting, in all, to $1 4.300,000. (Sec re port of the Secretary of the Treasury for these articles.) Now it was much easier to make a calculation in figures to produce a result, than it was to produce the same result in practice. But allowing the mode ofthe gentleman to he adopted, and thut, with the exception of these $14,300,000 of imports, a duty of 20 per cent, shall be laid on all other imports, the result for the pre sent and coming year, according to the re port of the Sectary of the Treasury, will lie a revenue 0t*22,500,000, hut at the ex piration of that time, and ivhen the compro mise act should reach itsloivest limits, the amount would be only $20,800,000. But does experience authorize us to be lieve that our expenditures can he kept e ven ivitiiin that limit ? By the same re port, tho expenditures, it appears, average in tho last four years $38,000,000 annual ly. Taking this as a criterion, even if the revenue amounts annually, after 1842, to $20,000,000, ivhich under all chances of a decrease of importations and of war, ivecan not reasonably expect, can ive reasonably calculate to reduce the expenditures from $38,000,000 to an amount below $20,000,- 000, ivith all the economy ivhich, with a due regard to circumstances we ought and hope to practice ? But admitting that, under the compro mise act, after the year 1842, ivith the ad dition of 20 per cent, duties on all articles not noiv payingduty, exceptthose $14,000,- 000, the expenditures might be brought w ithin the income, he ivould ask if it ivas probable that the manufacturing interests’ of this country ivould consent to this ad va lorem duty ? At the last session ail honor able gentleman from Massachusetts had stated, if he (Mr. H.) recollected rightly, that the New England States ivere willing to alloiv the compromise act to stand as it now ivas. He gave full credit to that state ment. And why ? Simply Ivcause it ivas the interest of those States to allow the compromise act to remain as it was. They well knew that any great increase of the duty ivould produce the effect it had hither to done—that the result ivould be compe tition from one end ofthe Blue Ridge to the other, w hich it would be very hard for them to resist. But would the compromise act after the year 1842, w ith the additional duty of 20 per cent, on silks, ivines, and teas, cover tho expenditures ofthe Government ? He would read the following table : Imports in 1838- Os wines $2,313,282 Silks 9,812,338 Teas 3,497,! 50 Aggregate $15,627,776 In that year free of duty $60,860,000 Deduct tho above 15,627,776 $45,232,224 Whole import of that year $113,7)4,404 In 1839 tlieivhole import ivas 157,609,000 Articles free of duty 72,040,000 In 1829, the free goods rather exceeded the w hole import one-half, or 60 to 113. In 1830, they rather fall short one half, or 72 to 157. (See Secretary’s report, Ist session 26th Congress, Doc. No. 3, tables F and G.) Noiv, after 1842, if the duties, ivith the addition of those on silks, wines, and teas, ivould not cover expenses, would they con sent to a duty of 20 per cent., or any per cent, on articles used in their manufactures ? He thought he might safely answer that they would not. But if the manufacturers in the Eastern States were to do it, would the iron interests ? The best evidence we could have on that point was the fact that, notwithstanding the high rate of duties now, they were calling for an increase of duties for the protection of the iron business. If that was so, what would be the result ? A compromise again not on the principle of the former comprom ise, that a revenue should be raised only sufficient to cover the necessary expendi tures of the Government, but availing them selves of the concession that sufficient reve nue should be provided to cover the expen ditures, the expenditures would be increa sed beyond the necessary amount in order to create a deficiency to be supplied by an increase of the rate of duties. Thus waste ful expenditure would necessarily draw af ter it a high tariff. Thus all the advanta ges of a high protection would be gained without the name of a protective tariff. But I ask the gentlemen of the iron interest, whether a high duty oil iron would benefit them ? Let them reflect what Avould be the result of a high duty, whether called protec tive or not. The same results ivould fol low, which would be produced in the cot ton manufactures. The mountains of the South abound in iron ore ofthe best quality and in water power ivhich can be had for almost nothing. On the west of those mountains coal abounds ; on the east, ex tensive pine forests, readily converted into charcoal, and probably mineral coal in a bundance—but as far as Georgia is con cerned, not yet discovered. In my oivn county there is already an iron foundry, in which 1 have a small interest, supplying the country with castings of every discrip tion, and now of the best quality; machin ery of all kinds ; bar-iron, and indeed a! most every thing usually produced at ml establishments. On the lands of the com pany is the greatest abundance of fine wa ter-power; iron ore ; the proper sand for moulding ; limestone and sandstone for the furnaces, all within the compass of three or four miles. I mention this merely as an evidence of what may be found along the whole line ofthe Blue Ridge, and I warn the iron interests of the North of the com v petition which a high duty would at oner excite throughout all that rich and healthy region, l.fear, however, that gunltnun will not profit by this warning, but press on for high protective duties. 1 would ask ofthe advocates of the bill whether they will faithfully pledge them selves, and those, they represent, if this bill passes, and tho proceeds of the lands are distributed, to keep down the expenditures to the income produced in tho way and at the rate proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and he content with no higher duly on any one article than twenty per cent? If they will, I am ready to meet them. But I know they will not. The iron interest of the North is already crying for protection. If they will not keep the expen ditures as low as the income, then, having parted with the proceeds ofthe public land we must increase the duties ; for there will be no other source of revenue remaining worth mentioning, and this bill will become the foundation of a permanent high protec tive tariff; and he asked gentlemen from the farming and planting interest, no mat ter in ivhat section ofthe Union they reside whether they were willing to lay such a foundation for high duties ? ulieiher or not they were prepared to subject their people to a permanent high tariff? If they were, he was not willing to subject his people to it. He was not willing, by giving them the paltry proceeds ofthe sales of the pub lic lands, (ior the share of Georgia, distri buted among her white population, ivould not amount to tiventy-five cents each annu ally,) to create the danger or run the risk of subjecting his people to a high tariff.— He ivould not consent to it for such a mess of potage. Would the planting interests any where ? He hoped not. What ivould bo the result of the distribu tion ? The non-manufacturing States would receive the proceeds, and pay them back into the Treasury in high additional duties. The manufacturing States would do the same thing, but they ivouid gain the whole benfit of a high protection on their industry at home. The non-manufacturing States, therefore, had nothing to gain whilst the manufacturing States ivould gain, at all e vents, this great, decided advantage. This alone ought to induce those who represented the farming and planting interests here to scrutinize this bill closely before they vo ted in favor of it. If they were willing to bear a high tariff, lie was not ; nor was he willing, for himself and his constituents, to risk such a result. But the gentleman from Maryland had said that he pressed this as a State right measure. He (Mr. H.) would say from such a State rights doctrine the Lord deliver him. He had been a State right man ; he had fought the battles of State rights both in his own State and South Carolina. 11” had. gone, hand in hand, with the State rights party,wherever it had existed, all his life ; and lie would ask true State rights man whether this was a Slate rights meas ure ? Could that be a State right which was a mere matter of expediency—which depended on the will of Congress whether it should be exorcised or not ? This distri bution ivasnot a permanent thing; Con gress could withhold it. What was this but making the States depend upon the will of Congress, and suppliants at the feet ofCon gress ? He asked the gentleman from Ma ryland whether he was willing to place his own glorious Slate, the blood of whose cit izens had manured the fields of Eutaiv and Camden, and who had so gallantly de fended the flag of their country on the walls of Fort McHenry, whether he was willing to place such a State in this humiliating attitude? He (Mr. II.) thought that the gentleman, if lie reflected well on the off; cts to be produced on the independence of his own State, would himself withdraw Ids sup port to this bill. There ivas one portion ofthe gentleman’s remarks which lie (Mr. H.) had deeply re gretted ; and he could not but think that in his enthusiasm, the gentleman had been carried further than he intended to go. He (Mr. H.) alluded to that part of the gentle man’s remarks in ivhich he referred to the Cabinet, to the number of suppliants for office, and to the heads of Departments, sit ting like demigods upon their throne, and treating ivith contempt the humble appli cants. Now for his own part he would say that he had never seen a Cabinet more straightforward than this. [Mr. W. C. Johnson said that by the per mission of the gentleman [Mr. Habersham] he ivould place his [Mr. J.’s] remarks in a true position, that erroneous inferences may not be drawn from them. He had in his [Mr. J.’sJ speech made no personal attack nor did he think of charging corruption on any officer of the Government. He spoke of the power of the Executive, and its vast influence. He, had alluded to the past Ex ecutive as well as to the present, and the me mbers of this committee were no doubt as well impressed with the truth of his re marks as himself. He spoke of the heads of Departments to show what influence they could each wield by patronage. And their increased and increasing patronage made those who were intended to be inferior subordinate offices of Government now caressed, and daily solici ted, for favors, as if they were mimic Pres idents. Nor did it ever enter his mind to attack the motives of those who wielded this poiv er, or who received its benefits. He should only think of doing that when occasion made it necessary. So far from charging the present Executive with excess of use of this dispensing power, he believed that he fell, as yet, far short of public expectation on this subject ; and ifhe (Mr. J.) had any opinion on that subject, it was that the heads of Departments were too tardy in realizing li • wishes of the public on this subject. It v. a-s one tiling to speak of power centering in the Executive—it ivas another to charge abuse of the exercise of the power. He said, or, ifhe did not, he ivould now say, that it is most liable to abuse whenever cab inet officers aspire to higher stations.] Mr. Habersham continued. He was happy to have afforded the gentleman an opportunity of making the explanation : not that he (Mr. II.) desired it, hut that there were always those who Mere n ady to mis represent statements that were made here. And to show the gentleman that he (Mr. II.) did not do him injustice, he would read from iiis own notes the precise sentiment which he had intended to express at tho time the gentleman interrupted him for tho pupose of explanation. It was this: “lam sure he merely meant it as a picture of what might be, not what is. ’ Such howe ver ivas the construction hich the remarks of the gentleman might be made to bear.— He considered thatg’ ntleman as straight forward and honest as the very w hich he ivas about to speak. And not on ly did he so consider him, but he consid ered him to ho as warm a friend of that cabinet as he (Mr. H.) himself was. So far as he could judge, the only object w hich that cabitn t had in view was to do justice to the people and to the States—not to display their power or to exercise it improperly. Let them continue that course,‘and they would find in him as w arm a supporter as he knew they w ould in his friend from Maryland. The great argument which had been re lied on here ami elsewhere in support of this bill, and a bill on the same subject in troduced into the Senate during the last Con gress, by, as I believe, a distinguished Sen ator form South Carolina, is, that if we of the old States did not take our share of tho lands noiv, the new States in which they lie would soon take all. 1 deny the power ofthe new States to do this now, nor is it probable they ever will possess the power to do it. Under the census lately taken, the nine States in ivhich public lands noiv arc will, in the next Congress, hold but little more than one-fourth of the whole vote of this House. By the next census, Ohio will cease to have any public lands within her limits ; and ivill have ofcourse rio other interest in the lands than the old States. Indianna next will be in like sit uation ; so that the State s having any ma terial quantity of the public lands within their limits ivill never probably have a ma jority on this floor. But even if in the lapse offline such majority were attained, 1 have too much confidence in their justice and magnanimity to anticipate such exercise of power. The gentleman from Maryland has said that tho General Government had taken to itself all the revenue of the country from customs, and the proceeds of the sales of the public lands. True ; hut for what ? What duties had the General Government to discharge ? What expenses to incur ? She had to pay the expense of the whole defence ofthe country naval and military, of our foreign negotiations—of our Indian wars—of the administration of all our in ternal revenue. Now, he (Mr. H.) would say that whenever the revenues derived from these sources ivere more than suffi cient to meet the expenditures, give them to the States. And another answer ivas, that if the General Government wanted re venue, and ive took it from the General Government, and gave it to tli<> States, then the States must be taxed to make up the de ficiency. lie had done what he could to warn the farming and planting interests against the passage of this bill. lie ivould conclude by giving to the States in which the land lay the warning of one who stood high in the confidence of th ■ West; and for this purpose he ( Mr. II.) would read the fol lowing extract from a report made by Mr. Wickliffe as chairman of the Committee on Public Lands : [Vide reports of Houso Committees, Ist session, 32d Cong., doe! No. 448, p. 6.J “So long as Congress shall retain the right and power of legislating ov< r this sub ject, and tho proceeds arising from the pub lic lands shall be regarded as national treasure or revenue, and not the individual property of the separate States, it may he, hoped that an enlightened and a liberal poli cy will be pursued ; when the States shall each have a vested interest separate and distinct, that policy which will be calcula ted to convert these lands into the most money to increase the annual dividend of the several States, will be pursued, regard less of the wants or condition of the States in which they lie. “The Representatives in Congress from the old Stales, constituting a majority, in fluenced by a desire to make this fund las ting and profitable for State purposes; to enlarge the dividend of their respective States; to exhibit, in hold relief, on their annual or biennial return to their constitu ents, the countless thousands wrung from the new states for the purpose of lessening the burdens in the old, will stay the prog ress of surveying the public lands. All that are surveyed must he sold, must be forced upon the emigrant. Public lands will be sold, hut they well be of inferior quality. The tide of emigration and the spirit of en terprise will be checked ; donations to the meritorious settlers, to tho new States for public improvement, will no longer be made ; pre-emptions in favor of the honest and industrious pioneers of the West will be denied. A cold, calculating, sordid, and selfish policy must and will influence the members of Congress in all future le gislation.,upon this subject.” I have done, and thank the committee for the indulgence which has been extended to me. THE VETO POWER. We see, with great regret, in several Whig journals, opinions put forth with con fidence as to the determination of President Tyler to veto certain hills, should they pass., both houses of Congress. We feel confi dent that such declarations were made without authority. An experienced public officer, like Mr. Tyler, placed in a highly ’ a-ponsiblc station, at a very important cri sis, ivould no! he apt to forestall public o pinion, or the action ofCongress, by indica ting his views on any subject not yet defi nitely acted upon. That his view should j be made known, confidentially, fohis friends or to his cabinet, is an essential pri vilege of his office ; but President Tyler is aware that the veto power is one of great delicacv, and, we may add. of great (’
