Georgia Historic Newspapers

    •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 (’