28TH CONG.....2D SESS.

uation was our true policy. He entreated gentlemen to make calculations. Gentlemen from New England were, he knew, good at figures; he would thank them to estimate what twenty-five cents (the lowest point of graduation under the bill) would yield in twenty years, at an interest of six per cent., compounding it every six months-which was the government rate. They will find that in that length of time the twenty-five cents would, perhaps, exceed in amount the present price of the land-one dollar and twenty-five cents. Calculate what advantages would have resulted to the country, in a financial way, if all the public lands had been sold as successfully as the Chickasaw country has.

There was no greater error than that under which gentlemen labored as to the value of these refused lands. There are gentlemen on this floor from some of the old States, (he alluded particularly to North and South Carolina,) who owned large bodies of land that had cost them, perhaps, only a few cents per acre, and which they would gladly dispose of at one half of the lowest price proposed by this bill. Mr. C. stated that in his own State, which was generally looked upon as one of the most fertile, out of more than thirty millions of acres offered only about one-third had been sold. Much of that remaining unsold had been twenty years and upwards in market. All those conversant with the subject knew it never would sell at the present price. The expense of the present system in that State each year is about equal to the amount of the average sales. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. CAUSIN] had told us of the great quantity of lands sold some few years ago, and the speculations in land, as an argu ment to show that the price was not too high. But had he looked into the causes-had he compared the amount of the circulation then with the amount now-had he compared the prices of produce, and everything else, in the years of which he spoke, and the prices now? Mr. C. would willingly agree with the gentleman that the lands should be sold now at the same ratio of reduetion at which the staple of the country in which he lived had been reduced in price since the time of those heavy sales of lands. Then, cotton sold at some twenty cents per pound, while now it will not bring one-fourth of that price. All know that the value of land, as far as agricultural purposes are concerned, is always governed by the price of the products of the land; and if there were no other reasons for reducing the price of land, the great fall in the price of such products would be sufficient to justify the reduction.

Mr. C. said he would call the committee back to first principles. It is profitable to recur to them sometimes, and never more so than on this occasion. We hear gentleman talk about the deeds of cession from the old States of these lands, and the compacts with the new States when they came into the Union. Mr. C. would call their attention to the great deed of cession from his native State, Virginia. What did that deed state as the true end and purpose for which that great landholder gave up her lands to the United States? The deed stated that the lands were to be disposed of for settlement. Mr. C. agreed that the fund was a trust fund; but were there not other parties to this trust besides the general government? By the terms of the deed, as well as those of the compacts with the new States, those States became parties in interest. To dispose of the lands for settlement, was an obligation on the part of the general government. Not to tax the lands until five years after sale, was an obligation on the part of the new States. For what purpose did the new States agree not to tax the lands of the United States? Was it not to encourage settlements-to get the lands into the hands of citizens for cultivation? How long, in the name of justice, will you persist in refusing to perform your part of the bond, and insist that the new States shall continue to perform theirs? Will you refuse to sell the lands for settlement, as you have promised, and still insist, that the new States shall not tax them? Mr. C. would use no threat-he intended no such thing; but he would explain to the gentleman from Maryland the reason of that eager and earnest manner which characterized western members when speaking on this subject. That gentleman had not seen, as they had seen, the effect of the present system, as it was working in the new States; and should it be persisted in, gentlemen might assure themselves that there would be a corresponding antagonist system adopted there. He would not say that people in the West would take the lands, but he would say this, that when they found a system which worked oppressively to them and their interest pertinaciously adhered to,

The Public Land Bill-Mr. Chapman.

against every principle of justice and their repeated remonstrances, they would resort to a counteracting policy. The question had been seriously agitated already whether the new States might not justly tax the public lands within their limits, on account of the want of good faith in this government in refusing to sell them. A part of the land had been sold on credit. and afterwards relinquished to the United States. Many believe that lands of this description may lawfully be taxed. It would not be contended that the United States could buy lands of individuals, and claim exemption from taxation under the compact. The case of the relinquished lands is similar. The government having sold the lands, they were subject to taxation five years after, and no subsequent contract, to which the State was not a party, could take away the right. Mr. C. insisted that there had been a palpable violation of the compact on the part of the general government. You must look to both sides of the contract. The deeds of cession required that the lands should be disposed of for settlement, and these deeds are embraced by the compacts with the new States; but how can the lands be disposed of if the government continues to hold them up at a price beyond their value, and at which they can never be sold? What would the result be if these lands were taxed? Take Alabama as an example. There are remaining unsold in that State say twenty millions of acres; a tax of one cent per acre on that quantity (and the citizens of that State now pay a still higher tax) would yield to the State a revenue of $200,000 a year. This sum, then, is the tax Alabama pays every year to the United States by the restriction of not taxing the public lands, or the refusal of the government to dispose of them. This was the annual loss she sustained every year by abstaining from the exercise of a right belonging to all sovereignties, of raising revenue by taxing land, the only sure and certain property from which a revenue can be raised to support the State government and discharge her obligations. Did Alabama receive any equivalent to this amount?

It had been said that the school lands were granted as an equivalent, but this was an error. These school lands were granted to increase the desire to purchase surrounding lands. At all events, they formed but a small consideration for the loss of the taxing power. Mr. C. said his State was one of the most loyal of all members of the Union, still this evil was one too mighty to be long overlooked by her. Her legislature had memorialised and remonstrated until forbearance had almost ceased to be a virtue, but no relief was afforded. That State, like many others, is heavily in debt; and beside the oppressive taxation upon her citizens by this government throngh the tariff policy, they were burdened by a heavy domestic tax to pay the expenses of the State government, and preserve the faith of the State, by promptly performing her obligations with her creditors. Thus far the credit and the faith of the State had been, as it always would be, preserved. There has been no instance (said Mr. C.) of a failure, of a day's delay, in discharging promptly her obligations by his State. It has been charged, however, that Alabama had or would repudiate. He referred to an article that appeared in the National Intelligencer of the 27th of August last, which he sent to the Clerk to read. It was in the following words:

"ALABAMA ELECTION -The Texas flag waves over the State in triumph. Unable to pay their own debt, the people vote to assume the immense debt of Texas! The whigs have struggled nobly for their principles and for protection to our own citizens, but it has been in vain. The fancied benefits of foreign aggression and war have dazzled the eyes of the locos, all to save Texas, and have caused them to lose sight of what their own country stands so lamentably in need of. Steady, whigs! steady! Strike earnestly from this to the election in favor of the good cause. duty and leave the result to Providence. Elsewhere all is well. Locofocoism is doomed.-Southern (Tuscaloosa) Advocate."

Do your

No paper in the Union has denounced repudiation more than the Intelligencer, and yet it has circulated a charge calculated to inflict a serious injury upon the credit of a State that has never, in one instance, failed to meet her engagements promptly. That paper has a wide circulation, and a high reputation; it is sent to all quarters of the globe, and whatever is found in it against the credit of the States has great influence with capitalists. Thus, without authority to be relied on, and in the face of facts that proved the contrary, that paper had published to the world that Alabama was, or would be, a repudiating State. Mr. C. said he would leave it with the editors in some measure to repair the injury done by

H. of Reps.

this unjust charge, (circulated to what extent Goo only knew,) by publishing a part of the last mes sage of the governor of Alabama, than whom none were more vigilant in preserving the faith and guard ing the interest of his State.

The Clerk read as follows:

"In adverting to the perplexing subject of our State in debtedness, which has commanded so much of my anxiou attention since I have been in office, it will be recollected that I have rarely failed in any of my former communica tions to urge on the general assembly the indisputabl obligation and overruling moral necessity of preserving the faith of the State inviolate, by a prompt discharge of ou pecuniary obligations as soon as they fall due. That thi will be attended with difficulties and sacrifices of the mos embarrassing character, I have never failed to acknowl edge; but these invariable concomitants of all attempts to dis charge a deep indebtedness, are not only the strongest ad monitions to economy in future, but give to the debtor the only just claim to the high morality which so properly attaches, in either savage or civilized life, to a rigid com pliance with pecuniary obligations. A free people hol not only their honor, but their form of government their institutions, and all their dearest rights, by n other tenure than a willingness to incur any sacritice t which human nature can be subjected in maintaining them Those who will count the cost of sustaining the publi faith subject themselves to the just suspicion of bein equally as calculating in defending the public liberty. Th instinct of true patriotism is so nearly allied with the sen timent of national honor, that to destroy the former w have only to lower the tone of the people in maintaining the latter. In fact, where the people are the aeal source of pow er, the lofty spirit of true patriotism can never survive the loss of individual confidence in the untarnished honor o the government. I have indulged in these reflections from no apprehension that a State like ours, containing withi her own limits all the elements calculated to place her in the front rank with her sisters of the confederacy, will eve fail to discharge punctually her publie liabilites. I mak these remarks merely for the purpose of pointing out th merited censures which are always certain to attach to people who invoke the just condemnation of the whole ci ilized world, in failing to maintain untarnished their publi

faith.

Mr. C. asked, whether more patriotic and nobl sentiments could have been uttered? Did such lan guage look like repudiation? But Mr. C. said thes were not only the sentiments of the governor, bu of the people of Alabama also, very recently ex pressed by their representatives, who, by a vot almost unanimous, have passed resolutions agains repudiation. The people of Alabama (even whil groaning under heavy taxes, and when their stapl has fallen to a price less than one-fourth of its va ue when the State debt was contracted) hold th sentiment so beautifully expressed by their chie magistrate "that a State who would refuse to pay the debt she had contracted would refuse to defen herself against a foreign enemy; and a want of par riotism would be as obvious in the one case as i the other."

Some gentlemen might be disposed to inquir what connection this had with the subject before th committee. It had a natural and a just connection with it, for he had just been stating what was th result of the existing system in crippling the abilit of the State to meet her engagements. Here wa the very paper which had been referred to as au thority against the bill, holding up Mr. C.'s State t public contempt as one of the repudiating States o the Union, and that in the face of such strong evi dence to the contrary.

Mr. C. stated that the gentleman from Indian before him [Mr. THOMAS SMITH] had so fully an swered the objections of the gentleman from Ver mont, [Mr. COLLAMER,] and the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. VINTON,] that he was relieved of th necessity of saying much in addition. It was cu rious to observe, however, the contradictions in th arguments of these opponents of the bill. One sai the reduction of the land would encourage specula tors to buy up all the lands; while the other insiste that the graduation principle would check the sales inasmuch as purchasers would not buy until th price came down to the lowest sum proposed by th bill. Mr. C. would leave to the gentlemen to recon cile these inconsistent views if they could. Th gentleman from Vermont had asserted that this bi would not benefit the poor man. Now Mr. C. said that although he might admit that the gentle man from Vermont was superior to him in informa tion on most subjects, he was not disposed to gran that he was equal to him on this. Mr. C. affirme that the provisions of the bill would benefit th poor. It would enable every man to have a home a a moderate cost-at a sum within the reach of th poor. Gentlemen asked, Who could not raise on hundred dollars to buy eighty acres of land? Mr. C said that might, to gentlemen from some quarters appear to be a very inconsiderable sum; but it was difficult for any man to make it by his own labo

>

1

28TH CONG.....2D SESS.

Mr.

at the present prices of agricultural products. C. said it was impossible to estimate the amount of useful labor that had been lost to the country by keeping the price of the refused lands beyond their actual value. Thousands settle upon these lands; but they make no more improvement than they are compelled to do, to live and raise provisions for their families. They are not only discouraged from making improvements by their not owning the land, but they well know that, although they found the land when they settled upon it almost destitute of value, if they add to its value by material improvements, some hawk-eyed speculator would soon buy the land and appropriate it to his own use. Thus, for three-fourths of the year, while they are not cultivating their crop, these settlers are idle; while, if the land belonged to them, they would go on to improve it, and add to its value. This loss of the productive labor of the country is worthy of the consideration of all statesmen.

The gentleman from Ohio objected to this bill because it proposes to reduce the price of lands when they are now too cheap. He insists that the cheap price at which the government sells its lands, is the cause of the low price of provisions-that we produce too much, &c. Now that gentleman, being an advocate of the protective policy, ought not to complain of the abundance and cheapness of provisions, while the manufactured goods keep up high, as they are comparatively now.

Mr. C. said he had always thought that an abundance of provisions was a national blessing; it certainly was advantageous to the manufacturing classes. If that gentleman will examine the subject, he will find that it is not because government land sells cheap that agricultural products are low, but that it is owing to the operation of the protective tariff policy which he advocates, whereby our foreign trade is crippled, and we are compelled to submit to the terms of the home purchasers without competition.

Mr. C. said he thought those who advocate protection to manufactures argued that it tended to advance the price of agricultural products by increasing the demand; but, although they have protection now to their heart's content, they find provisions low; and the gentleman from Ohio advises as the remedy to raise the price of the public lands.

Besides, the protective policy, its friends say, will cause laborers to abandon agriculture and go into manufactories. The gentleman from Ohio, as another incentive, would raise the price of the public lands-drive from their employment men in whose bosoms the love of agricultural scenes and employments was implanted by the hand of nature herselfto forsake their farms and go into the confined and unhealthy factories! In the name of God, were not these gentlemen satisfied with having a system of duties operating as bounties to the tune of forty, fifty, and even two hundred per cent. on the necessaries of life, without adopting other oppressive means of driving our people into manufactories? He did not believe the people of the great western State of Ohio would sustain their representatives in such doc

trines.

Mr. C. said his time would not permit him to notice all the objections to this bill, but he could not omit one argument of the gentleman from Vermont. Mr. C. understood him to say that, as by the great sales of the public land in 1835 and 1836, much remained in the hands of individuals, (speculators,) the passage of this bill might materially injure these landholders by limiting their sales. This, Mr. C. thought was a very good argument for the bill. Mr. C. went for precisely that result.

Let the government reduce the price of lands so that the money received for lands may go into the treasury, rather than in the pockets of speculators. Mr. C. did not care how much speculators lost: he meant to save the people-the actual cultivators of the soil. But Mr. C. said that an argument used by the gentleman from Maryland against this measure was, in his estimation, so novel, that it required a passing notice. Mr. C. understood him to contend that the price of lands ought not to be reduced in the new States, lest it might encourage emigration from the old.

[Mr. CAUSIN explained. He only intended to say that it would give too strong a stimulus to emigration, already too rapid for the emigrants, as well as the interest of the States.]

Mr. CHAPMAN resumed. Certainly he understood the gentleman as maintaining that the bill would induce emigration from the old to the new States.

Mr. C. proceeded to inquire whether this would

The Public Land Bill-Mr. T. Smith.

be sound policy if practised in domestic life. Would it do for the head of a family in this country, where we are in need of an increase of population, to say that none of his sons or daughters should marry and go off, lest his own family should decrease in number? Mr. C. would have been greatly surprised had such an argument fallen from the mouth of a married man; but his surprise was still greater at hearing it from He trusted that if the bachelor. a gentleman from Maryland should ever be fortunate enough to have a family, he would not establish in domestic life a rule so cruel and tyrannical. Mr. C. said such was not the policy of our forefathers, either in private or political life. Mr. C. said the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. CAUSIN] had told the committee that much had been done by this government for the new States. Now, in the name of Heaven, he wanted to know what had been done for them? He wanted to know how much of some forty millions of dollars, annually collected by means of the present unjust and oppressive tariff, was expended in his State? What share of the public offices did Alabama get? He would call the attention of the committee and the whole country to a comparative statement he had prepared of the distribution of the federal offices among the several States-showing the number each State was entitled to according to population-the number they had more and less than they are entitled to. How is the comparison between the States of Maryland and Alabama in this respect? It will be seen that while Maryland had, of the federal offices, three hundred and ninety-three more than she is entitled to, Alabama has one hundred and eightyeight less. No State or Territory in the Union had so small a share as Alabama. She had not a single citizen in office at this great metropolis of officeholders and office-seekers.

She stood in this respect in a condition enviably independent. Mr. C. said he felt proud that he hailed from such a State-the banner State in our late democratic victory, and Mr. C.'s the banner democratic district in the State-the district that had given a greater democratic majority than all the others in the State together.

Mr. C. said that his State had stood from the beginning, and would continue to stand, firmly upon her democratic principles. Nothing can drive her from them. Although groaning under a heavy debt, and her citizens borne down by heavy taxes in times of pecuniary hardship on account of the low price of her staples, she has proudly refused any share in the government distribution of land or money. She touched not, tasted not, handled not the unclean thing. She begged for no bounties, for no largesses, either in offices or money; and still she has proudly maintained her faith. Her fair escutcheon remains to this hour untarnished by a stain, and he trusted in God it ever would.

SPEECH OF MR. THOMAS SMITH,

OF INDIANA.

In the House of Representatives, January 2, 1845— In Committee of the Whole, on the bill to reduce and graduate the price of the public lands. Mr. THOMAS SMITH rose and said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: When I moved, on the other day, that the committee rise, it was not for the purpose of entitling myself to the floor to make a speech. It was simply for the purpose of going back into the House, with a view to an adjournment, that time of day having arrived. But, Mr. Chairman, since that time, upon reflection, and in view of the importance of the question involved, and being a western man, in part representing an interest that may be supposed to be vitally interested in every thing relating to our land system, and being entitled to the floor by the rules and courtesy of the committee, I hope for the indulgence of the committee for a short time, in submitting a few very desultory and undigested thoughts on the bill now under considera

tion.

Mr. Chairman, a man may talk about any thing; but to talk intelligibly upon a subject, that subject must be understood. Then, sir, let us examine the first section of this bill, which is in these words:

"Be it enacted, &c. That all of the lands of the United States which shall have been subject to entry for five years, or upwards, prior to the passage of this act, or prior to the time an application may be made to enter the same under the provisions of this act, and still remaining unsold, may be entered for settlement or cultivation, or for the use of an adjacent farm or plantation, at the price of

H. of Reps.

The provisions of this section apply to all the grades of the bill. Then, sir, if I construe this bill right-and to my remarks on this point I call the honorable mover's [Mr. HousTON] attention-all thə public land must come into market under the existing laws, and remain in market five years, subject to entry at the price of $1 25 per acre; from five years to ten they may be taken at $1; from ten to fifteen years at 75 cents; from fifteen to twenty years at 50 cents per acre; and after they have been exposed to sale, and have remained in the market twenty years and upwards, they may be taken, for purposes of actual settlement, (that purpose being expressed, as the law requires, on oath,) at the price of 25 cents per acre. They may be entered for the use of an adjacent farm or plantation, as for actual settlement. This last clause I would prefer to see amended so that those making an entry appendant should be actual settlers, at the time, on the land to which they would add adjacent land. This would cut off all prospect of speculation in those refuse lands.

Sir, if I have not misconceived the provisions of this bill, I have stated its principal features correctly. I am in favor of the principle and the policy of graduating the price of the public lands. It is a principle of equity and justice; it should have been impressed upon our land system at the beginning; but it is better now than never, though it may produce a very considerable change in our land system.

Allow me here, sir, to notice the proposition offered by the honorable member from Kentucky, [Mr. THOMASSON,] as an amendment or substitute for the bill under consideration. That proposition is to give to certain individuals—all persons is the expression-certain quantities of land, in fee, upon proof of actual settlement, &c. Let me assure the honorable mover that I am in favor of the principle of his amendment, and should like to see it engrafted upon this bill as an amendment properly prepared and qualified; but I do hope it will not be admitted by way of rider, or substitute for the bil. I will not do the gentleman the injustice of impugning his motives in bringing forward this amendment at this time, believing him sincere in it, and also in favor of graduation; but the quarter from which it comes is a little liable to suspicion. This doctrine of graduating the price of the public lands has altinctured with party politics; and ways been so kind a proposition, coming from the wrong side of the house, subjects it to a well-grounded suspicion that it is an opposition move, and at this time should not be entertained by the friends of graduation.

Sir, it appears to me the gentleman has not well considered his substitute. Its language is, any or all persons, &c. This includes the black as well as the white man. I have no idea the mover intends by this bill to make provision for those who, in the slave States, may see proper to turn loose their slaves, that they should be allowed to take land under the provisions of this bill. I have no objection to the principle that the government should give to the destitute a portion of the public lands: to it I have no objection whatever. I believe, rightfully, the public domain belongs to the cultivator of the soil to those noble spirits who go forward into the wilderness, subdue its wildness, and transform it into a fruitful field. The government may well provide for all such who are destitute of land: to furnish them with a spot of earth would more promote the strength and prosperity of the nation than any other act that Congress could do. In my opinion, it would be an act of pure justice and sound policy. The compensation would be found in the impetus that it would give to industry and enterprise, and in the increased love and attachment of the people to their government and their country.

But, sir, as I desire to be as brief as possible, I will proceed at once to consider the two prominent objections which have been urged against it. It las been asserted, on the other side of the Hause, that the adoption of this measure would have the tendency to reduce the revenue derivable from the salt of the public lands; and that its benefits would resul- ́ to the speculators. These are the two prominent objections that I have heard urged. Some others, however, of less importance, I will try to notice before I sit down. Let it be remembered, sir, that this bill is not introduced as a measure of finance; if it was, there would be some plausibility in the objection; but even then, its truth would admit of much

28TH CONG.....2D SESS.

debate, and prove to be a matter of great uncertainty. It is relied upon by its friends as a measure of justice to the people, without reference to the effect it may have upon the treasury. It is intended by it to impress upon our land system a principle of equity and justice known and recognised amongst individuals. It is a practice, in the common transactions of men, and it is a dictate of common sense, that the man that goes into the market with an article must take the market price, and must expect value only in proportion to the quality of the article.

What would be said by this community of an individual who had the monopoly of the market of this city in any particular article of prime necessity, and who should occupy every stall in the mar ket-house, to the exclusion of all others, with articles good, bad, and worse, all at the same price, without any regard to quality, and who would doggedly sit the market out from day to day, and wait the promptings of hunger, and the necessity of of the people to compel them to buy, and to give as much for the bad article as for the good, as much for the worst as for the best? The whole community could not possibly fail to see the great injustice of such conduct, and speedy measures would be taken to reform the evil. Now, sir, this is the evil we complain of in the sale of the public lands. "Uncle Sam" has all the public lands in the market; and, without regard to justice, adheres to the above principle, demands the same price for the good and the bad, and is incessant in his demands, waiting the necessity of the people to purchase; and, without any abatement in price, takes as much for the bad as the good; for the worst as for the best. This bill is intended to correct this evil, and is intended by its friends to place the land sales on a basis of greater fairness and equality.

Why should not government recognise those common sense principles that regulate transactions amongst individuals? Value for value, and value in proportion to quality, is a principle of such universal applicability amongst men, in their private affairs, that they cannot escape from it if they would; it adheres to them and pursues them in all their business transactions. Sir, as soon as the government parts with a tract or piece of land in the hands of the first purchaser, and upon the very day of sale, it takes value in proportion to its intrinsic quality of soil or situation A man would be thought a fool, or insane, that would ask, or even expect, as much for an inferior piece as for a superior or good piece of land. Shall the government be allowed to disregard all the laws of common sense and common justice, in its dealings with the people? I hope not. But, sir, as to the first objection to the bill, if passed into a law, that it will diminish the receipts into the public treasury from the land sales: I think this objection not well taken; it goes upon the assumption that it will operate as a forthwith reduction of all the public lands; and this violent assumption is made to rest upon another for its support, which I think equally unfounded; that is, that when lands are brought into the market, the people will forbear to purchase, and stand off till they fall down within some one of the degrees of graduation proposed by the bill, and then buy them at very reduced prices. Such action and concert amongst the people, if it could be effected, might realize the objection. But such a thing never has happened, and never will; it would contradict the whole history of the process by which the public domain has been sold and settled. In many of the States the settler has gone in advance of the surveyor, and at the present time he i always in advance of the public sales.

Such an anti-land conspiracy amongst the people of this land-mongering republic, as would reduce in effect the first land sales, is not to be expected: at them the wise farmer and shrewd speculator will be found; and future first sales, under the operation of this bill, will be found to equal the former sales. But admit that less would be sold, at the maximum: more would be sold at the medium; and much, very much, brought into the market, and sold under its provisions, that never will sell at present prices. In this way I apprehend the treasury would be affected but little one way or the other. This bill will realize as much money to the treasury, as the former laws, and do more justice to the people.

This brings me to speak of the land district in which I live-the main object I had in view in rising. I reside in one of the oldest land districts in the State of Indiana, the lands of which have been in market thirty years and upwards; the lands have

The Public Land Bill-Mr. T. Smith.

been picked and culled, and repicked and recalled, from the time they came into market, down to the present moment. The consequence is that but comparatively little land, and that in small and detached parcels, remains unsold; and the residuum is of the very refuse, which is not saleable, and in my opinion, will not sell at present prices-certainly not now, perhaps never. But, sir, under the provisions of this bill it would be taken, if a dread of State taxation does not prevent the purchase. At the minimum of this bill it would not be taken in large quantities for actual settlement; but it would be taken as appendant to settlement: it is not of the quality to induce the cultivator to purchase it; but the man who has good land in its vicinity might take it at the minimum of this bill, for the sake of ownership. But, sir, these considerations, at present prices, will not induce the settler to purchase poor appendant land, because he does not dread competition; he knows if any one would attempt to settle them they must starve out; and he very well knows that the speculator never takes hold of such bad bargains; and feeling the injustice of the government, in holding them up at the same prices as those charged for the good, he will not take them, but will use them with impunity, not dreading competition or fearing the enforcement of trespass against them by the gov

ernment.

But, sir, if they are put down to their real value, or nearly so, they will be bought for the sake of ownership, for timber, pasturage, springs, &c. In this way something will be brought into the treasury from them; at present prices nothing need be expected,

Mr. Chairman, it is matter of some surprise that the friends of this bill support it on the ground that it will do injury to no one, but will be of some advantage to the poor man; those who oppose it are the friends of the poor man, too, but this would not be their plan of affording him relief; because, they say, it would only be enabling the rich speculator to get more land with less money. Now, sir, in my district this would not be the case, or I am entirely ignorant of the situation of the unsold lands there, or I have totally misconceived the true character of the speculators. If the unsold lands in it are as poor and worthless as I think they are, and speculators as shrewd as they ought to be, they may remain there to doomsday, for aught they care; they will not touch them.

This mad-dog cry against "speculators" is an old and approved mode of opposition to the graduation of the public lands, and on that account demands more than a passing notice; a mere tip of the hat is too slight a recognition of such an old acquaint

ance.

I am told, sir, that in the Great West-in the Far West-when those vast prairies are on fire, it is common to fire against fire as a mode of self-preservation and protection against its ravages. An application of this principle to the defence of this bill might be of some service. A few hot shot thrown into the enemy's camp might make them unmask themselves; and it might appear that this cry was got up by the speculators themselves to prevent any action upon this important subject. To understand men, we must understand their motives and their interests.

Then, sir, what is a speculator? A man in human shape, all head and no heart-a man that thinks all, and feels not anything that does not affect his interest. Speculators usually have money, or the means at hand of commanding it; their business is to take advantage of men, time, and circumstances, to make a profitable investment of their money. The very idea of a "speculator" carries the mind beyond the investment of funds at common interest. Common interest is a term too limited in signification to convey an idea of a "speculator." Sir, if I am right in my conception of a speculator, and of speculating operations, I am quite sure the resident, and the poor man desiring to make an actual settlement on the poor refuse lands, are quite safe from their interference.

An investment made in those lands, except for the purposes contemplated by this bill, would be the very worst that could be made. It would be like "burying the talent;" for if it was returned at the end of ten, twenty, or thirty years, it would be without "usury." Their competition in the purchase of those poor and refuse lands is not to be dreaded. It does not belong to the history of the public land sales that the speculators have ever burnt their fingers in the monopoly of refuse lands.

But it is urged against this bill becoming a law

H. of Reps.

that it will disappoint the hopes of its friends, and the just expectations of those intended to be benefited by it. It will only (say they) enable the speculator to "get more land with less money." This is a legitimate argument, and, if true, is entitled to its proper weight. But the point is, is this a good argument against the bill; or does it come from the speculators themselves, and is, therefore, liable to a well-grounded suspicion that it is insincere and hypocritical?

If, upon examination, it be seen they have an an tagonist interest to the graduation and reduction of any portion of the public lands, then surely the argument that speculators will be benefited by the passage of it is not a good one, and this kind of opposition may well be suspected of coming from them.

It is believed that speculators always invest their money with a view to the largest profits; and, as all the lands are held and put into the market at the same price, it is clear they would seize upon the very best in the market; and the whole history of their operations will confirm and establish the fact that the speculators invariably do possess themselves of the choice lands.

In advance of the public sales, land companies are formed, with capitals large enough to frown down individual opposition. Their land agents are appointed and sent out into the public domain "to spy out the land;" to explore its location; ascertain its quali ty of soil and eligibility of situation;ail these things, and many others, are carefully noted. Rivers, lakes, water power for propelling machinery, geographical eligibility for cities, seats of government, and county seats, all-all are seized upon with vulture-like rapacity on the first day of the land sales.

Sir, if you would trace the operations of the speculators, you must go into the best regions of all the West and South: in the South, the fine sugar and cotton lands are their objects of desire; in the West, alluvial lands, and lands in the vicinity of cities and towns. In these localities you may trace the finger of the speculators-never, no never, in the poor portions of the land districts are they seen.

Sir, I maintain that it is true, almost without an exception, that the speculators possess themselves of the good lands, and never the bad, unless they get them through mistake or misapprehension. If this be true, then, what is their interest in reference to the measure now before the committee? Why, surely, it is that the inferior lands be kept up at high prices in the market; and that the government rates be kept (if you please) high; especially that they be uniform, and not subject to reduction. The law, as it now stands, drives actual settlers into the net the speculators have prepared for them-to buy of them at speculation prices, or to buy of the government inferior lands at nearly the same price, and without any regard to soil or to situation. If the speculators were to frame a law to be enacted for their benefit, they could not better the existing one. What is it, in essence and substance, but a guaranty on the part of the government to the speculator that inferior or refuse lands shall be kept in the market at the same price as the good? thereby operating as a premium in favor of the good, to the extent of the difference in the value of good and bad land. With a skilful and practical farmer, this difference is considered immense. A good acre of land is cheaper at $5 than a bad one at $1: productive land to the intelligent cultivator is valuable, and the unproductive not only valueless, but sometimes even burdensome, in consequence of State taxation. The value of land is ascertained by its productiveness that is worth most that will yield most to the labor bestowed; that is totally valueless that will not yield a crop sufficient to repay the wages of labor bestowed, and the interest on the money invested. Such considerations will ever prevent speculations in poor land; they would not have them at any price; they are out upon that cry to prevent the passage of the bill. It is the mad-dog cry of the speculators themselves to prevent its passage; their interest is that it shall not pass.

Sir, if I could perceive that the passage of this bill would encourage speculation, I would not support it, for the spirit of speculation in the public lands should be repressed. Let capitalists turn their capital in some other direction. In manufacturing, mining, &c., there are ample opportunities for their money and their skill. If the lands are to be monopolized, let them not fall into the hands of the wealthy, and those that would hold them up for high prices; men who would divide them out into large

28TH CONG.....2D SESS

manors and princely estates for succeeding generations, rather than let them go into the hands of the cultivator, in small parcels, as provided by this bill-into the hands of those who, both of choice and necessity, will improve them, and bring them into use. The speculator should not be permitted to "pollute them with his touch;" they should be made to minister to the comfort of the actual settler, and to the wealth of the nation, by their production and their improvement.

Mr. Chairman, I remarked that this policy of reducing and graduating the price of the public lands to actual settler was an old subject, and had always been tinctured with party politics. It has always been supported by the democratic party, and opposed by the opposition party; and though the party lines have not been strictly drawn, and as distinctly marked, on this question as on some others of a more party character, they have been strongly enough marked to indicate the party bias for and against it. Sir, is to be deplored that frequently the fate of the most beneficent measures is made to depend upon our party predilections, instead of being considered in reference to the public good, and decided upon their own merits.

We look to our great political revolutions-peaceable, to be sure, as they all are-to settle and decide party questions that have long agitated the country. In the view of the subject, by the expression of the public will in the election of a chief magistrate, I had hoped this great land questi decided, and that now we mig from those opposed to us p in their opposition. But

doomed to disappointment.

st clearly

expect, xation

ve are

er the 4, I see the

"National Intelligencer" of 31 a letter of the Hon. H. Clay, do 17th December, 1844, in which he employs e following language:

"If the cause of the whigs had triumphed, the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands would have been secured, and that great national inheritance would have been preserved for the benefit of the present and future generations. I shall be most agreeably disappointed if it is not wasted in a few years, by graduation and other projects of alienation, leaving no traces of permanent benefit behind."

This manfesto of Mr. Clay may be regarded as dearly indicative of the course that will be pursued by all who adhere to his fortunes on the passage of this bill: opposition and resistance-right or wrong, opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the above quotation from Mr. Clay's letter would admit of some curious criticism. It is assumed that if the whig cause had triumphed, the public lands would be preserved as a great national inheritance for the present and future generations; but, as they have not succeeded, a doubt is intimated that it will be wasted by graduation and projects of alienation. Now, sir, I am in hopes that the friends of Mr. Clay will not see the proposition in the light he does; that they will not think the selling of the public lands to actual settlers, at prices in proportion to their quality, is a waste of this great national inheritance.

I confess, sir, I cannot see how graduation will waste or depreciate this great national inheritance, which, in my opinion, in any form it may be disposed of, is to last as long as the "world shal stand." Nor can I see how the whig policy of distribution is better calculated to preserve it, as a great national "inheritance" to the present and future generations, unless it is thought that high prices will prevent it from being taken by poor people, and settled as their means of acquiring it may enable them to become its owners. I am in hopes, sir, it is not the policy of any man, or any party in this country, to hold up the public lands from sale and settlement; but that they may be deal out to the people, the real people, the cultivators tof the soil, on principles of fairness and equality, as an inheritance for them now and forever, present and future. In the hands of the people they will be the inheritance of the nation, and the people will be its strength and its glory. Could a sounder policy be adopted by the nation than that which would fix the affections of the people in the soil of the republie? The tree that strikes its roots deepest into the earth, stands up best against the storm. It is the owners of the soil you can depend upon in the hour of danger; they will repel invasion or put down revolution; they will feed you in peace, and defend you in war.

Sir, I must take notice of another argument that has been pressed into the service of the opposition. It is this: that a reduction—or graduation, which they maintain is the same thing-would reduce the price of the lands in the old States, and draw off to the

Annexation of Texas-Mr. J. R. Ingersoll.

West the laboring poor, and therefore increase upon them the wages of labor.

This is the coldest and most heartless argument I ever heard urged in a legislative hall. I do not know that it is seriously urged or relied upon by any; but if it is, I venture to say no man will dare to go home with it, and go before the people relying upon it; they dare not say to the masses of their constituents they would not support this bill because it would benefit the poor and afford them a better opportunity of promoting their happiness, because, forsooth, the wealthy in the old States might lose the labor of their poor neighbors, or be compelled to give higher wages for the services of those that remain. I say, sir, no man would dare to urge this as a reason before the people; there is something too revolting in it. It includes the idea that the rich have a proper ty in the poverty of the people; and in this way they would assert and maintain it, by withholding the means of their escape from such oppression. In old Massachusetts, where the lords of the loom have, in truth, an indirect property in the poor-where poverty and numbers are large elements of their wealth and power-even there it would be an unpopular argument against the passage of the bill.

But, sir, one part of the argument I deny: I deny that it would reduce the value of land in the old States. The impression, if it had any at all, would be too slight to be felt or perceived. But both these evils, if either do exist, are too small and too selfish to be taken into the account-too contracted for the pen of a statesman. In parts of my congrersional districtone county in particular-there is no refuse land. In that county I suppose there are not 160 acres unsold; but the people of that county, 1 am sure, are too liberal, and too magnanimous to oppose a beneficent measure of this kind, upon considerations so narrow and so selfish. It is more than intimated that the people of the West are anxious to draw off the eastern population. If this is a reason with any, it is not one with me. Our country is populous now. 1 go for the bill upon general principles, believing it to be right in itself; and if it shall better the condition of any, I care not where they come from, if from the uttermost ends of the earth; and if it be productive of general good, I shall be gratified.

The rules prescribing the order of business having been suspended, the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for the purpose of taking into consideration the joint resolution reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs for the annexation of Texas to the United States.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment offered by Mr. DOUGLASS

Mr. RHETT said that, if the House was now about to proceed to vote, he would ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLASS] to suffer the preamble of his resolution to be withdrawn, and let the sense of the committee be taken on the first number in the series of resolutions, which simply declared that Texas should be annexed to the United States. This would present a test question, and the vote upon it would show whether or not a majority of the House was prepared to go for the measure itself. After the sense of the House had thus been ascertained, he was persuaded it would not be difficult for them to come to an agreement in regard to the mode. He hoped the question might not be yet put on any one specific plan of annexation. Mr. R. might be in favor of the position taken in this preamble, but he knew there were other gentlemen strongly opposed to it. Let them first get at the abstract question; they could arrange details afterwards. He did not feel very scrupulous as to the particular means, provided Texas was got; and have it they would.

Mr. DOUGLASS expressed his assent, and withdrew the preamble accordingly..

Mr. JOSEPH R. INGERSOLL said that he was not willing to accede to any such arrangement.

[Mr. RHETT, speaking across: "I thought that would bring you out."]

Mr. J. R. INGERSOLL said he would not agree that any silent vote should be taken on the mere abstract question. If the question must be presented in that form, he would himself now address the committee. [Cries of “go on,” “go on.”]

H. of Reps.

Mr. INGERSOLL then proceeded. He said he had * waited in the hope that a definite plan would have been agreed on by the friends of the measure, or at least that some one of them would have risen to advocate one or another of the various measures which had been proposed on that side of the House. He had expected that somebody would at least have said a word in favor of one of the schemes which had been suggested, and, according to his ideas of the course of parliamentary proceedings, such a course on their part would have been regular, consistent, and courteous. He had waited to hear from the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. RHETT,] or from any one else of those who appeared here in the guise of statesmen and legislators, something in favor of the mode of accomplishing this annexation, as well as in behalf of the abstract question itself. Within a few short months now past, the measure was supposed to have been carried out of doors, exactly as the gentleman from South Carolina desired it should be within. And, however suitable it might be in a town meeting to be satisfied by a huzza for Texas, and, as a friend near him suggested, another huzza for Oregon, something more, he trusted, would be required

here.

During the late presidential canvass, banners and lanterns and handbills were inscribed "Polk and Dallas," "Texas and Oregon." The promise drawn from the Hermitage had been too propheticthat, with Texas for their watchword, victory was certain.

The canvass was now over. We have done with town meetings, and the question had now come into an assembly of a graver character. It was presented in the halls of the national legislature; and he wanted to hear what it was that gentlemen proposed, and how their proposal was to be carried into effect. That lone star which had been culminated during the progress of the campaign, had now passed the meridian, and it would be looked at with the calm and deliberate scrutiny of statesmen and patriots, if not of philosophers, and not merely with the eyes of mere party politicians. He must be pardoned for saying that the people, seduced or misled by these star-gazing examples, had stumbled into a position which did not appear to be congenial to all their sober second thoughts.

One should think they might be contented there to let the delusion rest, having served its purpose beyond the most sanguine wishes of his votaries. At the period adverted to it might answer a special and short-lived purpose, to forget the great objects of immediate national concern. Protection of them was not, for the occasion, a duty responsibly assigned perhaps to any body, or, if it were, it was so diluted in the mass of voters among whom it was divided that it was not keenly felt, and was speedily forgotten. Accordingly, neither the good of the country, nor the advancement of any of its institutions, nor the promotion of its best men, nor the cultivation of a national spirit, nor the encouragement of domestic labor and productions, nor the development of inbred resources, formed the avowed text-book of the successful party. Not one nor all of these seemed to be cared for. All that they received was, at the utmost, a passing and unpropitious smile. Instead of these vital influences, an itinerant desire was cherished. Not content with familiar objects of devotion, the hearths and firesides that compose the domestic altar, and the happiness and honor that radiate from them and cheer them, strange idols were sought for and worshipped-the Baalim and Ashtaroth of another age. Not our country, but a foreign land-not the soil that was defended by the arms and governed by the wisdom of our fathers, but some alien to it all-not these United States, but Texas, was the object of idolatry.

An experiment thus successful, or a habit thus inveterate, or a war-cry thus bewildering, is not yet bereft of its charms; and it is renewed here among the responsible legislators of the land to do again its office for good or evil: if for good, to put at rest now and forever a disturbing spirit of blind aggrandizement; if for evil, to throw into this family of more than confederated sovereignties a firebrand that must raise a flame that may be extinguished only in bloodshed. The leading political journal of the party had suggested that a resolution of two lines would accomplish all that the authors of the resolutions contemplate. The Globe of the 30th December furnishes the act, which should read in these words: "Resolved, (Texas assenting,) That it be, and it hereby is, re-annexed to the United States,"

28TH CONG....2D SESS.

[Cries of "That's enough, enough; we want nothing more."]

Mr, 1. said, plunging as he did unwillingly at this moment into the debate, he would proceed to assign, briefly of necessity, in the brief space that was allotted to him, some of the principal objections which he entertained to the proposed measure. His friends around him seemed to think that the short resolution he had quoted was enough for their purposes. Short as it was, however, it required something more than the act of a United States Congress. Its pregnant parenthesis admitted the necessity of the concurrence of a foreign government. Now, that concurrence, in whatever shape it might appear, must be a contract or agreement. Agreements between independent nations are treaties, and nothing else. Treaties are made not merely in form but substance by negotiation and mutual offer, answer, and equivalent. No compacts between men have so much of proposal and acceptance and rejection. Accredited representatives of the high contracting parties meet together, and, differing perhaps widely at first, they approach by reciprocal concession until they settle down, through successive protocols, in absolute concurrence. To send back each proposition or objection for the action of a legislative body would be to expose the whole arrangement to delays that would be interminable, and difficulties ⚫ not to be overcome. The thing would be impracticable. Were it otherwise, there are objections of a different character more authoritative and equally insuperable. Express constitutional provision is made for effecting agreements between the United States and foreign nations. It can be done in one way only. Any interference, if effectual, would be usurpation; if inoperative, would be absurd, and of course positively fruitless. Treaties can be made by the President "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," "provided two-thirds of the senators concur." A joint resolution, to the end and purpose of a treaty, to provide one side of a national government, would be to substitute the intrusive agency of this House, which has by fundamental law nothing to do with it, and a mere majority of the Senate, which by the same fundamental law is ad hoc a nonenity-no more available than a single individual of that body for two-thirds. The terms of the constitution are perfectly familiar and intelligible. The treaty-making power, whether wisely or not, is lodged elsewhere. It is so reposed without qualification or reserve. Let the treaty be one of annexation or reannexation-let it be with distant nations or those near at hand, it is lodged, in none of its power, in no part or portion of the possibility of its exercise, with the legislature. It rests only and exclusively with the executive and a certain defined proportion of senators. You might as well undertake to appoint ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls, or issue commissions to any of the wide range of officers who receive their commissions only from the President when duly appointed, and you may do so without their having received any appointment as well as if it were conferred upon them by the proper authority. If this scheme of annexation be within the compass of possibility, it is to be done by treaty only. So the friends of the measure probably universally believed until a recent day. Let their own example strengthen the argument. The agents of Texas were solemnly assured of the succes of a treaty; that course was adopted without an apparent doubt of its being the proper and the only one that could be pursued. It was not until it signally failed that a substitute was sought in a violation of the constitution. The difference between acts of Congress and compacts by treaty is sufficiently plain. Both are a supreme law of the land; the one with an express, and the other with an implied qualification-"if made in pursuance of the constitution." But treaties, so far from being acts of legislation, are made without a reference to the immediate legislative representatives of the people, without whose direct and efficient agency no act of mere legislation can be performed. All are representatives of the people-President, Senate, and this House. The people, in providing for a due representation of their sovereignty, have said in the constitution-which is, as much as any act can be, the work of their own hands-that, while in the Bovereignty of legislation they will be represented by this body as a necessary component part throughout, in the sovereignty of treaty-making they will exclude this body, and confide to the President and a large and fixed proportion of the Senate exclusively their supreme jurisdiction and control. A statute is. the creature of legislation-an act beginning and

Annexation of Texas-Mr. J. R. Ingersoll.

ending with ourselves. A compact with a foreign power is the act of combined executive and senatorial influence, which connects the nation with foreign nations, and determines whether, and to what extent, and with what limitation, that connection shall prevail. It would not be necessary to pursue this topic further. To those, however, who choose to do so, Mr. I. would recommend the very able argument of Mr. Pinckney of Maryland, made in this House January 10, 1816, in relation to a commercial treaty signed at London in the month of July of the preceding year.

Considering the annexation of another territory to that which was already possessed by the nation either as an original act of the present moment or the carrying out of the proceeding of a former daylong subsequent, however, to the early history of the republic-it was calculated to produce one disastrous influence. If there were a defect more prominent than any other in the national character of these United States, it was the very want of nationality. A spirit of common loyalty has not been as successfully cultivated here as among some other nations. It would be a calamity to weaken still further this vital principle. A nation derives strength as well as pride from the recollection of its heroic ancestry. It ever looks through the era of achievement, and glories in the simplicity of the dawning of its common origin. The symbols of Roman greatness, the initials of Roman wisdom and power, of the Senatus populus que Romo, continued through every stage of the republic to adorn her classic temples, surrounded with the richest wreaths of victory, along with the images of her infant founders, deriving their first nourishment from a beast of prey. What has the rock of Plymouth or the settlement of Jamestown-the purity of the pilgrims or the gallantry of the lover of Pocahontas-to do with Texas or the Rio del Norte? The very sounds are strange to Anglo-Saxon ears. Through all the great extent of what may be called our native territory, fields abound where patriot blood has flowed whose kindred current is now circling in our veins. Lexington and Bunker Hill, Yorktown, Eutaw, and the Cowpens, are fields far distant even from the Sabine, and will lose their sanctity if the sentiments they inspire are confounded with those which were, not without gallantry, maintained at San Jacinto.

The effect of annexation in any shape is at variance with the constitution. This Union never was formed either for depredations upon foreign territory, or for diffusing without limit the privilege of membership. Mr. 1. was no strict constructionist. He had ever sought to find a life-giving spirit in the provisions of that instrument which went beyond its literal phrase. Some of the wholesomest institutions had been derived from a liberal interpretation of its terms. He should not content himself with asking the friends of the measure where they found a clause to sustain it. He would inquire of them by what principle of the most enlarged construction, by what appeal to its spirit as a compact, they could find rational support? New States, it is true, may be admitted into the Union. To be admitted, they must exist in some shape as an integral part. No power is given to create them, or to admit something else into the Union which is not, on being admitted, a State, merely because at a future day further incubation might inspire it with life. In the absence of argument, supposed precedent is adverted to. He would have been glad to hear a judicial argument to support any supposed analogy to the case of Louisiana. That member of the Union came in at first with no such view as applies to Texas. It was the result less of choice than necessity. No such motives or designs as now exist found place any where on that occasion. The 22d article of the treaty with Spain of 1795 secured to the citizens of the United States a right to deposite their merchandise and effects in the (Spanish) port of New Orleans, and to export them thence free of duty for three years; and a further indefinite continuance of that right, unless its exercise should prove prejudicial to Spanish interests; in which event Spain would assign to the United States, on another part of the banks of the Mississippi, an equivalent establishment. The 4th article of the same treaty declared the western boundary line between the United States and the province of Louisiana to be in the middle of the channel, or bed of the river Mississippi, and provided for the free naviga. tion of that river by both parties. These privileges, so essential to the prosperous existence of the whole western country, were threatened with immediate annihilation. In October, 1802, a Spanish intendant

H. of Reps.

at New Orleans, by proclamation, closed the port of New Orleans, without assigning an equivalent establishment elsewhere. Intense feeling was excited throughout the country. What was the river without the place of transhipment from river boats, which then alone could navigate that stream, to vessels fit to navigate the gulf and the ocean? What security remained even for the joint occupation of the river, if a right guarantied by the same treaty was thus unscrupulously invaded? That fine region, now hastening towards ascendency in the councils of the country, already the wonder of the nation, and about to become the glory of the world, without an outlet for its rich productions! Hemmed in by mountains on one side, and tantalized by the neighborhood of the finest streams that ever flowed, of which it was denied the use, on the other! Millions of unborn freemen seemed to depend upon relief from these threatened obstructions for effectual existence. The vast valley of the West threatened to become or to remain a wilderness. Early in 1803 the attention of the Senate was earnestly invited to these encroachments. A series of resolutions was introduced and sustained with great ability by Mr. Ross, of Pennsylvania. They asserted an indisputable right in the United States to free navigation of the river, and a convenient deposite for produce and merchandise in the island of New Orleans; that the late infraction of their unquestionable righ

honor and dignity or portant by

concerned the wester strength

aggression hostile to their

it did not consist with the ion to hold a right so imcertain; that it materially rican citizens as dwelt on as essential to the union, of these States, that they obtain complete security for the full and peaceful enjoyment of such their absolute right; that the President be authorized to take immediate possession of convenient places for the designated purposes, to call into actual service fifty thousand militia, if he thought proper, and to employ them, together with the naval and military force of the Union, for effecting the object.

While these intimations were depending, Mr. Jefferson carried out the happy thought of settling the difficulty by purchasing the whole instead of fighting for a part. Accordingly negotiations were completed with the first consul of the French republic, who had previously effected by the treaty of St. Ildefonso an arrangement in preliminary with Spain, whereby neither half nor all of the bed of the Mississippi, but the extensive country through which it flowed, became the undivided property of the United States. That noble stream, its tributary rivers, and a large extent of territory extending on the west to the river Sabine, thus became, by convention executed at Paris, the 30th of April, 1803, ours. The law of necessity did not permit a deliberate adjustment to its own requisitions, of the law of the constitution. No particular character was given to the appendage thus acquired. Louisiana, with its rights and appurtenances, was ceded. Its inhabitants were promised an incorporation at a future day into the Union, as citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the federal constitution. An amendment probably was contemplated, or a universal assent of all the members of the confederacy, to so reasonable and necessary an acquisition, which would conquer the obstacles of a fundamental law. Without such amendment or assent, the thing would be as irregular as the introduction of new associates into a commercial partnership, formed by certain individuals only, without the assent of every one. Certain it is that the mover of the whole scneme, Mr. Jefferson himself, believed it to be unconstitutional, and so declared, cautiously indeed, but with as much precision as the circumstances would permit. He did not stand alone. At that moment, when nothing but convenience and advantage was produced by it, the foreseeing policy of the gentleman from Massachusetts, then a senator from that State, anticipated a prospective difficulty, and attempted to guard against it. When the Louisiana treaty was before the Senate, that statesman, it is said, suggested in his place the constitutional impediment as to any legitimate control over the destinies of that people, and the manner and the principles on which they could be admitted into the Union. This was in secret session, and a formal record of it does not appear. But it does appear that he twice moved resolutions with a view to an alteration in the constitution to meet the stipulations of the convention. A great present object was accomplished. Whatever evils