a strong and steady current, and rich in the material which constitutes argument. His talents were various, and shone in different walks of life, not often united: eminent as a lawyer, distinguished as a senator: a writer as well as a speaker: and good at the council table. All these advantages were enforced by exemplary morals; and improved by habits of study, moderation, temperance, self-control, and addiction to business. There was nothing holiday or empty about him-no lying-in to be delivered of a speech of phrases. Practical was the turn of his mind: industry an attribute of his nature: labor an inherent impulsion, and a habit: and during his ten years of senatorial service, his name was incessantly connected with the business of the Senate. He was ready for all work-speaking, writing, consulting-in the committee-room as well as in the chamber-drawing bills and reports in private as well as shining in the public debate, and ready for the social intercourse of the evening when the labors of the day were over. A desire to do service to the country, and to earn just fame for himself, by working at useful objects, brought all these high qualities into constant, active and brilliant requisition. To do good by fair means was the labor of his senatorial life; and I can truly say that, in ten years of close association with him, I never saw him actuated by a sinister motive, a selfish calculation, or an unbecoming aspiration." Ardent and steadfast in his own peculiar principles, he never spoke harshly of those who differed from him in opinion: pure, affectionate, and amiable in all the relations of domestic life, he was universally beloved and respected. SPEECH ON MR. FOOT'S RESOLUTION. The following speech, in answer to Mr. Webster's first speech on Mr. Foot's resolution,* was delivered by Mr. Hayne, in the Senate of the United States, on the twenty-first of January, 1830.t Mr. PRESIDENT: When I took occasion, two days ago, to throw out some ideas with respect to the policy of the government, in relation to the public lands, nothing certainly could have been further from my thoughts, than that I should have been compelled again to throw myself upon the indulgence of the Senate. Little did I expect to be called upon to meet such an argument as was yesterday urged by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Webster.) Sir, I questioned no man's opinions; I impeached no man's motives; I charged no party, or State, or section of country, with hostility to any other, but ventured, as I thought in a becoming spirit, to put forth my own sentiments The following is the resolution of Mr. Foot:-" Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands be instructed to inquire and report the quantity of the public lands remaining unsold within each State and Territory, and whether it be expedient to limit, for a certain period, the sales of the public lands to such lands only as have heretofore been offered for sale, and are now subject to entry at the minimum price. And, also, whether the office of Surveyor General, and some of the Land Offices, may not be abolished without detriment to the public interest; or whether it be expedient to adopt measures to hasten the sales, and extend more rapidly the surveys of the public lands." + See Mr. Webster's answer to this speech at page 370 ante. | in relation to a great national question of pub- new alliances to be formed" at which he | Massachusetts has reared so glorious a monu hinted? Has the ghost of the murdered Coalition come back, like the ghost of Banquo, to "sear the eye-balls of the gentleman," and will it not "down at his bidding?" Are dark visions of broken hopes, and honors lost for ever, still floating before his heated imagination? Sir, if it be his object to thrust me between the gentleman from Missouri and himself, in order to rescue the east from the contest it has provoked with the west, he shall not be gratified. Sir, I will not be dragged into the defence of my friend from Missouri. The south shall not be forced into a conflict not its own. The gentleman from Missouri is able to fight his own battles. The gallant west needs no aid from the south to repel any attack which may be made on them from any quarter. Let the gentleman from Massachusetts controvert the facts and arguments of the gentleman from Missouri, if he can-and if he win the victory, let him wear the honors; I shall not deprive him of his laurels. The gentleman from Massachusetts, in reply to my remarks on the injurious operations of our land system on the prosperity of the west, pronounced an extravagant eulogium on the paternal care which the government had extended towards the west, to which he attributed all that was great and excellent in the present condition of the new States. The language of the gentleman on this topic, fell upon my ears like the almost forgotten tones of the tory leaders of the British Parliament, at the commencement of the American Revolution. They, too, discovered, that the colonies had grown great under the fostering care of the Mother Country; and I must confess, while listening to the gentleman, I thought the appropriate reply to his argument, was to be found in the remark of a celebrated orator, made on that occasion: "They have grown great in spite of your protection." ment to his name. Sir, I doubt not the sena⚫ tor will feel some compassion for our ignorance, when I tell him, that so little are we acquainted with the modern great men of New England, that until he informed us yesterday that we possessed a Solon and a Lycurgus, in the person of Nathan Dane, he was only known to the south as a member of a celebrated assembly, called and known by the name of "the Hartford Convention." In the proceedings of that assembly, which I hold in my hand, (at page 19.) will be found, in a few lines, the history of Nathan Dane; and a little farther on, there is conclusive evidence of that ardent devotion to the interests of the new States, which it seems has given him a just claim to the title of "Father of the West." By the 2d resolution of the "Hartford Convention," it is declared, "that it is expedient to attempt to make provision for restraining Congress in the exercise of an unlimited power to make new States, and admitting them into the Union." So much for Nathan Dane, of Beverly, Massachusetts. In commenting upon my views in relation to the public lands, the gentleman insists, that it being one of the conditions of the grants, that these lands should be applied to "the common benefit of all the States, they must always remain a fund for revenue;" and adds, "they must be treated as so much treasure." Sir, the gentleman could hardly find language strong enough to convey his disapprobation of the policy which I had ventured to recommend to the favorable consideration of the country. And what, sir, was that policy, and what is the difference between that gentleman and myself, on this subject? I threw out the idea, that the public lands ought not to be reserved for ever, as "a great fund of revenue;" that they ought not to be "treated as a great treasure;" but, that the course of our policy should rather be directed towards the creation of new States, and building up great and flourishing communi ties. The gentleman, in commenting on the policy of the government, in relation to the new States, has introduced to our notice a certain Now, sir, will it believed, by those who now Nathan Dane, of Massachuetts, to whom he at- hear me--and who listened to the gentleman's tributes the celebrated ordinance of '87, by denunciation of my doctrines, yesterday-that which he tells us, "slavery was for ever exclud- a book then lay open before him-nay, that he ed from the new States north of the Ohio." held it in his hand, and read from it certain pasAfter eulogizing the wisdom of this provision, sages of his own speech, delivered to the House in terms of the most extravagant praise, he of Representatives in 1825, in which speech breaks forth in admiration of the greatness of he himself contended for the very doctrines I Nathan Dane-and great indeed he must be, if had advocated, and almost in the same terms. it be true as stated by the senator from Massa- Here is the speech of the Hon. Daniel Webster, chusetts, that "he was greater than Solon and contained in the first volume of Gales and SeaLycurgus, Minos, Numa Pompilius, and all the ton's Register of Debates, (p. 251,) delivered in legislators and philosophers of the world," an- the House of Representatives on the 18th of cient and modern. Sir, to such high authority January, 1825, in a debate on the Cumberland it is certainly my duty, in a becoming spirit of Road-the very debate from which the senator humility, to submit. And yet, the gentleman read yesterday. I shall read from the celebra will pardon me, when I say, that it is a little ted speech two passages, from which it will ap unfortunate for the fame of this great legisla-pear that both as to the past, and the future tor, that the gentleman from Missouri should have proved, that he was not the author of the ordinance of '87, on which the senator from policy of the government in relation to the public lands, the gentleman from Massachusetts maintained, in 1825, substantially the same opinions which I have advanced; but which he now so strongly reprobates. I said, sir, that the system of credit sales by which the west had been kept constantly in debt to the United States, and by which their wealth was drained off to be expended elsewhere, had operated injuriously on their prosperity. On this point the gentleman from Massachusetts, in January, 1825, expressed himself thus: "There could be no doubt if gentlemen looked at the money received into the Treasury from the sale of the public lands to the west, and then looked to the whole amount expended by government, (even including the whole amount of what was laid out for the army,) the latter must be allowed to be very inconsiderable, and there must be a constant drain of money from the west to pay for the public lands. It might indeed be said that this was no more than the refluence of capital which had previously gone over the mountains. Be it so. Still its practical effect was to produce inconvenience, if not distress, by absorbing the money of the people." I contended that the public lands ought not to be treated merely as "a fund for revenue"that they ought not be hoarded "as a great treasure." On this point the senator expressed himself thus: government, he believed, had received eighteen or twenty millions of dollars from the public lands, and it was with the greatest satisfaction he adverted to the change which had been introduced in the mode of paying for them; yet he could never think the national domain was to be regarded as any great source of revenue. The great object of the government in respect of these lands, was not so much the money derived from their sale, as it was the getting them settled. What he meant to say was, he did not think they ought to hug that domain as a great treasure, which was to enrich the exchequer." Now, Mr. President, it will be seen that the very doctrines which the gentleman so indignantly abandons, were urged by him in 1825; and if I had actually borrowed my sentiments from those which he then avowed, I could not have followed more closely in his footsteps. Sir, it is only since the gentleman quoted this book, yesterday, that my attention has been turned to the sentiments he expressed in 1825, and, if I had remembered them, I might possibly have been deterred from uttering sentiments here, which it might well be supposed I had borrowed from that gentleman. In 1825 the gentleman told the world, that the public lands "ought not to be treated as a treasure." He now tells us, that "they must be treated as so much treasure." What the deliberate opinion of the gentleman on this subject may be, belongs not to me to determine; but I do not think he can, with the shadow of justice or propriety, impugn my sentiments, while his own recorded opinions are identical with my own. When the gentleman refers to the conditions of the grants under which the United States have acquired these lands, and insists that, as they are declared to be "for the common benefit of all the States," they can only be treated as so much treasure, I think he has applied a rule of construction too narrow for the case. If in the deeds of cession it has been declared that the grants were intended for "the common benefit of all the States," it is clear, from other provisions, that they were not intended merely as so much property; for it is expressly declared, that the object of the grants is the erection of new States; and the United States, in accepting this trust, bind themselves to facilitate the foundation of these States to be admitted into the Union with all the rights and privileges of the original States. This, sir, was the great end to which all parties looked, and it is by the fulfilment of this high trust, that "the common benefit of all the States" is to be best promoted. Sir, let me tell the gentleman, that in the part of the country in which I live, we do not measure political benefits by the money standard. We consider as more valuable than gold, liberty, principle, and justice. But, sir, if we are bound to act on the narrow principles contended for by the gentleman, I am wholly at a loss to conceive how he can reconcile his principles with his own practice. The lands are, it seems, to be treated" as so much treasure," and must be applied to the "common benefit of all the States." Now, if this be so, whence does he derive the right to appropriate them for partial and local objects? How can the gentleman consent to vote away immense bodies of these lands, for canals in Indiana and Illinois, to the Louisville and Portland canal, to Kenyon College in Ohio, to schools for the Deaf and Dumb, and other objects of a similar description? If grants of this character can fairly be considered as made "for the common benefit of all the States," it can only be, because all the States are interested in the welfare of each-a principle which, carried to the full extent, destroys all distinction between local and national objects, and is certainly broad enough to embrace the principles for which I have ventured to contend. Sir, the true difference between us I take to be this: the gentleman wishes to treat the public lands as a great treasure, just as so much money in the treasury, to be applied to all objects, constitutional and unconstitutional, to which the public money is constantly applied. I consider it as a sacred trust, which we ought to fulfil, on the principles for which I have contended. The senator from Massachusetts has thought proper to present in strong contrast the friendly feelings of the east towards the west, with sentiments of an opposite character displayed by the south in relation to appropriations for internal improvements. Now, sir, let it be recollected that the south have made no professions; I have certainly made none in their behalf of regard for the west. It has been reserved for the gentleman from Massachusetts, while he vaunts over his own personal devotion to western interests, to claim for the entire section of coun try to which he belongs, an ardent friendship | union of sympathies and of interests waden for the west, as manifested by their support of effected, which brought the east and the west the system of internal improvement, while he into close alliance. The book from which I casts in our teeth the reproach that the south have before read contains the first public annunhas manifested hostility to western interests in ciation of that happy reconciliation of conflictopposing appropriations for such objects. That ing interests, personal and political, which gentleman, at the same time, acknowledged brought the east and west together, and locked that the south entertains constitutional scruples in a fraternal embrace the two great orators of on this subject. Are we then, sir, to understand, the east and the west. Sir, it was on the 18th that the gentleman considers it a just subject of January, 1825, while the result of the Presireproach, that we respect our oaths, by which dential election, in the House of Representatives, we are bound "to preserve, protect and defend was still doubtful, while the whole country was the constitution of the United States?" Would looking with intense anxiety to that legislative the gentleman have us manifest our love to the hall, where the mighty drama was so soon to west by trampling under foot our constitutional be acted, that we saw the leaders of two great scruples? Does he not perceive, if the south parties in the House and in the nation, "taking is to be reproached with unkindness to the west, sweet counsel together," and in a celebrated dein voting against appropriations, which the bate on the Cumberland Road, fighting side by gentleman admits they could not vote for with-side for western interests. It was on that memout doing violence to their constitutional opin-orable occasion that the senator from Massaions, that he exposes himself to the question: whether, if he was in our situation, he could not vote for these appropriations, regardless of his scruples? No, sir, I will not do the gentleman so great injustice. He has fallen into this error from not having duly weighed the force and effect of the reproach which he was endeavoring to cast upon the south. In relation to the other point, the friendship manifested by New England towards the west, in their support of the system of internal improvement, the gentleman will pardon me for saying, that I think he is equally unfortunate in having introduced that topic. As that gentleman has forced it upon us, however, I cannot suffer it to pass unnoticed. When the gentleman tells us that the appropriations for internal improvement in the west, would, in almost every instance, have failed, but for New England votes, he has forgotten to tell us the when, the how, and the wherefore this new born zeal for the west sprung up in the bosom of New England. If we look back only a few years, we will find, in both Houses of Congress, an uniform and steady opposition, on the part of the members from the eastern States, generally to all appropriations of this character. At the time I became a member of this House, and for some time afterwards, a decided majority of the New England senators were opposed to the very measures which the senator from Massachusetts tells us they now cordially support. Sir, the journals are before me, and an examination of them will satisfy every gentleman of that fact. It must be well known to every one whose experience dates back as far as 1825, that up to a certain period, New England was generally opposed to appropriations for internal improvements in the west. The gentleman from Massachusetts may be himself an exception, but if he went for the system before 1825, it is certain that his colleagues did not go with him. In the session of 1824 and '25, however, (a memorable era in the history of this country,) a wonderful change took place in New England, in relation chusetts held out the white flag to the west, and uttered those liberal sentiments, which he, yesterday, so indignantly repudiated. Then it was, that that happy union between the members of the celebrated coalition was consummated, whose immediate issue was a President from one quarter of the Union, with the succession (as it was supposed) secured to another. The "American System," before a rude, disjointed and misshapen mass, now assumed form and consistency: then it was, that it became the "settled policy of the government," that this system should be so administered as to create a reciprocity of interests, and a reciprocal distribution of government favors, east and west, (the tariff and internal improvements,) while the south-yes, sir, the impracticable south was to be "out of your protection." The gentleman may boast as much as he pleases of the friendship of New England for the west, as displayed in their support of internal improvement-but, when he next introduces that topic, I trust that he will tell us when that friendship commenced, how it was brought about, and why it was established. Before I leave this topic, I must be permitted to say, that the true character of the policy now pursued by the gentleman from Massachusetts and his friends, in relation to appropriations of land and money, for the benefit of the west, is in my estimation very similar to that pursued by Jacob of old towards his brother Esau-it robs them of their birthright for a mess of pottage. The gentleman from Massachusetts, in alluding to a remark of mine, that before any disposition could be made of the public lands, the national debt (for which they stand pledged) must be first paid, took occasion to intimate "that the extraordinary fervor which seems to exist in a certain quarter (meaning the south, sir) for the payment of the debt, arises from a disposition to weaken the ties which bind the people to the Union." While the gentleman deals us this blow, he professes an ardent desire to see the debt speedily extinguished. He must excuse me, however, for feeling some distrust free institutions. Sir, I would lay the foundation of this government in the affections of the people-I would teach them to cling to it by dispensing equal justice, and above all, by securing the "blessings of liberty" to "themselves and to their posterity." on that subject until I find this disposition mani- | and enduring as those which attach them tc fested by something stronger than professions. I shall look for acts, decided and unequivocal acts; for the performance of which an opportunity will very soon, (if I am not greatly mistaken,) be afforded. Sir, if I were at liberty to judge of the course which that gentleman would pursue, from the principles which he has laid down in relation to this matter, I should be bound to conclude that, he will be found acting with those with whom it is a darling object to prevent the payment of the public debt. He tells us he is desirous of paying the debt, "because we are under an obligation to discharge it." Now, sir, suppose it should happen that the public creditors, with whom we have contracted the obligation, should release us from it, so far as to declare their willingness to wait for payment for fifty years to come, provided only, the interest shall be punctually discharged. The gentleman from Massachusetts will then be released from the obligation which now makes him desirous of paying the debt; and let me tell the gentleman, the holders of the stock will not only release us from this obligation, but they will implore, nay, they will even pay us not to pay them. But adds the gentleman, so far as the debt may have an affect in binding the debtors to the country, and thereby serving as a link to hold the States together, he would be glad that it should exist for ever. Surely then, sir, on the gentleman's own principles, he must be opposed to the payment of the debt. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts has gone out of his way to pass a high eulogium on the State of Ohio. In the most impassioned tones of eloquence, he described her majestic march to greatness. He told us that having already left all the other States far behind, she was now passing by Virginia and Pennsylvania, and about to take her station by the side of New York. To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond. When, however, the gentleman proceeded to contrast the State of Ohio with Kentucky, to the disadvantage of the latter, I listened to him with regret; and when he proceeded further to attribute the great, and as he supposed, acknowledged superiority of the former in population, wealth and general prosperity, to the policy of Nathan Dane of Massachusetts, which had secured to the people of Ohio (by the Ordinance of '87) a population of freemen, I will confess that my feelings suffered a revulsion, which I am now unable to describe, in any language sufficiently respectful towards the gentleman from Massachusetts. In contrasting the State of Ohio with Kentucky, for the purpose of pointing out the superiority of the former, and of attributing that superiorSir, let me tell that gentleman that the south ity to the existence of slavery in the one State, repudiates the idea that a pecuniary depend- and its absence in the other, I thought I could ence on the Federal Government is one of the discern the very spirit of the Missouri question, legitimate means of holding the States together. intruded into this debate for objects best known A monied interest in the Government is essen- to the gentleman himself. Did that gentleman, tially a base interest: and just so far as it op- sir, when he formed the determination to cross erates to bind the feelings of those who are the southern border, in order to invade the subjected to it, to the government,-just so far State of South Carolina, deem it prudent or neas it operates in creating sympathies and inter-cessary to enlist under his banners the prejudices ests that would not otherwise exist--is it opposed to all the principles of free government, and at war with virtue and patriotism. Sir, the link which binds the public creditors, as such, to their country, binds them equally to all governments, whether arbitrary or free. In a free government this principle of abject dependence, if extended through all the ramifications of society, must be fatal to liberty. Already | have we made alarming strides in that direction. The entire class of manufacturers, the holders of stocks, with their hundreds of millions of capital, are held to the government by the strong link of pecuniary interests; millions of people ―entire sections of country, interested, or believing themselves to be so, in the public lands and the public treasure, are bound to the government by the expectation of pecuniary favors.-like the glare of the weapon half drawn from If this system is carried much farther, no man can fail to see that every generous motive of attachment to the country will be destroyed, and in its place will spring up those low, grovelling, base and selfish feelings which bind men to the footstool of a despot by bonds as strong VOL. II-36 of the world, which, like Swiss troops, may be engaged in any cause, and are prepared to serve under any leader? Did he desire to avail himself of those remorseless allies, the passions of mankind, of which it may be more truly said than of the savage tribes of the wilderness, "that their known rule of warfare is an indiscriminate slaughter of all ages, sexes, and conditions ?" Or was it supposed, sir, that in a premeditated and unprovoked attack upon the south, it was advisable to begin by a gentle admonition of our supposed weakness, in order to prevent us from making that firm and manly resistance due to our own character and our dearest interest? Was the significant hint of the weakness of slave-holding States, when contrasted with the superior strength of free States, its scabbard, intended to enforce the lessons of prudence and patriotism, which the gentleman had resolved, out of his abundant generosity. gratuitously to bestow upon us? Mr. President, the impression which has gone abroad, of the weakness of the south, as connected with the |