SENATE.]

Distribution of the Revenue.

[JAN. 14, 1829.

second section of the bill, for disposing of the revenue of demption of the debt; they were those who had loaned the United States, was injudicious; and he should object money to the country, and who found in the Government to such a disposition being made of the revenue, until the a regular and solvent debtor; they were those wealthy period arrived when no other disposition could be made citizens, who were disposed to loan money to the Governof it; yet he was disposed to give the Senator from New ment, and such as must have connexion with all GovernJersey every opportunity to free his bill from those objec- ments. But they belonged to no party," politically tions which had been made against it; and, for that pur-speaking, although there might be many of them. pose, he would move to lay it on the table.

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. K., it was negatived, by a large majority.

Mr. DICKERSON expressed his willingness to have consented to lay the bill on the table, if it had been desired by the Senate. They had thought proper, however, to negative the motion, and he was content.

Mr. BERRIEN rose and said, the second section of this bill has for its object to prolong the blessing of the national debt; to delay the return to the public creditors of that mass of capital, which is now vested in the Government securities, and which, when returned, must find employment somewhere-either in manufactures, which are said to be already overcharged; in commerce, which we Mr. WEBSTER said, he voted against laying the bill know is enfettered by restrictions; or in agriculture, on the table; but his only object was, that he might have which is languishing under your repeated exactions. This an opportunity to vote on the bill, especially after what project is to be permitted, with the assent of the mover, had passed in debate during the morning. The gentle- to go quietly to rest; and I will not disturb its repose, nor man from South Carolina had said there was a party in the prolong the memory of its brief and fleeting existence. country disposed to violate the Sinking Fund. He consi- It was most natural, however, that such a proposition dered the Sinking Fund as sacred as the other gentleman should have excited the discussion which it has produced; did; but he knew of no party, or combination of indivi- and, individually, I rejoice that it has taken place. It is duals, for any such end or purpose. He had never heard understood now, that the progress of the Government, in of any such party, nor could he think that any such exist- the payment of the public debt, is not to be arrested; ed. He must be allowed to say, that, neither the remarks that the funds specifically set apart, (and, trust, all of the gentleman from New Jersey, nor the elaborate dis- the other resources of the Government which can be ren cussions of other gentlemen, had at all shaken his faith in dered applicable to it) is to be faithfully applied to its the utility of the Sinking Fund. Too much, however, redemption; and I cannot avoid the expression of my grahad been frequently attributed to the Sinking Fund. His tification, at hearing these declarations from all the variown opinion had always been entirely in concurrence with ous quarters from which they have proceeded. I wish it that expressed by the gentleman from South Carolina, accorded with the views of the Senator from New Jersey that the Sinking Fund should be held sacred as an appro- not to press the consideration of the remainder of his bill; priation, and that it should not be violated. He had voted but since it is not so, I have a brief remark to make, and against laying the bill on the table, for he was desirous of before I sit down will submit a motion, which may, perrecording his vote in favor of striking out the second sec-haps, relieve him from further embarrassment. tion. Upon any other part of the bill, he had not, at present, any thing to say.

وو

Mr. HAYNE said, that the gentleman from Massachusetts seemed to take exception to the term "party, which he had used. He knew not what meaning that gentleman might attach to the term. He certainly did not intend, in using it, to convey the idea that the persons alluded to belonged exclusively to any of the political parties of the country; but he did intend to express his belief that there were a number of persons in the United States--men of wealth, intelligence, and influence, toowho were wholly opposed to the extinction of the national debt. If it was necessary to designate those whom he meant, he would say that he meant all those who had an interest, direct or indirect, in preserving the system of high duties who share, in any way, in the profits derived from those duties-the men who received, under that system, more than they paid. These were those to whom he had referred as "a party:" for, wherever they may be found, they are united by common views, and a bond of common interests. Mr. H. said he was glad to hear that the gentleman from Massachusetts concurred in the necessity of speedily extinguishing the national debt. He hoped that might be found to be the general opinion in the part of the country even where that gentleman resides.

Mr. WEBSTER said, the explanation of the gentleman from South Carolina was perfectly satisfactory. He did not suppose, because there were persons in favor of delaying the payment of the public debt, that they were to be considered "a party," politically speaking; the gentleman had explained, that he meant, by the use of the term, that there were gentlemen in favor of duties upon imports, and also in favor of the necessity of those duties. Now, he [Mr. W.] supposed the gentleman from South Carolina, in using the word "party," intended to apply it to those who were interested in the public debt, and, for himself, he had no doubt that there were individuals who were interested in keeping up the stock, and in delaying the re

As the bill now stands, in connexion with those other acts of legislation, of which it is a very natural sequel, it is simply a proposition that a tax which has been levied on the people of the Union, shall be employed to render the people of the States subsidiaries of the Federal Government; to employ the unwieldy machinery of that Government in the collection of a revenue for the use of the States. I will not stop to consider what appears to me to be a most extraordinary doctrine-that the framers of the constitution, in creating a Government, for external defence, and the regulation of commerce, would have designed also to make that Government the tax-gatherers and bailiffs of the States, in the collection of a revenue for their domestic purposes. The objections to such a doctrine are multiplied; but I am content with the view which has been taken of this part of the subject by the Senator from South Carolina.

A passing remark will serve to show why I cannot accept, for my constituents, the boon which this bill is supposed to tender to those who, like them, do not believe that this Government do possess the power to appropriate its resources to the purposes of Internal Improvement, in the participation which it offers to them of that, in which they are not now permitted to share. Here is the pгороsition. Take this bill, and you will get a share of the public treasure, which is now denied to you, and you can ap propriate it at your pleasure; and this offer comes from that Senator, who was one of the most zealous advocates of that measure, under the operation of which, our treasures are now wrested from us, for the benefit of others. I confess, sir, I am reminded of a quotation, which is not the less strong, because of its triteness. Yet, in general, I do not fear a gift. I can give sometimes, I hope, in the spirit which becomes me, and, therefore, I can take, without an apprehension that what is offered to me is tendered in a contrary spirit. A moment's reflection, however, might have suggested to the Senator from New Jersey, that this project would leave the constitutional difficulty

JAN. 14, 1829.]

Distribution of the Revenue.

[SENATE.

pockets of the people, which cannot be applied to any legitimate object?

Those who believe that this Government possesses the

where it found it. Our objection extends to the raising of money, for purposes not warranted by the constitution, as well as to the appropriation of it for such purposes. Repeal those laws which we deem unconstitutional-con- | power to employ the public treasure, in vast or in little fine yourselves within your chartered limits, by restricting to the purposes of revenue the taxes which you impose, and you will have no surplus treasure to distribute.

It is not my purpose to consider that principle of the bill which proposes to distribute, according to the ratio of direct taxation, the proceeds of a tax levied on consumption, the effect of which, so far as we of the South are concerned, would be to give us back a part of that, all of which we will enjoy, if you will let us alone. This is felt in that quarter now, and I hope it is beginning to be understood here that it is felt. Nor will I urge to the Senate -certainly not to the Senator from New Jersey-that, veiled as it may be, this is nothing more than a proposition to perpetuate the present high protecting duties, by creating a new interest, which, combined with that of the manufacturers, shall indefinitely postpone their repeal. But there is one aspect of this bill, to which I desire to call his attention. The fact, which lies at the foundation of the scheme, is this—that we shall have an annual surplus of revenue, which will not be applicable to the purposes of this Government which creates it, and which, therefore, he would give to the States. It assumes that the present tariff will increase, and not diminish the revenue, as some had predicted. Sir, this may be so, and for the reason given by the Chairman of the Committee on Finance-because the capacity of the home manufacturers will not keep pace with the growing exigencies of the country, from the increase of its population, and from other causes, and consequently the deficit must be supplied from abroad, notwithstanding the present high rate of duties. Yet, it is difficult to reconcile this reasoning with other assertions which are uttered by those who profess to be conversant with the subject. For example, it is said that manufactures even now are languishing; that they are already overcharged; that there is a mass of capital in the country which cannot find profitable employment. But if it be true that the exigencies of the country exceed its manufacturing capacity, then manufactures cannot be overcharged; and, if this be so, it is curious that this unemployed capital does not find its way to the manufactory. This, however, is not to my present purpose. What I desire the Senator from New Jersey to consider is, whether he has not at length found a most conclusive objection in principle, in constitutional principle, to the whole system of which he has been so zealous an advocate. He has himself furnished the fact from which that principle may be deduced. It is this: the present tariff will produce an income beyond what is required. That income will not be wanted for the army, for the navy, for the civil list, for the payment of the national debt after 1833, for any of the expenses, ordinary or extraordinary, of the Federal Government. There will be an annual surplus, not applicable to any of the legitimate purposes of this Government, and, therefore, it is to be given to the States. This fact must be admitted, or the substratum of the scheme is taken away. So long as the income of this Government is wanted for its own purposes, it must be so applied, and cannot be diverted to any other purpose. The Senator from New Jersey must, therefore, not only admit, but is moreover bound to contend, that the present tariff will produce an income of which there will be an annual surplus, not applicable to any of the legitimate purposes of this Government; which, therefore, must remain unappropriated in the Treasury, or be applied to some illegitimate purpose. Does he require any more conclusive evidence, that this Government possesses no power to lay a tax beyond the purposes of revenue for the mere protection of manufactures, than this: that it results, by his own confession, in taking money from the

VOL. V.-6.

schemes of what is called Internal Improvement, may escape this dilemma, since they can furnish an object of legitimate expenditure, if that be legitimate which is sufficiently large to absorb all the possible resources of this Government. But the Senator from New Jersey believes, with me, that the Federal Government possesses no power to apply the public treasure to these objects. He asserts that the tax which he has so zealously contributed to impose will annually produce a surplus of revenue, not applicable to any of the purposes of the Government, which he considers legitimate, and for him, therefore, there is no escape. It is the purpose of this bill to create an object, to which this surplus may be applied, to make it lawful to give the money of this Government to the States, without any specified object, but to be expended at their discretion, that we should continue to tax the people for the protection of a favored class, and the States have the distribution of what we don't want. It is the consummation, sir, of the great American System, and ought to be discussed in connexion with it. It seems agreed, that that disastrous measure must slumber during the present session, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the south against its exactions; and this will, I trust, repose with it.

I move that the further consideration of this bill be indefinitely postponed, and on this question I ask the yeas and nays.

[They were ordered accordingly.]

Mr. FOOT had hoped that he should have an opportunity of voting upon the bill, and he still hoped that he might record his vote on the question upon the second section. He wished the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. BERRIES) had delayed his motion until after the decision upon the second section: for the same object might be attained afterwards.

Mr. McLANE did not rise to enter into any argument on the general principles of the bill; but to express his hopes, that the motion of the gentleman from Georgia would prevail. He was opposed as well to the first as to the second section of the bill; both being in his opinion equally objectionable. Those gentlemen who were desirous of recording their votes in opposition to the second section could show their disapprobation of diverting any portion of the Sinking Fund from its legitimate object, by voting for an indefinite postponement of the whole bill. Mr. M'L's opposition to the bill was on principle the objections which applied to one section; applied radically to all the others. He could conceive of no circumstances, under which he would consent to make the General Government the collector of taxes for the States. It would be a measure unconstitutional, and one subversive of the very foundation of the Union. Mr. M'L. after various arguments against the policy of diverting any portion of the Sinking Fund from the purpose for which it was destined, expressed his belief that it was the interest of the people, that the capital now vested in the public debt should be unlocked and thrown into new channels. The employment of the capital thus confined, under the auspices of individual industry, sagacity, and foresight, would lead to the best results; it would hasten that era, when all the questions which have agitated the country for so many years, would be harmoniously settled, and forever put at rest.

Mr. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, said, the remarks of the gentleman from Delaware were perfectly correct, with a single explanation. It is clear, that nothing can be drawn under the first section of this bill; all the money in the Treasury is appropriated, with the exception of the two millions, of which the gentleman speaks, but that is

an estimated sum, not in the Treasury, but which may be during the year, and can only be ascertained at the end of the year, and cannot be known in the month of June. It is reserved because it is uncertain whether the estimated revenue of the year will be received, to guard against error, accident, and variations of the revenue. There has never been a surplus of two millions. There have been frequent deficiencies-and if we appropriate all the estimated receipts of the year, you will find the Treasury often exhausted; and this is the reason that he had, while he felt any responsibility for the administration of the Treasury, steadily resisted any attempt to repeal the 4th section of the Sinking Fund act.

[JAN. 15 to 19, 1829.

No objection having been made, the motion to postpone was withdrawn, and the bill was referred to a committee, consisting of Messrs. DICKERSON, BRANCH, DELL, HAYNE, and SANFORD. Adjourned to Monday.

MONDAY, JANUARY 19, 1829.

SABBATH MAILS.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, to whom had been referred several petitions in relation to the transportation and opening the mails on the Sabbath day, made a report, concluding with a resolution, "that the committee be discharged from the farther consideration of the subject."

Mr. J. moved that the reading of the report be dispens

He believed that

Mr. CHAMBERS moved that one thousand copies be printed, and Mr. HAYNE, that three thousand copies be printed, for the use of the Senate.

Mr. DICKERSON combatted the remarks of Mr. JOHNSTON and Mr. M'LANE, and observed that, if there was no money in the Treasury, not appropriated, there would be none to distribute among the States. He tooked with, and that it be printed. He requested that more a different position, however, and thought that something than one copy for each Senator should be provided, that might be divided. Take the canal in Delaware, for in- he might send copies to his constituents. stance, as an example: If the money appropriated for this legislation upon the subject was improper, and that nine object had remained in the Treasury, it might have been hundred and ninety nine in a thousand were opposed to applied, as proposed by the bill. There was more or less any legislative interference, inasmuch as it would have a money appropriated every year for similar objects, of tendency to unite religious institutions with the Governwhich he could not approve, and which ought, in his opin- ment. ion, to have been divided among the States. The opposition of the Senator from Delaware seened to rest on the fact that she would receive but 9,000 dollars as her proportion, agreeably to the mode in which it was proposed to be divided; but, if she could receive three or four hundred thousand, then we should have the support of the gentleman. He had supposed that amendments would be offered to the bill; had no idea it would pass as proposed by him; and he was willing to give time to mature the bill to suit the wishes of gentlemen. He had supposed that one gentleman might wish it so framed as to take effect at a future day; another might wish so to amend it as to take a part only of the money unappropriated in the TreaThese were proper modes of amendment, and he would have agreed to them; but he saw no necessity for the indefinite postponement of the bill. He hoped the motion would not prevail, unless the passage of the bill would not subserve the interests of the United States. He would say more, but the hour was late, and he was not disposed to consume the time of the Senate.

sury.

Mr. BRANCH, after a few remarks, said, that he was not able to speak at that time, and if it was not trespassing too much upon the patience of the Senate, he would move an adjournment; which motion prevailed.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1829.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill" to distribute a portion of the revenues of the United States among the States"-the question being on a motion of Mr. BERRIEN, for the indefinite postponement of the bill.

Mr. DICKERSON said he had not supposed, when he offered this bill to the consideration of the Senate, that it was in an unexceptionable form. He expected that it would excite considerable discussion, and that it would be referred to a committee, to receive such modifications as should be thought expedient. Presuming that the minds of the Senators were made up upon the subject, he would move that it be referred to a select committee.

The PRESIDENT said that a motion to refer was not in order, the motion to postpone having precedence.

Mr. BERRIEN said, he was not disposed to interfere, and prevent the gentleman from New Jersey from modifying his bill so as to make it acceptable. In order, therefore, that the gentleman might have an opportunity to amend the bill, he would withdraw his motion to postpone. The PRESIDENT remarked that the yeas and nays having been ordered, the motion to postpone could not be withdrawn without the unanimous consent of the Senate.

Mr. CHANDLER said he had no objection to the printing of any number of copies, except as to principle: it did not appear to him that it was right to order a large number of copies to be printed until the Senate knew what it was, and that they should not be ordered until the report had been read, as it might seem to imply that they approved of the report.

Mr. JOHNSON said he had moved to dispense with the reading of the report, because he did not wish to trouble the Senate with the reading of any of his reports. He believed that these petitions and memorials in relation to Sunday mails, were but the entering wedge of a scheme to make this Government a religious instead of a social and political institution; they were widely circulated, and people were induced to sign them without reflecting upon the subject or the consequences which would result from the adoption of the measure proposed. There was nothing more improper than the interference of Congress in this matter.

Mr. CHAMBERS disagreed with the gentleman from Maine, that ordering a large number would imply any assent to the principles adopted in the report. Neither did he agree with the gentleman from Kentucky, that the adoption of the measure prayed for would have a bad tendency, and that legislation upon the subject would be improper. Some had asserted that this measure did tend to unite religious with our political institutions, and others had asserted that such would not be the result. The petitioners took an entirely different ground. They said that the observance of the Sabbath was connected with the civil interest of the Government. He did not mean to be understood, however, as having formed any opinion upon the subject.

Mr. JOHNSON said he would state, in justice to himself, that he believed the petitioners were governed by the purest motives; but if the gentleman from Maryland would look at the proceedings of a meeting at Salem, in Massachusetts, he would find, it did not matter what was the purity of motive; that the petitioners did not consider the ground they had taken as being purely that the Sabbath was a day of rest; they assumed that it was such by a law of God. Now some denominations considered one day the most sacred, and some looked to another, and these petitions did, in fact, call upon Congress to settle what was the law of God. The Committee had framed their report upon principles of policy and expe

Northeastern Boundary.--Supreme Court.--Cumberland Road.

diency. It was but the first step taken, that they were an anomaly. The faith of the Government was pledged to legislate upon religious grounds, and it made no sort to abide by the award of the umpire, and the people of of difference which was the day asked to be set apart, the United States not bound to abide by the decision, bewhich day was to be considered sacred, whether it was cause there was no power to make this award. The prethe first day or the seventh, the principle was wrong. It cedent of settlements by umpirage had been established; was upon this ground that the Committee went in making but a single precedent should not grow into so much their report. strength as to be engrafted upon the constitution. It was under these views that he had offered the resolution. The resolution was then agreed to.

SENATE.]

Land Claims in Missouri.--Claim of Maison Rouge et al.

NAYS-Messrs. Barnard, Barton, Benton, Bouligny, Burnet, Eaton, Hendricks, Johnson, Ky., Johnston, Lou., Kane, Knight, Marks, McKinley, McLane, Noble, Ridgely, Robbins, Rowan, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, Md., Thomas, Webster, Williams-25.

Mr. BENTON said he would make some inquiry of the Committee who reported the bill, which would perhaps supersede the necessity of his offering an amendment. The bill, as read by its title, was for extending the road westwardly. "Westwardly" was a very indefinite expression. The route for this road was marked out in the time of Mr. Jefferson, 20 years ago; there had been a great struggle made in Ohio and Kentucky to get the road turned off South, through Kentucky. All he wished to know was, whether the words of the bill were such as would carry into effect the original design of the Cumberland Road.

Mr. HENDRICKS explained, that the bill provided for extending the road from Zanesville, through the States of Indiana and Illinois, to St. Louis, in the State of Missouri.

Mr. BENTON replied, that the explanation was sufficient. All he wanted was certainty.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1829.

LAND CLAIMS IN MISSOURI.
The bill for the final adjustment of land claims in the
State of Missouri was taken up.

Mr. BARTON rose in explanation of the objects of the bill. It was introduced, he said, in consequence of the Legislature of Missouri having taken up the subject, and asked that measures might be taken to produce a final decision with regard to the unconfirmed land claims in that state. The particular plan provided in the bill for the adjustment of these claims had been proposed by the Committee as the most convenient one that could, in their opinion, be fallen on; but the bill was open for amendment, as it was of more importance to the State of Missourit' at a final conclusion should be put upon the claims than as to the mode of doing it. The particular plan proposed in this bill was introduced in the Senate in the year 1824; the bill passed, and was sent to the other House for concurrence, where the plan of sending the claims to a Board of Commissioners for adjudication was substituted instead of it.

Mr. CHANDLER thought it was premature to act upon the subject at this time, as there was a law upon the subject limited as to time. He thought it better to let the subject rest until the old law should expire.

[JAN. 21, 1829. sident and Senate, in addition to the Recorder; which amendment was adopted.

Mr. PRINCE was entirely in favor of the bill, and hoped it would be passed. It occurred to him, however, that it should be amended so that, when there were conflicting claims, the evidence should be reported to Congress. He accordingly moved an amendment having that object, which was agreed to.

Mr. BARTON then moved to fill the blank in the first section of the bill with the words "first day of August next," (the day on which the commission is to commence) and to insert a provision fixing the salaries of the Recorder and Commissioners at fifteen hundred dollars each; which was carried.

On motion of Mr. CHANDLER,

The bill was so amended as to make it the duty of the
Recorder and Commissioners to assign, in their reports,
"the reasons for their opinions so given."
The bill was then ordered to a third reading.

CLAIM OF MAISON ROUGE ET AL.

The Senate then proceeded to the consideration of the bill "to provide for the legal adjudication and settlement of the claims to land therein menioned."

[This is a bill providing for the settlement of the large claims of Maison Rouge, Bastrop, and Winter, which have been so long before Congress; and which was now proposed to be referred to a judicial decision.]

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, said the bill had been postponed at his request, and he would now call the attention of the Senate to a few observations. He was opposed to the passage of such a bill, because he was well assured that its provisions were contrary to the constitution. It was not competent for Congress to enact such a law, for no suit could be authorized which was contrary to constitutional principles. It was on that ground that he was opposed to it. The constitution of the United States did not authorize, or sanction the principle; it did not authorize any citizen to sue the United States; and if the constitution did not give the right, the right could not be conferred by legislative enactment. There had been a time when suits were brought by individuals against some of the States, but the power had been regarded as one of an extraordinary nature, and it had been taken away. The right to sue a State did not now exist, if it ever did—it was expressly taken away; and yet Congress, by the passage of the bill, would assume to give the power which had been withheld. He was opposed to the bill on principle on constitutional principles. He would not say that he was hostile to the claims, for he would be glad to lay his hand upon the evidence upon which they were founded; but he was opposed to the manner of settling those claims without constitutional authority, for which it was the object of the bill to provide. The cases reported were those of considerable magnitude. They had been recommended to Congress for decision: Congress had taken them into consideration, and the claims of Maison Rouge were once discussed for three weeks. He would offer, in opposition to the law which was proposed to be passed, the constitution of the United States. The constitution would show that no such power could be ex

Mr. BENTON was in favor of the bill. It was the copy of one which passed the Senate four years ago, went down to the House, and was not acted upon there; another bill, referring these claims to the Judiciary, being preferred by the House of Representatives, and sent up to the Senate, where it become a law. This law applied to claims of the same character both in Missouri and Arkansas, and in the latter place has answered a good purpose; in Missouri ra- | ther worse than no purpose at all. Many claims were settled in Arkansas, where three judges presided; all were condemned in Missouri, where one judge presided. The same law, applying to the same class of claims ad-ercised by Congress. ministered by judges appointed by the Federal Government, has been construed just as differently as yes and no. It produced great discontent to have decisions in Arkansas one way, and decisions upon the other side of an invisible line, another way. Mr B. was in favor of the bill; it was the copy of one drawn by himself four years ago; but he wanted an amendment, by having some other officers, or commissioners, associated with the Recorder.

Mr. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, regretted that the gentleman from South Carolina should have had any difficulty in laying his hands on the papers in relation to the claims under consideration, &c. &c. because he was satisfied that the bare allusion to them was calculated to have a much more unfavorable bearing on the subject than if the papers were produced; and he was disposed to postpone the consideration of the subject a sufficient time to Mr. BARTON then submitted an amendment, providing enable the gentleman to examine the testimony, as he was for the appointment of two Commissioners, by the Pre-decidedly of opinion that the production of them would