網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[ocr errors]

placed at the disposition of the Joint Library Committee, to be by them disposed of in return for donations to the Library of Congress. The resolution was read twice, and the question being on its engrossment for a third reading, Mr. McKAY inquired if there would be a sufficient number of copies to give one to each person who had received the Diplomatic Correspondence published by Mr. Sparks? Mr. E. EVERETT replied that there would not only be enough, but that there would be a surplus, which was to be deposited in the Library of Congress. Mr. CLAYTON remarked that, if it was intended to have these books distributed among the members of Congress, as Sparks's Correspondence had been, he must oppose the resolution, and call for the yeas and nays on the question of engrossment. Mr. E. EVERETT replied that, as they were a continuation of the Diplomatic Correspondence published by order of Congress, they were to be distributed to those persons to whom Congress had ordered the former part of the work to be given. The yeas and nays having been ordered, Mr. STEWART inquired if this work was not already polled and lying at the State Department for distribu. tion Mr. E. EVERETT responding in the affirmative, The question on the engrossment was then put, and decided in the affirmative: Yeas 110, hays 57. So the resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow. The House resumed the consideration of the reports of the committee on

THE KENTUCKY ELECTION.

Mr. LANE, who had the floor from the previous day, rose and said that, as it had been intimated to him that the friends of the gentlemen who were pcrsonally interested desired to have a vote taken on the main question, he was willing, for the sake of that object, to waive his right, and abstain, at present, from making any remarks. The original question before the House being on the following amendment, moved by Mr. BAN ks, viz: “That the votes of Eli Williams and W. Dawson, of Anderson county, and those of William Connor, Charles Welsh, Montgomery Vanlandingham, Joseph Murrain, Anderson Hulet, Hickman Evans, Henry Wood, and Richard White, of Jessamine county, be counted for Robert l’. Letcher;” And the immediate question being on so much thercof as relates to the names of Eli Williams and Wade Dawson, Mr. PARKER proposed to modify it by inserting therewith, in substance, “rejected because there was not evidence of their being known.” The SPEAKER said this amendment would not apply to the question (as to Williams and Dawson) now before the House. Mr. MARSHALL suggested that it should be stated— “they were rejected by the committee because these persons were proved by the sheriff, the deputy sheriffs, and others, to be unknown to them.” Mr. BANKS accepted the amendment proposed by Mr. PARKER, and made some further verbal modifications to it, The question on the amendment, as modified, having been then put— Mr. JONES reviewed, at some length, the arguments used for reinstating the names of those persons, and further explained and defended the views of the committee would say, in further answer to the inquiry of the gentle

[blocks in formation]

in rejecting them, in the course of which he replied to the argument yesterday urged by Mr. J. Q. ADAMS, who replied, and defended the position he had before taken. Mr. SUTHERLAND, professing himself satisfied that these men did not belong to the district in which they voted, said he must therefore be compelled to vote against the amendment. He desired the question, however, to be taken at once, as to whether Mr. Moore or Mr. Letcher was entitled to the seat, in order that the other important business before Congress should be attended to. Mr. POPE then proposed to amend the amendment in substance, by inserting “there being no other evidence of the fact except that their names appeared on the pollbook, to show that such persons hived in the county.” Mr. JONES proceeded to address the House at large, when he gave way to Mr. BARRINGER, who said that if the Speaker should lend him his ear and aid, he would, in order to arrest this interminable mode of debating a subject, insist upon the rule, that no person should speak more than twice, unless by leave of the House. The member from Georgia had spoken repeatedly, and he was going again at large in reply to arguments made yesterday. After some further remarks from Mr. JONES, Mr. HARDIN, Mr. HUBBARD, and Mr. SUTHERLAND, Mr. BANKS further modified his original amendment, by striking out the name of “E. Welsh.” Mr. WHITTLESEY remarked that some of the modifications apeared to involve an irregularity, as they were not intended, he supposed, to apply to other names than the two voters, Williams and Dawson, from Anderson county. The amendment proposed by Mr. Pope was then rejected. After which, the question on admittting the names of Eli Williams and Wade Dawson, having been put, was decided by yeas and nays in the negative, as follows: Yeas 93, nays 115. Mr. S. McD. MOORE now called for a division of the remaining portion of Mr. BANks's amendment, so as to have it put separately on the names of Montgomery Vanlandingham, Joseph Murrain, and Hickman Evans. It was divided accordingly. Mr. MERCER adverted to the mode of conducting elections in Virginia, to which that in Kentucky is in many respects similar; and argued to show that greater weight ought to be allowed to the poll-book than seemed to have been allowed by some of his colleagues, Mr. MASON replied—admitting that the poll-book was strong ground of presumption that an individual had voted, but denying it to be so in respect to his being a good voter; and insisting that, in case of dispute, the burden of proof lay on the person claiming the benefit of the votes. Mr. HARDIN surther explained in relation to the mode of testing votes in Kentucky. Mr. MERCER responded to his colleague, (Mr. Mason,) and was followed by Mr. LANE, who, aster some remarks on the testimony, disclaimed all seeling on the subject—believing both the candidates to be very fit for the place. The question must be decided on principle and precedent. Mr. H. EVERETT made inquiry respecting particular voters, which was replied to by Mr. Josis. Farther explanations were given by Mr. HARDIN and Mr. BEATY. Mr. S. McD. MooRE further urged the grounds on which he had moved his amendment, to which Mr. HAMER replied. When the question was put on admitting the three names included in Mr. Moone's amendment, and decided by yeas and nays as follows: Yeas 103, nays 100.

[graphic]
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

So the names of Vanlandingham, Murrain, and Evans, were ordered to be taken into the computation of votes for Mr. Letcher.

The question then recurred on admitting the remaining names in Mr. BANKs's amendment, viz: William Connor, Anderson Hulet, Henry Wood, and Richard White, for Mr. Letcher.

And decided by yeas and nays, as follows: Yeas 89, nays 116.

Mr. POPE moved the following as an amendment to the amendment of Mr. BANks, viz:

Resolved, That the votes of A. Kavanagh, George Elliott, jr., Moses Bryant, John Shipman, Shelton Harris, John Floyd, Jeremiah Anderson, Garret Norris, John D. Stone, M. B. Moseley, William Woolley, Cor. nelius Davis, James Moorman, John Cornett, George Callett, and Robert Figg, be stricken from Mr. Letcher’s poll, it having been proved that they were minors at the time of the election.

Resolved, That the votes of William Gwinn, John McCoy, and William Yo, who resided in Garrard and Lincoln counties; and of Greenbury Peyton and William Welsh, who resided in Jessamine county, be stricken from Mr. Letcher's poll, it having been proved that they were not citizens of Kentucky at the time of the election.

Resolved, That the vote of Rowland Shields ought to be counted for Mr. Moore, on the Lincoln poll.book, it having been wrongfully stricken off by the judges of the election.

Resolved, That the vote of John Brady be taken from Mr. Letcher's poll, and counted on that of Mr. Moore, on the ground that he had, in the first instance, bona side and without mistake, voted for Mr. Moore.

Mr. POPE advocated, with great ardor, the amendment he had moved; when

Mr. BANKS, desiring to reply, but being indisposed to do so at so late an hour, moved an adjournment.

Qn this motion, Mr. VANDEnroe demanded the yeas and nays; which, being taken, stood as follows: Yeas 104, nays 89.

The House then adjourned.

Thuns DAY, JUNE 5. POLISH EXILES.

The bill from the Senate, for the relief of the Polish exiles, having been taken up, Mr. CLAY, of Alabama, moved, in addition to some verbal amendments, the insertion of the following words thereto, ‘‘ and of the payment into each land office of the lowest minimum price, to be paid for such land at the time of such payment, within ten years.” Mr. LANE moved that the bill and amendments be committed to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; which motion, after a desultory conversation as to a point of order, in which Mr. CLAY and Mr. WHITTLESEY participated, was finally agreed to, and the bill and amendments ordered to be printed. Mr. WATMOUGH asked the unanimous consent of the House to submit a resolution, that when the House should adjourn this day, it would adjourn to meet again at seven o'clock this evening, with a view to take up the bills in relation to the navy of the United States, which seemed to him to claim some attention at their hands. Objection, having been made, Mr. WatMough's purpose was not accomplished.

TERRITORIAL BILLS.

On inotion of Mr. WILLIAMS, the House proceeded to the special order of the day, being the consideration of bills in relation to the Territories of Michigan, Florida, and

Arkansas, and went thereon into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. WaxNE in the chair.) On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, the bill repealing certain acts of the Legislative Council of Florida, by which certain taxes were imposed and raised improperly on the property of absentees, was taken up; and the report presented with the bill having been read for the information of the House— Mr. WHITE moved an amendment, in substance to authorize two additional members to be sent to the Council; which, he remarked, became necessary, but would not cause any increase to the public expense, as the amount of expenditure for the Legislative Council was limited by law. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. FILLMORE inquired into what treasury the taxes which had been so unjustly raised had been paid; for, if the money had been paid into the local treasury of the Territory, he must object to the amount being refunded out of any other. Mr. WILLIAMS replied that the money had been paid into the Territorial treasury. The committee, considering that the Legislative Council, by imposing a higher tax on the property of absentees than they did on that of residents, had acted unjustly, now recommended this bill repealing the act. Mr. FILLMORE fully concurred in opinion that the principle assumed by the Legislative Council was objectionable. Yet, although he did so believe, and that the amount to be refunded was small, as it was to be paid out of the treasury of the United States, he could not sanction the principle of such a payment, under the circumstances. Mr. WHITE, of Florida, said that, believing the Legislative Council had no right to pass such a law, he would consent to a proviso that the payments to be refunded, should be so refunded out of the Territorial treasury. Mr. FILLMORE thereupon moved to strike out the words “treasury of the United States,” and insert “by the Governor of Florida.” Mr. WHITE said that, as the amount in question was very small, and upon an appeal to the judicial tribunals from parties who had resisted the tax, they had been supported, it was not worth while to legislate upon it at all. He moved, therefore, to strike out the clause providing for the repayment altogether. The motion prevailed, and the bill was laid aside. Mr. SEVIER moved to take up the bill to establish an additional land office in Arkansas, to which he moved an amendment, correcting a mistake as to the boundary of the district in which it was to be established; which was agreed to. Mr. McKAY desired to be informed by the chairman of the Committee on Public Lands, if the lands in this district were now ready, or when it was expected they would be brought into the market. Mr. CLAY said he believed they would be in market within the next twelve months. Mr. MASON went into an explanation to show that the establishment of this additional land office was become necessary for the interest of Government, as well as the land owners, and the only expense of establishing it now would be $500 for a register and $300 for a receiver. The bill was then laid aside. Mr. WHITE moved that the House take up the bill for the relief of certain inhabitants of East Florida, which provided for the payment of such losses as should be awarded by the judge of the superior court of St. Augustime, Florida, as were occasioned by the troops in the service of the United States; and in which bill, there being a provision in blank, allowing remuneration to the said judge for his extra services, under its provisions— Mr. W. moved to fill up the blank with $500. Mr. FILLMORE inquired if the judge was not a salaried officer”

[ocr errors]

Mr. WHITE replied that he was; but that it was not unusual to allow for extra services an extra compensation. Mr. McKAY inquired if these judges had not $800 already allowed them for extra services? Mr. WHITE said they had; but that extra compensation would expire this year. He supposed the claims now to be decided would occupy the time of the judge during ten months. As, however, he said it seemed that the present remuneration was objectionable, he would move to strike out the section altogether. Mr. McKAY then objected to the bill making any appropriations, and desired to be informed why it was incumbent on Government to make them? Mr. WHITE entered into a lengthened explanatory statement of the circumstances by which, under an act passed in secret session in 1811, the then President of the United States was authorized to take temporary posses. sion of the Floridas, with a view to the prevention of their occupancy by any foreign Power. This possession was accordingly taken, by a military force, and much damage had been done by the troops of the United States to the inhabitants of the eastern territory, until, by the stipulations of the treaty with Spain, she had abandoned the territory, and after, in fact, it had been made a desert by our troops. Spain had made a reclamation on this subject; and, whatever was the conduct of Spain, that was, he said, a matter with which the innocent inhabitants could not have anything to do. Spain had, in the treaty, stipulated that full compensation should be paid for these, as injuries done by us to a neutral Power in time of peace. She had pressed the claims of these people so strongly, that she never would have consented to the cession of the territories, unless the stipulation in their favor had been made. By that cession, he would remind the House, full thirty-two millions of acres--deducting therefrom three millions for the liquidation of valid grants—twenty-nine millions of acres of as valuable land as any in the Union, were obtained for the sum of $5,000,000. It was not, then, too much for him, under these circumstances, to ask the committee to carry into effect the treaty stipulations for which the bill had been reported. The claims had been all preferred, and the papers were now only to be adjudicated upon, and would, possibly, not amount to more than $40,000. Mr. McKAY then wished to know what necessity there was, if all the claims had been decided upon, for the commission. Why not strike it out? Mr. WHITE said, in reply, that, although the claims had been all presented, action on them had been suspended. The clause giving a remuneration to the judge was when stricken out, and the bill laid aside. The bill to create two additional land districts in Illinois, and two new land districts north of said State, in the territory now attached to Michigan, which lies between the Lake Michigan and the Mississippi river, was, on motion of Mr. LYON, taken up, and an amendment, offered by him, agreed to, providing that the register and receiver of all land offices, established under the United States, shall be authorized to administer all such oaths as may be necessary in relation to the duties of their offices, and for which they are to have the usual fees. The bill was then laid aside. On motion of Mr. SEVIER, the bill authorizing the President of the United States to cause certain roads to be opened in Arkansas, was then considered and laid aside. The bill authorizing the President to cut out a road from the northern boundary of Florida to the town of Appalachicola, was, on motion of Mr. WHITE, taken up, and the following amendment submitted by him was agreed to, and the bill then laid aside:

“For the survey of a road from Tallahassee to Cape Florida, $500;

[blocks in formation]

“For a survey of the east pass into Appalachicola bay and river, to ascertain the practicability and cost of removing obstructions and improving the harbors, $500.” The bill making an appropriation of $10,000 for the construction of a road from Columbia to Little Rock, having been, on motion of Mr. SEVIER, taken up, and, after some inquiries from Mr. FILLMone, was laid aside to be reported with the other bills. Mr. WHITE, of Florida, moved that the committee should take up the bill “supplementary to the act entitled “An act to authorize the President of the United States to run and mark a line dividing the Territory of Florida from the State of Georgia,” passed on the 4th day of May, 1826.” The bill having been taken up for consideration, Mr. FOSTER, of Georgia, moved to amend it by striking out that clause which directs the boundary line between Georgia and Florida to be run pursuant to the provisions of the treaty of 1826, and inserting a clause directing that the line should be run as it was understood, in 1783, when the State of Georgia became independent. Mr. F. contended that the United States were bound to secure to Georgia the limits enjoyed by her when she joined the confederacy, and was not at liberty to grant away any portion of her domain to any other State or Territory. The line, as originally described in the charter of Georgia from the British Government, was to have for one of its extremities the head of the St. Mary’s river. But the country being, at that time, wild and unexplored, the commissioners, instead of ascertaining the true head of the St. Mary’s river, had fixed upon a certain point, where they erected a monument, and in subsequent treaties this point was assumed to be the head of the St. Mary’s river. But as the country came to be more fully explored, it had been discovered that the St. Mary’s had a more southerly branch, the source of which was the true head of the river, and he therefore insisted that, according to the charter, this ought to be admitted as our termination of the boundary line; and what he wished was that a joint commission should be appointed by Georgia and the United States, to have the line re-examined; and if it should appear that the true head of the St. Mary’s was where he expected it to be, that the line should be run according to the true intent and meaning of the charter of Georgia, and of the act by which she was received as a State into the Union. Mr. WHITE was reluctant to take up the day in this discussion. The claim now set up by the gentleman was not a new one. It had undergone a long discussion in the House on a former occasion, and could obtain but fifteen votes in its favor; it had been reported against in the House by three different committees on the Judiciary, and by one committee in the Senate; all which committees had been nearly, if not quite, unanimous in their reports; one of which had been made by Mr. P. P. Barbour, another by Mr. Buchanan; that of the present year by the gentleman now Speaker of the House, and that in the Senate by Mr. Webster. The treaty made in 1795, between Spain and the United States, recognised the report of the commissioners, first appointed to run the line, as valid and binding under that treaty, to which treaty Georgia, by her Senators, had given her assent; and it was not until 1819, that the present claim had been set up on her part. He did not pretend that the United States had the right to cede away any portion of the ter– ritory of Georgia. All he wanted was that a line should be run, and the question might be reserved; for all must see that it was a question to be settled, not in this House, but in the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. GILM ER, of Georgia, after adverting to the full opportunity he had enjoyed of understanding all about the history of this boundary line, declared his conviction that the line, as settled by the treaty of ’95, was not the true

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

one. It had been run in ignorance of the country and under mistake; which mistake, having since been discovered, ought now to be rectified. The reason why Georgia had not sooner set up her claim was, that, until 1818, the country was in possession of the Indians, and Georgia knew nothing of the true position of the head waters of the St. Mary's. The Spanish treaty had reference only to the question between Spain and the United States, and did not settle the question between Florida and Georgia. Spain had never conquered any part of Georgia, and never pretended to have a right to any portion of her territory. Because the line had once been run incorrectly, must it therefore be adhered to Would it not be a much cheaper and easier way of settling the question, to appoint a joint commission to examine the country and run the line anew, than to compel both parties to go into the courts of the United States. Mr. G. contended that it was important that the line should be correctly fixed, to avoid interfering grants and conflicting claims. The question being put on the amendment proposed by Mr. Fost En, it was not agreed to. No further amendment being offered, the bill was laid aside to be reported to the House. On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, the committee now took up the bill “authorizing the President of the United States to run and mark the line dividing the territory of the United States from the State of Missouri.” The bill being taken up accordingly, and read for amendment, Mr. BULL, of Missouri, offered an amendment, the ef. sect of which would be to extend the northern boundary of Missouri westward to the Missouri river, instead of running, as it now does, down the river Lamoine.”

* House of REPREs ENTATIves, June 9, 1834.

Messrs. GALEs & SEATON: When the bill authorizing the President of the United States to run and mark the line dividing the territory of the United States from the State of Missouri was under consideration in Coatuittee of the Whole, I proposed the following amendment: “Thence [from the month of the Kansas river] up the Missouri river, until it shall reach the parallel of latitude which passes through the rapids of the river Des Moines, and from tience to the Mississippi river;” which was agreed to without *position. Mr. Williams then moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendinent was adopted; and, while this motion was under consideration, I am represented in the National Intelligencer of this morning as saying, in the course of some remarks subunitted sy me to the committee, “that the portion of territory which #3ald be added by the adoption of this amendinent consisted of a narrow slip of land lying between the Lamoine and the Missouri, and below the rapids of the Lamoine.” This is a very material aisapprehension: there is no such river in that part of the State of Missouri, and no river was referred to by me (except in the amendment) but the Missouri. What I did say was, that the portion of territory which would be added by the adoption of the alaendment, consisted of a slip of land lying between the supposed line of the State and the Missouri river. After Mr. WILLIAMs withdrew his motion to reconsider the ;:e on my first amendment, I then proposed the following amendroot: “Be it further enacted, That all that part of the territory of £e United States embraced within the boundaries aforesaid, which was not originally included within the State of Missouri, ze, and the same is hereby, attached to, and shall form a part of the State of Missouri, and the sovereignty, jurisdiction, and laws of the said State shall extend over the said ceded territory in the same nanner, and under the same conditious, as if the same bid originally, on the admission of the State of Missouri into the Union, been included within its limits.” On notion of Mr. Fost ER, the further consideration of the bill was postponed until to-morrow, (Saturday.) 1 on desirous of having the mistake corrected, and, with that rew, I have to request that you will do me the favor to publish

[ocr errors]

The amendment was agreed to, without opposition. Mr. WILLIAMS moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment had been agreed to. Mr. GAMBLE, of Georgia, supported the motion of Mr. WILLIAMs, and explained the reasons which had induced the Committee on the Territories to refuse inserting such a clause in the bill. Mr. BULL explained the circumstances of the case. The portion of territory which would be added, by the adoption of this amendment, consisted of a narrow strip of land lying between the Lamoine and the Missouri, and below the rapids of the Lamoine. The State of Missouri had, for some time, felt an interest in having this change effected, and no one who consulted the map, and was acquainted with the circumstances of the case, could deny that, while the acquisition of this small portion of territory would, from its position, be a great benefit to the State of Missouri, the cession of it would occasion little or no loss to the United States. It was true that it had been proposed to include this strip along with other lands intended as a location for the Pattawatamie lindians, but it was so situated that this purpose could not be carried into effect, without very great inconvenience as well to the Indians as to the people of Missouri. They could not be kept separate from the whites, as it was intended and desired that they should be, if they should be fixed upon this land. There must be passing and repassing both of Indians and of their stock; and the people of Missouri, who lived within about thirty miles of the river, would not be able to reach it without going as much as one hundred miles round. The same quantity of land might be assigned to the Indians elsewhere, and it would be better both for them and and for the people of Missouri. Mr. H. EVERETT, chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, supported the amendment, further explained the location of the land, and stated that the Indians were willing to take others in its stead. Mr. ASHLEY corroborated the statements of his colleague as to the solicitude felt by the citizens of Missouri for the proposed alteration of their boundary. . This land lies at the northwest corner of the State, and, being of very excellent quality, should the Indians be placed upon it, it would be an everlasting source of contention, and might lead to serious consequences. The Senate were convinced of this, and, before consenting to ratify the treaty with the Pattawatamies, proposed to annex this fraction of land to the State. They had not yet decided the question of the treaty. The annexing of this land as proposed, would give the State of Missouri a natural western boundary, instead of a mere arbitrary line; and, in case of an Indian war, would interpose a river, threequarters of a mile wide, between them and the enemy.

"Mr. A. expressed himself decidedly opposed to locating

Indians in direct vicinity to white settlements. The lands proposed to be annexed would at once be brought into market, and produce to the treasury some $800,000 or $1,000,000. Mr. A. thought every consideration should induce the House to adopt the amendment, and he trusted it would be agreed to. Mr. DUNCAN briefly expressed his views in favor of the amendment, when Mr. GAMBLE said that, as he now understood the treaty with the Indians had not been ratified, and that this piece of land had not, as he had at first supposed, been guarantied to them by the United States, he should withdraw his opposition. whereupon Mr. WILLIAMS withdrew his motion to reconsider. The amendment, therefore, remains with the assent of the committee. Mr. McKAY, by consent, moved an addition to the bill for running the Florida line, providing compensation to the commissioners at eight dollars per day, and the surveyors at five dollars; which was agreed to.

The bill was then laid aside. The bill for the survey of certain rivers and roads, and for the improvement of a harbor in the Territory of Michigan, was in like manner considered and laid aside, after some explanations from Mr. Meitera. On motion of Mr. SEVIER, the bill for the relief of sundry citizens of Arkansas, who lost their improvements in consequence of a treaty between the United States and the Choctaw Indians, was next taken up. At the call of Mr. McK1M for information, Mr. SEVIER explained. When the United States had,

for the sake of quieting certain Indian tribes at the South,'

set apart a portion of the former Territory of Arkansas for their habitation, the settlers upon it, who were numerous, were ordered off by the Government. Some of them obeyed; but others stood upon their right of pre-emption, and refused to quit their improvements. To avoid diffi. culty, these latter had been allowed a half section of land apiece for their improvements; while the others, who, like peaceable citizens, had removed when ordered to do so, had gotten nothing for their improvements. The present bill was for their benefit, and allowed them a quarter section each. Mr. CLAY supported this explanation, and said that the bill had the approbation of the Committee on the Public Lands. Mr. McKAY and Mr. FILLMORE opposed the bill, as encouraging squatters to violate the law and invade the public lands. Mr. DUNCAN supported the bill on the ground that the United States had ceded away the land to the Indians, and compelled these settlers to abandon their improvements and seek other homes. He was not surprised to hear objections from new members to this claim, on account of the settlers having no title to the land, as they were not aware of the inducements which had always been held out to the hardy sons of the West to penetrate the forest in advance of the surveys and sales, and make improvements on the public land; but for this policy, he said, the vast regions of public land now held by the United States, however rich and fertile, would never sell; and the great and prosperous States which have grown up in the West would have been at this moment a trackless wilderness or Indian hunting ground. He said the Government had sometimes induced these settlers to reduce their wild lands to cultivation and civilization, by making libe. ral donations of land, and at other times by granting the right to each settler to enter at the minimum price a quar. ter section to include their improvements. He said these pre-emption acts had often been opposed, but the justice and good sense of the nation had thus far sustained the policy, and he was happy to see a pre-emption bill about to pass at the present session of Congress, as it was no more than an act of justice to the settler, and of wisdom and sound policy in the Government. He said no honorable man in the new states ever thought of entering a good settler's home over his head, and he could not believe the Government would ever be so unjust as to deprive its citizens of their homes without making a just compensation to them Mr. FILLMORE was opposed to giving an equal amount of land to every settler, while their improvements might have been very different. Mr. H. EVERETT moved to insert the words “before the 1st of June, 1828.” Mr. CLAY assented to this, and replied to Mr. FillMone’s argument against the squatters. The contest on that subject was further continued by Mr. FILLMORE, Mr. WARD WELL, and Mr. McKAY, on the one hand; and Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. MASON, and Mr. SEV; ER, on the other: When the bill was laid over to be reported. The next bill considered was a bill to authorize an ex

[blocks in formation]

tra session of the Legislative Council of the Territory of Michigan.

Mr. LYON having made the necessary explanations, the bill was laid over.

LE A D MINES.

The committee now, on motion of Mr. DUNCAN, took up “A bill to authorize the President of the United States to cause the lead mines in the State of Illinois and Territory of Michigan, to be exposed to public sale, and for other purposes.” This bill gave rise to a very animated discussion, which occupied the House for more than two hours. Mr. PARKER opposed it from the start, and wished it postponed, as a bill of too much importance to be taken up so late in the day. Mr. DUNCAN wished it discussed without delay. Mr. HUBBARD doubted if it was regularly among the Territorial bills. The CHAIR said it had been included among them because part of the lead mines were in the Territory of Michigan. Mr. LYON said that the great body of the lead mines were in Michigan. Mr. R. M. Johnsox thought it best to allow the bill to pass in committee, and reserve the debate upon it, if any, to the House. This was the only day allotted to the Territories; and it was a pity to consume it in debate. The policy of selling the lead mines has already been pursued. It was not a new question. Mr. As HLEY said he could speak from a persect knowledge of facts touching the sale of mineral lands. He stated that it had been the former policy of the Government to reserve the lead mines, and lease them at one-tenth of the proceeds; but, after an experiment of ten or fifteen years, it was found that the expense of employing agents to attend to the business of collecting rents, exceeded the receipts into the treasury. In the mean while, the effects of the policy was ruinous upon the lands, and retarded the growth of the country. The lands in the mineral region in Missouri, after being withheld from sale many years, were thrown into market. At the first sale, but four quarter sections were sold, and they commanded the minimum price only. Having witnessed the evils growing out of the policy of reserving the mineral lands, Mr. A. would vote for the bill. Mr. DUN CAN considered the sale of these lead mines as a matter of more interest to the United States than to the people in the vicinity. It was true, indeed, that the people of Illinois felt a desire that the country should be permanently settled, rather than leased out as it now was. Under the present system, the expense of leasing was said to be nearly equal to the avails from the leases; and, in the mean while, the lands were ruined by the operation. Those who leased them, trenched the country in all directions, and threw out the clay over the soil, so that, when they gave it up, it was in many places rendered wholly useless for agricultural purposes. Whereas, were the lands sold instead of being leased, they would bring a high price, both on account of the mineral riches they were known to contain, and on account of the fertility of the soil. But after the land was spoiled by the diggings, that covered it like the tracks of so many moles in a garden, it would bring little or nothing. As property of the United States, it was becoming less and less valuable every day. Personally, Mr. D. felt little concern in the matter: for many of his constituents, who were miners, had remonstrated against the measure; though, from a careful attention to every expression of opinion on the subject, he believed a majority were in favor of the sale. And, as he was fully persuaded that it was for the public interest, the interest of Illinois, and the future pros

« 上一頁繼續 »