網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

perity of the mining district, he hoped the bill would ass. Mr. WILLIAMS moved to amend the bill by inserting a proviso, that six months' notice should be given before the sale; which was agreed to. Mr. PARKER remonstrated with warmth against the idea of forcing a sale of these valuable mineral lands at $125 an acre. The gentleman stated that the miners had remonstrated against it. Mr. P. should like to hear their remonstrances read; he wanted to hear what these people had to say. Why should the debate be reserved for the House, and not be had in committee” He had always thought that it was the very purpose of going into Committee of the Whole that discussion might be more full and free. The House was very thin, doubtless because gentlemen had had no idea that a proposition to sell the lead mines would be brought up as Territorial business. Mr. ASHLEY explained. In Missouri, the lead lands were of the second quality; yet, had they been sold before the mines were opened, they would probably have brought $10 an acre; now, they would hardly sell at all. Mr. LY ON observed that, if these mines were as valuable as some gentlemen seemed to think, surely, if six months' notice of sale should be given, they could not be sacrificed as gentlemen seemed to fear. Certain it was, that, under the present plan of leasing, the timber was daily destroyed, and the lands ruined; nor would it ever be otherwise until the holders should have a permament interest in the property. Mr. WARDWELL inquired whether the 'pre-emption acts would not give the lessors of these mining lands a right to them at the minimum price? Mr. REED wanted further light. He thought the United States had better hold on to the lands for the present, even if they were badly managed. Mr. LY ON said he should not press the bill; he was willing it should be postponed. Mr. GAMBLE, of Georgia, said he had had little experience in lead mines, but had had some in gold mines; and, from what he knew on the subject, his impression was, that the sooner the Government could get rid of these lands the better. As long as they were leased out, the miners would combine to destroy their character and depress their value. Nothing was eaver. In respect to gold mines, it had been reduced to a regular system, insomuch that he had personally had offers made to him by miners, to either raise or depress the reputation of a given mine, as it might best suit his purpose. It had become a regular business. These lands were, at present, of no value to the Government. If they were valuable, competition would soon find it out, and, on due notice, the price would rise. Mr. FILL MORE inquired if the mines were leased for a term of years? Mr. LYON stated that they were on three years' leases. Mr. ADAMS inquired whether there were no returns of the avails of these lands? If there were not, there ought to be. The idea that they were an expense to the United States, was new to him. If it were so, it must be because the rent was not paid. Mr. DUNCAN said he had not ascertained with precison what were the actual expenses to the Government in carrying on these mines; he knew there were several agents employed, and presumed there were other charges nearly if not quite equal in all to the value of the rent received, which, he said, (if he was understood correctly,) was 604,828 pounds of lead in the year 1833, the value of which, at three dollars per hundred, was only about eighteen thousand dollars. He referred to a report from the War Department, made to Congress in 1830, which recommends the survey and sale of these mines.

The question was taken on laying the bill aside, and negatived.

Mr. VINTON then addressed the committee in support of the bill. The ordinance of 1785 had required that, when the public lands should be sold, a reservation should be made of mines and salt springs. This was under the idea that, if sold, they would become immense individual monopolies; for it was not then known that both salt springs and lead ore abounded through large portions of our territory. But since this bad been discovered, the whole original ground was changed; and, in consequence the salt springs had been sold, and a part of the lead mines. He thought the residue should be sold in like manner. While lead ore was abundant, fuel was comparatively scarce; for most of the ore was in the prairie land, where there was no timber. The present system wasted what timber there was. The ore was dug out and piled up in heaps, and melted by a great waste of fuel, owing to the slovenly manner in which the process was conducted. The timber would soon be gone, and then the ore would be of no more value than so much stone. . But if the land was sold, the process would be conducted with all the care and calculation which marked individual interest; the fuel would be husband. ed, and applied in the best manner. Under such a system, the value of these lands would be preserved and increased. But six months’ notice of sale would be insufficient; for the capitalists, who alone could engage extensively in such undertakings, resided chiefly in the East, and it required more time than that to make the necessary preliminary inquiries, and change the investment of large sums of money. He should move to increase the notice to twelve months. As to selling the lands at present, while under lease, it was out of the question. No one would purchase, under such an incumbrance, lands from which the lessee would strip as much of the timber as he could, and spoil the soil by his shallow diggings. Mr. V. accordingly moved a proviso that the lands should not be sold till the present leases should have expired, and that twelve months' notice should be given of the sale. Both which provisoes were agreed to by the committee. The bill was then laid aside to be reported. On motion of Mr. LYON, the committee then rose, and reported all the bills to the House.

Mr. L. endeavored to have the “bill to grant a certain quantity of land to the Territory of Michigan, for the purpose of aiding said Territory in opening a canal, or constructing a rail or Macadamized road, to connect Lake Erie, or the Detroit river, with Lake Michigan,” taken up in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; but opposition being made by Mr. PARRs, of Maine, and others, he withdrew the motion.

The amendments to most of the bills were concurred in by the House, and they were ordered to their engross. ment for a third reading, with the exception of the bill to sell the lead mires, the bill to run the Florida line, and that to run the line of Missouri; which were postponed to Friday.

The House then adjourned.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

of the honorable member, that the applications for these roads having been referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals, they had duly considered them, and the bill, as reported, had been approved of by them. The question for the House, them, to decide would, he said, simply be, whether it was just that the United States, who have the greatest interest in the public domains in that Territory, or the people, who have not that interest, should be at the expense of making roads; the effect of which, when made, would be, by increasing the value of the public lands, to increase, in a great degree, the receipts therefrom into the treasury of the United States. Mr. McKINLEY said that, after much examination of this subject, he really could not discover upon what ground the burden of making these roads in this Territory was to be incurred by Congress. He could see no reason why they should have the support of the House. No report having, as he believed, been made by any of their committees upon the subject, nor had there been any information or estimates laid before them, as was usually the case, by any of the United States’ engineers. He could not see with what consistency gentlemen, who opposed appropriations for offices not previously established by law, could yet reconcile to themselves making appropriations for roads not previously sanctioned by Congress. But so it was always when appropriations were made connected with the subject of internal imrovement. He complained that Alabama, which he ad the honor to represent, had not received, although they had the promise of it, any benefit by the outlay of money for internal improvements; and yet the Territory of Michigan, which did not contain one-fourth as much public lands as his State did, had received appropriations, in the aggregate, to possibly half a million, certainly to 300,000 or 400,000 dollars. On what ground, he must ask, was this unequal outlay to be maintained? Why, he would also ask, was it that Florida got more than Michigan? The answer might be, that we had full power over the Territories. But the power of Congress to make internal improvements was claimed to exist all over the Union. It was time, however, this system should be arrested, when they had propositions, as in the case of the road through Illinois, Missouri, and other States in the West, which would, he thought, go altogether to the exhaustion of the funds levied on the sales of all public lands. He was not disposed to sustain the system, doubting the power of the United States to make imrovements where they had no jurisdiction, although he i. no doubt Congress had power to aid the States by appropriations for such purposes. He would now, therefore, call upon those members who were formerly so anxious on the subject of economy, and who supported the proposition so successfully for the reduction of the salaries of the custom-house officers, &c., to show their regard for the public money by voting against this bill, which afforded to them so fair an opportunity; it being one, too, in which there would be no difficulty of finding persons on his side to join them. Mr. MERCER explained, and justified at length the manner in which the Committee on Roads and Canals acted, with reference to all appropriations for roads recommended by them, advocating the present bill on the ground that making the roads contemplated by it would prove of ultimate benefit to the United States. He denied, however, that so much had been done for Michigan as was asserted by the honorable member from Alabama, by the Committee on Roads and Canals. The present bill was one granting about $60,000 for certain roads, which must, when constructed, evidently increase the value of the public lands. It should, therefore, stand or fail on its own merits. He could not see any force in the objections raised to improvements that had the object of benefiting the public property.

ever, on the subject of internal improvements, had been made for the last fourteen years; but it was some consolation that, in reply to them, the vote of the House generally went to sustain them. It was asked by one honorable member, was not the Chicago road formerly vetoed? and it was said, if so, why now make an appropriation for it? But he trusted that Congress never had, never should come to such a state of servility, as, for such a reason, to decline voting and acting as it thought proper. The Chicago road, however, was not vetoed. The opposition to this bill, on the ground that Alabama got no benefit by the system of internal improvements, was, he thought, peculiarly unfortunate, because the largest appropriation that ever had been made by Congress to promote internal improvements was for that State. Mr. McKINLEY said he had meant to state that, whilst Alabama was a Territory, she had received nothing. Mr. MERCER resumed, and said that Alabama could not, with any grace complain, if she derived benefit from the system, in common with other parts of the Union, when she became a State; but it was yet to be proved that, even whilst she was a Territory, she had asked for any thing, or been refused. He could assure the honorable member that he would feel ashamed of himself if he could be influenced in withholding any appropriation from his, or any other State, simply because that State would not acknowledge the jurisdiction of the United States to make internal improvements therein. Such was not his course, being always determined to support those propositions that would appear likely to prove generally beneficial. Mr. M. detailed at length the method and costs of constructing roads suitable to the progressive wants of the new States and Territories generally. After which, he defended the course taken by the committee on the subject of internal improvements, maintaining that there was not one appropriation recommended by them for any object that they could not sustain, by referring to the pri:ciple on which they had uniformly acted, viz: its general utility to the Union. Persecuted as the committee had been for their opinions, he believed he might, in conclusion, take leave on this head to say, for himself, with Job, “Oh that mine enemy would write a book.” Mr. WHITE, of Florida, said, as there was evident symptoms that there was to be opposition to the appropriations contemplated for the Territory which he had the honor to represent, he would, in reply to the statement made by the member from Alabama, that Florida had received more than Michigan, beg to refer him to the laws of the United States for better information than the honorable member seemed to have upon that subject. There he would find that Florida had not, in the aggregate, received, ever since her connexion with the United States, as much for roads and canals as was now proposed to be given to the Territory of Michigan by the present bill. But one appropriation of any consequence had been made for a road, and that was at the special recommendation of General Jackson, in 1824, from St. Augustine to Pensacola; and what, he asked, was the result? Why, it would appear, from the reports in the Land Office, that the public lands which, owing to its being constructed, had been brought to market, were sold at five and five and |. quarter dollars per acre, whilst lands of equal value haci |previously been there sold at one and one dollar and a quarter per acre. The reason for this was too obvious to make it necessary for him to dwell upon the advantages arising to the United States by continuing that system, by which their forests were enabled to be penetrated, and their lands brought into connexion with the busy haunts of men. This was the result, according to his own observation, in Florida, and he had no doubt it would be the same in other parts of the Union similarly circumstanced.

These objections, how- In answer to the outcry that was now to be raised, that

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

the Territories were getting more than the States, he would assert that they had stronger claims than any of the States, because they were, in fact, the property of the nation, and to them would, in the end, accrue, as he had shown actually did, all the benefit of the improvements made there.

The gentleman from Alabama talked about the large quantity of public lands in his State—they amounted, he believed, to 27,000,000 acres, of which only 1,000,000 had been sold. But had not that State grants given them for various purposes, of 600,000 or 800,000 acres. . Then they had, in addition, a law passed in their favor, releasing purchasers of public lands from the payment of their bonds to the amount of 600,000 or $800,000. Under such circumstances he would protest against any such argument being raised in opposition to the just claims of the Territories. He, in conclusion, repeated that all grants made by the General Government to them was, in reality, for the ultimate benefit of their own property, just as much as the improvements made by a farmer would add to the value of his own farm. Nothing, he said, had been given to the Floridas for some five or six years; and he defied the honorable member to make good his assertions, that they had obtained more than Michigan.

The debate was arrested at 12 o'clock by

Mr. CHINN, who rose to call for the special order of the day; which was set apart for the consideration of business in relation to

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Mr. POLK appealed to the House whether it was not of more importance to dispose finally of the appropriation bills before they should enter into the business of the District, to which he would be willing to attend on Friday or Saturday next. He moved that the rule be suspended for the purpose of taking up the appropriation bills. Mr. WHITTLESEY remarked that it might be possible for the House to dispose of both. Mr. WILLIAMS opposed the motion to suspend, as he believed the members generally came prepared to act on the business of the District. Mr. CH1NN said he had no idea, unless the business of the District was then taken up, that there could be any action on the bills in relation to it, before the adjournment of Congress. He hoped the motion would not prevail. The House refused to suspend the rule, and went into Committee of the Whole (Mr. BR16Gs in the chair) on sundry bills. On motion of Mr. CHINN, the bill to complete the improvements on Pennsylvania avenue was taken up. Mr. PARKER desired to be informed what was the nature of the outstanding claims for work done on the avenue, for which he observed an appropriation was proposed of $3,720. He had some objection to another item, not to much on account of its amount, as that he feared, if it was sanctioned, it might prove an entering wedge to future demands upon Congress. He alluded to the appropriation of $200 for removing the dust and mud from the surface of the avenue. He objected to Congress, having caused the road to be made, now taking upon themseives the charge of it, believing it would lead them to an expense hereafter, the extent of which no person could guess. His objection was on account of the principle, not to the amount; and he would move to have this, at all events, stricken out. Mr. CH1NN, in explanation, said it would be in the recollection of the House how much inconvenience was felt from the state the avenue was in not long since, and for which various propositions had been suggested to obviate it. The House having refused to act upon the joint resolution to direct the Committee on the Public Buildings to have the street watered, the Committee on the District had thought it necessary to have the dust

removed. For this an expense of $143 73 had been incurred; to which sum he would move the reduction of the appropriation. Mr. PARKER would not say that the removal of the mud or dust was not a convenience in itself; but he would say that the United States ought not to be called on to pay for it. He had no idea that Congress should take upon themselves the functions of scavengers to the good City of Washington. Was it, he inquired, necessarily to follow, that because they had, at an expense of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, made a Macadamized road, they were to have this duty entailed upon them? If so, it was better they had not directed it to be constructed at all. He thought the people of Washington should do as the people of other cities did, namely: keep their own streets in repair, and keep the dust out of their own eyes. Mr. WARD WELL suggested that, as the expense had been incurred, it was necessary to alter the phraseology of the appropriation from “to remove,” and insert instead, “for removing.” Mr. CHINN assented, and modified his amendment accordingly. Mr. STODDERT contended that the same reason which existed for making the road originally would apply for making the appropriations in this bill; the original object in making it being not so much for the benefit of the people of Washington as it was for the benefit of the Government and of the country at large. If, then, it was a good reason to expend one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, he thought that the House could not well refuse the small amount of one hundred and seventy-three dollars, which was laid out to make it answer that purose. Mr. HARPER desired to have the amendment so worded as that this appropriation should not serve as a precedent for future expenses of the same kind. He observed that there was another of four hundred dollars, to keep the avenue in repair; but he was opposed to Congress having the duty, thus self-imposed, of keeping the road in repair; conceiving that, if this was once sanctioned, neither that amount, nor double that, would be found sufficient for it. He desired, as the expense had been incurred, that it should be paid; but, to avoid the danger which he had stated, that the amendment should have inserted in it, “that it was for money already expended.” The amendment being modified, in accordance to this suggestion, the question thereon was put, and it was agreed to. Mr. PARKER remarked that it seemed to him the honorable member from Pennsylvania had gained nothing by the change made in the amendment; for he contended that, if it was adopted in its present shape, Congress must construe it into a worse precedent than it was before its phraseology was altered. In its present shape it went to sanction an expenditure ordered by a committee of the House. The money was first expended, and then the House were asked to pay it. What authority was there, he would ask, in any committee, to make such an expenditure? If Congress acceded to it, would not the certain result be to establish a stronger precedent? He must, therefore, move to have it stricken out; and, if that motion should succeed, it was his intention, he said, to move to have the succeeding item of four hundred dollars for repairs, also stricken out. Mr. FILLMORE maintained, however, (anxious as he was—equally with the honorable member from New Jersey, [Mr. PARKEn]—to avoid creating a bad precedent,) that Congress were perfectly justified in causing the inconvenience resulting to them in the transaction of their public duties from the state of the road to be removed, and to make an appropriation for the expense

incurred by that removal. For their convenience the

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

streets had been cleaned, and he was disposed to have it paid for. Mr. EWING said it might be worthy of inquiry, whether the appropriation was intended to cover the expenses which would accrue whilst Congress was in session? Mr. CHINN said it was intended for expenses already incurred, and which had become necessary in preference to the proposition to have the street, watered, which would have cost at least eight hundred dollars. Mr. McKINLEY would vote for the payment of the expenses already incurred, but could not support the other, to keep the avenue in repair. Mr. WATMOUGH advocated the amendment, as work had been done for the convenience of members, which could not otherwise be paid for, and a number of persons would be thus prevented obtaining what was justly due to them. The motion to strike out was negatived; thereupon, Mr. PARKER said that, as he desired to avoid the possibility of this being cited hereafter as a precedent, he would move to have inserted in it, that it was for expenses incurred under the direction of the Committee on the District. Mr. WARDWELL hoped he would withdraw this amendment; for, if it was inserted, however willing to vote for the expenses of removal, he could not vote for it if worded as the honorable member proposed—that amendment, if adopted, giving power to a committee of the House to direct money to be expended, when in fact they had no such power. Mr. WATMOUGH remarked that the expenditure had been under the direction of the Commissioner of the Public Buildings. Mr. PARKER said it was for that very reason he desired to have the amendment which he proposed inserted, feeling much more disposed to sanction an outlay under the authority of one of their own committees than he would the act of any commissioner. The question on the amendment of Mr. PARKEu was then put; and, having been negatived, Mr. HARDIN inquired how it was possible the erection of stone arches over Tiber creek, and other repairs there, could require so large an appropriation as twelve hundred dollars? IIe was not aware upon what principle there could be such an expenditure for this purpose maintained, unless it was that peculiar principle on which some people of this city were known to act, namely: to get as much money as they could, and do as little work for it as possible. Mr. CHINN went into an explanation of the measures taken by the committee, who, he said, after a full inquiry into the subject, deemed it necessary, in an economical point of view, not only to repair the broken arch permanently, but to have it otherwise protected by a solid stone wall of some length, in order to protect the bridge from the current. Mr. HARDIN disapproved altogether of the manner in which the road had been constructed, as the whole expense that had been incurred by it, of nearly one hundied and fifty thousand dollars, would not avail, from the species of stone used in it. He, on the ground of economy, would now suggest to the chairman of the committee, that it was necessary to have a good stratum of hard limestone rock, four and a half inches thick, laid on the present road. This would, in the outset, appear an extravagant proposition, as it would cost, he calculated, about fourteen thousand dollars; but he would maintain that, unless this was done, and speedily, their former large outlay would be totally lost, as the road was evidently wearing away, and would entirely before November. Mr. McKINLEY moved to strike out the item “for repairs of the avenue, four hundred dollars.”

The motion was negatived: Yeas 42, nays not counted. Mr. McKINLEY then said, as he could not conceive that twelve hundred dollars was wanted for the repairs of the north end of the Tiber bridge, &c., he would move to reduce the amount to six hundred dollars. Mr. WARDWELL remarked that he was only astonished that three thousand dollars was not required, instead of twelve hundred dollars; and thought they were getting off cheap to have so low an estimate presented for what was necessary to be done. If they did not grant sufficient at once, it must be evident that they would be called on (as the honorable member must see had been the case in this bill for another object) to make it up by an appropriation, hereafter, for arrearages. Mr. MERCER regretted to find the honorable member from Alabama [Mr. McKINLEx) was so querulous in opposition to all the appropriations that had been proposed that day. Works of this nature were required to be done in a permanent manner, and he did not suppose that this work could be done permanently at a less rate than was proposed. Mr. CIIINN said the committee had various estimates on the subject, and they were convinced it could not be done cheaper. They had adopted this estimate in preference to another which had been suggested, the cutting of a new channel and the erection of a new bridge, on account of the great expense that must have been created if they had—not less, probably, than ten or eleven thousand dollars. The question on the motion of Mr. McKINLEY, to strike out twelve hundred and insert six hundred, having been then put, and the votes thereon being yeas 43, nays 68– no quorum— Mr. McKINLEY, to save the time of the House, withdrew his amendment; thereupon, Mr. McKAY rose to inquire as to the nature of the outstanding claims, for the payment of which there was an item appropriating three thousand seven hundred and twenty dollars? He desired to know whether an examination into the expenditure of the large amount voted by Congress for this road had been made by that committee whose proper province it was to have such examination made? He could not vote, until he was satisfied about this, to place such large sums at the disposition of any public officer, who, for aught that was yet known, had this outlay to make without being under any responsibility for it whatever. He had another objection to making these appropriations. The Commissioner of Public Buildings, it had been stated, had expended money before it was appropriated. What authority could be pleaded for such an act? Most unquestionably, none. What right, he begged to know, had that officer to employ laborers, as it had been stated he had done? Surely, he said, this made it high time for them to know whether the committee had done their duty in examining every item of the large expenditure for this road. Ön motion of Mr. CHINN, the committee next took up the bill “to organize the several fire companies in the District of Columbia.” Mr. CHINN moved an amendment, the effect of which was, that a fire company, with an apparatus worth five hundred dollars, should not exempt from militia duty more than fifty men—and with an apparatus worth one thousand dollars, not more than seventy-five men; which was agreed to. Some other amendments of minor consequence were added, when the bill was laid aside, and the committee took up the bill to incorporate the Washington National Monument Society, on which a debate of much interest arose, and was in full progress, when it was discovered that the committee were discussing a bill which had not been referred to them. The debate, of course, was immediately

dropped.

Jux E 6, 1834.] The committee next considered the bill concerning the Insurance Company of Alexandria. Mr. CHINN moved a proviso, reserving to Congress the right to alter, modify, or repeal the charter, at pleasure; which being agreed to, the bill was laid aside. The next bill taken up was the bill “for the benefit of the City of Washington.” Mr. STODDERT (from the District Committee) called for the reading of the report which accompanied the bill; and it was read at the Clerk’s table. Mr. MANN, of New York, declaring himself entirely hostile to the bill, moved to destroy it by striking out the enacting clause. He was not prepared, he said, to adopt the debt of the City of Washington, (for such would practically be the effect of the bill,) for the sake of advancing a favorite scheme of internal improvement. He knew of no principle of right, justice, or public policy, which required it at the hands of Congress. It was but the entering wedge, and the end would be that Congress would have to pay the principal of the debt. The contracting of it had been a mere private transaction, and Government could not be called upon to interfere for the relief of the party embarrassed by it. He knew that the corporation was insolvent, and that the taxes of the peo. ple were intolerable; but it was not for him to prescribe the remedy. Congress could not, in its public character, proceed to acts of charity; its members were sent here to do justice; and it was not justice that they should assume the debts which a corporate body had improvidently contracted. Mr. STODDERT said that he could not have believed, had not facts convinced him, that the District of Columbia could have been an object of such narrow jealousy to the States of this Union. To relieve its inhabitants was not merely within the competence of Congress—it was their imperative duty. As to their power to appropriate money to the benefit of any portion of this District, there was no man who could deny or dispute it; they stood to the inhabitants of the ten miles square in the same relation which a State Legislature sustained towards the citizens of any one of the States. And were a similar application made to a State Legislature, would the petitioners be met with such language and such reproaches as had been thrown out with respect to the people of Washington? The sum of the national prosperity, Mr. S. ob. served, was made up of its parts; and if it was the duty of Congress to promote the good of the whole, it was not its duty to suffer any of the parts to perish. If they had fallen into circumstances of difficulty out of which it was impossible for them to extricate themselves, it was surely competent to a paternal Government to step in for their relief. This had been done on former occasions: when Alexandria had suffered by fire, and the people of Caraccas by an earthquake. He might, therefore, stand on the force of precedents—but he placed this bill upon higher grounds. He would first reply to the argument of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. MANN.] It was not true that the committee designed this bill as an entering wedge to make way for a final adoption of the whole debt of the city. They had expressly denied and disavowed any •uch purpose; and had provided, in so many words, that the payment of this interest should be continued for three years only. It never had been their purpose to assume the Holland debt: they had never thought of such a thing. As to the charge of improvidence, on which the gentleman was for refusing this relief, he thought the act of the city, which had in a great part contributed to bring them into their present situation, ought to be characterized by any other term. So far from its being a measure of reckless improvidence, he held it to have been one in the highest degree public spirited and praiseworthy. They bzi subscribed largely to a great public improvement,

District of Columbia.

[ocr errors]

which promised in the end to advance the prosperity of the city and relieve it from every embarrassment. Delays had occurred; and they found themselves now sinking under a load of debt. Was it not the duty of the Gov. ernment to relieve them? Let gentlemen consider that the Government held real estate in this city to the value of more than a million of dollars; and that they had actually received upwards of seven hundred thousand dollars—from what? from taxation? from putting their hands into the pockets of the people? No, not at all; but from the voluntary donation of private individuals; from donations to the United States in trust; and the question was, how it was to be administered? Mr. S. held in his hand the articles of cession; and any man who would examine them would see that these lots had been granted in trust for the public benefit. No man could suppose that these individuals would so have contravened the philosophy of the human heart as to give away their property to the people of the rest of the Union. It was a preposterous idea that the people of this little district of ten miles square should become the almoners of the United States: They ceded their property for the benefit of the future city. This was the inducement; and this the only legitimate use to which their property could be applied. The trust could not be administered for federal purposes. Let us, then, said Mr. S., resort to the documents, and see how this trust stands. The receipts from the sales of city lots ceded to the Government amount to seven hundred and thirty-two thousand seven hundred dollars. From this sum is to be deducted one hundred and eighty-six thousand eight hundred and sixty dollars, expended for the improvement of the city: but it is to be borne in mind that, of this last sum, one hundred and twenty-one thousand dollars was for the erection of a penitentiary. And is this a mere local structure? It is for the purpose of confining those who violate the criminal laws of the United States, not only in this city, or this District, but in any part of the Union. And, if it should be deemed economical to do so, convicts may be sent here from any of the States. So far as this goes, it is strictly a federal prison: though I admit that it is for the use of the city also. As to the Sum expended on Pennsylvania avenue, he denied that that was to be considered as an expenditure for the benefit of the city alone. Its main object has respect to the Government, by facilitating the passage between the Capitol and the public offices. Mr. S. went into some other statistical details, the result of which was, that, even allowing four hundred and seventy-six thousand dollars to have been expended for city objects alone, it still left a large balance of money actually received, which the Government held as a trustee for the benefit of the owners. What justice was there in giving it any other direction? Mr. S. would have thought that the State pride of every man on that floor would of itself have been sufficient to induce him to reject with scorn the very idea of applying such a fund to federal or State uses. The appropriation in the bill involved no encroachment on the federal treasury: it was to be taken out of a fund derived exclusively from the donations of private individuals. The Government had had possession of this property for years; and now they were called upon simply to pay their debts; to advance money for which they had received the amplest compensation. Again; the Government held not only the most valuable part of the city as their own, but the property they thus assumed to hold, as proprietors, had been exempt from taxation. The Government had imposed upon the people of the city a new and extraordinary scheme of building. They compelled them to construct their streets of three times the width of ordinary streets in other cities; they obliged them at once to go upon a grand scale, and not to allow the improvement of the city to develop it

« 上一頁繼續 »