Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

bill; it applied not only to the present laws of the States, but to any future laws that might pass.

Mr. C. denied that the bill applied to the slaveholding States only; and went on to argue that it could be applied to all the States, and to any publication touching the subject of slavery whatever, whether for or against it, if such publication was only prohibited by the laws of such State. Thus, for instance, a non-slaveholding State might prohibit publications in defence of the institution of slavery, and this bill would apply to it as well as to the laws of the slaveholding States; but the law would be inoperative: it declared that the deputy postmaster should not be amenable, unless he knowingly shall deliver, &c. Why, the postmaster might plead ignorance, and of course the law would be inoperative. But he wanted to know whence Congress derived the power to pass this law. It was said that it was to carry into effect the laws of the States. Where did they get such authority? He thought that their only authority to pass laws was in pursuance of the constitution; but to pass laws to carry into effect the laws of the States, was a most prolific authority, and there was no knowing where it was to stop: it would make the legislation of Congress dependent upon the legislation of twenty-four different sovereignties. He thought the bill was of a most dangerous tendency. The Senator from Pennsylvania asked if the post office power did not give them the right to regulate what should be carried in the mails. Why, there was no such power as that claimed in the bill; and if they passed such a law, it would be exercising a most dangerous power. Why, if such doctrine prevailed, the Government might designate the persons, or parties, or classes, who should have the benefit of the mails, excluding all others.

It was too often in the condemnation of a particular evil that they were urged on to measures of a dangerous tendency. All must agree as to the dangerous consequences of persons residing out of certain States transmitting to them incendiary publications, calculated to promote civil war and bloodshed. All must see the evil, and a great evil it was, and he hoped that a stop would be put to it; but Congress had no power to pass beyond the constitution for the purpose of correcting it. The States alone had the power, and their power was ample for the purpose. He hoped never to see the time when the General Government should undertake to correct the evil by such measures as the one before them. If (said Mr. C.) you can pass this law to prohibit the delivery through the post office of publications touching the subject of slavery, might they not also pass laws to prohibit any citizen of New York or Massachusetts from publishing and transmitting through the mail any thing touching that subject? If you may touch the subject of slavery at all, why not go to the root of the evil? Suppose one of the southern States were to pass a law of this kind; would you not be called upon by all the arguments now used in favor of this bill, to carry such law into effect? Mr. C. concluded by saying that the bill was calculated to destroy all the landmarks of the constitution, establish a precedent for dangerous legislation, and to lead to incalculable mischief. There was no necessity for so dangerous an assumption of authority, the State laws being perfectly competent to correct the evil complained of. He must say that, from the first to the last, he was opposed to the measure.

Mr. CALHOUN could not concur with the views taken by the Senators from Massachusetts and Kentucky, that this bill would comprehend in its provisions all publications touching the subject of slavery. In order to bring any publication within the provisions of the bill, two qualifications were necessary. The first was, that it must relate to the subject of slavery; and the next was, that it must be prohibited by the laws of the State

VOL. XII.-109

[SENATE.

to which it is transmitted. He thought that this was the view that would be taken of it by the courts. The object of this bill was to make it the duty of the postmasters in the States to conform to the laws of such States, and not to deliver out papers in violation of their laws. The simple question was, had this Government the power to say to its officers, you shall not violate the laws of the States in which you reside! Could it go further, and make it their duty to co-operate with the States in carrying their laws into effect? This was the simple question. Now could any man doubt that Congress possessed the power to pass both measures, so that their officers might not come into conflict with the State laws? Indeed, he looked upon measures of this kind to prevent conflicts between the General and State Governments, which were likely to ensue, as essentially necessary; for it was evident that when such conflicts took place, the State must have the ascendancy. Mr. C. then briefly recapitulated the principles on which this bill was founded, and contended that it was in aid of laws passed by the States as far as Congress had the power constitutionally to go, and assumeed no power to prohibit or interfere with the publication or circulation of any paper whatever; it only declared that the officers of the Government should not make their official stations a shield for violating the State laws. Was there any one there who would say, that the States had not the power to pass laws prohibiting and making penal, the circulation of papers, calculated to incite insurrection among their slaves? It being admitted that they could, could not Congress order its officers to abstain from the violation of these laws? We do not (said Mr. C.) pass a law to abridge the freedom of the press, or to prohibit the publication and circulation of any paper whatever this has been done by the States already. The inhibition of the constitution was on Congress, and not on the States, who possessed full power to pass any laws they thought proper. They knew that there were several precedents to sanction this bill. Congress had passed laws to abstain from the violation of the health laws of the States. Could any one say that the constitution gave to Congress the power to pass quarantine laws? He had not adverted to the message of the President on this subject, because he believed that the President acted from the best motives, and that that part of the message was drawn up without sufficient reflection. He denied, however, that this message was in conformity with the constitution. It would be directly abridging the liberty of the press for Congress to pass such laws as the President recommended. One part of the message he would refer to, which was in these words:

"I would, therefore, call the special attention of Congress to the subject, and respectfully suggest the propriety of passing such a law as will prohibit, under severe penalties, the circulation in the southern States, through the mail, of incendiary publications, intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection."

This was clearly unconstitutional; for it not only recommended the prohibition of publications and circulation of incendiary papers, (abridging the freedom of the press,) but it recommended also the infliction of severe penalties, which powers were expressly prohibited by the constitution. On no other principle could this ever be defended, than that it was simply abstaining from a violation of the laws of the States.

The Senator from Kentucky contended that this bill was useless; and he (Mr. C.) agreed that it was so in one

sense, and that was, with or without this bill, the southern States would execute their own laws against the circulation of such papers. It was a case of life and death with them; and did any body suppose that they would permit so many magazines in their bosom to blow them to destruction, as these post offices must be, if

التاء

1

[blocks in formation]

these incendiary publications continued to be circulated through them? While the southern States contained so many postmastera opposed to their institutions, as it was in his own State, where almost every postmaster was opposed to it, it was absolutely necessary for them to take effectual measures for their own security. It was the assertion of the principle, that the States had a right to protect themselves, which made the bill valuable in his eyes; it prevented the conflict which would be likely to take place between the General and State Governments, unless some measure of the kind should be adopted. The States had a right to go to the extent of this bill; and they would be wanting to themselves and to posterity if they omitted to do it. It was on the doctrine of State rights and State intervention that he supported this bill, and on no other grounds.

The Senator from Massachusetts objected to the returning of these papers whose delivery was prohibited. He regretted this as much as the Senator did; but his objection was, that it did not go far enough: he thought that these papers should be delivered to the prosecuting officers of the States, to enable them to ferret out the designs of the incendiaries.

Mr. WEBSTER remarked, that in general it might be safely said, that when different gentlemen supported a measure admitted to be of a novel character, and placed their defence of it on different and inconsistent grounds, a very simple person might believe, in such case, that there were no very strong grounds for adopt ing the measure. The Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from South Carolina, not only placed their defence of the bill on opposite grounds, but each op posed the principles on which the other founded his support of it. Where the object to be gained was apparently good, and the case urgent, as it was represent ed to be, how could limitations of power stand against powerful opponents, which have always been urging to despotism? Now, against the objects of this bill he had not a word to say, but with constitutional lawyers there was a great difference between the object and the means to carry it into effect. It was not the object to be gain ed, but the means to attain it, which they should look to; for though the object might be good, the means might not be so. His objections went to the means, and not to the object; and he did not yield the argument because the object was a good one, and the case was urgent. It was better to limit the power, and run the risk of injury from the want of it, than to give a power which might be exercised in a dangerous manner.

The Senator from Pennsylvania said that this bill was calling on Congress to do nothing but to abstain from violating the laws of the States. It was one thing, said the Senator, for Congress to abstain from giving these incendiary papers circulation, and another to pass laws saying that they shall not be published. But if Congress had no mail through which these papers could be transmitted, what did the gentleman mean by Congress abstaining from giving them circulation? It meant that Congress should interfere, and create an especial exception as to what should be transmitted by their ordinary channel of intelligence, and that that exception should be caused by the character of the writing or publication. He contended that Congress had not the power, drawn from the character of the paper, to decide whether it should be carried in the mail or not; for such decision would be a direct abridgment of the freedom of the press. He confessed that he was shocked at the doctrine. He looked back to the alien and sedition

laws, which were so universally condemned throughout the country; and what was their object? Certainly to prohibit publications of a dangerous tendency. [Mr. W. here quoted the sedition law, to show the objects it in tended to effect.) But the deputy postmasters, Mr.

[JUNE 6, 1836.

W. said, must look into the newspaper mail to see if there were any publications in it touching the subject of slavery, calculated to excite insurrections among the slaves.

Now, said Mr. W., the country would have been rent into atoms if the sedition law, instead of saying that papers should not be published in such and such a way, had declared that the deputy postmasters should have the power to search the mails to see if they contained any publications calculated to "bring the Government into disrepute, promote insurrection, and lead to foreign war," the evils the sedition law intended to guard against. All the papers described in the law of '99 were unlawful by the laws of any of the States; and yet that law, which had created so much excitement, and met with such general reprobation, contained nothing like the power claimed by this bill. Any law distinguishing what shall or shall not go into the mails, founded on the sentiments of the paper, and making the deputy postmaster the judge, he should say was expressly unconstitutional, if not recommended by gentlemen of such high authority. This bill, said Mr. W., went beyond the recommendation of the President; for his recommendation was, that the person who circulated the papers described by him, should be punished by severe penalties. Now, this was the old law of liberty; there was not a word of previous restraint in it as imposed by this bill. Mr. W. then went into an argument to show the vagueness of the bill in describing the paper the delivery of which was prohibited. Under it it was impossible to determine what publications should be prohibited: abolition pamphlets were to be stopped at the South, and anti-abolition papers were to be stopped at the North. In reply to Mr. BUCHANAN, he said that he did not assume that these prohibited publications either were or were not property. All he said was, that they ought not to make the deputy postmasters the judge, and take away the property without the authority of law. What he had to say was, that it was a question of property or no property; and that they could not make the deputy postmasters the judge of the fact, as he could not be a judge of property known to the con

stitution and the law.

Mr. BUCHANAN said he had not anticipated, when he first addressed the Senate upon this subject, that he should have occasion to make any further remarks; but the Senator from Massachusetts had replied to his argument in such a special manner, that he felt himself constrained to reply to some of his remarks. Now, permit me to say, (continued Mr. B.,) that he has not at all met the point of my argument. He has invested this subject with an air of greater importance and responsibility than it deserves; he has played around it with all his powers, but without touching the real question involved in the discussion.

Congress has no power (says the gentleman) to pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. Granted. He most freely admitted that Congress had no power to touch the press at all. We can pass no law whatever either to prevent or to punish any publication, under any circumstances whatever. The sedition law violated this principle. It punished libels against the Federal Government and its officers; and having met with general reprobation, it was repealed, or permitted to expire by its own limitation, he did not recollect which.

Mr. B. said he admitted these premises of the gentleman in their broadest extent; but did they justify his conclusions? In order to maintain his argument, he must prove that the constitution, in declaring that Congress shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of the press, has thereby, and from the force of these terms alone, commanded us to circulate and distribute,

[blocks in formation]

through our post offices, every thing which the press may publish, no matter whether it shall promote insurrection and civil war or not. This is the proposition which he must establish. All the gentleman's remarks in favor of the liberty of the press met his cordial approbation; but they did not apply to the constitutional question then under discussion. He had argued this question precisely as if, in addition to the words already in the constitution, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press," there had been inserted, "or to prevent the circulation of any production of the press through the post offices." But these words were not in the instrument; and the only question was, whether the one prohibition could be inferred from the other. Mr. B. said he was in favor of a plain and literal construction of the constitution. He took it for his guide; and he could never consent to interpolate what its framers never intended should be there. They have conferred upon Congress, in express terms, a general discretion in regard to the Post Office Department; and the question then was, shall we exercise it in the manner proposed by this bill, for the purpose of preventing servile war, bloodshed, and disunion?

How had the gentleman from Massachusetts met his argument? He says that the principles upon which the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN) and himself had sustained this bill, were at variance with each other; and that this of itself was sufficient to cast doubt over the measure. But was it the first time the gentleman had ever known correct conclusions to be drawn from varying or even unfounded premises? The bill 'self ought not to be condemned for the arguments of its friends. He would remind the gentleman of the advice given by a distinguished English judge to a young friend about to occupy a judicial station in the West Indies, which was, never to give reasons for his judgments where it could be avoided; because his natural sense and perception of justice would almost always enable him to decide correctly, though he might, and probably often would, assign insufficient reasons for his decisions. This bill ought to be judged by its own provisions, and ought not to be condemned for the reasons in support of it which had been advanced eitheir by the Senator from South Carolina or himself.

The Senator from Massachusetts had argued as though he (Mr. B.) had said, that as the end proposed by his measure was good, he should vote for it, notwithstanding the means might be unconstitutional. [Here Mr. WEBSTER explained, and said he had not imputed to Mr. B. such an argument.]

Mr. B. proceeded. The Senator did not mean this imputation; but his argument seemed to imply as much. However necessary he might believe this bill to be, if he did not find a clear warrant for its passage in the constitution, it should never have his support. He never could believe that this Government, having the exclusive control over the Post Office Department in all its various relations, was yet so impotent to prevent evil, that it must, under the fundamental law which called it into existence, whether it would or not, distribute publications tending directly to promote servile insurrection, and to produce its own destruction.

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] had misapprehended him in one particular. He (Mr. B.) bad disclaimed all authority to pass this bill derived froni State laws, or from any other source than the constitution of the United States. He had not said he would vote for a similar bill in all cases where the State Legislatures might think proper to pass laws to prohibit the circulation of any publication whatever. He considered the passage of such laws merely as evidence of the necessity for legislation by Congress; but he was very far

[SENATE.

from adopting the principle that it should be conclusive evidence in all cases. Congress must judge for itself under all the circumstances of each particular case.

In reply to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. B. said that this bill would not be a penal law. Every thing like a penalty had been stricken from its provisions, unless the removal of a deputy postmaster from office by the Postmaster General might be viewed in that light. By it we merely directed our agent not to violate State laws by distributing publications calculated to excite insurrection. He would not have occasion to study all the laws of all the States on the subject of slavery, as the Senator froin Massachusetts had alleged. All that would be required of him was to know the laws of the State of which he was a citizen, and to take care not to violate them.

The gentleman had said that he (Mr. B.) had mistaken the recommendation contained in the President's message. Now he undertook to assert that this bill was in conformity with the recommendation of the President, and carried it out in all essential particulars.

[Here Mr. B. again read the last paragraph of the message which he had read before.]

Now, sir, (said Mr. B.,) does not the President expressly assert that Congress has authority to regulate what shall be distributed through the post offices, and does he not "suggest the propriety of passing such a law as will prohibit, under severe penalties, the circulation in the southern States, through the mail, of incendiary publications, intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection?" Except that this bill contained no severe penalties, it was framed, both in its spirit and in its letter, according to the suggestion of the President. What other bill could we pass of a milder character than the one now before us, to prevent the circulation of these incendiary publications? Let the President's recommendation be entitled to what weight it might, this bill

was in exact accordance with it.

The Senator from Massachusetts had contended that this bill conferred upon deputy postmasters the power of depriving individuals of their property in newspapers and other publications, in violation of that clause in the constitution which declares that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. By this bill we had not attempted to shield any postmaster from legal responsibility for his conduct. We could not do so, if we would. We had merely prescribed for him, as we had done for our other agents, the line of his duty. We did not attempt to protect him from the suit of any person who might consider himself aggrieved. If any individual to whom a publication was directed, and who had demanded it from the postmaster and had been refused, should believe our law to be unconstitutional, he might bring this question before the judiciary, and try it, like any other question. All our officers and agents are liable to be sued, and if the law under which they acted should prove to be unconstitutional, it would afford them no protection. On the present occasion, we proposed to proceed in the spirit of the common law principle, that any individual may abate a nuisance, though he thereby rendered himself responsi ble, in case it should appear afterwards that the thing abated was not a nuisance. So here, the postmaster refusing to deliver a newspaper under our law, would be responsible in damages to the party aggrieved, in case it should appear that the law under which he had acted

was unconstitutional.

As to the necessity for passing this bill, he should say but a few words. It was very easy for gentlemen to say that necessity was the plea of tyrants. He admitted it had been so, and would be so in all time to come. But, after all, if we possessed the power to legislate in this case, from our situation we were compelled to judge whether

[blocks in formation]

it was necessary to call it into efficient action or not. This duty devolved upon us. We could not avoid deciding this question. Was it not, then, within our own knowledge that the slaveholding States had been attempted to be flooded with pamphlets and pictorial representations calculated to excite servile insurrection? Had we not seen upon this floor many of those pictorial representations, whose direct effect would be to excite the wild and brutal passions of the slaves to cut the throats of their masters? Within the last few months, had there not been bloodshed? and had there not been several attempted insurrections in some of the southern States? These facts were incontestable. Believing and knowing all this to be true, he said the case of necessity, in his judgment, was fully established, and he should vote for the passage of the bill.

Mr. CUTHBERT was not desirous to throw himself into the current of this debate at this time. The posi tion which he held, the infrequency of his occupying that floor, and the indisposition under which he labored, authorized him to expect the attention of the Senate for a short time, when he should be better able to address them than he then was. He therefore hoped the Senate would indulge him in an opportunity of being heard on the subject, by postponing it, to be taken up within a very short period. It appeared to him that the Senator from Pennsylvania had said precisely what should have been said in support of this bill. It appeared to him that that Senator had given an unanswerable reply to the Senator from Massachusetts on points on which he principally relied for his opposition to the measure before them. What is the state of the case? (said Mr. C.) The deputy postmaster in one of the States holds in his hand an incendiary publication, intended to carry blood and desolation through the land. Is he bound in duty to hold it from circulation? If he gives it to another, the evils intended by that publication will ensue; but then your officer, contends the Senator from Massachusetts, is bound to deliver it, because you have no power to pass a law abridging the freedom of the press. According to this doctrine, that which an individual cannot do, your officer is bound to do. It appeared to him that the obvious necessity of this law was to prevent the post office agents from committing a criminal offence against the laws of the States, and then shielding themselves under the post office law. But the Senator from Massachusetts had not met this point, but had rather evaded and played around it. This was a question which should not be discussed with the chicanery of a pettifogging lawyer, but should be considered with those enlarged ideas and noble sentiments which belong to the statesman. They should argue as it became enlightened patriots, anxious to promote harmony and good feeling through our common country, and to preserve all its parts from the dangers of insurrection.

He denied that property could be affected by this law, as contended by the Senator from Massachusetts. There could be no property in these incendiary publications. The postmaster holds in his hand that which, by the laws of the States, is in the condition of stolen property, and he is bound to give it back. He holds in his hand what, by his own judgment, he considers not to be property--which his own judgment condemns, and he is therefore bound to resign it. The Senator from Massachusetts said rightly, that the person to whom this publication is directed may come forward and demand it, under the provision of this law. Now, if the Senator thought there was any thing wanting in this provision of the bill, why did he not propose an amendinent? If he did propose any, he (Mr. C.) had not heard it. The property is not to be destroyed; it must be returned to him who sent it.

[JUNE 8, 1836.

must judge whether these papers are legal or not. He holds in his hand papers which the laws of his State have said shall not be circulated, under a penalty. Is he not to decide whether he shall incur that penalty or not? How stood the argument of the Senator from Massachusetts? He requires that the officer shall violate the laws of his State, or that the General Government shall protect him in it. With regard to the members that compose the Senate, every gentleman was conscious in his own breast of a strong desire to prevent the evils of a servile war in the southern States. Of this he was confident. But with regard to the Senator from Massachusetts, he should be guilty of a want of candor, if he allowed him that clearness of judgment which belonged to the statesman; he should be wanting in that sincerity of heart, on which he had ever prided himself, if he declared his conviction, that the honorable Senator had treated this subject with the liberal and impartial spirit it deserved. The gentleman's course had uniformly been opposed to all those measures which tended to quiet the country, and heal those sectional dissensions which disturb the Union.

When a large and overwhelming vote was taken in the Senate, on the motion of the Senator from Pennsylvania, believed by all to be so necessary to settle a question threatening the most fearful consequences, it was held to be highly desirable that there should be a unanimous vote. Yet, on an occasion when the Senator could well have shown a desire to harmonize and conciliate, his vote was found in the negative. Again, the Senator from Massachusetts had put forth a paper calculated to excite great distrust in the body of the people affected by it. He alluded to the resolutions adopted at a meeting held in Boston on the subject of slavery, of which the gentleman was said to be the author, in which it was declared that Congress had the power to regulate the transfer of slaves from one State to another. Mr. C. said that he had addressed the Senate but seldom, and as he wished to be heard on this subject more at large, when his health was better and under more favorable circumstances, he hoped the Senate would indulge him by a postponement.

of

a

Mr. WEBSTER said that he had heard the remarks of the Senator from Georgia [Mr. CUTHBERT] with attention and with respect; and considering bis sp speech personal character, it became him to notice it; but as the gentleman proposed to discuss this subject more at large when his health was better, and, as he said, under circumstances less tending to irritation, he should postpone his reply till then. He should hear the gentleman with pleasure, and he looked forward to it with much solicitude, and should endeavor to reply to him according to his best abilities. Mr. W. then entered into a lengthy reply to the remarks of Mr. Buchanan, in the course of which he contended that the law was unnecessary, because the States had at present the power to punish the deputy postmasters who should circulate incendiary publications in violation of their laws.

Mr. BUCHANAN did not rise again to argue the question. He did not feel any petty desire to have the last word. He should now merely remark that the Senator from Massachusetts, in his last observations, had done nothing more than again to restate his proposition, without offering any new argument in its support. He reminded him of another powerful man, in the ancient time, who was condemned to roll a large stone to the top of a mountain, which was always falling back upon him, and which he never could accomplish. The gentleman's position was one which even his great powers did not enable him to maintain.

Mr. B. should not again have arisen but for the purpose of making a single remark. The Senator from JUNE 9, 1836.]

In another point of view (Mr. C. said) the postmaster | Massschusetts had just expressed the opinion that depPublic Deposites-Michigan School Lands, &c.

uty postmasters could be punished, under State authority, for circulating inflammatory pamphlets and papers in violation of State laws. If this be true, then all the power over the post office which we confer by this bill, already exists in the States. The effect of it, then, will be nothing more than to express our assent to the exercise of a power over deputy postmasters by the States, which the gentleman admits to exist already. Upon this principle there can be no objection to the adoption of the present measure.

Mr. CUTHBERT only rose to repeat the request that the Senate would, by the postponement of the subject for a short time, allow him an opportunity of being heard on it when his health was better.

Mr. C. then moved to lay the bill on the table; which motion was lost.

The bill was then rejected by the following vote: YEAS--Messrs. Black, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Grundy, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Mangum, Moore, Nicholas, Porter, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Tallmadge, Walker, White Wright--19.

Nars--Messrs. Benton, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Hubbard, Kent, Knight, Leigh, McKean, Morris, Naudain, Niles, Prentiss, Ruggles, Shepley, Southard, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster--25.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. EWING explained the provisions of the bill and of the amendment, which was to make the usual reser. vations, in behalf of Michigan, of school lands, and of five per cent. of the nett proceeds of sales of public lands, on the condition of the recognition of the absolute right of the United States to dispose of the vacant bnds, &c. &c. The only peculiar feature in the bill he pointed out to be, that it did not contain the usual exemption from taxation for five years of lands purchased by individuals from the United States. Dispensing with this exemption, it was thought, would tend to discourage purchases merely for speculation, and be otherwise of

general benefit.

Mr. BENTON expressed his approbation of the principles of the bill.

Mr. CLAY said he was not in favor of this change in the compact with the new States. He considered the knowledge that for a period of time the lands were to be exempt from taxation, was a powerful motive to purchasers; and he hoped the bill would not be passed without the usual exempting clause. Mr. C. moved to

amend the bill by inserting a provision exempting from

[SENATE.

taxation for five years all lands sold by the United States.

Mr. WRIGHT said, if the object was to have the lands settled and sold for no other purposes, it was highly important that the practice of exempting those lands from taxation should be discontinued. He said the custom was established, when the practice of the Government was to sell on five years' credit, for the minimum price of two dollars; the subsequent reduction of the price, for cash sales, had been a sufficient inducement to purchasers, and he did not think any one actual settler had ever been induced to buy by the exemption from taxa. tion; but speculators in large amounts were often so induced; and he hoped the practice would be abandoned.

Mr. WALKER was in favor of the exemption, and explained the effect upon lands in Louisiana. It would operate, he said, as an encouragement to construct levees, and reclaim valuable back lands.

Mr. GRUNDY said he was decidedly in favor of the amendment of the Senator of Kentucky, because he was opposed to admitting the State of Michigan upon different terms from those upon which other new States had been admitted. If, after the State had been admitted, it was found desirable to abolish the practice generally, he would go for it, but now he wished to put this State on the same footing as neighboring States.

Mr. EWING said, if he could see any benefit to the United States from the exemption, he would not object to the introduction of the amendment; but he thought it operated only as a restraint upon the States, without any benefit to the country. He thought there was no diminution in the eagerness to purchase lands; and where it was done for speculation, he thought it for the good of the country in some measure to discourage it. He stated that he had learned this morning, that a million of dollars had been received from sales of lands in the peninsula of Michigan, and he looked with anxiety, instead of exultation, upon the immense sales he heard of daily. He did not think the old States which had come in with the restriction, would feel any jealousy if it was not imposed upon the new States. He, as a representative of one of the oldest of the States which had been admitted with the restriction, felt no jealousy. It was but of little importance to Ohio, for the time had nearly come when it could not affect her in any way. He thought the same principle should be extended to all States hereafter to be admitted; and unless it was proper so to extend it, he should not be in favor of it. It had been first suggested to him some time since, and he was satisfied then and now that the exemption was of no benefit to the United States, and was inconvenient to the States.

Mr. CLAY replied at length, and said he thought the argument of the Senator from Tennessee was conclusive, and ought to be satisfactory to the Senate. If the change was to be made at all, Michigan ought to be admitted upon the same terms as the other States; and then the change should be made general for them all. But he was opposed to the proposition to change the exemption from taxes for five years, not only in this application in detail, but to the general principle. He said it would affect actual settlers most unjustly and injuri. ously. The purchasers who, according to custom, made their purchases in the spring to remove in the fall, if they should be prevented from entering for any longer time, would often find that they had lost their lands, in consequence of sales for taxes, of which they had no knowledge; while the sharp-eyed speculator would have knowledge of the facts, and would not be in any way injuriously affected. The worst class of speculators he considered those who attend sales of land for taxes, to get for a mere song the property of the poor man, whose

misfortunes had prevented his complying with the re

« FöregåendeFortsätt »