Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

public duty will imperiously require: an exhibition of his extraordinary partiality in sanctioning on the one hand, and vetoing on the other, appropriations which Congress had been pleased to make; and, what is more, when the principles involved in them were identical with each other. If it be said that I seek the gratification of personal feeling, injustice will be done my motives. I could gain nothing by it. I have, individually, nothing at hazard. I am seeking no office which the President can give; I am holding none that he can take away. I am as far beyond his reach as he is beyond mine. I am approaching the close of a term of service which was conferred on me without his aid; and he is also winding to the close of one which, thank God, was not conferred on him by mine. He cannot abridge my term, nor I his; but some portion of the brief residue of mine may be devoted to a comparison of his office-seeking promises with his office-holding performances. And why should I not do this? Am not I one of the Representatives of the West? And is not that country most deeply interested in the subject under debate? Whose interests have been so unceremoniously trampled on, or whose rights so shamefully sacrificed, by the double dealing of those in power? No one can fail to justify the principles from which I act. The President has asserted an interpretation of the constitution which blasts and withers all our hopes and all our prospects! If that interpretation remain unreversed, then our favorite system is gone, and gone for ever. He strikes at every improvement of a character common to the West, and therefore invokes the opposition of every western man. Sir, I am a western man. entertain western feelings-and I am alive to western interests. In their defence I will resort to every honorable means of weakening the force of executive opinjon. And to do this, when he is inconsistent, I will tell him so.

I

When he is faithless, I will arraign him. When he has held two sets of opinions on the same subject, I will expose him, that his friends may perceive that, like other men, he is mortal; and, like other men, may err. But I hasten to the promised explanation.

Sir, those propositions multiplied at that time from this cause: while General Jackson was a candidate, he mounted on the brisk tide of western feeling. A large majority of that population have ever been in favor of internal improvements; this he saw, and this he knew. He induced the belief that he also would favor them. He heard us complain of former injustice. He heard our clamors against his predecessor. He heard us say that Mr. Adams, Don Quixote-like, was attempting to build castles in the air, and lighthouses in the skies. That he was a visionary theorist; neither understanding western interests, nor regarding western rights. Such were the opinions of many, but the declarations of many more. It was sought to pull down the administration of that man, that another might be raised on its ruins. Calumny from high places was employed; and honest thousands were deceived. How deplorably ig. norant was the country of the worth of that slandered man! How little did they understand the purity and exalted patriotism of his motives! While others sought to bring reproach on his name, his liberal mind and expanded views were extended over the whole country! But a cloud of error hung over the West, and we were easily captivated by his rival aspirant's professions.

The opponents of General Jackson even then predicted what the country has since most sorrowfully realized. It was that, if he came into power, the last requiem might be pronounced over the grave of the American system. It was necessary to call him out on that subject. One or both Houses of the Indiana Legisla

[H. OF R.

ture requested their Governor to ask of him an explicit avowal of his opinions and feelings relative to it. The call was made, and the answer given. And need I pause to state what that answer was? It is doubtless well remembered. He referred to his course while a Senator of the United States, and that course is evidenced by the journals now before me. I invite the attention of the House to it. And I would agree to forfeit my seat here, if I fail to demonstrate that his principles were different then from what they are now. If this be done, it will prove that his judgment is less to be relied on than if his views had been uniform and consistent. We may date his new lights on the constitution back to his rejection of the Louisville canal, and Maysville and Lexington road bills. Had he, in regard to these, contented himself to have said that there would not be suffi cient revenue to meet all demands of a similar character, and gone no further, his position would not only have been plausible, but he could not have been charged with fickleness and inconsistency. Did he do this? No. He felicitated himself on having discovered a constitutional objection which would overturn the principle of all such appropriations. One of his objections was laughable. It was that the Maysville improvement was local. All improvements would be rejected on the same ground, as every improvement must be both limited and located somewhere. Did he mean that it must be general-that is, equal to all parts of the country in its advantages? This would be impossible. Such an improvement is not under the sun. Some one spot is benefited more than some other. Hence, to talk of rejecting it, because it did not extend and operate equally every where, was taking a position which a schoolboy should blush to assume.

Another ground, almost as absurd and untenable, was that the federal Government must not embark with States or corporations. Now to the journals, that we may see what he thought of these objections while a Senator. I believe, sir, there was a constitution then. And I believe that Senators, as well as Presidents, then took an oath to support it. In this particular I think the constitution has undergone no change since his service in 1824. I shall begin with the Senate journal of the second session of the eighteenth Congress, at page 193. You there have the following proceedings:

"Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate resumed, as in Čommittee of the Whole, the bill entitled An act authorizing the subscription of stock in the Delaware and Chesapeake Canal Company, together with the amendment reported thereto; which having been agreed to

"On motion of Mr. Tazewell, further to amend the bill by adding thereto the following:

"SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to subscribe in the name, and for the use, of the United States, for four hundred shares of the capital stock of the Dismal Swamp Canal Company, and to pay for the same at such times, and in such proportions, as may be required by the rules and regulations of the said

company.

"SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury shall vote for the president and directors of said company, according to such number of shares, and shall receive upon the said stock the proportion of tolls and emoluments which shall, from time to time, be due to the United States for the shares aforesaid.

"The motion was determined in the negative: Yeas 10, nays 31."

Of the ten, General Jackson was one. Of the thirtyone, Martin Van Buren was another. These individuals are now the first and second in command. Then on

[blocks in formation]

different sides, and of different politics. But now, no alliance, except that of husband and wife, could be stronger or closer. It is a strange alliance; but what is still stranger, the lesser has controlled the greater. It is also an unfortunate alliance, for it has seduced the General from his original principles. He then voted to embark the "federal Government" with companies and States for the improvement of the country. Mr. Van Buren said no. And, since the alliance, the President says no, too. But before he was so seduced, his friends brought up similar propositions to those for which he had voted. In the mean time, the "tempter" entered. He prevailed; and former principles were forgotten, and former friends driven to desert their principles also, or desert the President they had helped to make. The journal proceeds thus:

"No further amendment having been made, the bill was reported to the Senate; and the amendment being concurred in-

"On the question, Shall the amendment been grossed, and the bill read a third time as amended?

"It was determined in the affirmative: Yeas 24, nays 18."

General Jackson for it, Mr. Van Buren against it. The former standing then, firm as a brazen pillar, in favor of promoting State commerce; the latter against the system.

I

As regards canals, I have said and shown enough. have proved that the Chief Magistrate then voted for them; and he either then believed them constitutional, or voted against his sworn duty. The former was doubtless the case. I will now convict him of a like abandonment of his former principles in respect to roads. I will first refer to the same journal before quoted. At page 192 we have the following proceedings:

"The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill entitled An act for the continuation of the Cumberland road, Mr. King, of Alabama, in the chair,

"On motion of Mr. Holmes, of Maine, to strike out the words Illinois and Missouri' from the twelfth and thirteenth lines of the first section,

"It was determined in the negative: Yeas 12, nays 33." We here find General Jackson voting in the negative. He voted for the continuation of the road through those States, and he voted right. It is not to condemn his vote then, that I introduce this testimony. It is to prove the fact that he has since apostatized from the true faith. That he was then for bestowing on the States the advantages of good roads; that he was then for continuing them through the States; that he is now against it. Nor will any one dare contend that, in the continuation of the Cumberland road, there was any thing peculiar; any thing to render it more constitutional than the extension of a similar road through other States. But the journal proceeds:

"On the question, Shall the bill pass to a third reading? it was determined in the affirmative: Yeas 28, nays 16."

Of those in the affirmative the President was one. But where, in the mean time, stood Martin Van Buren? His name is found among the 16! He it was who said to the Western States, you shall have no continuation of this great highway! While you pay taxes to the Government-while you fight its battles, and bear its burdens, you shall only stand by and behold others riot on your hard earnings. You shall be allowed no participation in the benefits of your own treasury! This is the language of the vote; and yet he now dares look to the same people to make him "President" in his turn. The Western States are not so stupid as the numerous efforts to "civilize" them would indicate. They are too eschute,

[JAN. 5, 1835.

to be caught by Martin Van Buren. They know their rights; "and, knowing, dare maintain."

I will next invite attention to the journal of the first session of the 18th Congress. At page 315 will be found a series of proceedings, which the President would doubtless rejoice to see blotted from the book. These old records are often very troublesome things. I must, however, be pardoned for using them. An extract is in the following words:

"The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill, entitled An act to procure the necessary surveys, plans, and estimates, upon the subject of roads and canals, Mr. Barbour in the chair. "On motion by Mr. Smith,

"That there be inserted at the end of the first section the following proviso:

"Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to affirm or admit a power in Congress, on their own authority, to make roads or canals within any of the States of the Union."

General Jackson voted against this proviso; and by his vote consequently asserts what it proposed to deny. For example, his vote admits and affirms in Congress the power, on their own authority, to make roads and canals within the States of this Union!

Mr. Chandler, then also of the Senate, proposed to strike out the word "admit," and insert the word "deny," in the foregoing amendment, as proposed by Mr. Smith. Against the latter proposition the General also voted.

The following proposition was then moved by Mr. Van Dyke, viz:

"Provided, also, That, previous to making any of the proposed surveys, the consent of the States through which the said surveys are to be made shall first be ob tained by the President, from the Legislatures of the States, respectively, agreeing that such surveys may be made."

What said the "hero of two wars," and the projector of several more, to that amendment? He said, no. There by asserting that "the consent of the States" was not necessary! "Oh, consistency, thou art a jewel!" At page 321 the final vote was taken on the passage of the bill, where the name of the same consistent gentleman stands recorded in its favor.

Sir, I might weary the patience of the House with further testimony on this subject. It would be useless to the House. It would, perhaps, be cruel to the Presi dent. I must, therefore, forbear. But, in closing this part of the subject, permit me to subjoin one or two gen eral remarks. I do not deny any man's right to change his opinions, when he finds himself wrong. To do so is a moral, a religious, and even a political duty. But, when he has changed, I deny his right longer to exhibit himself as the "pink of consistency." I deny his right to affirm that he has stood still, while he has been constantly marching. I deny his right, or that of his friends, to sacrifice others for refusing to follow him through all the changes to which he may be seduced. I deny their right to apply the term "apostate" to those who main tain their original principles, while this great father of changes is hailed for consistency.

Satisfied, as we all must be, that the "treasures belong alike to all," let us now inquire, how have they been disbursed? The House will pardon me for carrying this inquiry far back. I wish, indeed, to satisfy this body, and the country, that the legislation of Congress has never been right on the subject. I will, therefore, commence with the first appropriation that was ever made for objects of improvement, and will pursue them down to 1832, to which time we have official reports. We shall thus see what has been appropriated, first and last; for what objects, and where expended; and, above all,

[blocks in formation]

we shall see whether a disgraceful system of partiality has not crept into the whole affair. In my estimate of amounts I shall not, I trust, be found in error, if the public records of the country may be relied on. I have made a laborious examination of them, and the following table will exhibit the gross sums which have been expended in the several States and Territories, for the objects stated. They are fortifications, lighthouses, and internal improvements. From these, the public journalists and secretaries have been pleased to distinguish the amounts subscribed for stock in canals, and this distinction is proper, as that is mere matter of contract and barter, the United States still holding the stock, and receiving a proportion of the dividends. They have also justly excepted the amounts for improving such streams as are the common property of all the States. They could be properly charged to no one State. The table follows:

[blocks in formation]

I have remarked that the foregoing estimates reach only down to 1832. I have not had time to ascertain with certainty the appropriations since. They would not alter the general complexion of the table; they would only aggravate its injustice. It does not embrace the expenditures within the District of Columbia. No human ingenuity could ascertain them. I mean for the public works. Beside these, the District has had but little. Nor have I put down the amount of the stocks owned by the Government, as they cannot be charged to any State. I have presented the gross amount applied within each State and Territory, without specifying the objects, further than in classes. Opposite the names of each, I have placed the strength of their militia, and the year of their last return. It will afford no inconsiderable source of contemplation to the curious, particularly when their numbers for war shall be compared with the public expenditures within them in peace.

But having now demonstrated the unblushing injustice which has marked the course of public bounty, it remains that we seek the cause of it; for justification it has none. With former times I have nothing to do. Their VOL. XI.-58

[H. OF R.

events are spread out before us, but they are beyond our control. We may lament the evils of the past, but we can only hope to correct those of the future. I therefore confine myself to the causes assigned for a continuation of this scene of legislative outrage. The miserable apology which is pleaded for it, is that the constitution stands in the way; that much the greater number of improvements fall within its interdictions. And I will add that it is constructed to interdict much the more important ones. It is contended, for example, that you may make border improvements, but dare not approach the interior; that you may squander millions on the seaboard, but not a dollar within the States. Such doctrines offer insult to the plainest dictates of common sense. They have neither foundation in fact nor reason-in justice or constitutional law. Sir, I demand to know where the authority for such a distinction is to be found? To what article, section, or clause of the constitution can it be traced? I assert that it can be traced to none; and I defy those who maintain it, from the President down to his most obsequious follower, to attempt its vindication. Lest this may not be done, I will myself unmantle it, and expose its absurdity-its superlative folly. Preparatory to this, I will give you another extract from President Jackson's message.

says:

He

"My views in regard to the expediency of making appropriations for works which are claimed to be of a national character, and prosecuted under State authority, assuming that Congress have a right to do so, were stated in my annual message to Congress in 1830, and also in that containing my objections to the Maysville

road bill.

"So thoroughly convinced am I that no such appropriations ought to be made by Congress, until a suitable constitutional provision is made upon the subject, and so essential do I regard the point to the highest interests of our country, that I could not consider myself as discharging my duty to my constituents in giving the executive sanction to any bill containing such an appropriation."

From the foregoing extract it will be seen that the President speaks the language of passion; 'tis surely not that of reason. He places the constitution over against every work "claimed to be of a national character, and prosecuted under State authority." To meet with favor in his sight, a work must be singularly situated. No one must dare claim that it is national in its character. No State must dare encourage it. For if so, it falls subject to the executive vengeance. And this futile distinction is charged to the account of the constitution. This preposterous dogma is affixed as a blot upon the bright escutcheon of those who framed it. It would seem to me that, if a work be "claimed to be of a national character," it should rather recommend than condemn it; and if thought worthy of being "prosecuted under State authority," that fact should raise a strong presumption in favor of its importance. But all the old rules of reasoning appear to be changed with the change of executive opinion. Those which have been sanctioned by the sages of other and better days are reversed, and therefore strange positions are assumed, and strange judgments are pronounced.

We have now seen what works are interdicted by General Jackson's new-born interpretation of the constitution. Let us next see what works he is permitted to view as meeting with its sanction. And I will again give his account of the matter, in his own language. He speaks thus:

"There is another class of appropriations for what may be called, without impropriety, internal improvements, which have always been regarded as standing upon different grounds from those to which I have referred.

[blocks in formation]

allude to such as have for their object the improvement of our harbors, the removal of partial and temporary obstructions in our navigable rivers, for the facility and security of our foreign commerce. The grounds upon which I distinguish appropriations of this character from others, have already been stated to Congress. I will now only add that, at the first session of Congress under the new constitution, it was provided, by law, that all expense which should accrue from and after the 15th day of August, 1789, in the necessary support and maintenance, and repairs, of all lighthouses, beacons, buoys, and public piers, erected, placed, or sunk, be fore the passage of the act, within any bay, inlet, harbor, or port, of the United States, for rendering_the navigation thereof easy and safe, should be defrayed out of the treasury of the United States; and, further, that it should be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to provide by contracts, with the approbation of the President, for rebuilding, when necessary, and keeping in good repair, the lighthouses, beacons, buoys, and public piers, in the several States, and for furnishing them with supplies. Appropriations for similar objects have been continued from that time to the present, without interruption or dispute."

The President "distinguishes" the works described in this last extract from those of the former. And how is this done? Is it by an appeal to the constitution? Does he point to any distinction which exists in that instrument? No, he cannot. He dare not. But he may safely point to himself, as its only authority, (Mr. Van Buren always excepted.) He may safely say that he is mightier than the constitution. For we have repeatedly seen it fall before him, as did the image of Dagon before the ark of God. But he says that the first session of Congress under the new constitution" provided for the latter class of improvements. And this provision "by law" is to render them constitutional? And the others, for want of such provision "by law," are unconstitutional! Sir, it is difficult to repress my feelings of indignant contempt of such reasoning: sophistry, I should rather call it, for reasoning it is not. It is in substance this: the existence or non-existence of a constitutional power is made to depend on legislative enactment! And that I am right in this conclusion will more fully appear from the following extract from the same message. The President says:

"The convenience and safety of this commerce have led to the gradual extension of these expenditures: to the erection of lighthouses, the placing, planting, and sinking of buoys, beacons, and piers, and the removal of partial and temporary obstructions in our navigable rivers, and in the harbors upon our great lakes, as well as on the seaboard. Although I have expressed to Congress my apprehension that these expenditures have sometimes been extravagant, and disproportionate to the advantages to be derived from them, I have not felt it to be my duty to refuse my assent to bills containing them, and have contented myself to follow, in this respect, in the footsteps of all my predecessors. Sensible, however, from experience and observation, of the great abuses to which the unrestricted exercise of this authority by Congress was exposed, I have prescribed a limitation for the government of my own conduct, by which expenditures of this character are confined to places below the ports of entry or delivery established by law."

Look for one moment to the latter clause of this extract. It is "constitutional" to improve the navigation of rivers "below the ports of entry," but not above. Hence, if Congress should say that the uppermost spring or fountain of every stream in the United States should be a "port of entry," then it will be "constitutional" to lavish the public money on them, up to these

[JAN. 5, 1835.

points! The President seems to view the importance of the improvement as nothing; the port of entry as every thing. And, during this session, within my knowledge, his own friends have been compelled to seek advantage of his weakness on this point. Ports of entry are sought to be established, where the ferrymen will be sufficient to take account of the customs. Their huts will answer admirably for custom-houses, their yawls for revenue cutters, and canoes for shipping! On an appeal to the shades of our departed fathers, I would ask, is the sacred constitution to be thus trifled with? And are its principles, one by one, to fall as libations on the altar of an idol?

But there is another strange idea in the extract. He seems to think that "the convenience and safety of this commerce have led," among other things, "to the removal of partial and temporary obstructions in our navigable rivers," &c. Now, why should they not lead further? If the obstructions be general and fixed, or somewhat permanent they must not be removed. However important the stream, however loudly commerce may demand aid, it is to be responded, the obstructions are not "partial." They are not "temporary." Let them therefore remain! If I were not from a country which the "valley missionaries" report as being "unenlightened," I should here be tempted to interpose an appropriate Latin quotation. It would fully express my feelings; but for their sakes I forbear.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us see what power is given to the President and Congress, by the constitution, over this subject; for I will not insult the House by inqui ring what constitutional power is given by "congressional law."

[ocr errors]

There are two features in the constitution, to one or the other, or to both, of which this power must be traced. I mean, sir, if it exist at all. And that it does exist, I entertain no doubt or scruple. Those are the following: 1st. "To provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." 2d. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Ilian tribes." To the latter I have been most frequently referred, as authorizing the improvement of the seaboard; the "power to regulate commerce with foreign nations." But it seems to be forgotten that in the same grant, and part of the same sentence, is thepower to regulate commerce among the several States." if, then, it follow, from the first member of this sentence, that we may improve the exterior of the country, for the sake of foreign commerce, does it not equally fol low that, under the second, we may improve the interior, for that of domestic commerce? Most assuredly it does, and the grant extends to all improvements, internal as well as external, or it extends to none. Not a whisper of "expenditures below ports of entry," or above. Not a whisper of works claimed to be of a national charcter, but prosecuted"under State authority," in all this. Not an intimation that the constitution invokes the aid of Congress to extend its powers, or render them operative.

But what of the first feature quoted-the power to "provide for the common defence and general welfare?" If this be relied on, suffer me to inquire, is "the common defence" limited to the seacoast? And are nothing but "forts" and "magazines" necessary to it? Are no roads, no rivers, no canals, necessary to the transportation of arms and munitions of war-of troops and provisions? Or are these only necessary around the exterior of the country? From whence come your supplies? And from whence your troops? Do you seek them on the border or in the interior? The answer is plain-'tis easy.

But the "general welfare!" And where is that located? On the seaboard, I presume; at least according to the President's new lights on the constitution. was a wise and patriotic expression of our fathers, but it

This

[blocks in formation]

is shamefully perverted. The spirit of that expression contemplates these States as united in bonds of feeling and brotherly affection. It views the whole as one body composed of different parts-with different functions, yet with common interests and common rights. 'Tis, then, like the natural body, a whole, sensitive for all its parts; for though its interests, in size or shape, or its parts in form or function may be different, as in the natural, yet, in the political body, the healthful action of all equally depends on the healthful action of each.

Who, then, will dare limit the "general welfare" to the border of the country? It would be to put on the decorations of fashion, and yet deny the system food! What would be said of the cultivator, the agriculturist, who would practise on such a principle? He shall start under authority to "promote the general welfare," or value, or improvement of his patrimony. But he shall exhaust his entire resources in the erection and decoration of an enclosure around it. You enter that enclosure, and what meets the eye? Perhaps a most valuable inheritance, but overspread with its native wildness. Instead of an earthly paradise, you enter a waste, howling wilderness; uncultivated, and unpruned! Would you admire the wisdom of such an arrangement? And when informed that he acted up to his interpretation of his powers, would you admire the personal wisdom of such a man? No; you would say that some benevolent chancellor should interpose, and afford him some "lawful assistance" in the construction of his powers, opening to him some new principle for "promoting the general

welfare" of his estate.

I then assert, sir, that there exists a constitutional authority to extend internal improvement over the whole country, or over no part of it. The frequency and extent of the exercise of this power should be regulated by two considerations. First, the ability of the treasury; secondly, the importance of the work. I would not individually favor the plan of taxing the States in an oppressive manner, to carry on what some have called a magnificent scheme. 'Tis better to leave the money with the States, and leave it to them to apply it. But, when there is a surplus in the treasury, I assert the right of each State to its proportion of that amount; and I assert it on the broad principles of eternal justice. Under the present practice, what do we see? We see the hard earnings of the many seized on by the few. I do not complain that the seaboard is cherished; I do not complain that any section of the Union receives; but I do complain of that gross inequality which gives so unequally to those who are permitted to receive, and denies to others the right to receive at all.

[H. OF R.

prove her own rivers. You may insult her by your injustice, but you can never humble her conscious pride, nor diminish her abundant resources. I lately submitted an inquiry concerning one of her important roads. It was rejected. I viewed its rejection as a gloomy augury of the fate of the system. It may perhaps be the signal which shall induce the West to take a new position on the general subject. They cannot, they will not, abandon the principle; but they may seek to practise it at home, and to suspend it abroad, for better days. They can anticipate none which can be worse. As one of her Representatives, nevertheless, I should disdain to make the measure of injustice to her the only principle of my action. To her the national injustice is greatest; but I count the principle involved as worth infinitely more than the dollars and cents which the treasury could give her. Where is the nation under heaven that has ever prospered, whose legislation has been conducted without regard to public justice and general improvement? The instance cannot be furnished from abroad. It cannot be found at home. Compare the condition of New York, with her numerous improvements, with that of most of the other States; the profit of her public works yielding perhaps an abundant revenue for all her State purposes. And such might, and soon would be, the condition of the United States in the aggregate, if a wise and liberal spirit pervaded their executive mansions and legislative councils. My resolution, sir, proposes, first, an inquiry in respect to the most equal and just mode of applying the revenues of the country to works of public improvement." Can any gentleman excuse himself to his own conscience, who will resist that inquiry? Can he excuse himself to his constituents? I am sure I could not.

It proposes, secondly, an inquiry in respect to the best and most practicable mode of ascertaining the importance and "nationality" of proposed improvements. Is not this necessary? Or are gentlemen prepared to favor or reject propositions without understanding either their merits or magnitude? But, Mr. Speaker, I now approach the close of my remarks. The decision of this question may regulate my course during the residue of this sitting, on the subject of appropriations. It may also influence others. I anticipate that it is the last struggle I shall ever make on this floor for the system, as the present session will likely close my services here for ever.

But the termination of my political labors will not terminate my zeal for my country, for its interests, its honor, its prosperity. I have sorrowfully witnessed the assaults which have been made, within the last few years, on this great system. A system which, if prudently and wisely pursued, would elevate the American Republic And are those who complain to receive no other con- to the highest destiny allotted to nations. I am aware of solation than to be told they are honorable tax-payers? the still more fearful dangers that even now threaten it. Are they, after having joined in creating this fund, to But its friends will watch over it, and with feelings somestand by and hear some mammoth State, or combination what similar to those of the fond mother, who watches of interests, assert as many claims to the whole of it as over the dying couch of a beloved child. She gazes on were asserted by the hungry lion to the whole carcass? each change of color and countenance-she hopes-she And must they retire equally discomfited and abashed weeps-and still she prays. On that anchor which susbefore his roaring majesty? Never! no, never. Sir, it tains us to the last, the anchor of hope, she rests, until is not in the spirit of that State from which I come to the last pulsation ceases, and the last vital spark is blown yield up her rights in this way. She is proud of the out. 'Tis then that she hopes no longer, but exclaims Union, and will expend her treasures in peace, or her "'tis finished." The work of death is done. Thus our blood in war, to maintain it. This loyalty to the Gov- hopes may eventually perish: and thus may terminate a ernment is not, however, the offspring of your justice. nation's march along the tide of fame and fortune. Sir, She stands the seventh in the Union, for the strength of I am grateful to the House for its kind indulgence, and her militia; nor behind the first for their valor. One will no longer detain it. I ask that the question may be blot of slander aside, and her character for chivalry is decided by yeas and nays. spotless. And the bloody banks of the ever-memorable Raisin would stamp the epithet of “calumniator” on him who would assail it. But if the nation has no other use for that State than to bear the burdens of peace, and fight the battles of war, let it be plainly announced. I thank God she is able to make her own roads and im

When Mr. CHILTON had concluded, the hour allotted for the consideration of morning business having elapsed,

Mr. CLAY, of Alabama, rose and reminded the Chair and the House that, several weeks ago, the "bill to reduce and graduate the price of the public lands" had

« PreviousContinue »