Semi-Weekly Journal, Volume 3, Number 249, Indianapolis, Marion County, 25 August 1841 — Page 1

liY DOUGLASS & NOEL.

INDIANAPOLIS, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 25, 1841.

VOL. 3. NO. 249.

PUBLISHED THREE TIMES A WEEK DURING THE SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE TWICE A WEEK THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR. Terms Four Dollurs a year, payable in nilvance, and considered due at the date of the subscription. If not paid in advance, however, Fivb Dollars will be tlio price. Advertisements will be inserted at the fullavvhig jates;JTC!l lines or less, for one or three insertions, one dollar, and twenty-five cents for each continuance. Or, win he continued on contract one ycer, for 15, and will be altered occasionally if desired. On longer advertisements, a reasonable deduction will be made. Q'tflNGLE COPIES 6 Cents

Mr. SMITH'S SPEECH Concluded. In 1832, as per Mr. King's report, the balance' ui favor of the public lands was the above sum of $45,893,282. Since the dale of that report, or rather the . ... i i i . . ,1 .f mmnt

period to which tne calculation was muue, uieumwu... received from the sales of the public lands has been over $75,000,000. Hence it may safely be assumed that the balance in favor of the public lands, upon the principles laid down in the report of Mr. King, and sustained by the article or statement in the Intelligencer, is over one hundred millions of dollars. As it way be that some Senators have not examined the statement to which I allude, I will read it to the Senate. Mr. S. then read the statement, as follows: Estimate of the direct pecuniary benefits accruing from

the l uulic JMnas, aim tne w 7 m.h i...t,.. , to the 'Mh September, WQCr. By amount paid by the purchasers ofthe public lands, including United Stales stocks and land scrips of every description, exclusive of the purchase . f tlio h.nda snlrl fnrtha benefit

o Indians $120,148,085

By value, at $ 25 per acre, of the lands granted to the States, for schools, roads, canals, &c. 12,700,000 acres By value, at $1 25 per acre, of the lands granted in lieu of money as bounties to the soldiers in the Revolutionary and " late wars, 9,750,000 acres By value, at $1 25 per acre, of "donations to individuals, exclusive of private claims," to December 31, 1831, and exclusive of grants to the deaf and dumb, &c. 224,558 acres

15,875,000

12,187,500

280,697

To the credit of the public lands 148,491,282

Dedcct : . !H ih Stain of fleoreria in

x ... r 050OOO monev and arms 1)Juiuuu

To amount of Yazoo claims under act of 3d March, 1815 4,282,151 To amount of salaries and contingent f thfi funeral Land Office, to

the 30th September, 1840 1,379,520

To amount of salaries and incidental expenses of the land offices, paid out of the proceeds of the public lands while in the hands of the receivers, to 3d September, 1840 3,611,993 To amount of salaries of the registers and receivers paid by warrants on the Treasurer of the United States 96,562 To amount of salaries of the surveyors general and their clerks, (climated) 923,302 To amount paid for surveying the public lands which have been sold, (estimated) 1,490,950 To amount of 2, 3, and 5 per cent, funds, from the periods when they first accrued 4,599,913 To amount of compensation made to Indians for the public lands, (estimated) 21,669,524

39,303,915

By credit brought down To deduction as above

148 491.282 39,303,915

Balance in favor of the public lands 109,187,367 I will not push the argument further. Having thrown out these views, I will close this part of my remarks by saying that I maintain the position that the proceeds of the public lands covered by the deeds o" cession, as well as of those not included in the cessions, may be distributed among the States in just and equitable proportions, and should be so distributed upon the demand of a majority of the States and the People interested, through their Representatives here. Has Congress sufficient evidence of that demand? Can this be doubted1 Is not the measure called for in a voice not to be unheeded or misunderstood? The memorials from State Legislatures which are before us praying the distribution, public opinion manifested in the recent elections and in other ways in its favor, are conclusive of the question, and leave a single duty to perform that of executing the will of our common constituents. If these opinions are correct, it would seem unnecessary to look so closely as it otherwise might be into the effect to be produced upon the States and People, embarrassed as most of them are at this time, by the distribution. The President, in his message, has touched the point, and it may be added that at no time since the extinguishment of the puplic debt has the distribution been so loudly called for as a measure of relief to the States and People. Again: It is contended that the amount of the proceeds of the public lands being abstracted from the revenue; will make it necessary to supply that amount by a new levy of imposts. This position may be admitted, and the answer is, that a bill is before the Senate to place the revenue on a permanent basis: so far as it can be done at present, by bringing up duties to 20 per cent, ad valorem. It is not to be concealed, however, that there are many who contend that the proceeds ofthe sales of the public lands should form a compotent part of the permanent revenue ofthe nation in the public Treasury so long at least as the revenne derived from imposts shall be, as it is now presumed to be, inadequate to the demands ofthe Treasury. It has long, however, been a desideratum with our ablest financiers, and especially with those immediately connected with the administration of the fiscal operations of the Government, to see the public revenues placed on a certain and permanent basis, and it has been most conclusively proved by the experience of past years that no certain reliance whatever can be placed on the proceeds of the sales of the public lands in aid of that revenue, so uncertain and fluctuating have been those sales. Here Mr. S. read the following statement of sales of public lands and amount received since the adoption of the cash sy stem in 1820:

$1,169,224 93 1,023,267 63 650.141 26 953,799 03 1.205.06S 37 1.12S.S57 29 1,313,105 36, 1,221,357 99

1821, acres, 731,213 32 1822, do 801,226 13 123, do 653.319 52 124, do 749,323 04 I25, do 893.461 69 126, do 843.032 26 1327, do 926,727 76 1323, do 905,600 36

1929, do 1,141,707 19 1,417,690 04 1830, do 1,929,733 79 2,433,432 94 1831, do. 2,777,850 83 3,557,023 70 1832, do 2,402,312 16 3,115,376 09 1833, do 3,850,227 56 4,972,284 84 1834, do 4Xj8,213 71 0,099,931 04 1S35,-- do 12,564,478 85 15,999,804 1 1 1836, do 20,074,870 92 25,167,833 06 1837, do 5,001,103 12 7.007,523 04 1833, do 3,414,907 42 4,305,504 64 1839, do 4,976.382 87 6,064,556 78 1840, do 2,240,272 97 2,803,060 14 1811, to 31st March, 334,826 81 418,736 53

72,655,093 38 $92,267,639 12 I was not a member of Congress at the time the compromise act was passed, but I have been informed bv those who were that it was understood as a part

of that compromise that, in regulating the tariff at the revenue standard, the proceeds of the public

lands were not to be considered as a part of that revenue, but that the revenue was to be exclusively

raised from imposts; and, indeed, the fact that the

land distribution nassed the Senate on the 25lh of

January, 1833, and the compromise act not until the

28th of Februury, 1833, is pretty conclusive that the compromise act stood upon grounds exclusive of the land fund, and that the latter was yielded as a source of revenue. That was certainly the idea of President Jackson and of both the committees that reported on the subject at that session of Congress. It is a remarkable fact that while these committees differed widely in their political composition, as well as in their recommendation of the disposition of the proceeds of these lands, they fully concurred with the President that the public lands should no longer be looked to as a source of national revenue. The Senator from New York, (Mr. Weight,) in his very able speech delivered on the subject at the last session, assumed the position that there was a deficit on the part of the lands, upon an account stated between them and the Government. I have endeavored to show how that matter stands. The same Senator, in relation to the opinion of the late President Jackson, stated in his speech, which has been extensively circulated and generally read: "The late President Jackson has also been repeatedly quoted as a friend to this distribution policy, and quotations from several of his early Messages had been read to the Senate to show his views . This was fair as to him, and fair as to the question ; but what were his views as thus given by himself? To disburse the revenue when the Treasury was in want? So far from that, they were to relieve the Treasury from a surplus." This view of the Senator is perfectly correct, so far as general revenue was concerned. I desire to do both the late President Jackson and the Senator from New York justice in that particular. But it is to be regretted that the Senator had not turned his attention to the Message of 1829, where the President refers to the lands, and disposes of them. No reference is there made to a surplus. The land fund was was not considered by him as general revenue, but subject to the disposition of Congress, in the exercise of a sound discretion. The extracts from the Message will clearly sustain this position, and show conclusively that the Senator from New York begged

the question upon which he gave the opinion of the

late President Jackson.

It is therefore submitted that these lands should no

longer be relied upon as a source of national revenue, but that the tariff should be placed at the revenue

standard, as is contemplated by the Secretary of the

Treasury, by subjecting to a duty those articles of

luxury and extravagance which are consumed by the rich alone, and only by such of them as choose to purchase and use them. It is said that this will be a tax on those articles, which will be paid by the consu

mer. This is the usual argument; but it is not al

ways true, as much of the increase of duty on an ar

ticle is quite as frequently borne by the producer or

manufacturer in a foreign country, as by tne consu

mer in this. The duty where the article is consumed, in some cases produce a corresponding reduction in

the price of the foreign article at home, and the consu

mer here pays little more for it than if no such duty

existed. But suppose the consumer here paid all; it

is a voluntary payment by those who purchase the

foreign article, while the distribution will extend its vivifying influence to those who do not, as well as to

those who do consume the European article. f or the

purpose of showing that the views which I entertain

of the impolicy of looking to the lands as a source

of national revenue are not new, or confined to my

self alone. I will read to the Senate the opinions of

Others, to which I have alluded, and which will have more weight with Senators over the way, as well as

with a larn-e portion of the American People, than

any thing that could come from this part of the Senate. I refer to the opinions of President Jackson and

Mr. King those of the former as contained in his

annual Messages, and those of the latter is declared in another part of the report from which I have already read copious extracts. Mr. S. here read the fol

lowing extracts, to which he had referred, from the

Messages:

President Jackson, in his first Message, 1829,

says:

"To avoid these evils, it appears to me thatthe most

safe, just, and federal disposition which could be made

of this surplus revenue would belts apportionment a

mons the several States, according to their ratio of

representation. And should this measure not be found

warranted by the Constitution, that it would be ex

pedient to propose to tne dates an amendment au

thorizing it." He does not say that it would be unconstitutional to distribute surplus revenue generally, but he thinks it so important as to justify an amendment to the Constitution, should doubts on that point exist. But hear him on the lands, which he placed on entirely different grounds from general revenue. In President Jackson's fourth Message, JS32, he says: "Among the interests which merit the consideration of Congress after the payment of the public debt, one of the most important in my views is that of the public lands. Previous to the formation ot our present Constitution, it was recommended by Congress lhat a portion of the waste lands owned by the Slates should be ceded to the United States for purposes of general harmonv, and as a fund to meet the expenses of the war. The recommendation was adopted, and at different periods of lime the States of Massachusetts, New York, Virginia. North and South Carolina, and Georgia granted their vacant soil for the uses for which it had been asked, is the lands may note 6c considered as relieved from this pledge, fie otijeci for which Uiey it ere redid having been accomplished, it is in Vie discretion of Congress to dispose of them i'i tuck tray as best to rondure to the quittharmony. and general inUreslnf Uie -1 me rira n Ptoplt. In examining this question, all local and sectional feelings should be discarded, and the whole United States regarded aa one People, inter

ested alike in the prosperity of their common country." Again: "It seems to me to be our true policy that the public lands shall cease, as soon as practicable, to be aaource of revenue, and that they be sold to settlers, in limited parcels, at u price barely sufficient to reimburse u the Uniud Slats the- expenstiof the present system and the cost arising under our Indian compacts." It has been urged that General Jackson was only speaking of surplus revenue, and therefore his remarks were not applicable to the present state of tho question. I answer thot he expressly says, that, "As the lands may now (1832) be considered as relieved from this pledge, the object for which they were ceded having been accomplished," (i. e. the payment of the debt of the Revolution, and not the accruing debts of the Government,) l,it is in the discretion of (Jongressto dispose of tkemin mch wav as best to conduce to the quiet, harmony, and general interest of the American People." Therepo-t of Mr. King, to which I have so often referred, assumes the same ground: it declares, after

an elaborate examination of the subject: " 1 his committee turn with confidence from land offices to the

custom-houses, and my here are the true sources of

Federal retenve: give land to the cultivator tell him

to keep his money, and lay it out in their cultivation

I will not pursue this part of the argument further;

enough has been shown, I trust, to establish the posi

tion that the proceeds of the sales of the public lands,

after the payment of the public debt, were not consid

ered by any political party as ordinary revenue, and

subject to the same rules that govern duties collected upon imports

It has beei urged in the debate on other subjects,

when the distribution question, or in other words the

land bill, hts been adverted to, that this is an unpro

pitious time to act upon any of these great measures, because thi People are not represented under the last

census. That argument would certainly have much

force if the proposed measures were not in accordance with the known will of a large majority of the Peo

ple. But ! let Senators satisfy themselves on this

point, and they will see, upon a fair basis of calculn tion. beina sroverned by the late census as to num

bers, and by the last Presidential election as political opinions, that the vote on this bill in the Senate would be 38 to 14, if the States were fairly represented, and in the House the majority would be still more

overwhelming. I therefore submit it to those bena

tors who are daily harping on this position, whether

the argument growing out of a true slate of the facts

of the case is not directly against them,

Another rgument which gentlemen have been in

the habit of resorting daily to in this body is the charge

that the distribution is to favor British stockjob

bers, by enabling the States to pay their debt upon

their foreign bonds, ihis argument must be predi

cated upon the hypothesis thai.' the States will prove

faithless to their engagements unless this bill becomes

a law, and faithful if it shall pass; for if the States now intend to pay their debts in good faith, which no one can doubt, whatever aid they may receive from the passage of this bill will inure exclusively to their

own benefit, and not to the benefit of their creditors. If they do not so intend, would the small sum they

would receive under this bill change a determination

formed, by which they had resolved to appropriate the

amount they have received to their own use, in viola

tion of their solemn contracts, to their own dishonor?

Will such a position be for a moment insisted upon by any one? If not, then the distribution will be for

the benefit ot the states, and not the British stockjobbers, as some contend. I am aware that an objection to this measure is urged, that it amounts to an assumption ofthe debts of the States, and therefore it is an improvident measure. This argument will only apply to States that are indebted, if at all; and as the other States received an equal proportion, in the ratio, it Cannot apply specially to any. That this measure stands upon its own merits, independently of the debts ofthe States, is conclusively proved by the fact that the bill of 1832, which passed both Houses of Coegress, preceded the debts ofthe States, and therefore could have no connexion with or reference to them. But suppose that this measure shall come in aid of the States

in the payment of their debts and the maintenance of

their public faith suppose it should lighten the burdens of the people of the indebted States, and diminish the direct taxes they now have to pay to meet the interest of their debts, is that an object so repugnant to the feelings of Senators that they will oppose the measure on that ground? Do Senators desire to see the people of the debtor States crushed lq the earth? Or do they wish to see these States violate their engagements and cover themselves with dishonor Can it be possible that such feelings animate the bosoms of high-minded and honorable men? Can a single State be disgraced without affecting her sisters, more or less? Time was when there was not so much repugnance to the idea of even a direct assumption of the debts of the States. The State debts of the Revolution were assumed directly by the General Government; and if some Senators will look to the amount assumed for their own States, and paid for their direct benefit, I am much mistaken if they do not find that it is too late to be horrified at the bare mention of the possibility that this bill may, by indirection, pay a part of the debts of the State's, which they are bound to pay whether the bill becomes a law or not. I would especially refer the Senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) who opposes this bill on that, among other grounds, as I understand, to the amount paid for his State. It may be said that those were debts incurred by the

States in the war of the Revolution, and that these

were created in time of peace. To this it may be an

swered that these debtor states contributed to the last

war more than any of the States did to the Kevolu-

tionarv war: thev had no other means of raising rev

enue than that of direct taxation, while the States of the Revolution levied their own imposts, and had the

whole proceeds of the sales of the public lands within

their limits. I am not pressing the argumeut in favor of assumption, but I am meeting the position which would deny to the debtor States the justice of

the provisions of this bill, lest it might indirectly

operate as an assumption of a part of their debts, or,

in other words, enable them to pay a part 01 tneir

debts. I believe it to be due to the btates, that the distribution should be made; and it is certainly no ob

jection to me that it will be a relief measure, to some

extent, to the people of the debtor btates. ihe uovernment was formed for the benefit ofthe people; and

it should be so administered as not to defeat the pur

poses of its creation. While this measure is just to the old States, it is liberal to the new, and it ought to satisfy all. The table which I will now read to the

Senate will give the data for all the calculations under the bill.

a- 3 s f g. ' 5' & " s e ? i-: s- 1 2. - tj 2 2. 3 5 is n2 . a E 2 , - , s t :? H t 5

lilt

(lit

- co Cn co cr. W CO rf-. - Ci A -J tJ O CO 00 cc x, oi 00 01 bi Tj) 0j (O W 03 - W tQ 0,1 ' CO

4- co ca ta

co 5 r- x

1 1 1 1

k-i y, t 03 IfflC-JMCliO ui oj cr. .t. to ti V Ol . OS lO (41

1 3

a o

11:

'of "It

2 3 5.

s a a. a. a o

-'-' o to -1 0 (4 01 o Oj w HCO o 03 M CJiyi ys 1 m wcTj'i.cocntobascceo-'W

r1 " C Ci cs cr. en 03

CO U5

iOC-.t

2r. V, cb'o 5 ft S cr- C 4 CJi -J Ci ti m c;t c-t tn co

I I I I I

I 111

O CO CO c c u

10 o c I O CO

IS CO 5

C -1 -

c w W CO 05 CO -1 CO

W 10 KJ j cr. -a c: . w cr. 1 -J C-tAC 'tOi CO "10 CO CO CO Cn co co to cr.

U, CII to CO CO cr. CO 1 Ci, cr. . Cm c CO t Ut ifcv CO CO

. KJ 03 CO CO c CO J tcj c

Cri -

a o re o - re 2 3 a -a 2 3c - p -3 '"op 3' " 5-

C co -3 3 o p

". CO t-Cri i" "jo CD . woi-aitowjcoo-CO 'lD (C Ci tji -1 lo a t w co o X id cn i co oi ti. fw cr. cj bt co tc OtCOdtnCnCrtCnt-'Cn p to z C C w c o raso ( ooocoo S C: .

cr a;

S. O

5 3

r- a, 3

q o 5. 2.

SP3 5g

1' Y? -. 5-

? 2 S S 3

- C -O

a. re

cc- re re

OS 3 .2" 3 p 5 o-: CP k on 1

a 3

s S"

Note The amount of ten per cent, as stated in this table, is in addition to the five per cent, to be received under the compacts; but it may not be improper to remark that there are largo quantities of waste and worthless lands that can never be sold in the States having apparently the greatest quantity within their limits, and hence the disparity between them is not so great as it would appear at first blush. I will detain the Senate no longer on the part of the bill upon which I have thought proper to comment. I would willingly have been spared the necessity of these remarks, but I thought it due to the Senate, as well as to others desirous of seeing the light in which I viewed this important subject, that I should amplify the report which I had the honor of submitting to the Senate, so as to enable those who differ from me to examine the grounds upon which the matter is placed so far as I am concerned. I will, however, read to the Senate a statement showing the condition of the public lands, and the course of their administration, which may be useful in the further consideration of the subject; By the reportof the Secretary of tho Treasury of the 1 0th of July, 1841, it appears that the quantity

ot the the public lands that nave been sold is - - -

That the amount of purchase money received is -

Thai the Indian title has been ex

tinguished to - - -

That the Indian title remains to be

extinguished to That there is now subject to private entry - - -

That the quantity in the States and

Territories not yet onerfd at puo-

86,708,724 Acres,

121,113,435 Dolls.

323,088,643 Acres.

735,915,699 do 118,173,441 do

lie sale, and not subject to pri

vate entry, is

103,416,863 do

That the quantity of unsurveyed

lands to which the Indian title has been extinguished is - 95,953,196 do That the entire quantity of unsur- .. veyed public knds is - - 831,808,895 do That the quantity of public lands granted to the Indian tribes that have removed beyond the Mississippi is - - - - 67,358,942 do That the quantity of public lands granted lo the States and Territories exclusive of section 1 6, is 3,826,836 do. That the quantity of public lands to which the Indian title has been extinguished, but which are not attached to any land district, is 10,047,087 do That there have been five land offices discontinued in consequence of the quantity of lands being reduced in the districts below 100,000 do TMr. Smith also submitted a statement showing

the quantity of public land which has been set apart for the Indian tribes, designating the name of the

tribe, and the quantity of land set apart for each tribe. He then proceeded:

A single word on the other part 01 the bill, whicn

contains the prospective pre-emption principle, and

I have done. That measure is so generally under

stood, it has at this day so few opponents, that I do not think it necessary to go into an argument to sustain it. The present bill is well guarded; the benefits

resulting from it will inure exclusively to the actual settler; and the other provisions will be found to be

judicious and wise. The bill may require some a-

mendments other than tnose recommended by tne

committee. It so, let them be mane; after wnicn, 1

trust and hope that the bill may become a law. I feel that this is the accepted time for it to receive the

sanction of this body; it has already passed the popular branch; the revenue question can be satisfactorily arranged, as a bill is before us to supply the deficit to be created by diverting this fund from the public treasury. These measures are loudly called for by the public voice. And from their operation in connection with the other great national measures that have already passed the Senate, I do not doubt that tha nation will find relief from her temporary embarrassments; with increased strength she will pursue her onward course to her destined greatness and power, while the people will prosper under our free institutions and glorious constitution. It is urged that the land fund will be needed for national purposes; and the Senator from Missouri, (Mr. Linn,) following out the idea, has given notice of a motion to amend the bill by appropriating this