sire to see it thus equitably settled and put at rest; for Once again, Mr. President, let me say that I trust and hope this will not be received or acted on as a party measure. It can be none, within the sphere of the honest operation of party feeling or party adherence. It cannot, justly and honestly, subserve the party in power to retain in banks, in rich corporations, to the profit of none but rich corporators, an immense amount of public money, the property of the States and of the people; money which is necessary to supply the wants of that people, both for public works and as a medium for commerce. No party can avow such a motive; no honest man of any party can act upon it. On the other hand, can any party purpose be subserved, or any party object advanced, by the distribution of this money among the States? Not at all. All alike will partake in its advantages; and all have the power, if the inclination, to aid alike in rendering this service to our common country; our whole country. I am not without hope that it will be so considered and so acted on. I see and feel that prejudice, both within and without our halls, is fast giving way before the reason and the justice of the measure, and the plain sincere garb of truth in which it is shrouded. I am sure that this bill is destined to become a law. It may not this year, but the day is not distant when it will. public eye is upon it. It is seen, it is examined, it is comprehended; and, sooner or later, public opinion will force it upon our councils. Explanatory Note to table A, following. The The December return from Mount Salus, and the November and December returns from Columbus, Mississippi, and the December returns from Palmyra, Missouri, and Edwardsville, Illinois, have not been received. The sales in those offices for which the returns have not yet been rendered will exceed $500,000. J. M. MOORE. A. Statement showing the amount received in cash, forfeited land stock, and military land | About half past two, Mr. EWING, being exhausted, gave way, and Mr. SOUTHARD moved that the Senate adjourn. Mr. BUCHANAN moved to postpone the further consideration of the bill until to-morrow; but Mr. EWING refused to yield the floor for such motion. He said he was willing to yield to an informal motion, which would leave the question in the situation in which he left it, to be resumed as a matter of course. This might be done by unanimous consent. Mr. BUCHANAN expressed his willingness. consent. Mr. EWING then resumed his remarks, as given entire above. At three o'clock, Mr. NAUDAIN moved that the Senate adjourn. The yeas and nays were asked by Mr. BENTON, and were ordered. The question was then taken, and decided in the neg ative, as follows: YEAS--Messrs. Black, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Knight, Leigh, Mangum, Moore, Naudain, Porter, Prentiss, Robbins, Swift, Tomlinson, Webster, White--19. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Grundy, Hill, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, McKean, Morris, Nicholas, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, Walker, Wall, Wright-22. A few minutes afterwards the motion was renewed to adjourn, and again decided in the negative: Yeas 20, nays 26. On motion of Mr. PRESTON, the further consideration of the subject was postponed until to-morrow; and, On motion of Mr. BUCHANAN, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business; after which The Senate adjourned. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16. ABOLITION PETITIONS. Mr. WEBSTER rose to present several petitions; and addressed the Senate as follows: Agreeably to notice, I offer sundry petitions on the subject of slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia. The first purports to be signed by two thousand four hundred and twenty-five of the female in habitants of Boston. This petition is in the usual printed form. It is respectful to Congress, and contains no reproaches on any body. It asks for the consideration of Congress, both with respect to the existence of slavery in the District, and with respect to the slave trade in the District. The second is a petition, signed by Joseph Filson, and about a hundred others, citizens of Boston, some of whom are known to me, and are highly respectable persons. The petition is to the same effect, and in the same form. The third petition appears to be signed by a large number of persons, inhabitants of Wayne county, in Michigan. I am not acquainted with them. It is a printed petition, different in form from the preceding drawn more at length, and going further into the subject. But I perceive nothing in it disrespectful to the Senate, or reproachful to others. The fourth petition is like the two first, in substance and in form. It is signed by four hundred and thirtythree citizens of Boston. Among these signers, sir, I recognise the names of many persons well known to me to be gentlemen of great worth and respectability. There are clergymen, lawyers, merchants, literary VOL. XII.-53 [SENATE. men, manufacturers, and, indeed, persons from all classes of society. I ask, sir, that these petitions may be received, and move that they be referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia. This motion itself, sir, sufficiently shows in what manner I think this subject ought to be treated in the Senate. The petitioners ask Congress to consider the propriety and expediency of two things: first, of making provision for the extinction of slavery in the District; second, of abolishing or restraining the trade in slaves within the District. Similar petitions have already been received. Those gentlemen who think Congress have no power over any part of the subject, if they are clear and settled in that opinion, were perfectly justifiable in voting not to receive them. Any petition which, in our opinion, asks us to do that which is plainly against the constitution, we might very justly reject. As, if persons should petition us to pass a law abridging the freedom of the press, or respecting an establishment of religion, such petition would very properly be denied any reception at all. In doubtful cases we should incline to receive and consider, because doubtful cases ought not to be decided without consideration. But I cannot regard this case as a doubtful one. I think the constitutional power of Congress over the subject is clear, and, therefore, that we were bound to receive the petitions. And a large majority of the Senate are also of opinion that the petitions ought to be received. I have often, Mr. President, expressed the opinion that, over slavery, as it exists in the States, this Government has no control whatever. It is entirely and exclusively a State concern. And while it is thus clear that Congress has no direct power over this subject, it is our duty to take care that the authority of this Government is not brought to bear upon it by any indirect interference whatever. It must be left to the States, to the course of things, and to those causes over which this Government has no control. All this, in my opinion, is in the clear line of duty. On the other hand, believing that Congress has constitutional power over slavery, and the trade in slaves, within the District, I think petitions on those subjects, respectfully presented, ought to be respectfully treated and respectfully considered. The respectful mode, the proper mode, is the ordinary mode. We have a committee on the affairs of the District. For very obvious reasons, and without any reference to this question, this committee is ordinarily composed principally of southern gentlemen. For many years a member from Virginia or Maryland has, I believe, been at the head of the committee. The committee, therefore, is the appropriate one, and there can be possibly no objection to it, on account ofthe manner in which it is constituted. Now, I believe, sir, that the unanimous opinion of the North is, that Congress has no authority over slavery in the States: and perhaps equally unanimous that over slavery in the District it has such rightful authority. The, sir, the question is a question of the fitness, propriey, justice, and expediency, of considering these two subjects, or either of them, according to the prayer of these petitions. It is well known to us and the country that Congress has hitherto entertained inquiries on both these points. On the 9th of January, 1809, the House of Representatives resolved, by very large majorities, "That the Committee for the District of Columbia be instructed to take into consideration the laws within the District in respect to slavery; that they inquire into the slave trade as it exists in, and is carried on through, the District, and that they report to the House such amendments to the existing laws as shall seem to them to be just." And it solved, also, "That the committee be further instructed to inquire into the expediency of providing by law for the gradual abolition of slavery within the District, in such manner that the interest of no individual shall be injured thereby." As early as March, 1816, the same House, on the motion of Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, resolved, "That a committee be appointed to inquire into the existence of an inhuman and illegal traffic of slaves carried on in and through the District of Columbia, and to report whether any, and what, measures are necessary for putting a stop to the same." It is known, also, sir, that the Legislature of Pennsylvania has, within a very few years, urged upon Congress the propriety of providing for the abolition of slavery in the District. The House of Assembly of New York, about the same time, I think, passed a similar vote. After these proceedings, Mr. President, which were generally known, I think, the country was not at all prepared to find that these petitions would be objected to, on the ground that they asked for the exercise of an authority, on the part of Congress, which Congress cannot constitutionally exercise; or that, having been formally received, the prayer of them, in regard to both objects, would be immediately rejected, without reference to the committee, and without any inquiry. Now, sir, the propriety, justice, and fitness, of any interference of Congress, for either of the purposes stated in the petitions, are the points on which, as it seems to me, it is highly proper for a committee to make a report. The well-disposed and patriotic among these petitioners are entitled to be respectfully answered; and if there be among them others whose motives are less praiseworthy, it is not the part of prudence to give them the advantage which they would derive from a right of complaint that the Senate had acted hastily or summarily on their pe titions, without inquiry or consideration. Let the committee set forth their own views on these points, dispassionately, fully, and candidly. Let the argument be seen and heard; let the people be trusted with it; and I have no doubt that a fair discussion of the subject will produce its proper effect, both in and out of the Senate. This, sir, would have been, and is, the course of proceeding which appears to me to be prudent and just. The Senate, however, having decided otherwise, by a very large majorny, I only say so much, on the present occasion, as may suffice to make my own opinions known. Mr. MANGUM sal that, as he had been prevented from being present whe a former petition was disposed of, and had no opportunity to record his name on the motion not to receive the petition, for the purpose of doing so at this time, he would move that these petitions be not received, and would ak the yeas and nays on the question. The yeas and nays having been ordered, Mr. RIVES rose to make a few remarks, disclaiming any intention to open again the discussion which had so recently been terminated in the Senate, by any thing he had to say. Under one of the views which had fallen from the gentleman from Massachusetts, he might, with great propriety, vote against the reception of these petitions, as it was his deliberate opinion that Congress had no constitutional power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. But it would be very inopportune, and, indeed, he had not prepared himself to go into the discussion of the question. Nor would it be proper to offer any observations at length, after the full discussion which the subject had undergone. The sense of this body had already been expressed on this question of receiving a former petition. He would like to have an opportunity to consult with gentlemen, especially with those whose section of coun [MARCH 16, 1836. try was most deeply interested in this matter; some of whom, regarding the question of reception after the former decision as res judicata, might now be disposed to adopt some other course. For himself, he was of the opinion that the question of the reception of the petitions did not involve any violation of the rights of petition; as it was merelya refusal to receive, where Congress had no constitutional power to act. If such a motion were proposed, and on consultation with his friends it should be regarded as the proper course, he should feel it his duty to vote against the reception of these petitions. But it might be considered by some of the southern gentlemen who had voted against the reception of the petitions, that, after the decision of the Senate, there might be another course selected. It might be a subject for consideration whether the petitions ought to be sent to the Committee for the District of Columbia, to a select committee, or to any other committee, or whether they ought to be sent with or without instructions. It was to enable him to consult with his friends that he wished for some delay, and he would, therefore, move to lay the motion not to receive on the table. Mr. MANGUM said he had no particular objection to the motion being laid on the table, if the gentleman from Virginia would not call it up again during his absence, as he desired to record his vote. Mr. EWING inquired what became of the memorials if the motion was laid on the table; whether they could go on the table with the motion, or be separated from it. The CHAIR replied that the memorials would remain on the table with the motion. Mr. KING, of Alabama, said he did not expect, after what had been said by the Senator from Massachusetts, that he would have taken this course. He had supposed that the Senator from Massachusetts, instead of moving a reference of these petitions, would have simply moved to lay them on the table. The course which that gentleman had taken had placed him at the head of those men who inundated Congress with their petitions. He had hoped that the subject was put to sleep, and that nothing more would be done to increase the excitement which already existed, and that the subject would not be stirred again this session. He had himself refrained from doing any thing to add to the excitement; he had taken no further share in the debate than what he had felt himself compelled by a sense of duty to take. He wished the subject to be laid on the table, and to lie there for ever; and if there was any intention to take it up again, he should vote against laying it on the table at all. A single word as to a report from the Committee for the District of Columbia. From that committee there could be no report which could have the effect of allaying excitement in any other part of the country than the North. A majority of that committee consisted of members from the northern States, and it was not likely that any report from such a committee could be satisfactory to the southern States. Mr. WEBSTER said, in reply to Mr. KING, that he was not aware of having said any thing which could justify the remarks of the honorable member. By what authority does the gentleman say (said Mr. W.) that I have placed myself at the head of these petitioners? The gentleman cannot be allowed, sir, to assign to me any place or any character which I do not choose to take to myself. I have only expressed my opinion as to the course which it is prudent and wise in us all to adopt, in disposing of these petitions. It is true that, while the question on the reception of the petitions was pending, l'observed that I should hold back these petitions till that question was decided. It is decided. The Senate has decided to receive the petitions; and, being received, the manner of treating them necessarily arises. The origin of the authority of Con gress over this District, the views and objects of the States in ceding the territory, the little interest which this Government has in the general question of slavery, and the great magnitude which individual States have in it, the great danger, to the Government itself, of agitating the question here, while things remain in their pres ent posture in the States around us-these, sir, are considerations all intimately belonging to the question, as I think, and which a competent committee would naturally present to the Senate and to the public. Mr. President, I feel bound to make one further remark. Whatever gentlemen may think of it, I assure them that these petitions, at least in many cases, have no factious origin, no political or party origin. Such may be the origin of some of them." I am quite sure it is not of all. Many of them arise from a sense of reli [SENATE. he had contemplated. He hoped the Senator from Virginia would not press his motion; that the Senate would receive the memorials, and that the whole subject would at once be laid upon the table, and that the Senate would suspend all further action upon this subject, until the Senate first shall ascertain the effect upon the public mind of the proceedings of the Senate on Friday last upon this subject. Mr. RIVES, in reference to the remarks of the Sena tor from New Hampshire, begged leave to say that his purpose seemed to have been misapprehend-ú by that gentleman. It was not his wish to revive e discussion, nor to create any additional excitem-ut; but as he had stated, when he moved to lay question on the table, (having just taken his in the Senate, and having had no opportunityComparing views with his southern gious duty; and that is a feeling which should be reasoned friends on this ect,) he wished to be enabled to do so. with, but cannot be suppressed by a mere summary various modes of disposing of these petiThere of which he had named, and all of which he exercise of authority. I wish that all reasonable men tion? may be satisfied with our proceedings; that we may sit was that he might, with the light of experience reflectconsidered as presenting questions of expediency only; act in regard to the whole matter as shall promote mony, strengthen the bonds of our Union, the confidence, both of the North and South, in this Government. .crease Mr. PRESTON next added the Chair. ator from Massachuse! (Said he,) having alluded to the opinion of an herable gentleman, recently a member of this boy, my friend Mr. Tyler, I beg leave to offer an explanation in his behalf. ed by other gentlemen, who had been here through the whole session, make up a clearer opinion as to which of those modes was most eligible, that he wished the subThe Sen-ject laid over. Though he believed Congress might refuse to receive a petition, without violating the constitutional guarantee on the subject of petitioning, he was not prepared to say it was expedient, under the present aspect of this case, to exercise the right. It was far from his wish to raise any discussion again on the subject, and he regretted that his motion had given rise to it. The motion not to receive the petitions was laid on the table. Mr. EWING, of Ohio, presented a petition of a similar character from sundry citizens of Ohio, and moved to refer it to the Committee on the District of Columbia. Mr. PORTER demanded the question on the reception of the petition; and Mr. LEIGH moved to lay the question on the table. For the reasons stated by his colleague, [Mr. RIVES,] this was a proper disposition to make of all such petitions as had been presented or might be presented today. It ceamly was the opinion of that gentleman, at the hening of this session, that the proper disposition of these petitions was to refer them to the Committee for the District, from which he then hoped such a report might be had as would meet the views of the South and a majority of this Senate. Upon further reflection, however, upon comparing opinions expressed out of doors and in the Senate, he came to the conclusion that such a report could not be framed; that the attempt would do more harm than good; that it was his duty to vote against the reception of the petition; and also his duty to submit resolutions, now in possession of the Senate, imbodying the result of that process of reasoning which he would have adopted had he drawn the report. Mr. HUBBARD expressed a wish that the Senator from Virginia would not press his motion to lay upon the table the proposition not to receive the memorials. He hoped that the Senate would at once proceed to the vote upon the question of reception, and prevent any further discussion at this time; and should the Senate, as he had no doubt they would, vote to receive the peti-viding for the extension of the time of proving certain tion, he presumed that some one Senator would move to lay the motion of the Senator from Massachusetts, and the petitions, on the table. The proceedings of the Senate on Friday last satisfied his mind that it is not the intention of this body, at this session, further to agitate the question of slavery within the District of Columbia. He was entirely satisfied as to the policy and propriety of such a course. The Senate then decided, by a very large majority of its members, to reject the prayer of a similar petition to those now presented by the Senator from Massachusetts. He was anxious to wait and see what effect shall be produced by the adoption of the vote of the Senate on Friday last, and he was very unwilling to agitate this question again. He was in hopes that we should not have been asked to take any course with these petitions which would render further consideration and debate necessary. He had on his table a petition committed to his care, and if no objection should be made to the reception of the petition, he would move that it be laid on the table. But if the motion of the Senator from Massachusetts should be adopted, he might find it necessary to give a different direction to that petition from the one The motion to lay the question as to reception of the petition on the table was decided in the affirmative. PRE-EMPTION RIGHTS. Mr. WALKER, in pursuance of notice given, asked and obtained leave, and introduced two bills; one pro pre-emptions granted under the act of the 19th of June, 1834, where such proof had been prevented by the want of public surveys; and the other bill to extend the time for proving certain pre-emption claims granted by the same act, where such proofs had been prevented by the opposing location of certain pretended Choctaw reservations. These bills were severally read twice by general consent; and Mr. WALKER moved to refer them to the Committee on Private Land Claims. Mr. CALHOUN moved to refer them to the Committee on the Public Lands; and advocated this motion by contending that they involved the policy of the Government in regard to the pre-emption law, to the further extension of which, he believed, a large majority of the Senate was opposed. Mr. WALKER replied, that the present bills did not involve an extension of the pre-emption system; that the claims embraced in the bills now offered were already vested rights under the act of 19th June, 1834, and were now obstructed in the proof by no fault or neglect upon the part of the owners. That after these claims had been vested by an act of Congress, the proprietors had, in SENATE.] Deposite Banks. [MARCH 17, 1836. and does this make a part of the other liabilities of these deposite banks in the cities? Now, this is one question: what are these other liabilities? But, as to these "other investments," I say again I wish to know what they are. Besides real estate, loans, discount, and exchange, I beg to know what other investments banks usually make. many cases, made extensive and valuable improvements; that gins, Mr. W. believed, had in some cases been erect ed; and that, after all this had taken place, to set up these ands again at public auction, or to locate other claims over them, would be an act of spoliation which he hoped this Government would never commit; that these were private land claims, and that the committee on such claims was the proper one to which to refer these bills; that to send them to the Committee on the Public Lands, upon the praciple already reported by that committee, would be to ensue a report against some, if not all, of these bills. Mr. W. too this occasion to declare that, although these bills did not invve the general pre-emption system, yet he should press the option at this session of a standing pre-emption law, so guard as to prevent the perpetra-public money. tion of any future frauds on Government; that he should also press the reduction and graduation of the price of the public lands, in favor only. actual settlers, and the sale and entry of all the pubfic forty acre lots. Mr. W's motion to refer theses in the Committee on Private Land Claims prevailed. The Senate then resumed the consideration of the bill to distribute the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the several States. Mr. EWING, of Ohio, resumed and concluded his speech, as given entire in the preceding pages. After which, The Senate went into the consideration of executive business. When the doors were reopened, The Senate adjourned. THURSDAY, MARCH 17. THE DEPOSITE BANKS. Mr. WEBSTER rose to move for the printing of 3,000 extra copies of the statement of the affairs of the deposite banks, transmitted by the Secretary of the Treasury. In making this motion Mr. W. called the attention of the Senate to the document from the Treasury, showing the state of the deposite banks at the latest dates. He quoted from the tabular statement some of the leading facts. The immediate liabilities of the banks amounted, it appeared, to nearly seventy-two millions of dollars, viz: the public deposites, $30,678,879 91; the private deposites, $15,043,033 64; the bills in circulation, $26,243,688 36. The amount of specie held by these banks, it further appeared, was $10,198,659 24; that is to say, there is less than one dollar specie for six dollars debt; and there is due to the Government by those banks more than three times the amount of all the specie. There are other items (said he) which swell the amounts on each side, such as debts due to banks, and debts due from banks. But these are only equalling quantities, and of no moment in the view I am taking of the question. Among the means of these deposite banks I see an item of other investments," of no less amount than $8,777,228 79. What is meant by these "other investments," I am not informed. I wish for light. I have my suspicions, but I have no proofs. Sir, look at the reported state of the Farmers and Mechanics' Bank of Michigan, the last in the list. The capital of that bank is only $150,000. Its portion of the public deposites is no less a sum than $784,764 75. Now, sir, where is this money? It is not in specie in the bank itself. All its specie is only $51,011 95; all its discounts, loans, &c., are only $500,000, or thereabouts; where is the residue? Why, we see where it is; it is included in the item "due from banks, $678,766 37." What banks have got this? On what terms do they take it? Do they give interest for it? Is it in the deposite banks in the great cities? In my opinion, sir, (said Mr. W.,) the present system now begins to develop itself. We see what a complication of private and pecuniary interest have thus wound themselves around our finances. While the present state of things continues, or as it goes on, there will be no lack of ardor in opposing the land bill, or any other proposition for distributing or effectually using the We have certainly arrived at a very extraordinary crisis; a crisis which we must not trifle with. The accumulation of revenue must be prevented. Every wise politician will set that down as a cardinal maxim. How can it be prevented? Fortifications will not do it. This and perfectly persuaded of. I shall vote for every part itary Com... And yet I am sure that, if that bill should of the fortification bill reported by the Milpass into a law. ciently diminish its not absorb the revenue, or suffi*. unt. Internal improvements cannot absorb it: these useithannels are blocked up by vetoes. How, then, is this reve to be disposed of? I put this question seriously to a hose who are inclined to oppose the land bill now before the Senate. Sir, look to the future, and see what will be he state of things next autumn. The accumulation of reveme may then probably be near fifty millions; an amount equal, perhaps, to the whole amount of specie in the country. What a state of things is that! Every dollar in the country the property of Government! Again, sir, are gentlemen satisfied with the present condition of the public money in regard to its safety? Is that condition safe, commendable, and proper? The member from South Carolina has brought in a bill to regulate these deposite banks. I hope he will call it up, that we may at least have an opportunity of showing, for ourselves, what we think the exigency requires. Mr. BENTON said that he rose to second the motion made by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts. This was a subject worthy of the attention both of the Executive and of Congress. There was a vast expansion of paper currency, and gentlemen would perceive that the United States Bank was very far from being the regulator of the currency, for the reason that it had set the example of such expansion. This was unjustifiable on the part of that institution, and not the less so on the part of these deposite banks. He utterly condemned the conduct of both. He was at present amicably disposed, but held himself prepared for war against all banks. He should not now either defend or extenuate their conduct; but he had a hand as ready to strike against them as it was in the case of the United States Bank. He objected to a national paper currency in toto: and he had a series of measures on the subject carefully prepared, and which, at a proper time, he should present for the consideration of the Senate. Mr. CLAY said that he had attentively examined the document to which the attention of the Senate had just been called, and was seriously impressed with the alarming state of the thirty millions of the public money which was reported to be in the deposite banks. It appeared that the aggregate amount of all the capitals of those institutions was only forty-two millions of dollars, whilst the public had, or ought to have, in their vaults thirty millions. In various instances the amount of the public deposite far exceeded the capital of the banks. Among others, the capital of the Savings Institution at Louisville was stated to be $96,460, whilst the sum of $337,377 43 |