power of Congress. What was the real duty of Congress? It was to make the public lands a common fund for the benefit of the whole people of the Union. The great object was to sell it gradually. And while it was in a state of ownership, he had always held that Congress might make it more valuable by the creation of roads, canals, and other improvements of that sort. He had felt no difficulty, therefore, in supporting grants to accomplish these objects, because it was a very efficient mode of increasing the value of the public domain. The duty of the Government, as he had just remarked, was to dispose of it; but that must be done in the simplest and most unembarrassed form. And whatsoever embarrassed the title, whatsoever embarrassed the conditions, and whatsoever had a tendency to create dissension, in regard to the purchase of lands lying within the jurisdiction of the new States, should be cautiously avoided. Now, the Senate had heard much relative to the thraldom under which the new States were; of their being subjected to another legislation; of the condition of individuals who could not get a little act passed without coming to Congress. He wished to say that, so far as respects the equality of footing upon which the new States stood to the old, he saw no reason to impute in feriority. He maintained that nothing had been done by Congress which encroached on the sovereign power of the new States. The General Government exercised no legislation over the land lying in a State, except so far as that State had agreed to it. No power was now exercised by the Government over the new States which had not been exercised over the old. And as to the proposition under consideration, supposing that Congress sold the public lands upon a long list of conditions, a long list of terms, how long would it be before the new States would come here, and ask for a modification of those terms? Did the gentleman expect, by any system of this kind, to accomplish perfect unanimity of feeling and harmony between the new and old States? He (Mr. W.) saw no difference of feeling on the subject existing between them; and if there was any difference, why, he thought it would show itself. Arguing against the practicability of ceding the lands, he observed that he did not mean to say that the time would not come when Congress should sell some of the residuary lands to a State; and when that time came, it must be a direct sale, in his opinion, and not a conveyance in trust. And he did verily believe that it would by no means promote the interests of the new States themselves to enter upon the career proposed; and he spoke it with great deference to honorable Senators who might be supposed to understand their own interests better than he could possibly do. He contended that it was the most exciting, embarrassing, and irritating thing that could be conceived for a new State-a small State, for instance, like Michigan-to be troubled with the management of a vast quantity of land. He objected to the bill, not only on constitutional grounds, but those of expediency also. He entertained the opinion that any system of selling lands, and confining the sales to actual settlers, brought on mischief, an interference between the legislation of Congress and the States. With respect to lands in the hands of the Government, there was no objection to a slow and reasonable graduation. He did not mean to say that all land must be of the same value. The lapse of time would raise its value. The principle of graduation he believed of no importance at all in the northwestern part of the country-for it might be said there was no land which could not shortly realize the value fixed by Congress. As to the taxing power, he confessed that he had no objection that lands, the moment they should pass out of the hands of the Government, should be subject to taxa. tion by the respective States in which they may lie. VOL. XIII.-50 [SENATE. Adverting to the land bill just passed, he remarked that nothing but the pre-emption clause saved it; and that the system of pre-emption, to a certain extent, had a tendency to demoralize a State. For his own part, he would rather, at once, than grant a prospective preemption, see a provision inserted in the bill, that whosoever shall take the character of a settler of any surveyed lands of the United States, shall be entitled to a donation of eighty acres of land. Congress had the power of making donations, and he would prefer seeing all the pre-emption rights turned into them; for making donations was far more reasonable, and had a greater tendency to produce moral habits and good order among society, than any pre-emption system that could be adopted. The whole foundation of the present proposition was, that there was not sufficient impartiality and care exercised, on the part of the Government, in carrying on the land system. He, however, was not prepared to surrender it, under any idea that it could not be administered as it had been hitherto. He concluded by remarking that Congress had no more power to transfer a trust than to cede the public lands. He hoped that no further agitation would take place on the subject, the country being unprepared for it. Indeed, he knew the proposition would strike the people generally, as it did him, as sudden, unnecessary, and leading to a policy which neither Congress nor the constitution would authorize to be adopted. Mr. SEVIER, in rising, had no idea of saying any thing in regard to the merits of the bill before them. He was not prepared to discuss this important subject then as it ought to be, and therefore should not attempt it; but he could not forbear expressing his astonishment that a proposition of this description, and one too in which nine of the sovereign States of this Union had so deep an interest, should not be deemed worthy of the ordinary reference to a committee. That proposition, said Mr. S., in which you, [referring to Mr. KING, of Alabama, President pro tem.] and I, sir, and exery Western man, well know is so interesting to the section of country we represent, is to be summarily and unceremoniously disposed of, without a hearing; and his astonishment at this want of courtesy was somewhat heightened when he reflected that they had refused even to print the bill. What was in this bill? Mr. S. asked. Was there treason in it? If so, publish it and let us see it. Can you not give this bill to the public, to let them look at it, examine it for themselves, and judge of its contents. people, said Mr. S., do not know what is in it, what we are driving at, nor what the measure is to lead to. Pub. lish it, then; and if we are wrong, if our propositions are unconstitutional, or unjust, or inexpedient, let the people see the bill and find it out. We are a rational people, said Mr. S., and easy to be convinced by presenting the truth to us. The He knew how totally incompetent he was to combat with the Senator from Massachusetts on constitutional points, and therefore he should not attempt it; but as the gentleman had contended that Congress could not constitutionally pass this bill, he would read a clause of the constitution, to show that if Congress possessed any Mr. S. then power at all, it was over the public lands. read the following: "Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting, the territory or other property belonging to the United States." Could any thing be more plain than this clause? He knew that the Senator from Massachusetts construed the constitution very liberally, and therefore it was impossible for him to imagine how the gentleman could see The bill any constitutional objections to this measure. provided that the States should survey and sell these lands precisely as the United States now does. There sons. [FEB. 11, 1837 construction of the constitution, should make objections in reference to the terms of the bill. The Senator admitted that land might be sold to an individual on these terms; then, why not sell to a State? Ile admitted, too, that Congress could make a donation of eighty acres to a few individuals. On the same principle, they could make a donation of a million of acres to one or more perAnd yet, said the Senator, "you cannot sell the lands lying within their limits to the new States." He (Mr. W.) believed that that argument would be found to be untenable; and if there was a constitutional objection in the way, the gentleman from Massachusetts himself was the author of it. But the Senate had been told that alarming evils were to follow this measure; that Congress could dispose of the public lands in a much better manner. was to be no change, either in the mode of surveying or selling the lands; but Congress would cease to be the Jocal Legislature of the new States, and thus save a great deal of trouble, both to itself and them. The States would have too great an interest in the property ceded to them, not to manage it with care and prudence. They would graduate the price of the lands only when it ought to be done, and sell only in proportion to the demands of increasing wealth and population. Both these matters would be regulated by the public interest. He was glad to hear the Senator from Massachusetts repeat the doctrines advanced by him some years ago, on the subjects of graduation and encouragement to actual settlers; and he was so well pleased with the gentleman's remarks on those points, that he, for one, would vote to place him on the sel et committee, if such a one, as he hoped it would be, should be appointed to consider this Could the constituen's of the Senator from Massachubill, in order that he might have an opportunity of carry. setts, or those of any other Senator living as distant as ing out his doctrines. The gentleman said that he did he, at a distance of 2,000 miles from the new States, be not entertain any objections to the making of donations apprized of what was best for the people of the West? of lands for school purposes, or to a road or canal com- They could not. Mr. W. argued that the new States pany. Now, where was the difference between making ought to be put on the same footing as the old; and he a donation to a canal company and making it to a State? contended, therefore, that the lands ought to be ceded In both cases it was a donation, and Congress possessed to them. Was there any reason why, if it could be as much the right to make it in the one as the other. But done, the new States should not have the power of lehe did not (Mr. S. said) intend to discuss this subject gislating in regard to, and of purchasing, the public now; he only rose to express the hope that this bill might lands, as the old States have? He could see none. be referred to a committee, and reported on. When it came up, on its merits, he should be prepared to discuss it; at present, all he wanted was the reference and printing of the bill. Mr. WALKER remarked, that while the Senator from Massachusetts was found on a former occasion advocating the right to present abolition petitions, and desirous of having an elaborate report in relation to them, he was found on this throwing every embarrassment in the way, to defeat the important interests, not only of eight or nine States, but of the whole confederacy. He [Mr. WEBSTER] asked Senators to pursue a course, in the pres ent instance, more disrespecful than the one suggested in regard to the abolition petitions. He had said that if the public mind could be put right at all, it would be by the reports of committees. Now, he wished to see whether a majority of the Senate would concur in the opinion which the honorable Senator from Massachusetts had expressed. He wished to see whether they were prepared by their votes to say that Senators favorable to the proposition should not have the poor privilege of a reference to a committee, in order that they might have a report thereon. Why should this proposition be treated in a different manner from any other? He had heard no reason for the adoption of such a course, and he thought that none could be given. The present Chief Magistrate himself, in 1832, had recommended a cession of the public lands to the new States. Were the people alarmed? Not at all. One of the ablest speeches ever delivered by the President elect was on this very subject, and he was favorable to a cession. And if we looked back to the debates of 1828, then some of the most distinguished sons of the South had warmly and ardently, although respect fully, advocated a cession of the lands. He could not think that the public mind would be alarmed at the measure. What was proposed in this bill? A sale, upon terms, of the lands within the States in which they are situate. It did not create a trustee; it was an absolute salca sale for a consideration. The title must remain, after this bill passed, in the Government of the United States. But the bill contained a proposition making the cession upon payment; and he could not refrain from expressing his surprise and astonishment that the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. WEBSTER,] distinguished for his liberal and latitudinarian With respect to the provisions of this bill, the Senator from Massachusetts had said that difficulties would arise between the new States and Congress, in respect to them; that the new States would prove faithless, and would violate the conditions. Mr. W. felt certain that they would do no such thing; for there was a clause in the bill revoking the grant, if any of the acts of cession should be violated. And not only were they revoked, but the title was rendered utterly null and void. He next adverted to some of the consequences that would result, if the cession should take place. The time now spent by Congress in granting rights of preemption to individuals would be saved. That reason alone was a powerful one to induce the passage of the bill, without taking into consideration the enormous saving that would accrue to the Government by abolishing a great number of offices, which, under the new state of things, would be unnecessary. If the cession could be be made, (and he would not, so help him Heaven, vote for it unless it was just,) the most happy consequences would follow from it. The people of the new States were placed, from year to year, in the condition of medicants; their Senators here were Calling upon Congress to do justice to their constituents. Titles, instead of emanating from the local authorities, were obtained some thousands of miles off. Individuals had to come all the way to Washington, and remain here some time, and were put to a very heavy expense in so doing, in order merely to get their titles amended. As the sales of the lands increased, so would the difficulties also. It was, under every aspect in which the matter could be viewed, very natural that the people of the new States should wish to be put on the same footing as the old. Mr. NILES, after a few remarks, observed that a proposition was made by the Senator from Mississippi, on the passage of the land bill, to change its title, and call it a bill to arrest the monopolies of the public lands. Now, he thought that with more reason this bill might be called a bill to monopolize the time of the Senate for the remainder of the session. Now, do gentlemen of the West (asked Mr. N.) think it reasonable that we should spend the short time of the session yet remaining (only seventeen working days) on the business of the public lands, when that same subject has already taken up six or seven weeks, almost to the exclusion of every thing else? Gentlemen surely ought to see how unreasonable this was, and to suffer this subject to lie on the table, and to proceed to something of more importance. It would seem from the remarks of some gentlemen that there was a crisis in our affairs, and that there was about to be a secession of the Western States, unless there was something done with regard to the public lands to meet their demands. What, then, he would ask, was there from that section of the country, which caused this measure to be so earnestly pressed on Congress? Were there any petitions or memorials, or had public meetings been called on the subject? Not so. This measure was the voluntary act of an individual member of the Senate, and one too who did not represent any one of the new States; and though it was loudly hailed by the Western members, nothing was presented from the people they represented to support it. He did not mean to call in question the motives of the gentleman who introduced the bill. His object was no doubt liberal and patriotic; but it appeared that he was so entirely opposed to the land bill which had just passed, and looked upon it as so mischievous in its tendency, that he brought forward the present measure, in order to divest the United States at once of an interest which, in his opinion, was so liable to abuse. The manner in which this subject was now pressed had caused him to look back to a period when Congress was operated on by an extraordinary pressure. He alluded to the time when the act in regard to the funding system was pending, and when the Eastern States threatened a secession unless it was adopted. The Eastern States carried their point, and from that time to this Congress had always acted under an irresist ible pressure. [SENATE. prevent us from explaining what our object is, and how On Mr. SOUTHARD said that if the minds of Senators were made up on the subject, they were prepared to vote now as well as at any future period. It was not a new question; it had been agitated at former times; but it was a new question, so far as the opinions of Senators from the new States were to be regarded. He did not wish that the subject should be agitated now; and, in saying this, he did not mean any disrespect to the Senators from the new States. The Senate had been told that the people of the new States had asked a hearing. When did they? He was not aware of the fact, not having seen any paper in which they asked Congress to cede the public lands. [Mr. WALKER. We have several memorials before the Committee on Public Lands. Mr. SOUTHARD. It may be so; I was not aware of it. Mr. WALKER. There are memorials from the Legis. latures of Arkansas and Missouri, asking a cession of lands within their limits:] serve the public domain for the benefit of the whole Union. He concluded by saying that he should vote against the second reading of the bill. Mr. N. said that this was not a proper time to act on this subject; it was premature, and therefore inexpe- Mr. SOUTHARD said he was under the impression dient. If, said be, public sentiment exists in the new that the prayer of the memorials would be found not to States, as it is represented to be, they will before long go to the extent of asking what the bill contemplated, present the subject to the consideration of Congress; and but merely a special cession. Adverting to the proviwhen they did come forward and demand a hearing, far sions of the bill, he contended that Congress, having once be it from him to deny it to them. He was willing to ceded the lands, would not have the power of compel. give them a full hearing, when they came forward of ling the new States to fulfil the terms under which they themselves; but he could not agree that it was proper in received them. He argued that Congress did not posCongress to create public feeling. This was tried in sess the power to cede the lands, that it would be a vio 1834, when the panic season was brought on, and theylation of the grant by which they were bound to prehad all seen the results. It was time for Congress to act, when public sentiment took the lead, but it never could be right for Congress to direct it. One great objection he had to this measure was, that the land bill just passed had not yet been tried. It was true it was but an experiment, but, having voted for one experiment, it seemed to him'unreasonable to vote for another till that one is tried. He should therefore vote not only against the second reading of the bill, but against its reference. Mr. ROBINSON did not see any direct connexion between the bill that had been passed and the one then before them. He voted for this land bill with more reluctance than he ever voted for any measure in his life, though it came from his friends. This bill, however, he looked upon in entirely a different light. It was not a temporary measure, like the land bill, but one in which the new States felt the deepest interest, and which promised them the most lasting benefits. We view it, said Mr. R., as a struggle in which money is the object on your part, and sovereignty and independence that on ours. Thus circumstanced, what, said he, do we ask? Only that this subject may be laid before the people of the United States, and not that it may be acted on at this session, but that it may be maturely considered of advancing a new argument, but merely to reply to and prepared for action on it at the next. Now, why the constitutional objections of the Senator from Massadid gentlemen object to these simple and reasonable prop-chusetts. If it were necessary, he could at least present ositions? Were they afraid of the truth? Let the re- an argument ad hominem. port on this measure go to the people, and abide by If Congress possessed the right to make donations to their decision; but do not, said Mr. R.. muzzle us, and | individuals of eighty acres of land, as was remarked by Mr. CALHOUN observed that one of the reasons assigned against reading the bill a second time was, that it would prevent agitation. The subject had already been agitated; and he, for one, so long as he should have a seat on that floor, would continue to agitate it, until public attention should be thouroughly aroused. He contended that this attempt to prevent the bill from being again read and referred would only cause the subject to be the more deeply agitated. The provisions and principles of the bill could not be so well tested as if sent to a committee, where they would be deliberately examined. They would then make a report on the bill, which would go out to the country, and the people would have an opportunity of forming a deliberate judgment respecting it, and the effect might be to convince the new States themselves that the measure was wrong; and if so, an early termination would be put to it. Then, why should this not be done? He felt a profound regret that Senators did not think fit to permit the bill to take the usual course. He had not risen for the purpose the Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. WALKER,] had they not equally, on the same principle, the power to make donations of hundreds, or one hundred thousand? If there were any distinction, he (Mr. C.) was not able to see it. Congress had a right, as was said by the Senator from Massachusetts, to make donations to States for certain purposes. Now, if they could make a donation for any purpose-for a deaf and dumb asylum, for an infirmary, or for any purpose whatever-he would ask, why not make a gift of the public lands? He repeated, that if there were a distinction, he, for one, was incapable of perceiving it. It The Senator from Massachusetts had said Congress had no right to give up the trust delegated to them. The object of the bill was to make a sale, and not a trust. was a series of conditions of sale, which were intended to be beneficial to the new States as well as to the old; and the question was, "Can you make a sale of the public lands?" Congress could dispose of lands to individ- | uals: then, why not to a State? If they could make an absolute sale, could not they make a conditional sale? That was the simple question. If they could not, then all he could say was, that he did not understand the argument. He must say that if he ever did entertain any constitutional scruples on the subject, the Senator's argument had satisfied him that there were none. Ile knew that the gentleman was capable of presenting (if there were any) objections in the strongest possible light; but he had not succeeded in convincing him (Mr. C.) that there were any. But the Senator had said that the grounds upon which he (Mr. C.) had put his bill at this time was the passage of the land bill, objectionable as it was, and which he [Mr. WEBSTER] said might not yet become a law. Now, that was not so; he did not place the bill upon the naked fact of the land bill having passed this body. It was the character of the bill which had satisfied his mind that we had reached the time when something must be done on the subject. He would not characterize the bill, for he had already expressed his opinions on it. He asked whether every Senator opposed to the administration had not opposed the land bill? Did gentlemen not see there were political causes in operation? The time had arrived when the corrupt tendency of such bills should cease, which was controlling, to a certain extent, the action of Senators on that floor. These were the indications which induced him to introduce this bill. But the Senator from Massachusetts said that what he (Mr. C.) proposed to effect could scarcely be effected by this measure, or rather that the evil did not exist; that the present condition of things did not affect the sovereignty of the new States, or that they are in a state of vassalage. He admitted that this was a strong term, and he had used it in the heat of debate. He begged gentlemen to look at the fact. Could any thing be more Local than the territory of a State? And was there no small state of dependency in a people being obliged to come here from a distance of eight hundred or a thousand miles? [FEB. 11, 1837. that, but it would probably be eight or ten years first; and in the mean time our councils would be free from the control under which they at present suffered, and from political agitation, growing out of the discussion of questions connected with the public lands. And if, at the end of that time, any of these condi tions should be found burdensome, it would remain for those who might be here to apply the proper remedy. But the Senator argued that the bill would prove of no benefit to the new States; that they were small in population, and would be subject to agitation themselves, and might not fulfil the conditions of this bill. The bill, however, provided certain restrictions, which could not be overcome. Should any one of them be violated, the grant would be null and void. After some further remarks, in explanation and defence of the provisions of the bill, he concluded by an expression of his hope that Senators would permit it to be read a second time and referred; so that an opportunity would be given the country to examine and deliberate on the report which would be spread before it, in relation to this important measure. Mr. TIPTON said the Legislature of Indiana had, in 1829, sent a memorial to Congress, for the purpose of obtaining a cession of the public lands, and claiming it as a right. Other memorials also had been sent on the same'subject. The proposition, therefore, was not new. All the Senators of the new States felt a deep interest in it, and were desirous that it should be referred, and a report made upon it. Mr. T. had voted for the restrictive land bill with great reluctance. He preferred that the lands should be ceded to the new States for a fair consideration. Mr. HUBBARD said he was aware of the memorial or resolution of the Indiana Legislature, to which the Senator had alluded. But that resolution was, that Indiana bad a right to possess the public lands within her limits, without purchase. That doctrine, he said, did once prevail, but it was now set up by no one. He Mr. BENTON rose for the purpose of supporting what had been said by the Senator from Indiana. thought, if gentlemen would look over the documents, they would find a dozen memorials in which both the principles of this bill were embraced--he meant graduation and the extinction of the federal title to the lands in the new States. Yes, he said, "extinction of the federal title;" for he always spoke on this subject in the same sense as speaking of the extinction of an Indian title. He had, he believed, had more correspondence with the West than any other gentleman in the Senate; and, when writing on the subject, he always said that these two propositions (graduation and extinction of the federal title) had been thrown by the proposition to divide the proceeds of the land sales; and that they must first fight down and kill this distribution scheme before they could hope for success. He told his correspondents, also, that the greatest service that President Jackson ever rendered to his country was to put his foothis large foot-on this proposition. He might say, fur He would ask the Senator from Massachusetts, wheth-ther, that if he (Mr. B) had ever rendered any service to er this was not giving the General Government an unrea sonable control over the new States? Their officers were diffused every where, creating a state of dependence, which did not exist in the other States of the Union. People were obliged to come here, session after session, to get what they claimed to be just. If the control at present exercised by the General Government was not inconsistent with the sovereignty of a State, it was at least a derogation. The Senator remarked that this bill would not stop agitation, and that the new States would come here before long, and ask that the conditions should be altered. He (Mr. C.) did not think it improbable that they would do the country at all, it was in helping to kill that bill; and it now lay prostrate, a corpse. That impediment being now removed, we can, said Mr. B., now begin again. I shall put my shoulders to the wheel, and keep pushing till we carry it through. He was for both the principles contained in this bill; and as to the details, when he was cordial about a principle, he never should balk at them; he would give and take. While up, he would express the hope that the subject might be referred to a select committee; and, having said this, he would say, further, that he had no expectation of accomplishing any thing at the present session. Mr. BUCHANAN said that we were now less than three weeks from the close of the session, and it was impossible that within this period we could transact all the necessary public business; yet it was at such a moment that this measure was urged upon our consideration. It was an apple of discord thrown into this body, which must cause the waste of much precious time, and give birth to protracted and angry discussion, unless we should promptly resolve to relieve ourselves from it. One effect which it would most probably produce was the defeat of the land bill in the other House--a consideration which ought to have its weight, especially in the minds of Western Senators. Mr. B. asked, what did this bill propose? Why, sir, an absolute gift to the new States of two thirds of all the proceeds of our public lands within their limits, whilst we retained but one third for ourselves. No such request had ever been made to Congress by any of these States, within his knowledge; certainly not during the past or present sessions of Congress. They had never asked for any thing so unreasonable and so unjust. The applications from Mississippi and Arkansas, which had been referred to in this debate, were altogether of a different character. He would venture to say that there was no new State in this Union which, if the question had been submitted to its own intrinsic sense of equity and justice, would have ever thought of making such a proposition to Congress as that contained in this bill. When these States shall come forward with any reasonable and well-digested plan of their own, asking for the cession of the public lands within their limits, upon fair terms, he should then be prepared to hear them most respectfully. There was no occasion to stimulate them to pursue this or any other course in which they felt their own interests were involved. We had abundant evidence that their Senators on this floor were both able and willing to enforce any just proposition proceeding from their constituents. Senators ought to recollect that there would be two parties to any such arrangement. The people of the old States had and felt as deep an interest in this question as those of the new. If reasonable terms should be proposed, it was probable that the old States might consent to the adjustment of this difficult and embarrassing question, in such a manner as would give satisfaction to their brethren in the West. But, said Mr. B., let me tell gentlemen that I would almost as soon think of putting my hand into the pocket of one of my constituents, and taking from him two thirds of the money it contained, for the purpose of giving it away to a stranger, as I should agree to vote for this bill, in opposition to the wishes of those who sent me here. If any equitable arrangement of this question could be made between the parties interested, he should rejoice at such a result. For his own part, he felt disposed to grant liberal terms to the new States; but he should never consent to abandon the rights of his own constituents, in order to propitiate the people of the West, however much he might regard their good opinion. He would not, if he could, to use the language of the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. ROBINSON,] become their Magnus Apollo upon any such terms. What, then, did the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] ask us to do? To send this bill to a select committee. And for what purpose? Not that there shall be any final action upon it during the present session, because that was manifestly impossible, but to obtain a report in favor of its provisions. This report, containing a long, ingenious, and able argument, in favor of giving all the public lands to the new States, with the exception of one third of their gross proceeds, would be circulated far and wide throughout the whole Union. Whilst it would excite unfounded hopes in the minds of the people of the new States, it would produce an alarm [SENATE. equally groundless throughout the old States. It would have a tendency to exasperate the feelings of both parties, and might, and probably would, greatly retard, if not forever prevent, the adoption of any fair compromise on the subject. This report, we had a right to presume, would be altogether on one side, whilst the other would not be heard. It might prevent the new States from offering such terms as we of the old States could think of accepting. He should wait until the new States themselves thought proper to move in this business. They were not slow to act in any manner which they thought might promote their own welfare. He Mr. B. said he was now determined to ascertain whether the Senate would, at this session, spend any more of their precious time upon this subject. should, therefore, renew the motion which had been made by the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. HUBBARD,] to lay the bill upon the table; and he gave notice, in advance, that he would not withdraw it on the request of any Senator whatsoever. Mr. NORVELL trusted that the bill would be allowed to be read a second time, for reference. He believed that no bill of any kind, with perhaps one exception, had, for a long time, been refused a second reading and reference. That now before the Senate was of such deep importance, and involved interests of such magnitude, especially to the new States, that he thought its rejection at this stage of the proceeding would not only be unusual, but very extraordinary. He therefore expressed the hope that Senators would suffer the bill to be again read, and referred, either to the Land Committee or to a select committee, that it might be maturely considered and reported upon. The question was then taken, and the bill was laid on the table: Yeas 26, nays 20, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Crittenden, Dana, Ewing of Ohio, Hubbard, Kent, Knight, Niles, Page, Parker, Prentiss, Rives, Robbins, Ruggles, Southard, Spence, Strange, Swift, Tallmadge, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright-26. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Calhoun, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, King of Alabama, Linn, Lyon, Moore, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Preston, Robinson, Sevier, Tipton, Walker, White--20. FORTIFICATION BILL. The Senate then proceeded to take up a bill making provision for the collection of materials and the purchase of sites for certain fortifications therein designated. [It appropriates about a million and a half of dollars to these objects.] Mr. CRITTENDEN demanded further information in reference to the necessity of these works, the estimates upon which the appropriations were founded, and the total expense of completing the works for which this bill, appropriating a million and a half of dollars, proposed only to make preparation. Mr. BENTON, chairman of the Military Committee, who had reported the bill, stated, in reply, that it was identically the same bill which had passed the Senate at the last session. The Senator was, therefore, in pos session of full information in regard to it. Mr. SOUTHARD opposed the bill in most of its features. It was a carrying out of the plan which had been laid down by General Bernard. And though the scheme of defence by fortifications proposed by that celebrated engineer might have been wisely adapted to the state of the country at that period, its condition had since been so greatly changed, by the increase of its population and the augmentation of its power, that many of the features of the plan were no longer necessary, and might advantageously be dispensed with. The improvements which had been made in the means for transportation of |