Slike strani
PDF
ePub

H. OF R.]

Relief to Land Purchasers.

[FEB. 15, 1831.

But, sir, whence comes this violent opposition to the grants, I believe, were made to the same "Ohio Company bill on your table? From one of the Representatives from of Associates," amounting to more than a million of acres. Ohio-from a Representative from a Western State, and A grant was subsequently made to John Cleves Symmes of a people who have, doubtless, in some degree, once for one million of acres, though afterwards modified, and struggled with the same current of adversity which has the quantity somewhat reduced. Still another grant was so long threatened to overwhelm the people of Alabama. made to the inhabitants of Galliopolis, for twenty-four His constituents having escaped from the difficulty and thousand acres. There may have been other large grants danger which perhaps once embarrassed them, and ob- to companies or to individuals, which I have not noticed; tained a secure footing on firm ground, he would look but those stated amount to about two millions of acres. back upon us, still striving to extricate ourselves from the Now, sir, much of this land may, and doubtless does, reperil which surrounds us, and menaces our existence; and, main unsold; nor will it sell for profit while there is much so far from extending the helping hand, he would dissuade land in market on reasonable terms. Consequently, it others from doing so. Sir, can this be consistent with the would be to the interest of individuals or companies, so charity and magnanimity of the people of Ohio? Would situated, that no land should be brought into market; or, they, because they are now independent, and may possi- if any be offered for sale, that it shall be on terms so high bly have become so under a less liberal policy than we as to make it the interest of purchasers to buy of them ra ask, be willing to refuse us assistance when our situation ther than of the Government. On the same principle, requires it? Would they deny aid to others, because they relief to purchasers who have made ruinous contracts had not received it, (were it the fact,) or because they ought not to be granted, or, if granted at all, on cautious now stand in no need themselves? Sir, I am unwilling to terms, lest the value of real estate in the hands of indivi believe it; and I will not ascribe to them a character so duals should be impaired. Such an interest as that to which selfish and illiberal. I have alluded, is much better subserved by keeping up the price of the public lands, and by refusing relief to the purchasers under the credit system, than the interest of the great body of the people, or that of the Government.

But the gentleman speaks of the prejudicial effect which is to be produced on the value of lands owned by individuals: he means what I have often heard him express, that such measures are calculated to unhinge the Sir, the people of Alabama have paid a larger amount value of real estate. Whose interest is likely to be so af- of money into the treasury, in proportion to the number fected? Not that of the planter or farmer, who usually of acres which have been sold within her limits, than those has only the quantity of land he wishes to occupy and cul- of any other State. By the report of a select committee, tivate for the support of his family, and to rear and edu-made in February, 1829, it appears that the whole quan cate his children. Such men do not wish to sell; they do tity of land then sold amounted to twenty-one million six not regard the market price as matter of interest to them- hundred and seventy-eight thousand one hundred and selves; they generally expect to live and die on the parti- twenty-nine acres, for which the Government had receiv cular places which they have selected for residence; but, ed thirty-six million thirteen thousand four hundred and if they did, the cheapness of land elsewhere would be three dollars. Of that sum, Alabama had then paid seven proportioned to the diminution of the value of their own, million two hundred and seventy-four thousand seven and would meet the wants and interests of their rising fa- hundred and forty-six dollars and twenty-four cents-bemilies. Would the gentleman insist, that, because some ing more than one-fifth of the total amount paid by all the of us may have made hard bargains, and have given high other States, for a little more than three millions of acres, prices for our lands, we should object to others getting or about one-seventh of the aggregate quantity of land theirs on reasonable terms? Sir, many of my constituents sold. Up to the same time, Ohio had paid about sixteen have given much more than the value of their lands; do millions of dollars for about nine millions of acres. The they oppose the relief sought by their neighbors and fel- average price paid by Ohio was one dollar and seventylow-citizens? By no means; but, on the contrary, would eight cents per acre, while Alabama had paid an average rejoice at their deliverance. I have given more than twen- price of two dollars and twenty-four cents per acre, and ty dollars per acre for a portion of the land I cultivate, exceeding the average price of Ohio forty-six cents per for which I could not now obtain five dollars per acre; but acre. If gentlemen will take the trouble to make the esti would I, on that account, refuse to let my neighbor have mate, they will find the excess paid by the people of Alahis land on just terms, or envy his good fortune were he bama, over those of Ohio, for an equal quantity of land, to get it for less than its value, because the effect might according to this difference of price in the two States, be to cheapen mine? No, sir; far from it. Were I capa-amounts to nearly a million and a half of dollars. Is not ble of such illiberal sentiments, such want of magnanimity, this difference enormous to result from the sale of a little the high-minded and generous people whom I have the more than three millions of acres? Yet it is from a part honor to represent, would spurn me-they would discard of the representation from Ohio that we encounter the me from their confidence. most prompt, decided, and unrelenting opposition to every

Sir, it is not interest of the farmer or planter that is to measure proposed for the relief of purchasers in the State be affected by reducing the price of public lands, or ex-from which I come, and, I may add, to every measure tending relief to land debtors. It is only the interest of which is calculated to favor the growth and prosperity of the speculator; the interest of the landmonger, who buys the new States generally.

and sells for profit, and who has large quantities on hand, Under this view of the subject, I appeal to gentlemen that can be injured by such measures; and they alone to say whether it is unreasonable to ask, or to expect, the would be likely to complain. I will not charge the gen-relief contemplated by the bill under consideration. We tleman from Ohio with intending to represent the interest do not propose to take a single acre for a less price than of large landholders and speculators, instead of that of the great body of the people; but I will state come facts, from which gentlemen can draw their own deductions, as to the effect of his course of policy.

Many years ago, certain grants were made to certain agents and directors of the "Ohio Company of Associates." I think the first was for seven hundred and fifty thousand acres, a second tract contained about two hundred and fourteen thousand two hundred and eighty-five acres, and a third contained one hundred thousand acres. All those

one dollar and twenty-five cents. We offer for this inferior land such price as you have received (deducting six mills per acre) for near a million and a half of acres, sold in three of the new States, in three successive years preced ing the last session of Congress; and within a few cents of the price received for near half a million of acres sold, in the same three years, in the State which I, in part, have the honor to represent. We offer the same price for which you sold several hundred thousand acres during the last year, under the "act to grant pre-emption rights

FEB. 16, 1831.]

The Judiciary.--Slave Trade.--Revolutionary Soldiers.

[H. OF R.

to settlers on the public lands;" a large portion of which [This bill, as usual on all bills making general proviwas, most likely, land of the best quality. Nor should it sion on the subject of pensions, gave rise to much debate; be forgotten that the individuals who now ask relief, and especially on the often discussed question of including the seek the award of justice at your hand, "generally con- militia in the relief extended to the regular soldiers. The sist of the poorer classes of society," as they have them- debate on this question arose on a motion by Mr. TUCKselves remarked. This position is obviously true, judging ER, of South Carolina, to include the militia volunteers from the nature of things, and the experience and obser- and State troops in the present bill, which was ultimately vation of all. It is almost a necessary result of competi- adopted, almost by general consent. The gentlemen who tion at a sale of lands to the highest bidder, that men of entered into the discussion (some of them repeatedly) wealth should become the purchasers of the most fertile were, Messrs. VERPLANCK, DAVIS, of Mass., WILand valuable tracts, by the force of capital, driving those LIAMS, TUCKER, TAYLOR, CHILTON, CRAIG, who are poor to the more inferior lands. But, sir, if rea- BURGES, BATES, RICHARDSON, HUNTINGTON, soning be not sufficient to establish the fact, I have no SPENCER, of New York, McDUFFIE, A. H. SHEPhesitancy in offering in its support the humble testimony PERD, STRONG, WILDE,CAMPBELL, ELLSWORTH, of my own knowledge of its truth, as a general proposi- SPEIGHT, BARRINGER, POLK, and SWIFT. The tion, from personal observation. As I urged in the com- following sketch embraces the principal features of the mittee at the last session, and have repeated at the pre-discussion.]

The memorial was then read.

sent one, the holders of this inferior description of land Mr. VERPLANCK, (on whose motion the House took are the class of persons who, above all others, have had up the bill,) said that the memorial of the parties was so the hardest bargains from the beginning, and have the succinct, and at the same time so expressive, that he should strongest claims to favor and indulgence. refrain from entering into an argument in support of their Sir, in any just aspect in which the subject can be pre-claims. He merely wished the memorial to be read. sented, the relief proposed by the bill is but fair and reasonable. The grounds on which it is asked are fully sus tained by the facts and views which have been presented, whether considered in reference to the interest or true policy of the Government. The relief prayed is from contracts the most hard and inequitable, made under circumstances against the influence of which no man's wisdom or circumspection was a sufficient safeguard. I will not believe, until it is demonstrated by a vote of the House, that you will rigidly adhere to the unequal, unjust, and severe terms of the act of last session; or that you will deny relief commensurate with the most liberal principles of equity and good conscience.

Mr. BAYLOR also supported the bill, and replied to Mr. IRVIN.

Mr. IRVIN rejoined more at large against the bill. Mr. WICKLIFFE commenced a speech in favor of the bill, and had spoken some time, when he gave way to a motion to adjourn; and

The House adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16.

THE JUDICIARY.

Mr. VERPLANCK explained the object of the bill. It went to give to those individuals who had retired from the service after the capture of Cornwallis, but before the conclusion of the war, the benefits of the pension act of 1828. He moved, in amendment, that such of them as had served two years and six months, should be included. Mr. TAYLOR said, that when it was considered what a length of time had elapsed since these services were rendered, he thought that a service of two years might be considered sufficient to entitle the parties to the benefit of the act. He submitted a motion to this effect.

The motion was agreed to; and several other blanks in the bill having being filled up,

The subject was further debated by Messrs. VERPLANCK, TAYLOR, CHILTON, BURGES, DRAPER, BATES, HUNTINGTON, DRAYTON, MCDUFFIE, and A. H. SHEPPERD.

Mr. TUCKER then moved the amendment providing for an extension of the benefits of the bill to the militia of the several States who actually served for six months in the war of the revolution.

Mr. CHILTON moved that the committee rise, report, and ask leave to sit again, in order that the House might The House resumed the consideration of the resolution go into a Committee of the Whole on the military pension proposing to print six thousand additional copies of the bills, as directed by the resolution passed on the precedreports of the majority and minority of the Judiciary coming day.

mittee.

Mr. WILLIAMS was in favor of extending the provi Mr. DANIEL resumed the floor, and consumed the re-sions of the bill to the militia of the States. He trusted mainder of the allotted hour, in the continuation of his that the committee would not rise until they came to a final speech on the judiciary-[as reported on a preceding decision on the subject. page.] When he had taken his seat,

Mr. BARRINGER gave notice that when this subject came up to-morrow, he should make a question of order, whether it was competent for members, on a simple motion, to print the reports, to go into a general discussion of the reports themselves, and the whole subject of the judiciary.

SLAVE TRADE.

Mr. MERCER moved to suspend the rule of the House in regard to motions, for the purpose of enabling himself to submit a resolution requesting the Executive to enter into negotiations with the maritime Powers of Europe, to induce them to enact laws declaring the African slave trade piracy, and punishing it as such; but the motion (requiring two-thirds) was lost--63 to 54.

REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIERS.

Some discussion arose on a point of order, whether the question of a motion for the committee to rise was debatable.

It was decided by the Chair that the question of a motion to rise was not debatable.

The question was then taken on Mr. CHILTON's motion; which was negatived.

The subject under consideration was the amendment of Mr. TUCKER.

Mr. WILLIAMS resumed his observations in its support.

Mr. SPENCER, of New York, argued that if the amend ment should be attached to the bill, it would, in his opinion, be indubitably lost in the Senate. It would be better that, if the militia should be compensated in the same manner with the regular soldiers, a separate bill on the subject should be brought before Congress.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the Mr. McDUFFIE was in favor of the amendment probill supplementary to the act of 1828, for the relief of cer-posed by his colleague, [Mr. TUCKER,] and he assured the

tain surviving officers and soldiers of the revolution.

gentleman from New York [Mr. SPENCER] that it was

H. OF R.]

Revolutionary Soldiers.

[FEB. 16, 1831.

not with a view of defeating the bill, nor did he think it their lives in the great cause of liberty, when you had no should produce that effect. He thought, if "six months" Government to raise or pay an army, or even to protect were stricken out, and "nine months" inserted in lieu, that your citizens from being executed as rebels and traitors the bill ought to pass. If the regular soldier who served if they fell into the hands of the enemy? The militia; in the revolutionary war, was entitled to the relief of Con- and they carried on the memorable siege of Boston, and gress, he contended that the militia soldier, who was drove from the devoted State of Massachusetts the armies equally meritorious, was entitled to the same considera- and navies of Great Britain. This is service enough to tion. Since the year 1818, all regular soldiers who had immortalize them-but their achievements did not end served nine months in the revolutionary war, and were in here. The triumph at Bennington stands emblazoned on needy circumstances, had received pensions. It is now the page of history; and who was there? The militia of only asked that the same provision shall be made for the the granite State. The militia too had a large share of the militia man of equal merits, as was made twelve years ago glory and honor of arresting the career of Burgoyne. for the regular soldier. The regular army was driven before him; but the men from the plough poured in to sustain them from all quar ters, and the campaign ended by his defeat and surrender. They were at Rhode Island in the midst of the fight and the peril there. Indeed, it would be difficult to name any one achievement in the North during the revolution which signalized the war, that did not owe much of its success to the militia.

Mr. TUCKER had no objection to modify his amendment so as to place the militia on the same footing as the soldiers of the line who had served nine months.

Mr. STRONG suggested that if Mr. TUCKER should withdraw his amendment, and the words "of the continental line" were erased from the bill, it would include the troops of all descriptions who served in that war.

Mr. TUCKER declined to accept of any modification which would defeat his object. What that object was, he had before stated. It was to render one and the same justice to the regular soldier and the militia man. Mr. T. subsequently modified it so as the bill should read, to include volunteer State troops and militia.

Mr. WILDE adverted to the eminent services rendered by the militia; to the battle of King's mountain; to the deeds of Generals Marion and Sumpter; and to numerous other actions, in which the militia and State troops had distinguished themselves during the revolutionary contest, and contended that they deserved equally well of their country, with the continental troops.

Mr. CAMPBELL moved that the committee rise; but the motion was negatived.

Mr. TUCKER then modified his amendment, so as to provide for compensating the officers and soldiers of the militia in a proportion to the compensation allowed to the officers and soldiers of the continental line.

But this is not all: there were dark, forlorn, and almost hopeless periods of that war, when the country was without funds, without credit, without an army, and almost without hope. In these times, when you could offer no bounty to invite enlistment, when you had no reward to offer but the feeble hope of the future enjoyment of a free Government, the militia were summoned to the field to sustain the sinking interests of the country, and they obeyed the call. They bore you triumphant_through these seasons of peril. They stopped not to ask for any assurance of pay-but it was enough for them to know that the country was in danger-for it was their country, and, if it fell, they fell with it.

What pay did they get for such important and patriotic services? Some received nothing, others received a miserable depreciated paper currency, mere worthless rags. The pay of many months, as many of these veterans have informed me, was insufficient to defray their expenses home from camp, when dismissed from the service. Now, sir, these were men who left their families behind them to suffer, and their affairs to go to ruin; and ought they not to be remembered by this Government, now that it is rich and able to do them justice, while many of them are not only old, but poor and needy? Sir, they have never been paid, and the appeal is not made to your bounty, but to your justice. They are not beggars, but rightful claimants, and it is a misnomer to call any grant made to them a pension upon your bounty.

Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, rose, and said his sentiments on this subject were so well known to most of the members of the committee, that it would be a work of supererogation to make a formal expression of them. It was well known that he was sincerely and ardently desirous of doing justice to all persons who belonged to the army of the revolution. He was anxious they should all be paid for their services; and, had it depended on him, this act of justice would not have been postponed to this late day. Important, however, as time is to the House, he I have made these desultory remarks to rescue the mifelt himself constrained to make some reply to the gen- litia of the North from reproach; and while I am up, I tleman from Georgia, [Mr. WILDE,] who, while he had will take occasion to say that I almost regret that the wordone ample justice to the militia of the South, had not thy gentleman from South Carolina has offered this amendbeen equally true to history in his account of that class of ment: for, as has been observed by the gentleman from troops in the North. The services of these men, said New York, [Mr. SPENCER,] it may endanger the passage Mr. D., are so identified with the great achievements of the bill in the Senate, where measures of this sort enof the revolution, and so revered and cherished in the counter great opposition. I should have preferred to act recollections of the population of the North, that they on this matter by itself; but, as it is before us, and as the need no vindication there; but there are persons less fa- Senate will in no shape be bound by it, but can strike it miliar with the story of the revolution, who may be mis- from the bill if they see fit, I shall support the amend led by the declaration of the gentleman that many of the ment, provided the mover will place the militia and the militia of the North were out who did little service, and troops of the line on the same footing: for I am not wiltherefore are not entitled to the consideration of this Go-ling to deal more favorably by one class than by the other, vernment. I know this assertion was made without the and I am sure the same measure of justice to all will be slightest intention of giving offence; but, as it does great most acceptable. I hope, therefore, the amendment will injustice to this deserving class of persons, I cannot suffer be so modified, and it will then have my hearty approba it to pass unnoticed. tion. I have omitted to say any thing of the provisions The militia of the North did no service! Who, sir, for the troops of the line, not because they do not meet moved by the great impulses of patriotism and an ardent my most cordial approval, but because there seems to be love of liberty, opened the great avenue of the revolu- little opposition to that measure. Those troops did us tion at Lexington? The militia. Who were they that great service, and certainly had most miserable pay. volunteered their services against oppression, left the Like the militia, they took what their country could give, peaceful occupations of private life, and marched under and cancelled the legal obligation, but the moral obliga the standard of freedom to Bunker's hill, and offered up tion is still in force.

FEB. 17, 1831.]

The Judiciary.

[H. of R.

Mr. BURGES supported the proposition, and the subject From the best information he was able to collect, he said, was further discussed by Mr. WILDE and Mr. BATES, this judge was worth more than one hundred thousand the latter of whom suggested that a pro rata compensation dollars, and had an annual salary of sixteen hundred. should be allowed to all who had served, whether in the He said that, in his opinion, it never was the intention of line or the militia, either for nine or six months. This he this Government to grant pensions under such circumthought necessary to be done, and it was equally necessary stances, and suffer thousands of meritorious soldiers to that it should be done speedily. drag out the remainder of their days in poverty and want. He said that he felt but little interest on this subject; but he felt it to be his duty to bring it before the House, and with their decision he would be satisfied.

Mr. TAYLOR moved an amendment, providing that the State troops, volunteers, or militia, who should at one or more times have served for two years, or for any period not less than six months, should be included within the benefits of the act.

Mr. ELLSWORTH opposed the amendment; but it was carried without a division.

Mr. SPEIGHT moved an amendment providing that the. provisions of the act should only extend to those who are now, and may be hereafter, reduced to the necessity of ap-| plying to their country for support.

Mr. DODDRIDGE moved the previous question; which, being sustained, cut off Mr. MCCREERY'S motion. Mr. SPEIGHT called for the yeas and nays on the previous question; but the House refused them.

Mr. LEWIS, of Alabama, moved a call of the House, but this also was negatived; and then

The question being put on ordering the bill to be engrossed, and read a third time, it was carried by the fol lowing vote:

Mr. BARRINGER hoped his colleague [Mr. SPEIGHT] would not press his amendment. It would continue and YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Angel, Arnold, Bailey, increase the odious distinction at present existing in pen-Noyes Barber, Barringer, Bartley, Bates, Baylor, Beeksion cases on the part of the rich and poor, by which the man, Boon, Brodhead, Brown, Buchanan, Burges, Butlatter were obliged, were compelled to prove themselves man, Cahoon, Cambreleng, Campbell, Chandler, Childs, to be paupers before they could be entitled to a reward Chilton, Clark, Coleman, Condict, Conner, Cowles, for their services. Crane, Crawford, Crockett, Creighton, Crowninshield,

Mr. POLK said that he should vote for the amendment. John Davis, Deberry, Denny, De Witt, Dickinson, DodThe original pension law of 1818 contained a similar pro-dridge, Dorsey, Dudley, Duncan, Earll, Ellsworth, Geo. vision, as also did that of 1828. Evans, Joshua Evans, Horace Everett, Findlay, Finch, Mr. TUCKER followed, and maintained that the pen- Ford, Forward, Gaither, Gilmore, Grennell, Halsey, Harsioning of the militia was nothing more than the payment vey, Hawkins, Hinds, Holland, Hoffman, Hubbard, of a debt of gratitude due by the nation to those who had Hughes, Hunt, Huntington, Ihrie, William W. Irvin, fought for and obtained its independence. He moved that Jarvis, Johns, Richard M. Johnson, Kendall, Kincaid, the committee rise, and report the bill; but afterwards Perkins King, Adam King, Leavitt, Lecompte, Leiper, withdrew his motion by request. Lyon, Magee, Marr, Martindale, T. Maxwell, McCreery, McIntire, Mercer, Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Overton, Pearce, Pettis, Pierson, Randolph, Reed, Rencher, Richardson, Russel, Sanford, Scott, Wm. B. Shepard, Aug. H. Shepperd, Shields, Semmes, Sill, Smith, Richard Spencer, Sterigere, W. L. Storrs, Strong, Sutherland, Swann, Swift, Taylor, Test, John Thomson, Tracy, Tucker, Varnum, Verplanck, Washington, Weeks, Whittlesey, C. P. White, Edward D. White, Wilde, Williams, Wilson, Yancey, Young.-126.

The subject was further discussed by Messrs. A. II.
SHEPPERD, SPEIGHT, BATES, and BURGES.
The question was then taken on Mr. SPEIGHT's amend-
ment; which was negatived by a vote of yeas 34, nays

not counted.

On the motion of Mr. HUNTINGTON, a provision was adopted to allow to the widow or children of a deceased pensioner the balance of the semi-annual pension following his decease.

The committee then rose, and reported the bill as amended, and the House concurred in the amendments of the committee.

NAYS.--Messrs. Alexander, Alston, Armstrong, Barnwell, James Blair, John Blair, Bockee, Claiborne, Clay, Coke, Craig, Crocheron, Davenport, W. R. Davis, De

Mr. MCCREERY then submitted the following amend-sha, Draper, Drayton, Foster, Fry, Gordon, Haynes,

ment:

And be it further enacted, That the provisions of the act for the relief of certain officers and soldiers of the revolution, passed the 15th day of May, 1828, shall not hereafter be extended to officers who were commissioned after the 30th day of December, 1781, unless they were in the service prior to the date of their commissions; and that all such officers who are now receiving pensions, be stricken from the roll from and after the passing of this act.

Howard, Cave Johnson, Lamar, Lea, Letcher, Lewis,
Loyall, Lumpkin, McDuffie, Nuckolls, Polk, Potter,
Roane, Speight, Sprigg, Standefer, Wiley Thompson,
Trezvant, Vance, Vinton, Wayne, Wickliffe.--43.
The House then adjourned.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17.

THE JUDICIARY.

The House resumed the consideration of the resolution proposing to print six thousand additional copies of the reports of the majority and minority of the Judiciary committee.

Mr. FOSTER rose, and intimated an intention of taking a course of some latitude on the general question, in the remarks which he should offer; when

[ocr errors]

Mr. McC. said that he would, in a very few words, state his reason for offering to the consideration of the House this amendment to the bill. He said that it was notorious that commissions were granted to many after there was any active service performed, and that many of those who were thus commissioned, had not performed any kind of service prior to the date of their commissions, and, consequently performed none afterwards. He said that his Mr. BARRINGER rose to a question of order. attention had been called to this subject by a fact, which desired to know of the Chair whether, after a subject had came to his knowledge some time last session, which was, been before the House, and finally acted on, (as the bill that a certain presiding judge in Pennsylvania, through to repeal the 25th section of the judiciary act had been,) the influence of some of his friends, received a commission it was in order for members to go into the merits of that in the latter part of the year 1782, when he was quite a young man; and, although he never performed any duty, either before or after he was commissioned, is now receiving a pension. If this judge was a poor man, he would not make any objection, but this was not the case.

subject, on an incidental question to print a document.

The SPEAKER replied, that it was not possible for the Chair to prevent members from going into the merits of the reports, to show why an extra number ought or ought not to be printed. They must be permitted to do

H. OF R.]

The Judiciary.

[FER. 17, 1831.

so if they chose, however much the House or the Chair ary act; and yet one clause of it has already been declared might regret it. It was a constitutional right which the by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. The Chair could not restrict. On the question simply to print 13th section of that act provides, among other things, that the reports for the House, the debate would not be in the Supreme Court "shall have the power to issue writs of order; but, on a motion to print an extra number, the mandainus in cases warranted by the principles and usages debate on the merits could not be restrained by the Chair. of law, to any courts appointed or persons holding office Mr. BARRINGER would not contest the decision of under the authority of the United States." But, in the the Chair, although he still thought the latitude taken in celebrated case of Marbury versus Mr. Madison, as Secre the debate irregular, and would be glad if some gentle-tary of State, the Supreme Court determined that the man would suggest a mode by which the sense of the authority thus given was not warranted by the constituHouse might be taken on it.

tion. So, sir, gentleman must admit that the passing of Mr. FOSTER then resumed, and entered into a review this law by the framers of the constitution and their coof the proceedings which had been had on this subject. temporaries is not conclusive as to its constitutionality, or Several weeks ago, the Committee on the Judiciary were that the Supreme Court have erred in their decision--a he instructed, by a resolution of the House, to inquire into resy which charity itself would scarcely tolerate at this day. the expediency of repealing or amending the 25th section) But, Mr. Speaker, I will call the attention of the House of the judiciary act of 1789. Scarcely had this resolution to another section of this act. The constitution declares passed, when an alarm was sounded through the news that "the judicial power (of the United States) shall expapers, and the people were warned that a deep and fatal tend to all cases in law and equity, arising under this blow was meditated against the great judicial tribunal of constitution" &c; and, after enumerating other subjects the country. The committee were denounced even in of jurisdiction, specifies "controversies between citizens anticipation; and we were threatened with the reproaches of different States." The clause first read is general; the and indignation of the people, if we presumed to touch power extends to "all cases in law and equity, arising this hallowed law. But a majority of the committee, act- under the constitution," &c., and even the latter clause is ing under a conscious sense of duty, had the temerity, in entirely unqualified; no particular class of "controversies the midst of these alarms, and in the face of this galling between citizens of different States" is designated, and fire from the press, to make a report recommending the repeal of the section in question, accompanied with a bill for that purpose. The minority of our associates, under a sense of duty equally conscientious, have submitted the counter report which is now on the table.

The bill thus reported, said Mr. F., it was expected would have taken the usual course; but, instead of this, even its second reading was objected to, and its rejection moved, and, on this motion, the previous question was ordered: so that all opportunity of discussing its principles was entirely prevented; and this, too, after a remark by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. DoDDRIDGE,] that the bill reported was equivalent to a motion to dissolve the Union. Sir, we were not even allowed to repel the imputations thus cast on us.

[Here the SPEAKER reminded Mr. FOSTER that it was not in order to allude to the bill which had been reported by the committee, nor to the proceedings of the House with regard to it. He must be confined to the principles contained in the reports proposed to be printed.]

Mr. F. resumed. In order to confine himself to the Imits prescribed by the Chair, he must pass over some remarks he intended to have made, and coine immediately to the reports.

no power is given to Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the court. And yet, sir, in providing for the exercise of this jurisdiction by the circuit courts of the United States, "in suits of a civil nature at common law, or in equity, where the United States are plaintiffs, or an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another State," the eleventh section of the judiciary act requires that the matter in dispute should exceed, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars." Will any gentleman show me where the authority is given to regulate the power of the courts, or the rights of the parties, by the amount in controversy? What clause of the constitution gives Congress the power to throw open the doors of the federal courts to an individual who has a demand of six hundred dollars, and close them against him who claims only four hundred? None, sir; there is no such clause; the distinction is entirely arbitrary and unauthorized.

Sir, there is another section of this act, which merits some consideration. The twelfth section provides, that, "if a suit be commenced in any State court against an allen, or by a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought against a citizen of another State, and the matter in dispute exceeds the sum of five hundred dollars, and The majority of the Judiciary committee, of whom, said the defendant shall, at the time of entering his appearMr. F., am one, maintain that the twenty-fifth section ance in such State court, file a petition for the removal of the judiciary act of 1789 confers upon the Supreme of the cause for trial into the next (United States') cirCourt of the United States powers not authorized nor con- cuit court to be held in the district where the suit is pendtemplated by the constitution. It is my purpose to pre-ing," then, on certain conditions, the State court is prosent some views, in addition to those embraced in the hibited from proceeding any further, but the cause shall report, to establish this position. And, in the outset, I be removed to the circuit court, and then proceed in will notice an argument with which we are so often met the same manner as if it had been brought there by origi on questions of this kind. The law, of which the section nal process." Mr. Speaker, in my view, this is a most under consideration is a part, was passed shortly after the exraordinary provision. Here is an instance of a court's adoption of the federal constitution. Many of the mem-being ousted of its legitimate jurisdiction, without being bers of the Congress by which it was enacted, were also permitted to pronounce a judgment, and that without the members of the convention which framed the constitu- consent of one of the parties. I say its legitimate juristution; they, we are told, certainly knew what powers diction--for it is not pretended that the cause which may were intended to be conferred on the different depart- be thus removed is not cognizable by the State court. ments of the Government, and would not have attempted this were the case, the party would have only to plead to to confer powers not authorized by the constitution. Mr. the jurisdiction of the court, and terminate the suit at once. Speaker, there is much force in this argument. I place But the law, from its phraseology, evidently contemplates great reliance on the exposition of constitutional powers causes in which the State courts have concurrent jurisdicmade by those who aided in the formation and adoption of tion with the courts of the United States; and, if the dethe great charter of this Government. But, sir, the ar- fendant chooses to submit to the jurisdiction of the State gument in this instance proves too much for our adversa- court, and permit bis cause to be tried, its judgment would, ries--it applies with equal force to every part of this judici- doubtless, be valid and binding. Here, then, the court is

[ocr errors]
« PrejšnjaNaprej »