gates, which were entered upon the journals of Congress. The following extracts are from that document, viz:

"Is it possible that those States who are ambitiously grasping at territories, to which in our judgment they have not the least shadow of ex'clusive right, will use with greater moderation 'the increase of wealth and power derived from those territories, when acquired, than what they 'have displayed in their endeavors to acquire them?" &c., &c.

"We are convinced, policy and justice require that a country unsettled at the commencement of this war, claimed by the British Crown, and 'ceded to it by the treaty of Paris, if wrested from the common enemy by the blood and treasure of 'the Thirteen States, should be considered as a common property, subject to be parcelled out by Congress into free, convenient, and independent 'Governments, in such manner and at such times as the wisdom of that assemby shall hereafter 'direct," &c., &c.

Virginia proceeded to open a land office for the sale of her western lands, which produced such excitement as to induce Congress in October, 1779, to interpose and earnestly recommend to "the said State and all States similarly circumstanced to forbear settling or issuing warrants for such unappropriated lands, or granting the same during the continuance of the present war.

In March, 1780, the Legislature of New York passed an act tendering a cession to the United States of the claims of that State to the western territory, preceded by a preamble to the following effect, viz:

"Whereas nothing under Divine Providence can more effectually contribute to the tranquillity and safety of the United States of America than a federal alliance on such liberal principles as will give satisfaction to its respective members; and whereas the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union recommended by the honorable Congress of the United States of America have not proved acceptable to all the States, it having been conceived that a portion of the waste and uncultivated territory within the limits or claims of certain States ought to be appropriated as a common fund for the expenses of the war; and the people of the State of New York being on all occasions disposed to manifest their regard for their sister States and their earnest desire to promote the general interest and security, and more especially to accelerate the federal alliance, by removing, as far as it depends upon them, the before-mentioned impediment to its final accomplishment," &c.

This act of New York, the instructions of Maryland, and a remonstrance of Virginia, were referred to a committee in Congress, who reported a preamble and resolutions thereon, which were adopted on the 6th September, 1780; so much of which as is necessary to elucidate the subject is to the following effect, viz:

66

the only obstacle to a final ratification of the Articles of Confederation; and that the Legislature of Maryland be earnestly requested to authorize their delegates in Congress to subscribe the said articles."

Following up this policy, Congress proceeded, on the 10th of October, 1780, to pass a resolution pledging the United States to the several States as to the manner in which any lands that might be ceded by them should be disposed of, the material parts of which are as follows, viz:

"Resolved, That the unappropriated lands which may be ceded or relinquished to the United States by any particular State pursuant to the recommendation of Congress of the 6th day of September last, shall be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States, and be settled and formed into distinct republican States, which shall become members of the Federal Union, and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other States," &c. "That the said lands shall be granted or settled at such times and under such regulations as shall hereafter be agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled, or nine or more of them."

In February, 1781, the Legislature of Maryland passed an act authorizing their delegates in Congress to sign the Articles of Confederation. The following are extracts from the preamble and body of the act, viz:

"Whereas it hath been said that the common ene y is encouraged by this State not acceding to the Confederation to hope that the union of the sister States may be dissolved, and therefore prosecutes the war in expectation of an event so disgraceful to America; and our friends and illustrious ally are impressed with an idea that the common cause would be promoted by our formally acceding to the Confederation," &c.

The act of which this is the preamble, authorizes the delegates of that State to sign the articles, and proceeds to declare, "that, by acceding to the said Confederation, this State doth not relinquish, nor intend to relinquish any right or interest she hath, with the other United or Confederated States, to the back country," &c., &c.

On the 1st of March, 1781, the delegates of Maryland signed the articles of Confederation, and the Federal Union under that compact was complete. The conflicting claims to the western lands, however, were not disposed of, and continued to give great trouble to Congress. Repeated and urgent calls were made by Congress upon the States claiming them, to make liberal cessions to the United States, and it was not until long after the present Constitution was formed, that the grants were completed.

The deed of cession from New York was executed on the 1st of March, 1781, the day the Articles of Confederation were ratified, and it was accepted by Congress on the 29th October, 1782. One of the conditions of this cession, thus tendered and accepted, was, that the lands ceded to the United States "shall be and enure for the use and benefit of such of the United States as shall become members of the Federal alliance of the said States, and

The Virginia deed of cession was executed and accepted on the 1st day of March, 1784. One of the conditions of this cession is as follows, viz:

"Resolved, That copies of the several papers, referred to the committee, be transmitted with a copy of the report to the Legislatures of the several States, and that it be earnestly recommended to those States who have claims to the western country, to pass such laws and give their delegates in Congress such powers as may effectually remove

Within the years 1785, 1786, and 1787, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and South Carolina, ceded their claims upon similar conditions. The Federal Government went into operation under the existing Constitution on the 4th of March, 1789. The following is the only provision of that Constitution which has a direct bearing on the subject of the public lands, viz:

"The 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, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Thus the Constitution left all the compacts before made in full force, and the rights of all parties remained the same under the new Government as they were under the Confederation.

The deed of cession of North Carolina was executed in December, 1789, and accepted by an act of Congress approved April 2, 1790. The third condition of this cession was in the following words, viz:

"That all the lands intended to be ceded by virtue of this act to the United States of America, and not appropriated as before mentioned, shall be considered as a common fund for the use and benefit of the United States of America, North Carolina inclusive, according to their respective and usual proportions of the general charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatever."

The cession of Georgia was completed on the 16th of June, 1802, and, in its leading condition, is precisely like that of Virginia and North Carolina. This grant completed the title of the United States to all those lands, generally called public lands, lying within the original limits of the Confederacy. Those which have been acquired by the purchase of Louisiana and Florida, having been paid for out of the common treasure of the United States, are as much the property of the General Government, to be disposed of for the common benefit, as those ceded by the several States.

By the facts here collected from the early history of our Republic, it appears that the subject of the public lands entered into the elements of its institutions. It was only upon the condition that those lands should be considered as common property, to be disposed of for the benefit of the United States, that some of the States agreed to come into a "perpetual union." The States claiming those lands acceded to those views, and transferred their claims to the United States upon certain specific conditions, and on those conditions the grants were accepted. These solemn compacts, invited by Congress, in a resolution declaring the purposes to which the proceeds of these lands should be applied, originating before the Constitution, and forming the basis on which it was made, bound the United States to a particular course of policy in relation to them, by ties as strong as can be invented to secure the faith of nations.

As early as May, 1785, Congress, in execution of these compacts, passed an ordinance, providing for the sales of lands in the Western Territory, and directing the proceeds to be paid into the treas. ury of the United States. With the same object, other ordinances were adopted prior to the organization of the present Government.

In further execution of these compacts, the Congress of the United States, under the present Constitution, as early as the 4th August, 1790, in “an act making provision for the debt of the United States," enacted as follows, viz:

"That the proceeds of sales which shall be made of lands in the Western Territory, now belonging, or that may hereafter belong, to the United States, shall be, and are hereby, appropriated towards sinking or discharging the debts for the payment whereof the United States now are, or by virtue of this act may be holden, and shall be applied solely to that use, until the said debt shall be fully satisfied."

To secure to the Government of the United States forever the power to execute these compacts in good faith, the Congress of the Confederation, as early as July 13, 1787, in an ordinance for the government of the Territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, prescribed to the people inhabiting the Western Territory certain conditions which were declared to be "articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said Territory," which should "forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent. In one of these articles, it is declared, that

"The Legislatures of those districts or new States shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulation Congress may find

necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers.

This condition has been exacted from the people of all the new territories; and, to put its obligation beyond dispute, each new State, carved out of the public domain, has been required explicitly to recognise it as one of the conditions of admission into the Union. Some of them have declared through their conventions, in separate acts, that their people "forever disclaim all right and title to the waste and unappropriated lands lying within this State, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States."

1. That one of the fundamental principles on which the confederation of the United States was originally based was, that the waste land of the West within their limits should be the common property of the United States.

only of the public debt and the usual expenditures attending the civil and military administrations of the Government; but of the amounts paid to the States with which these compacts were formed, the amounts paid the Indians for their right of possession, the amounts paid for the purchase of Louisiana and Florida, and the amounts paid surveyors, registers, receivers, clerks, &c., employed in preparing for market and selling the western domain. From the origin of the land system down to September 30, 1832, the amount expended for all these purposes has been about $49,701,280; and the amount received from the sales, deducting payments on account of roads, &c., about $38,386,624. The revenue arising from the public

2. That those lands were ceded to the United States by the States which claimed them, and the cessions were accepted, on the express condition that they should be disposed of for the common benefit of the States according to their respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure, and for no other purpose whatsoever.

3. That in execution of these solemn compacts, the Congress of the United States did, under the Confederation, proceed to sell these lands and put the avails into the common treasury, and, under the new Constitution, did repeatedly pledge them for the payment of the public debt of the United States, by which each State was expected to profit in proportion to the general charge to be made upon it for that object.

These are the first principles of this whole subject, which, I think, cannot be contested by any one who examines the proceedings of the Revolutionary Congress, the cessions of the several States, and the acts of Congress under the new Constitution. Keeping them deeply impressed upon the mind, let us proceed to examine how far the objects of the cessions have been completed, and see whether those compacts are not still obligatory upon the United States.

The debt for which these lands were pledged by Congress may be considered as paid, and they are consequently released from that lien. But that pledge formed no part of the compacts with the States, or of the conditions upon which the cessions were made. It was a contract between new parties-between the United States and their creditors. Upon payment of the debts the compacts remain in full force, and the obligation of the United States to dispose of the lands for the common bencft, is neither destroyed nor impaired. As they cannot now be executed in that mode, the only legitimate question which can arise is, in what other way are these lands to be hereafter disposed of for the common benefit of the several States "according to their respective and usual proportion in the general charge and expenditure?" The cessions of Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia, in express terms, and all the rest impliedly, not only provide thus specifically the proportion according to which each State shall profit by the proceeds of the land sales, but they proceed to declare that they shall be " faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatsheter. "This is the fundamental law of the land at this moment, growing out of compacts which are older than the Constitution, and formed the cornerstone on which the Union itself was erected.

In the practice of the Government, the proceeds of the public lands have not been set apart as a separate fund for the payment of public debt; but have been and are now paid into the treasury, where they constitute a part of the aggregate of revenue upon which the Government draws as well for its current expenditures as for payment of the public debt. In this manner, they have hereLofore and do now lessen the general charge upon the people of the several States in the exact proportions stipulated in the compacts.

These general charges have been composed not

The bill before me begins with an entire subversion of every one of the compacts by which the United States became possessed of their western domain, and treats the subject as if they never had existence, and as if the United States were the original and unconditional owners of all the public lands. The first section directs

"That from and after the 31st day of December, 1832, there shall be allowed and paid to each of the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi, and Louisiana, over and above what each of the said States is entitled to by the terms of the compacts entered into between them respectively upon their admission into the Union and the United States, the sum of twelve and a half per centum upon the net amount of the sales of the public lands which subsequent to the day aforesaid shall be made within the several limits of the said States; which said sum of twelve and a half per centum shall be applied to some object or objects of internal improvement or education in the said States, under the direction of their several legislatures."

This twelve and a half per centum is to be taken out of the net proceeds of the land sales before any appointment is made; and the same seven States which are first to receive this proportion, are also to receive their due proportion of the residue, according to the ratio of general distribution. Now, waiving all considerations of equity or policy in regard to this provision, what more need be said to demonstrate its objectionable character, than that it is in direct and undisguised violation of the pledge given by Congress to the States before a single cession was made; that it abrogates the condition upon which some of the States came into the Union; and that it sets at naught the terms of cession spread upon the face of every grant under which the title to that portion of the public lands is held by the Federal Government?

In the apportionment of the remaining seveneighths of the proceeds, this bill, in a manner equally undisguised, violates the condition upon which the United States acquired title to the ceded lands. Abandoning altogether the ratio of distribution according to the general charge and expenditure, provided by the compacts, it adopts that of the federal representative population. Virginia, and other States, which ceded their lands upon the express condition that they should receive a benefit from their sales, in proportion to their part of the general charge, are by the bill allowed only a portion-seven-eighths of their proceeds-and that not in the proportion of general charge and expenditure, but in the ratio of their federal representative population.

The Constitution of the United States did not delegate to Congress the power to abrogate these compacts. On the contrary, by declaring that nothing in it "shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State," it virtually provides that these compacts and the rights they secure, shall remain untouched by the legislative power, which shall only make all needful rules and regulations" for carrying them into effect. All beyond this would seem to be an assumption of undelegated power.

66

These ancient compacts are invaluable monuments of an age of virtue, patriotism, and disinterestedness. They exhibit the price that great States, which had won liberty, were willing to pay for that union, without which they plainly saw it could not be preserved. It was not for territory or State power, that our revolutionary fathers took up arms; it was for individual liberty and the right of self government. The expulsion from the continent of British armies and British power was to them a barren conquest, if, through the collisions of the redeemed States, the individual rights for which they fought, should become the prey of petty military tyrannies, established at home. To avert such consequences, and throw around liberty the shield of union, States, whose relative strength at the time, gave them a preponderating power, magnanimously sacrified domains, which would have made them the rivals of empires, only stipulating that they should be disposed of for the common benefit of themselves and the other confederated States. This enlightened policy produced union, and has secured liberty. It has made our waste lands to swarm with a busy people, and added many powerful States to our Confederation. As well for the fruits which these noble works of our ancestors have produced, as for the devotedness in which they originated, we should hesitate before we demolish them.

But there are other principles asserted in the bill which would have impelled me to withhold my signature, had I not seen in it a violation of the compacts by which the United States acquired title to a large portion of the public lands. It re-asserts the principle contained in the bill authorizing a subscription to the stock of the Maysville, Washington, Paris, and Lexington Turnpike Road Company, from which I was compelled to withhold my consent for reasons contained in my message of the 27th May, 1830, to the House of Representatives. The leading principle then asserted was, that Congress possesses no constitutional power to appropriate any part of the moneys of the United States for objects of a local character, within the States. That principle, I cannot be mistaken in supposing, has received the unequivocal sanction of the American people, and all subsequent reflection has but satisfied me more thoroughly, that the interests of our people, and the purity of our Government, if not its existence, depend on its observance. The public lands are the common property of the United States, and the moneys arising from their sales, are a part of the public revenue. This bill proposes to raise from and appropriate a portion of this public revenue to certain States, providing expressly, that it shall be applied to objects of internal improvement or education within those States,' and then proceeds to appropriate the balance to all the States, with the declaration, that it shall be applied "to such purposes as the Legislatures of the said respective States shall deem proper." The former appropriation is expressly for internal improvements or education, without qualification as to the kind of improvements, and therefore in express violation of the principle maintained in my objections to the turnpike road bill, above referred to. The latter appropriation is more broad, and gives the money to be applied to any local purpose whatsoever. It will not be denied that, under the provisions of the bill, a portion of the money might have been applied to making the very road to which the bill of 1830 had reference, and must of course come within the scope of the same principle. If the money of the United States cannot be applied to local purposes through its own agents, as little can it be permitted to be thus expended through the agency of the State Govern

ments.

It has been supposed that with all the reductions in our revenue which could be speedily effected

by Congress without injury to the substantial interests of the country, there might be for some years to come a surplus of moneys in the treasury, and that there was, in principle, no objection to returning them to the people by whom they were paid. As the literal accomplishment of such an object is obviously impracticable, it was thought admissible, as the nearest approximation to it, to hand them over to the State Governments, the more immediate representatives of the people, to be by them applied to the benefit of those to whom they properly belonged. The principle and the object was, to return to the people an unavoidable surplus of revenue which might have been paid by them under a system which could not at once be abandoned; but even this resource, which at one time seemed to be almost the only alternative to save the General Government from grasping unlimited power over internal improvements, was suggested with doubts of its constitutionality.

But this bill assumes a new principle. Its object is not to return to the people an unavoidable surplus of revenue paid in by them, but to create a surplus for distribution among the States. It seizes the entire proceeds of one source of revenue and sets them apart as a surplus, making it necessary to raise the moneys for supporting the Government and meeting the general charges, from other sources. It even throws the entire land system upon the customs for its support, and makes the public lands a perpetual charge upon the treasury. It does not return to the people moneys accidentally or unavoidably paid by them to the Government, by which they are not wanted; but compels the people to pay moneys into the treasury for the mere purpose of creating a surplus for distribution to their State Governments. If this principle be once admitted, it is not difficult to perceive to what consequences it may lead. Already this bill, by throwing the land system on the revenues from imports for support, virtually distributes among the States a part of those revenues. The proportion may be increased, from time to time, without any departure from the principle now asserted, until the State governments shall derive all the funds necessary for their support from the treasury of the United States, or, if a sufficient supply should be obtained by some States and not by others, the deficient States might complain, and to put an end to all further difficulty, Congress, without assuming any new principle, need go but one step further, and put the salaries of all the State governors, judges, and other officers, with a sufficient sum for other expenses, in their general appropriation bill.

It appears to me that a more direct road to consolidation cannot be devised. Money is power, and in that government which pays all the public officers of the States, will all political power be substantially concentrated. The State governments, if governments they might be called, would lose all their independence and dignity. The economy which now distinguishes them, would be converted into a profusion, limited only by the extent of the supply. Being the dependants of the General Government, and looking to its treasury as the source of all their emoluments, the State officers, under whatever names they might pass, and by whatever forms their duties might be prescribed, would in effect be the mere stipendiaries and instruments of the central power.

I am quite sure that the intelligent people of our several States, will be satisfied, on a little reflection, that it is neither wise nor safe to release the members of their local Legislatures from the responsibility of levying the taxes necessary to support their State governments, and vest it in Congress, over most of whose members they have no control. They will not think it expedient that Congress shall be the tax gatherer and paymaster of all their State governments, thus amalgamating all their officers into one mass of common interest and common feeling. It is too obvious that such a course would subvert our well-balanced system of government, and ultimately deprive us of all the blessings now derived from our happy Union.

However willing might be that any unavoidable surplus in the treasury should be returned to the people through their State Governments, I cannot assent to the principle that a surplus may be created for the purpose of distribution. Viewing this bill as in effect assuming the right, not only to create a surplus for that purpose, but to

divide the contents of the treasury among the States without limitation, from whatever source they may be derived, and asserting the power to raise and appropriate money for the support of every State Government and institution, as well as for making every local improvement, however trivial, I cannot give it my assent.

It is difficult to perceive what advantages would accrue to the old States or the new, from the system of distribution which this bill proposes, if it were otherwise unobjectionable. It requires no argument to prove that if three millions of dollars a year, or any other sum, shall be taken out of the treasury by this bill for distribution, it must be replaced by the same sum collected from the people through some other means. The old States will receive annually a sum of money from the treasury, but they will pay in a larger sum, together with the expenses of collection and distribution. It is only their proportion of seveneighths of the proceeds of land sales which they are to receive; but they must pay their due proportion of the whole. Disguise it as we may, the bill proposes to them a dead loss, in the ratio of eight to seven, in addition to expenses and other incidental losses. This assertion is not the less true because it may not at first be palpable. Their receipts will be in large sums, but their payments in small ones. The Governments of the States will receive seven dollars for which the people of the States will pay eight. The large sums received will be palpable to the senses; the small sums paid, it requires thought to identify. But a little consideration will satisfy the people that the effect is the same as if seven hundred dollars were given them from the public treasury, for which they were at the same time required to pay in taxes, direct or indirect, eight hundred.

I deceive myself greatly if the new States would find their interests promoted by such a system as this bill proposes. Their true policy consists in the rapid settling and improvement of the waste lands within their limits. As a means of hastening those events, they have long been looking to a reduction in the price of public lands upon the final payment of the national debt. The effect of the proposed system would be to prevent that reduction. It is true, the bill reserves to Congress the power to reduce the price, but the effect of its details, as now arranged, would probably be forever to prevent its exercise.

With the just men who inhabit the new States, it is a sufficient reason to reject this system, that it is in violation of the fundamental laws of the Republic and its Constitution. But if it were a mere question of interest or expediency, they would still reject it. They would not sell their bright prospect of increasing wealth and growing power at such a price. They would not place a sum of money to be paid into their treasuries, in competition with the settlement of their waste lands and the increase of their population. They would not consider a small or a large annual sum to be paid to their Governments and immediately expended, as an equivalent for that enduring wealth which is composed of flocks and herds, and cultivated farms. No temptation will allure them from that object of abiding interest, the settlement of their waste lands, and the increase of a hardy race of free citizens, their glory in peace and their defence in war.

On the whole, I adhere to the opinion expressed by me in my Annual Message of 1832, that it is our true policy that the public lands shall cease, as soon as practicable, to be a source of revenue, except for the payment of those general charges which grow out of the acquisition of the lands, their survey and sale. Although these expenses have not been met by the proceeds of sales heretofore, it is quite certain they will be hereafter, even after a considerable reduction in the price. By meeting in the treasury so much of the general charge as arises from that source, they will hereafter, as they have been heretofore, be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States, according to the compacts of cession. I do not doubt that it is the real interest of each and all the States in the Union, and particularly of the new States, that the price of these lands shall be reduced and graduated; and that after they have been offered for a certain number of years, the refuse remaining unsold shall be abandoned to the States, and the machinery of our land system entirely

withdrawn. It cannot be supposed the compacts intended that the United States should retain for ever a title to lands within the States which are of no value, and no doubt is entertained that the general interest would be best promoted by surren dering such lands to the States.

This plan for disposing of the public lands. impairs no principle, violates no compact, and deranges no system. Already has the price of those lands been reduced from two dollars per acre to one dollar and a quarter, and upon the will of Congress it depends whether there shall be a further reduction. While the burdens of the East: are diminishing by the reduction of the duties upon imports, it seems but equal justice that the chief burden of the West should be lightened in an equal degree at least. It would be just to the old States and the new, conciliate every interest, disarm the subject of all its dangers, and add another guarantee to the perpetuity of our happy Union.

Sensible, however, of the difficulties which surround this important subject, I can only add to my regrets, at finding myself again compelled to disagree with the legislative power, the sincere declaration, that any plan which shall promise a final and satisfactory disposition of the question, and be compatible with the Constitution and public faith, shall have my hearty concurrence. ANDREW JACKSON.

December 4th, 1833.
The Message being read,

Mr. CLAY rose and animadverted with severity upon the course pursued by the President, in relation to the bill in question, and concluded by moving to lay the Message on the table.

Mr. KANE inquired whether the gentleman intended by his motion to preclude any future action on the subject?

Mr. CLAY replied that he supposed the bill must be considered as defunct, and no further action could be had upon it.

Mr. BENTON desired to make a few remarks before the subject should be finally disposed of, and if the motion to lay it on the table prevailed, he would move to resume the consideration of the subject, in order to attain his object.

The motion to lay the Message on the table was then agreed to.

Mr. BENTON moved to take up the Message and make it the order of the day for to-morrow.

Mr. POINDEXTER objected to the motion, on the ground that no further action whatever could be constitutionally had on the subject. The Message, like some others from the same quarter, was a departure from the usual practice of the Government, under similar circumstances, and was addressed to the public ear through this body, &c.

Mr. BENTON then rose and replied to the remarks made by Mr. CLAY, and in vindication of the course pursued by the Chief Magistrate. Mr. CLAY rejoined.

Mr. BENTON then withdrew the motion to resume the consideration of the Message.

On motion of Mr. MOORE, 5,000 extra copies of the Message were ordered to be printed. [The incidental debate above alluded to will de given in full hereafter.]

Mr. CLAY gave notice that he would on Tuesday next ask leave to introduce a bill" to appropriate for a limited time, the proceeds of the sales of the public lands."

Mr. CALHOUN gave notice that he would on Monday next move for leave to introduce a bill to repeal the act of last session entitled "An act to amend the several acts providing for the collection of duties on imports."

Mr. BENTON submitted the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to report to the Senate-1st. A statement of the amount of public moneys in the Bank of the United States at the end of each month for each year from the establishment of the Bank to the present time. 2d. The average amount of the same for each year. 3d. The average of the same for the whole time.

Mr. SPRAGUE submitted the following resolution:

Resolved, That the 34th rule of the Senate shall be so amended as to read and stand as it did prior to the 24th day of December, 1828.

should refer a fact for examination to a committee, and require, by a rule, that the evidence of this fact should be the assent of each individual member of the committee, would it be pretended that, in this case, the act of a majority of the committee would be taken in the room of the evidence required? The certificate required by the law of Kentucky is to be the result of the examination by the sheriffs. Those who suppose that this certificate complies with the statute of Kentucky, must consider that the Legislature, in requiring the signature of all the sheriffs, in fact only meant to require the signature of a majority of them. He presented the following view as a test question: Is the law of Kentucky requiring the signature of all the sheriff's complied with by a certificate which is signed by only three out of five of the sheriff's? But suppose that a majority of the House determines that five means the same thing as three, is there no other deficiency in it? He did not rely on technicalities. The gentleman from New Hampshire excluded the last clause of the certificate as surplusage. In fact, the legal effect and common sense of the certificate is, that Thomas P. Moore has the majority of all the votes which they, the sheriff's, thought proper to count-or, what is the same thing, that Thomas P. Moore had all the votes which were not given to other candidates. Was this a certificate that Thomas P. Moore was elected by a majority of the votes of the district? Is this legal evidence that Thomas P. Moore is elected? The sheriff's superadd to the declaration that Thomas P. Moore is duly elected, that they did not count all the votes. That instrument has neither authenticity nor substance. It is not legally authenticated, and if it was, it does not show that Thomas P. Moore was duly elected. In regard to what had been said on the subject of precedents, he contended that a case like this had never before occurred. Suppose a member from the District of Columbia should present himself for qualification, would it be necessary to refer it to a committee? Would not the credentials be called for? Suppose the claimant had brought a certificate signed by a constable, or by half a dozen of his neighbors, would it be received as prima facie evidence of election? In the cases which had been referred to committees, and which the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. POLK] relied on, the claimants presented duly authenticated certificates, If Mr. Moore had brought a formal certificate, there would have been no difficulty in the case. Bu the has brought a paper which is a mere nullity. The question to be settled on this occasion vitally affected the dearest interests of this country. You place the election of members to this House on a loose, indefinite, and unsafe foundation, if you depart from the express words of the laws which are made to guard the purity of elections.

Mr. JONES said, it appeared to him that the honorable gentleman from New York [Mr. BEARDSLEY] had not taken the distinction between judicial and ministerial offices. The sheriffs were bound not to return an opinion, but a fact. He contended that the law required the signatures of all the sheriffs. Some gentlemen had suggested that we had no evidence that any poll was held in Lincoln county. This was an error. At the close of the certificate the sheriff's say, almost in terms, that a poll was taken in Lincoln county, and. it was not taken into the computation. The certificate was insufficient, for the reason that it was not properly authenticated, and for the further reason that on its face it does not declare that the claimant has a majority of all the votes.

Mr. BEARDSLEY said, he could not look behind the certificate, as the usage had been, in all such cases as the present, not to go behind them. Mr. Moore had presented his certificate here, and so had every gentleman his, or it had been sent here by the competent authorities. No objection had been taken to any, except that presented by Mr. Moore, although it was possible to make such, and then the same question would have been presented as in the case before them. He contended, then, that the whole matter came to the simple question, whether the certificate was a substantial compliance with the laws of Kentucky? The material fact in the case is, does the certificate say that all the votes were returned on its face? It does not appear that any votes, if any were taken in Lincoln county, were returned; and saying that

the votes in that county were not taken into the calculation, is saying they were not returned. Mr. HARDIN said, that he had just conversed with both the gentlemen, and they had agreed that the whole subject should be referred to the Committee on Elections, and proposed to modify his first resolution.

Mr. HUBBARD observed, if that was the understanding, he would withdraw his amendment. After some conversation between Mr. POLK and Mr. HARDIN, the resolutions were read, when

zeal and ability of the respective officers at the head of the various bureaus, and of those employed to aid them in the performance of the important functions committed to this branch of the Executive Government.

A reference to the accompanying reports and documents will show the state of the army; as well with relation to its numbers, and their position and condition, as to the progress of the various works intrusted to them, and the collection and preservation of the necessary materiel for offensive and defensive operations, which is indispensable to the safety of the country. The principle, which

Mr. CHILTON thought the resolution ought to be amended, so that the papers produced before the committee should be subject to all legal exceptions. Mr. ARCHER called for a division on the question.

Mr. POLK said, if any difficulty was to arise from the arrangement, he hoped the House would proceed upon it as was originally presented. Notices had been given by the gentlemen of the taking of depositions on both sides, and, in order to prevent difficulty, and protract a decision of the question, it was now agreed, between the parties interested, to read all the papers.

Mr. HARDIN assented to this understanding. Mr. ARCHER said that, although he had no objection to any arrangement which the gentlemen might make, yet he could not consent that the House should ratify anything between them which might compromit the rights of the people of Kentucky. The rights of every elector in the district would be infringed upon; and if he stood alone, he would protest against the House buying terms from Mr. Moore, or any other gentleman, for settling this question.

After some further debate, between Messrs. ARCHER, POLK, HUBBARD, J. DAVIS, and BURGES

Mr. WATMOUGH moved an adjournment; which, being negatived,

The question was taken on the resolution of Mr. HARDIN, as modified, and agreed to, without a division.

Mr. STEWART moved the consideration of the 9th, 56th, and 76th rules, excepted in the adoption of the rules of the House.

Mr. WHITTLESEY expressed a hope that the subject would not be acted upon until after mature consideration. It is extremely difficult to obtain the presence of a majority of a committee even of seven. It often happened that the chairman of a committee could not report, because a majority of the committee could not be brought together. The difficulty would be greatly increased by increasing the number of members of each committee. The responsibility would be so much divided that the committee would not attend to their duties.

In some com

Mr. HUBBARD was persuaded, he said, that some of our important committees should consist of a greater number than seven. mittees every section of the country ought to be represented, and what was the argument urged against the measure? Why, that members of this House would not do their duty.

Mr. WHITTLESEY moved to amend the resolution by adding, “and the absence of a majority of each committee shall be reported to the House;" which was agreed to.

The 56th rule, as amended, was then adopted. On motion of Mr. WILDE, it was ordered that when this House adjourns, it adjourn to meet on Monday.

On motion of Mr. POLK, it was ordered that the standing committees be appointed.

On motion of Mr. POLK, the House then adjourned.

REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR.

DEPARTMENT OF WAR,
November 29th, 1833. (

SIR: In submitting to you, agreeably to your instructions, a report of the operations and administration of this Department for the past year, it affords me pleasure to bear my testimony to the

a peace establishment, has been found by subsequent experience to be salutary; and its practical operation has been to form a body of officers equal in all the requisites of military knowledge and efficiency to those of any other service which is known to us. The army is organized, that, should an increase become necessary, in consequence of those conflicts of interest and opinion, to which all nations in their intercourse with one another have been exposed, and from which we have no right to expect perpetual exemption, any reasonable addition may be made to it, without disturbing its arrangement; and the professional knowledge and experience, embodied in it, will be immediately felt in the new corps, and will identify them with those previously in service. The military experience of other countries, as well as of our own, has shown that the system of extension, by which new and old troops are incorporated together, is much better calculated to produce discipline and subordination, and thus to meet the exigencies of a service, which does not allow large bodies of troops to be kept up in time of peace, than the organization of separate corps, composed of inexperienced officers and men, with all their military knowledge to acquire, and all their military habits to form. And this is more particularly true of the staff department of an army, upon which its movement, its subsistence, and the economy of its administration, must principally depend. The system, established in our service, is equally creditable to the army and satisfactory to the Government, and may be applied to any necessary extent, without any diminution of that economy and efficiency, which have heretofore marked its operation.

Much advantage is anticipated from the operation of the act, passed at the last session of Congress, for improving the condition of the army. Already its effects have been felt, as the subjoined documents will show, in the decrease of desertion, and in the increase of the business of recruiting. The addition to the pay of the rank and file, the reduction of the term of service, and the improved condition of the non-commissioned officers, promise important meliorations in the character of the army. This prospect cannot but be interesting to the Government and the country. Although the numerical strength of the army is comparatively small, it is yet sufficient to excite public solicitude; and this must be increased by the consideration, that the character of our military establishment may hereafter essentially depend upon the measures now taken for its moral and intellectual advancement. Although it were idle, in the present state of the country, to apprehend any danger from the force which is employed, still the lessons of experience taught by the progress of events in other nations, ought not to be neglected, nor the possibility overlooked, that other circumstances may lead to the increase of our military strength, and to the diminution of that wise jealousy, which is now one of our national characteristics. Moral habits in the soldiery constitute one of the best safeguards against the abuse of military power, and their inculcation has engaged the attention of this department during successive periods of its administration. Amongst other measures, which have been adopted, with this view, you have recently directed the discontinuance of all parades on Sunday, in order that that day may be exclusively devoted to the purposes of instruction and improvement. Certainly in time of peace, no just reason can exist, for converting a day of rest and devotion into a day of military parade.

The act for the better defence of the frontiers, by raising a regiment of dragoons, is in the process of execution. About six hundred men have been enlisted, and most of the officers appointed, and five