Alabama state intelligencer., 1831-07-09


 assaied, hope they will at least, be treasured up, memorials of the justice and liberality of the go vernment of our country. How agreeable and ani- mating is the change of circumstances they have eff fectedi Uuder their provisions, all the land which had been further credited and reverted the 4th of July, 1929 on which $1 25 per acre, or more, had been paid, (beng much the larger portion of this classy is patented; and, on the balance, only such further payment required, will, in addition to tho sum already paid amount to the minimum price The relinquished land is subject to the right of pre-emp tion of the reinqusher person holding under him, | at corresponding prices limited by ma1''n1m of | $3 50 per acre. We now have reasonable ground to hope for individual competency, and the prosperi- ty of our country. Confidence among us IS now, or | soon will be, restored. Almost every citizen will be the lord of the soil he improves and culti- vates-and we shall soon feel the comfortable that shall reap ,ohere hace It may be admitted that the several acts alluded to, do not reach every mans case-the relief accorded is not quite universal and there some instances of great inequality. But what work of man is perfect2 A. | gain, it be presumed that man, or that five men, control, orinfuence, to every desirable tent the actions, the judgements of the number composing the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Statesl None will be unreasonable to erpect i-few illibera to require it the inability to accomplish such obvious inn possibility. It is true that the act which the result of best exertons at the Session before the last, vehementy assaed by some; and that we were accused of having only passed ia rich mans law"-orgetfu of the rights of the poor It is also true, that while l. with the zealous cooperation of my honorable colleagues was laboring at least with untireng assduty, to efectuate the passage of the "Act to grant pre-emption rights to settlers tho public lands" with sarcastic malevolence, it art fully and insidously whispered, among my constitu- ents of Jackson county, that was c rery talented man-hat had been successful in obtaining relief la,o for the benefit o the rich, but had been able to get up the pro osnptiom bu poor mans tap. At this period, it will be remarked that, by many it believed to be idle and visionary to expect the pas | sage Of such law among this number, doubt not
 there were some who would most loudly have voci- ferated their generations upon if ithad not passed. But, contrary to the expectations of these gloomy prognostcaors, after the lapse of near two months succeeding the passage of the relief law of 31st of March, 1880, Con the 29th May,) the act granting pre-emption rights did pass Yet, although this act was emphatically poor mans aw-for very large majority of those settled on the public lands were men of small property-even this not sufficient evidence to the minds of an unwilling, reluctant few, that was the poor mans friend Indeed those aohO protesS to De the ercluSUe friends 0f he poor cannot well be satisfied that any should participate with them Tn that honor. Nevertheless, was gratihed to discover, what had always believed to be true, that the great majority of those who had derived compa- ravey small advantages from the act of 31st March 1850, were satisfied by truth and rejection They satisfied that no motive could have induced our great anxiety to benefit the poor of Jackson, and oth CT counties embracing settlers on the public lands, which would not have been equally strong, and have produced equal excitement to exertion, in behalf of the same class of citizens in any other county. In regard to pecuniary interest, am sure mine never could be prejudicedby laws the most favorable to the poor-aad, if purposes of ambition to be pro- noted am equally certain, the would be short sighted and foolish, in the extreme, who would ex- pect to advance his aspirations for distinction by pass
 ing laws favorable to the eao iohO rich than the many ,oho poor-or who would set higher value on the vote of poor man in Jackson than he would on the vote of poor man in Madison, Lime stone, Lawrence, or Lauderdale. Such, think was the rational view taken by the people at large, notwithstanding the Uery charitable sinerested and ingenious exertions of few unambious, pure and patriotic individuals to make them sensible of the un pardonabe delinquency oftheir delegation in Congress
 Suffer me to avail mysefofth occason to explain one of my votes given during the late session, which f has been misunderstood by some who am pursuad- ed have desire to do me injustce-whifst 1t has been the subject of misrepresentation by others allude to my vote the bill reported by the Com
 on essSh States.' By some understand have been charg- ed with voting for the passage oftbis bby others more broadly, have been charged with voting for the repeal of the 25th section of the Judiciary act and again I am charged with voting fin favor of changing the present organization fthe Judiciary of the United States" Now it is due to myself to pro- nounce each of these charges-or rather this charge in each of it's forms untrue did not vote for the passage or tne D or 10 repeal the %o sectOn OI tno Judiciary act, or Gin favor of changing the present organization 1.-the Judiciary ofthe United States''- nor did ever make up my mind to give such vote. f It is true that majority of the committee the Ju dietary reported such bil-that majority consisted of Messrs Davis, of South Caroina Daniel of Ken lucky, Foster of Georgia and Gordon of Virginia The bill was opposed by Messrs Buchanan, of Penn sylvana, Ellsworth, of Connecticut, and White. of Louisiana, the other members of that committee Without permitting the bill to go through the ordina " forms, without extending to a majority of ono of the standing committees of the House the courtesy of being heard in support, even in explanation, of the measure they had recommended, the rejec- ton of the bill was moved. For my own part had not been able to read the report of the maor ty, or the counter report of the minority, when was compelled to vote the question of rejecting the bill-and I think it questionable whether the majority of the House had done so It was un
 der these circumstances that voted against the jection of the bill. I did so from belief, which I still entertain, that, in common courtesy, 1t was due to the members of the committee by whom the bill was reported, well to the highly respectable States, which they in part represented, that they should be respectfully heard. It may be well to re- mark that the effect of the 25th section of the Judi
 ciary act the repeal of which was contemplated by tho bill, is to give to the Supreme Court of the Uni
 ted States appellate jurisdiction, and, of course, experimenting control of "he highest court of law equity of State in various classes ofcases which are enumerated. The exercise ofthis power by the Supreme Court of the United States, had more than once produced collision with the State authorities.
 It is believed that the power of the former has been very seriously questioned, where attempted to be exercised, at least by the States ofVrgna Ken lucky, and Georga-probably by others Can it be seriously contended, admitted, that any mere law : of the United States become so hallowed by tme that it is either criminal, censurable, to in- vestgae its principles or to consider, inquire into