The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-08-14

other man for the purpose OF defence and they could
give the proceeds Of the lands for the defence Of the
country ia way efectual as that proposed by the
bill Ii should be recoiected that n FORK had claims on
the for her share oihe lands she had green
10 this Government the revenue arising from her Gus
toms which threeffths OF the revenue Of the whoie
mon from that the 900 90 gwen TO the States
as proposed sy the BILL worth twenty millions IN
any other way. The country was To lie defended Dy
the abilit, OF the people 10 defend IT, This dIstnbu-
ton would relieve the States from their peeunary EN-
barrassments, and would be applied by mos, OF them
10 the completion Of their internal Improvements
which would greatly add To their means OF defence ~
case Of war. Ii the internal Improvements oi -Ne"
York had existed during the last war, the expense %
transportation which would have been saved m single
campaign, would have paid the whole cost OF theH
construction. BY this distribution, the value OF prop
erty and the wealth of the whole country We're vastly
augmented. Since the construction OF the Erie lanai
lands on the Cayuga Take, whleh before were ~olth
but five or dollars per acre had risen To so or so
and other property in proportion. In case OF war
suppose that the States were called on TO bear iheii
respective proportions of the burden and The amount
required from New York were $500 600 IL could be
raised by tax Of one half mill per cent her prop
erty the value of which had been SO Increased from
her works OF internal improvement Let the distrl-
button be made and the people would be enabled 20
bear the burdens that might be required OF them ana
the States and the country would be built up IN the
most efettual manner
The question was then taken on MI Inns
al endment and decided in the negative as follows
YEAS-Mcssrs Allen Benton, Calhoun, Clay, Of
Alabama Culhbert Fulton, King Linn, MeRobers,
Mouion Pierce SEWER, Japan, Walker, Williams,
Woodbury., Wright, ioung-ls
NAYS-Messrs Archer, Barrow, Bates, Bayard,
Berrien, Buchanan Choate, Clay. of Kentucky, Clay
ton, Dixon, Evans Graham, Huntington, Kerr, Man
gum Merrlck, Miller Morehead, Phelps, Porter,
Prenss Preston, Rves, Smith, of Indiana, Simmons,
Southland Sturgeon, Tallmadge, White-2s.
Mr. STURGEON said it was well known that his
colleague and himself were instructed by the Leglsa'
ture of Pennsylyan 10 support bill dividing the
proceeds OF the public lands among the States I'm the
ratio of their federal representative population under
the census of $50 Whatever might be his per
sonal views, on this subject he believed IN the doctrine
OF iHstructioHs, and would obey them. From this
motive he should offer some amendments the bill
make il of the character which he instructed to
vote for and if they were adopted he should vote for
the bill which be could not do otherwise He first
moved to strike the first section of the BILL which
gives ten per cent of the nett proceeds to The
States, independently Of their subsequent equal
share.
Mr. WALKER contended that il his duty 10
resist such proposition, from whence II might
lie insisted that twenty per cent would not be more
than enough, when i was considered how rapid was
the yearly increase OF the Western States
I Mr.. BUCHANAN said he should vote for the
amendment proposed by his friend and colleague, Mr.
Sturgeon aud if they adopted, he should then
vote for the bill in obedience TO the Instructions Of
| the Legislature OF Pennsylvania.
He referred 10 the instructions which commanded
her Senators ITO resist every attempt 10 deprive Penn
sylsanIa Of her just proportion of the public lands
The bill moi framed in accordance with this prn
cple and he referred particularly to the State Of Ar
kansas, which, with vastly less population, would
receive land than Pennsy vanla. On this ground
OF Inequality he should not vote for the BILL without
the amendments were adopted.
| Messrs SEWER and WALKER warmly opposed
this amendment contending that the ten per centum
| was due to the States.
! Mr CLAY entrealed the Senators from Pennsyl-
vana, to reconsider their decision, and see if they
would IN reality, comply with the intentions of their
Legislature in voting against the bill, Did that LIE
gislature contemplate impraclicable bill, as these
amendments would render it, when they required
! them 10 support a Distribution bill 7 tie moreover
called on them to reconsider their decision as he was
afraid the bill would be lost without their votes ;
whereas, with them, it might be passed
| Mr. BUCHANAN briefly replied, choosing to 20
according to his understanding Of the nstruc-
tons, and still declaring that he should vote against
1 the bill, unless amended.
4 Mr. STURGEON expressed similar intentions
/ The amendment was then rejected by the following
vote
-.-...-.,,vs-rs nrcner, l,.,....4.., ~.unou,.,
| Cuthbet Nicholson, Pierce, Sturgeon, Tappan,
Williams, Woodbury. Wrght-ll.
NAGS-Messrs, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Benton,
4 Berrion, Choate Clay, of Alabama Clay Of XIV
Clayton, Dixon, Evans, Fulton, Graham, Henderson
Huntington, Kerr, King Linn, McRobers, Mangum,
| Menlck, Miller, Morehead, Mouton, Porter, Prem
ss, Riyes, Sewer, Simmons Smith, Of Indiana,
Southland, TalImadge, Walker, White, Young-35.
Another amendment Of similar character offered
by Mr. STU RECON, rejected withou, diyi-
sion.
Mr.. ARCHER moved to amend the bill by striking
from the 9Th section that clause which renders the dis
position Of The funds obligatory for roads bridges
mails, &c, which, when made, to he made free
for the use Of the United States in transporting tie
mail munitions Of war, &c.
This proposition debated by Messrs WHITE,
l SMITH Of Indiana, CLAY HUNTINGTON,
! BENTON and SEWER
On motion Of Mr., MANGUM, the Senate ad-
journed