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

other man for the purpose of defsnce and they could
give the proceeds Of the lands for the defence Of the
country in way eectual that proposed BY the
BILL Ii should be recoected that N York had claims
the government for her share ohe lands she had given
to this Government the revenue arising from her GUS
toms which was three hs of the of the whole
Union from that source the given the States
as proposed by the bill, worth twenty millions in
any other way. The country was to be defended by
the ability of the people to defend it, This distIibu
ton would relieve the States from their peeanary
banassments, and would be applied by most of them
to the completion Of their internal improvements,
which would greatly add to their means Of defence in
case of war. If the internal improvements Of New
York had existed during the last war; the expense of
transportation which would have been saved IN single
campaign, would have paid the whole cost OF their
construction BY this distribution, the value OF prop
ery and the wealth Of the whole country were vastly
Augmented. Since the construction of the Erie Canal
lands on the Cayuga lake. which before We're worth
but five ten dollars per acre. had risen to 300 OF 6O
and other property in proportion. In case OF war
suppose that the States We're called on to bear their
respective proportions of the burden, and the amount
required from New York were $5OOOOO. ltcould be
raised by tax of one-haf mill per cent. on her prop
erty the value of which had been so increased from
her works of internal improvement. Let the dstrl-
button be made, and the people would be enabled to
bear the burdens that might be required OF them, and
the States and the country would be built up, in the
most effectual manner.
The question was then taken on Mr.. Inns
am endment and decided in the negative, as follows:
\ YEAS-Messrs Allen, Benton, Calhoun, Clay, Of
Alabama, Cuthbert, Fulton, King, Linn, McRoberts,
Mouon, Pierce, Sewer, Tappan, Walker, Williams,
Woodbury., Wright, Young-18.
y NAYS-Messrs. Archer Barrow, Bates, Bayard,
Berien, Buchanan, Choate, Clay, of Kentucky Clay
gum, Merrick, Miller Morehead, Phelps, Porter,
Prentiss 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 Legisla
ture of Pennsylvania to support bill dividing the
proceeds Of the public lands among the States Gin the
ratio Of their federal representative population under
sonal views this subject he believed in the doctrine
of instructions, and would obey them. From this
motive he should offer some amendments to the bill, to
make it of the character which he was instructed to
vote for and if they were adopted he should vote for
the bill which he could not do otherwise He first
moved 70 strkeout the first section Of the BILL which
gives ten per cent. of the nett proceeds to the new
States, Independently of their subsequent equal
share. @N."#%
Mr.. WALKER contended that it was his duty TO
resist such proposition, come from whence might
de insisted that twenty per cent would not be more
than enough, when il was considered how rapid was
the yearly increase Of the Western States.
Mr.. BUCHANAN said he should vote for the
amendment proposed by his friend and colleague, Mr..
Sturgeon, and, if they were adopted he should then
vote for the BILL in obedience to the instructions Of
the Legislature of Pennsylvania.
He referred to the Instructions, which commanded
her Senators "o resist every attempt to deprive Penn
sylyania of her just proportion of the public lands
The bill not framed in accordance with this prin
cple and he referred particularly to the State Of Ar
kansas, which, with vastly less population, would
receive land than Pennsy vania 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, contendng that the ten per centum
was due to the new States.
Mr.. CLAY entreated the Senators from Pennsyl-
vania, to reconsider their decision, and if they
would in reality comply with the intentions of their
Legislature in voting against the bill. Did that Lee
gislature contemplate impracticable BILL as these
amendments would render it, when they required
them to support Distribution bill 2 He moreover
called them to reconsider their decision, as he was
afraid the bill would be lost without their votes I;
whereas, with them, it might be passed.
Mr. BUCHANAN briefly replied, choosing to 60
according to his own understanding of the instruc-
TONS and still declaring that he should against
the bill, unless amended
Mr.. STURGEON expressed similar intentions.
The amendment was then rejected by the following
vote:
YEAS-Messrs. Archer, Buchanan, Calhoun,
Cuthbert, Nicholson, Pierce, Sturgeon, Tappan,
Williams, Woodbury. Wrght-1l
NAYS-Messrs. Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Benton,
Berren, Choate, Clay, Of Alabama Clay Of KY,
Clayton, Dixon, Evans, Fulton, Graham, Henderson,
Huntington, Kerr King, Linn, McRoberts, Mangum,
Merrick, Miller Morehead, Mouton, Porter, Prem
tiss, Rives, Sewer, Simmons, Smith, of Indiana,
Southland, Tallmadge, Walker, White, Young
Another amendment of a similar character, offered
by Mr. STURGEON, was rejected without divi-
sion.
Mr.. ARCHER movedto amend the bill by striking
from the 9Th section that clause which renders the dis
position of the funds obligatory for roads, bridges
nails, &C., which, when made were to be made free
for the use of the United States in transporting the
mail, munitions of war, &c.
This proposition was debated by Messrs. WHITE,
SMITH, Of Indiana, CLAY, HUNTINGTON,
BENTON, and SEWER.
On motion of Mr.. MANGUM, the Senate ad-
journed.