Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1841-02-04
CONG RESS.
Correspondence Of tie Baltimore american.
WAsHiNeroN, Jan. 90.
DISCUSSION IN THE SENATE.


DISCUSSION IN THE SENATE.
The discussion in the Senate was continu- |
ed through the afternoon by Mr.. WEBSTER
in reply to Mr.. CALHOUN, in one of the a
blest speeches have heard--though made
aspromptly as Mr.; Calhoun's, and w,, %%
more preparation than man OF Mr. web
ster's pre-eminent learning and ability al
ways has at command.
Mr.. CALHOUN had laid down the posi- |
tons glanced at in my report sent you to-
day, with an air of steady assurance, If not Of
defiance. He seemed to think that what he
said was unanswerable, and flung out q chal-
lenge almost at the Senator from Massachu-
sets.
There was great crowd ofhearers--nu-
merous and intelligont-whO listened with
eagerness to the whole discussion.
Mr.. WEBSTER said, that the ardent tenn
permanent of the Senator from s. Carolina led
him to attach moro Importance to the subject
before the Senate than it demanded. Moth
ing ought to be held in higher regard than the
Union Of the States. The plan of Distribu-
ton and the others named by the Senator in
stead of being revolutionary, were eminently
conservative in their character. Instead of
being irritating they would be found healing
instead ofinjuring the States, or any por-
ton of them, he believed they would be found
Of injury to no one Of them, and Of benefit to
the whole.
Mr.. WEBSTER proceeded to say that he
knew not what would be the opinions of the
Executive, or the new Administration upon
the subject Of the Distribution.
CMr. CALHOUN interrupted him by say
ing that he had only inferred that Distribution
was to be an Administration measure
hoe the honorable gentleman, continued
Mr NJ ho
than he is usually found in his anticipations,
if his anticipations are, as by hope now ex-
pressed they seem to be, that the new Adr.in
istration will not favour Distribution. Moth
ing was farther from my intention than to
have said any thing which should have led to
the discussion of this subject.
/ had wished thatthis great subject connec-
ted with our Public Lands would have been
postponed to the next session Of Congress,
when others would come hero with express
sions Of opinion more in harmony with the
people. Distribution was favorite measure
with the people. We had proofof this. We
heard yesterday of resolutions adopted in
kentucky, Independent Of party lines. The
discussion of this subject had united parties.
The Legislature of Pa, we heard to-day, had
moved in defence of this great object. The
d. measure had passed the two Houses of Con-
gress. The President that was had given it
great death by putting it in his pocket. If
he had not done so at that time, it would now
have been the law Of the land-or if he had
returned il to Congress, in spite of his obiec-
tions, it would have become the law of the
land. The Senator from S. Carolina hoped
10 prove, as he said, that the measure was I'M
constitutional and disastrous to the country,
and he said he would prove this. How has
he proved it!
will give in as plain way as l can my
reasons for coming to different conclusion.
What is the powert "Congress shall have
power to dispose Of the territory of the U. So
The strongest and perhaps the most unequiv-
no restriction upon the power Of Congress to
dispose ofthe territory. Congress was only
bound by its duty to preserve the public good
IN disposing oft. We may raise revenue
from it,--in whole or in part, just as we may
from the laying oftaxes.
1t was not long since that hypothesis was
laid down that the sales of lands in the new
States was tax upon the people of the new
States. And so one party drove US from the
Custom house, and another from the Lands,
and between both the Constitution would be
found ina pretty predicament. The truth
was, that the powers in regard to Lands and
Duties were independent, and belonged both
TO Congress. Proving this, Mr.. Webster
continued to examine the proofs laid down
by the Senator from S. Carolina; and show
ed, as clear as sunlight, that the cession by
Virginia was cession TO the States individ-
ually, and not, as had been said, in the aggre-
gate. The deed of cessiohsin Virginia was
for the benefit Of the individual States--for
the benefit of the respective States, las contain
ed in the deed Of cession itself.
Mr.. WEBSTER argued this question COM
pactly, and with infinite ability and present. |
ed it form which, think must have met |
the position laid down by Mr.. Calhoun, that |
Distribution was not only just but matter
of duty. There is but one people in the u.
S.--who have two sets of agents-the Gov
eminent and the States. May we not, study
ing their interests, act for the public good in
the establishment Of measures which will re-
lieve their necessities by the passage ola wise
and beneficial law?
have never, said Mr.. WEBSTER, been
able to bring gentlemen who hold State Rights
doctrine in much higher estimation than do,
TO consider the great sacrifice which the mar
itime States made in surrendering the powers
OF laying nxes. twas sacrifice Of their
ali to some of them-to Rhode Island, for ex-
ample-who, had she not surrendered this
power, would have retained within herself the
Iaeans Of enriching her people. Were the
question of direct taxes put to the people, said
Mr.. Webster, would they go to them for the
support of Government, or to customs? To
customs, assuredly.
The States--tbe people Of the States
have right to present their claim to us to
tighten their own burdens--to establish the |
public good. by asking for the Distribution of
the proceeds from the sales Of the Public |
Land and we are bound, as their agents, to |
confer, where we can, the benefit desired by |
them. Cession was considered as proposed |
by MIR. Calhoun, and the objections to it |
strongly pointed out by Mr.. w. The obiec-
sLons to il were not ONLY solid brt ,Ieen and