Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-02-04
CONGRESSIONAL.
SPEECH OF MR. BENTON, OF MISSOURI

In Senate. TAursdav Jan %, lsIl-In reply to Mr..
Webster remarks on the Presumption Bill.
Mr.. BENTON said he had listened attentivey to the
argument of the Senator from Massachusetts Mr.
Webser in favor of the Constitutional power Of Con.
uress to pass the land distribution bill,
unseasonaby, and perscvcrngly pressed upon the at
ention Of the Senate lie had listened to il altentvely
and in hearing all the argument which that Senator had
delivered condensed concentrated il was he be-
lie we'd he had heard all that could be said that point
1T was the sum and substance of all that he had
heard before, either in this chamber, out of it, And
what was it; Nothing more nor less than reference
of our power to the deeds Of cesson, and derivation
of our whole right TO make this Distribution from the
terms and conditions OF these deeds. lie does not pre-
tend derive particle Of power 10 pass this bill except
from those deeds-bc refers 10 nohng else. Now. SIT,
what are the deeds and what is the bill: What docs one
grant and the other cover: The deeds limited 10
the original boundaries Of the u .the Mississippi
the west. and the parallel oi3 degrees the SOUTH the
bin extends TO the Pacific Ocean west TO the Gulf OF
Mexico south! Such is The dierence-the wide d'iicr-
ence between them. ii the argument OF the Senator
from Massachusetts valid far as it went, (Which
in fact it is no) it would not answer his purpose II
would cover the snbjcct-it would not cover the
bill-no more il than an inch square Of carpet
would cover the ample Of this chamber The ar
gument reaches land but the fragments and refuse,
10 be found in few Western Staes-the leavings
after ten twenty, thirty, and forty years of sales in
Mississippi, Alabama, Ohio Indiana Illinois, Michigan.
This is all that the argument reaches. The BILL on the
contrary extends all Florida, stood with lis
cicnt limits extending from the Atlantic TO the Mis-.
sssipp and it extends 20 al Louisiana, in lis greatest
conceivable extent stretching from the Mississippi 10
the Pacific Ocean. Such is the difference between
the argument and the bllSuch the unreasonable dis
lance between the argument and the subject If The
argument was good far it went-:f the deeds Of
cesson actually conferred authority 10 divide among
the States the money received for the lands which they
conveyed-stll il would be worth nothlng for the bill
is not limited 10 tho money received 1t is not Ii,
nii,ed the lands mentioned in the cession acts and
| if it was, would trouble himself about it, The
revenue to be received from those lands is Too insight
| fcant too iDconsdciai,lc contemplate, 10 be
worth the trouble Of distribution. Ii is not 10 these
fragments and lea wings that the distribution party look
They look 10 the rich mine beyond the Missssippilo
the and fresh domain of the ancient Louisiana,
spreading from the western bank of the Father Of Floods
10 the summit OF The Rocky Mountains and thence 10
the shore of the Pacific 1t IS this 10 which the dsri-
button party look-it is this 10 which their bill extends;
and having title to this not word say in favor
of any right touch it, the alternative 10 be 10
say nothing about il TO eschew the argument in toto;
to quote the deeds of cesslon which have relation
TO Florida Lousiana and then rely upon those Deeds
| and ignorance, 10 pass argument which has no
| foundation This seems 10 be the resource of the
whole distribution party, both this floor and else
where, and the Senator from Massachusetts, has not
been able to add iota 10 what have heard before
Mr. Il. said that he intended to bring this argument
to practical test at proper tme-at the time when
the details Of the distribution bill shall be under
dcraion lie should then move 10 limit the distribution
the lands ceded by the States; and ihat proposition
prevailed, there would be end Of the matter; for
there would be nothing to divide, and would
to press The matter In using the word cesson,
speaking of TIE cession acts, and cesson deeds Mr.
said that he by admitted that any land had
been coded, conveyed by those acts TO the Federal
Government. They ceded nothing but right Of pur-
chase from the Indians, and every of this land
which had come into the possession of the Federal Co
vernment, came BY purchase from the Indians-came
BY Indian treaties, and not by State deeds-by paying
money for them, and not by gratuitous donation.
Mr.. B. said, that another argument, not of cnnsti-
tutonality, expediency, but Of pity, was
brought to bear in favor of this policy Ii was the
distress of the States The States were said to be in
debt-to be in dstress-to need relief and the Federal
Government is called upon 10 give ii. This new
and alarming doctrine TO him; il was new and Dor.
tentous and wholly foreign the objects of the Union
and big with fatal results either to the States them
selves, to the Federal Government. From Temporal
ry relief either the Federal Government must go on TO
grant permanent supplies, and thus become the master
Of the States the States, from humble petitioners
must become authoritative claimants, must eventual
y demand right what they asked a favor, and
end with mastering the Federal Government by strip
ping it of all its supplies. Consolidation of the States
is on one hand the dissolution of The Union on the
other. No one foresee which danger is 10 prevail
but all can foresee that the equilibrium between tue |
States and the Federal Government is destroyed from
the moment that they have common Trcasury-from
the moment they look TO tile chest-and either
party no matter which, holds the keys of that chest
From that moment the equilibrium established by our
Constitution is destroyed and one of the parties must
become the master of the other
Mr.. President, continued Mr. B., deprecate this
apparton othe States al the bar ofhe Fede
raj Government in the character of distressed petition