Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1857-08-01
Az ABSTRACT or TIKI SPEECH OF ezE
HkRRIs. AT NASHVILLE.
Prom ne N.sAslis ralqal

Gen. Harris said. that this question had been
settled bY the popular yer let Of the people NJ
teen years ago, having been fully discussed oy
the sblest statesmen OF the age, the voice OF
The people consigned il to the tomb, where n
has slumbered until within four days OF tie ad-
Of the last Congress, when MI. Bell
attempted 10 gslvsnize II INTO lie again, BY the
introduction Of his distribution bill. Why was
that bill introduced at that late hour OF the SEES
sion. when Mr.. Bell knew that no bill intro
ducsd at 30 late an hour in the session could
possibly pass both houses and become the law;
in addition to which be Knew that there "ss a
Democratic majority Of two-thirds IN the SEN
ate standing opposed to distribution, and a Dem
ocratie President who would veto It Il passed.
Mr.. Bell, then, could have had no hope OF IT'S
massage and If we are left to Judge from his
declaration at Murfreesboro in lS4S, that
- Distribution has ceased 10 be a question, the
lands being pledged for the satisfaction OF the
national debt" &c, and from his vote IN the
Senate in 1850, where be records himself
against a direct proposition TO distribute be-
tween the States the proceeds OF the sales OF
the lands, we are authorized to conclude that
he neither expected OF desired its passage, but
sought simply to raise the question as the last
expiring hope Of crushed and defeated Know
Nothingism, and 10 draw of public attention
FROM the political heresies Of that order.
II distribution is important 10 the country at
this time, IL was equally 50 IN 1850. Why then
did Mr.. Fillmore fail 70 recommend il through
out his entire Administration, and why did Mr.
Bell vote against il wAen introduced by Mr.
Dayton?
But. said Gen. H the policy advocated and
preferred By ny competitor in The beginning Of
the canvass, differs widely from that indicated
by Mr.. Bel's bill. Col. hatton proposes to
distribute, not the proceeds Of sales, but to
seize upon and divide between the several
States, every acre Of the public lands thea
selves.
Gen. H. said be bad called upon bis cOmPeti-
tor 10 show him the clause Of The Constitution
that gave Congress the power to divide the
iands between The States, and that Col. Hatton
had referred to this clause:
That Congress shall have power to dis
pose Of aud make all ueedful rules and regula-
tons respecting TIE Territory, Or other prep
erty, belonging to the United States,'' &c.
he said that under this clause Of The Con
s~titution the power OF Congress over the
LANDS and over ALL OTHER PROPERTY belong
ing to the Feieral Government, was precisely
the came. Under this clause Congress has the
same power over the lands that il has over the
money of the treasury, the dock yards, aTsena;s-
navy, and every other species OF propeTty-no
more over one than the other, but precisely TIE
zane over each and over all.
He asked II his competitor would conteId
that Congress has the power TO raise money
from the people by taxation and distribute II
between the States? Let this question be
answered BY Mr.. Clay. In his speech in the
Senate in 1881, he said
d" There Is, fhea, Irepent, no porT or author
ify IN the Geaerai Government 10 lay and col
leci farss, IN orier 10 distribute The proceeds
amsHg he States. Such a huancisl project, If
any administration were mad enough 10 adopt
it, would be a PAGEANT U~sURPATIoN.D
And upon another occasion, at the same
session, be said:
d" For one, however, I will again repeat the
declaration which I made early in the Sc ssion.
that l unite cordially with those WHO condemn
the application Of aay principle Of distribution
among the several States to surplus revenue
derived from taxstion.7
Mr.. Webster, IN various speeches, distinctly
announced the same opinion, and Col Hattor
has utterly failed to prodGce the opinion Of any
one Of the great lights Of either OF the cid par
ties in conflict with this principle.
Gea. H.. said, now II you cannot take the
surplus from the treasury and Distribute Il, upon
what principle can you distribute the lands
If yoH cannot give away gratuitously the mon
ey, how can YOU give away the lands, When
under the Constitution the power Of Congress
is precisely the same ever each
Bet the argument Is, though yOu cannot give
away, or distribute the money that you have
raised by taxation, vet the moment you have
converted it into lane, you may give It to or dis
tribute it between the States. To illustrate the
sOuudness OF this esgUment Of Col Hattou
suppose yesterday you raised By taxation, ter
millions Of dollars. This you have no power
under the Constitution, TO distTibute-to-ds5
you convert the money into land-dl es not The
land represent the moaey? aniis it sot the sans
fund that you raised yesterday by taxation
And is not the power Of Congress under thJ
clause Of the Constitution above quotes pre-
cisely the same over the land that il is oysE the
money? Yet, notwithstanding AL this is ad'
mitted TO he true, the argument Of Col. HastoI
is, that you can distribute the land,
Bat, said Gen. H., let me give you the opin-
ion Of Mr. Webs.sr upon this question:
u LOOK uP0R the public lands as 2 public
fund, and that we are % more authorized 4
give them away gratuiteasly than to give avail
grstuitously the money IN the treasury"
@Now, by the Constitution Of the countfy
the TKUsT, TIE DISPOSITION Of the public .apd
was conferred on Congress, and / ask, is i
possible that any man can maintain the propo.
elton that as they were placed in their hands
as belonging to the whole people OF the Unite,
States, they could transfer the geneYal disposi
fiOH Of them?
at appears to ne, hat they might Just a,
well entertain the proposition 10 farm oat a.
Custom House at Neg York on ctrfain terms
"Nor do know that Congress has anv nor,
authority to give away the public lands, thar
the proceeds Of the Custom-House on particu.
lar stipulation nor can they surrender the con.
troll Of Il any more MaH fheg caR assign I,
others The porsT Of collecting ue rcuenus Of ihl
CEs;0m-Housc IN Boston. or elserhere. see
therefore, objections iasaTmOunfabls, rkefhsr
they assume the shaFe Of a grafHifOas cession %
O trust; IN either case II iTGHSecE9s tie youeT o.
Congress-"
But, said Gen. T., ny competitor says that
by my vote for the swamp land act OF 1850.
committed myself to the constitutional power
Of Congress to giUs land to tie States. / deny
that the swamp land act gave away an acre Of
land, but insist that il was a sale, and, TO the
Federal Government, a very profitable sale
and 50 general was this opinion, that in the
House Of Representatives, composed Of 23d
members, there were only 50 votes against the
bill, and in the Senate I find myself sustained
By the vote Of Mr.. Bell.
The General Government owned millions Of
acres OF rich and valuable lands lying near the
large rivers Of the South ard West that had
been held upon the market from twenty-five to
fifty years without being able to sell them at
any price. Why were they not sold when they
possessed the advantages Of being fertile. pro-
ductiye and near ~naVigable streams? They
could not be sold, for the reason that in their
midst were lakes, marshes, and staenant pools.
generating malaria, disease and death, aud no
sane man was willing to buy land and settle
himself within the scope Of the influence Of a
nuisance Of this character. The General Gov
eminent had not been able, and in the then con-
dition of hose lands, never would have been
able, to realize a dollar from them. Il is clear
that the Government had The power to use a
portion Of the lands themselves, Cor any other
property belonging to the GOVeTnment,) to
make these lands lsbitable, and thereby bring
them into market, settlement and cultivation.
The swamp land act simply proposes to
grant to the States in which the swamp lands
lie, such lands as are swamp and oveInowed
and rendered unit for cultivation, upon the ex-
press condition, ami for the valuable conside-
ration, that those States will buila levees upon
the rivers, so az TO prevent the iufux of water
upon these lands and that they will dig
drches so IS effsctuaIly to Drain and reclaim
then, and asste the nuisance, and thereby
make habitable anC ssleable the dry lands con-
tiguous 30 them, and enable the Government 10
turn them into gold when without thus drain
ing those swamps and marshes, you could not
sell an acre Of your rich and dry lands near
them at any price.
Gen. II. said, TO illustrate the principle, SUD.
pose an Individual has q tract Of land Of 1000
acres that be has labOred TO sell at SIPS psr
acre for forty years, bu', in consequence Of The
existence OF a stsguant pool Of water covering
100 acres Of it, 10 one viii offer any price for
tho one being willing to settle so near a nui-
sance Of that character. The owner saws 10
bis neighbor, if you will construct a leyee 1--WE
miles long on The bank Of the river, SO az TO
protect my land from the influx Of water. and
dig a ditch six miles lohg so az efectraily 10
drain that pond and abate the nuisance. and
thereby make my land hsbitsble and saleable.
/ will make ~youadeed to leo acres Of the 200
acre tract. The ievee 10 made, the ditch il
dug, the pond drained, the nuisance sbated. and
The owner makes q deed according TO agree
ment the question is, did be gius the c~ortrac-
tor the 100 acres Of land, or did the contractor
bay it? Did be not pay for it by bis toll? and
is not he original owner benefited bV having
the other 500 acres made habitable and salea.
bic, II which be could not sell an acre before
At any price? TIT proposition is too clear TO
require argument.
Gen. II. said, that bis competitor insisted
that be was committed upon the question Of
potrer By his vote for the bill that granted bounty
lands to soldiers Ct the Mexican war. Gen.
II. denied that these lands were donated OF