quantity of public land yet remaining unsold, that the present price is too high, is answered by a reference to the rapidity of sales, &c. The Report notices the proposition, that the price of the public lands is a tax, and that, in the present state and prospects of the revenue, such tax ought to be reduced. The Report denies that there is any tax in the case, and argues that, even on the contrary assumption, those who have already paid the alleged tax are as much entitled to the equitable consideration of the Government, as future purchasers, at reduced rates. It denies, however, that a reduction of the price of the public lands is necessary to accelerate the settlement and population of the States, within which those lands lie. These States are seven in number, viz: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, and Louisiana; and it appears, from some statistical details presented by the Committee, that from 1820 to 1830, the progress of population in the States just named, has been so rapid as to require no additional stimu. lus. The population table, from which this result is derived, and which is appended to the Report, exhibits the gratifying fact, that, during the period just indicated, the whole population of the United States has increased about thirty-three per cent. Each of eleven States exceeded, and each of thirteen States fell short of, that rate of increase. Few political readers are ignorant of the fact, that in the new States of the Confederacy, considerable dissatisfaction has existed, in consequence of the Government being an extensive proprietor of lands within their borders, without paying taxes for it; and of the exemption of such lands from taxation for five years after sale. This state of things has, in those sections of the Union, been regarded as operating injuriously to the resident landholder, by oppressing him with a disproportionate share in the expenses of the State Governments. In noticing the complaints, springing from these circumstances, the committee take occasion to present the other side of the question. They refer to the application, by compact, between the General Government and the new States, of five per cent. on the nett proceeds of land sales to internal improvement; to the land reservations for purposes of education; and to the numerous grants of land for local purposes. In the spirit which has uniformly actuated the General Government on this subject, the committee "recommend an appropriation to each of the seven States referred to, of a further sum of ten per cent. on the nett proceeds of the sales of that part of the public lands which lies within it, for objects of internal improvement in their respective limits." On the second branch of the inquiry, with which the committee were entrusted, viz. the expediency of transferring the Public Lands to the States within which they lie-they remark, that this question comprehends, in its consequences, the cession of the whole Public Domain of the nation: because, they say, cessions similar to those indicated by the letter of the Resolution, would, of course, be hereafter made to future States of the Union. Adverting to the immense amount of the suggested cessions, they state the quantity of the whole public domain to be 1,090,871,753 acres, and its value to be $1,363,589,691. The value of these lands they notice in several aspects; and they allude to the grave character of a measure, which would alienate property of such immense value, belonging to the whole, from its owners, and transfer it to a part only of those owners. They again notice the excellence of the Federal system, in relation to the public lands, and dwell with great force on the defects of any systems that could be substituted for it by the States. Besides the danger of collisions between these States and the spirit of hazardous speculation which would be inevitable incidents of the suggested innovation, another and graver evil would be, the new and dangerous relation of creditor and debtor, which the transfer would establish, between the General and some of the State Governments. The credit system, which it had been found from experience necessary to abolish, would be revived with accumulated grievances; the States would, for their respective purchasers, become debtors to the Federal Government; the identity of their situation in this respect, would produce a community of griefs and of feeling, inspiring projects of disunion; the General Government would be unable to coerce payment from the defaulting States; the very nature of the relations between the General and the State Governments excludes any idea of resorting to the ultimate remedy pursued by one foreign nation to extort justice from another; the Judiciary could afford no desirable aid; it would, moreover, be inequitable in the General Government to seize the property of innocent citizens, to pay debts contracted by the States in their sovereign capacities; the expedient of mortgages on the ceded lands would prevent or retard subsequent sales by the States; and, on the whole, there would be inev. itable delinquency, without a remedy, on the part of the debtor States. The Report repels the idea of cessions for prices merely nominal, as being unjust on the part of the General Government; reminds the Senate that the cessions from Louisiana, Florida, and Georgia, were obtained from the common treasure; and presents some curious, as well as important details, showing the inequality in the acquisitions of the receiving States, as compared with their population, respectively. The general conclusion to which the committee are brought, is, that it is inexpedient for the General Government either to cede the public lands to the States within which they lie, or to reduce their prices. They again advert to the merits of the existing system for surveying and selling those lands. But, they remark, that it may very properly be considered whether the proceeds of sales, being no longer necessary to defray the expenses of the government, may not be beneficially appropriated to some other objects. Before indicating any precise object, they advert to the important duty, incident to a government, of husbanding the resources of a country, in times of prosperity and peace, so as to be ready to meet those adverse vicissitudes, from which all history shows that no nation is exempt. "As the proceeds of the sales of the public lands, are not wanted for ordinary revenues, which will be abundantly supplied from the imports, the committee respectfully recommend that an appropriation of them be made for some other purposes for a limited time, and to be resumed in the contingency of war." In such an event, they might be applied to the prosecution of the war, or to paying any debt that may have been contracted for its prosecution; and, on return of peace, and payment of the war debt, the fund might be again applied to some suitable object, other than that of the ordinary expenses of the government. In regard to the specific appropriation of the fund under the restriction stated, the majority of the committee recommend, that, after deducting the ten per cent. for the new States, the residue of the fund should be divided for five years among the twenty-four States, according to their Federal Representative number, to be applied to Education, Internal Improvements, Coloniza tion, or the redemption of debts incurred for purposes of Internal Improvement, as each State, judging for itself, may prefer. A table is appended to the Report, showing what would be the dividend of each State. A portion of the committee, says the Report, were for applying the above residue to the objects of Internal Improvement, and of colonizing the free blacks, under the direction of the General Government. The Committee conclude their labors by reporting a bill entitled, "an act to appropriate, for a limited time, the proceeds of the sale of the Public Lands of the United States.' This report has not been conclusively acted upon. As a proper appendix to the preceding abstract, we add the following official document : STATEMENT of the amount of money which has been paid by the United States for the title to the public lands, including the payments made under the Louisiana and Florida treaties; the compact with Georgia; the settlement with the Yazoo claimants; the contracts with the several Indian tribes, and the expenditures for compensation to commissioners, clerks, surveyors, and other officers employed by the United States for the management and sale of the western domain; also, the gross amount of money received at the public treasury, as the proceeds of sales of public lands; stated in pursuance of the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 25th of January, 1832. Payment on account of the pur chase of Louisiana: Principal, $14,984,872 28; Interest on $11,250,000, $8,529,353 43 $23,514,225 71 Payment on account of the pur chase of Florida: Principal, $4,985,599 82; Interest to 30th Sept. 1831, $1,265,416 67 Payment of Compact with Georgia, Payment of the settlement with Amount of money received at the Treasury, as the proceeds of public lands, to the 30th September, 1831, 6,251,016 49 1,065,484 06 1,830,808 04 11,852,182 56 3,563,834 54 $48,077,551 40 $37,272,713 31 ferred to a select committee, which committee made a report by their chairman, Mr. Polk, concluding with a resolution that the amendment should not be concurred in by the House. Mr. E. Everett, submitted a counter report, from a minority of the committee, approving the amendment and recommending its adoption. The amendment of the Senate, was, however, rejected by the House. Outfit of a Minister to France. An item in the General Appropriation Bill provided $9000 for an outfit for a minister to France, in the place of Mr. Rives, who has obtained leave to return in October next. This item was struck out in the Senate, and the bill thus amended was sent to the House, where it originated; after a long and animated debate, the amendment of the Senate was non-concurred, and the bill, of course, again sent to that body, where its fate is yet undecided. The Tariff. This is another important measure, on which there has been much debate-no less than three bills proposing certain modifications, are now in the House of Representatives, and one in the Senate. Internal Improvements- Western Steam Navigation. In a debate in the House of Representatives on the Appropriation Bill for Internal Improvements, the following amusing and interesting details were presented : Mr. WICKLIFFE, after remarking that he had been called upon when this bill was in Committee of the Whole, to give some explanation in reference to the proposed appropriation for continuing the removal of the obstructions in the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, but had at that time gone only imperfectly into the subject, said that he would now present to the House a brief statement of facts which he trusted would be sufficient to convince every one of the propriety of retaining this item in the bill. Having made a few remarks expressive of his dissent from that construction of the constitution which confined the power of the General Government in the improvement of rivers to the ebb and flow of tide water, he insisted, that if there was any subject over which its power legitimately extended, and which was free from all objections drawn from the locality of its character, it was this. No one of the states between which these rivers flowed possessed either the physical ability or the right of jurisdiction necessary to the accomplishment of such a work. What state had jurisdiction of the Potomac? Who was it that had placed buoys in that river, and still maintained them? Was it Virginia or Maryland? No. It was the General Government. But all this he supposed was allowable, because these improvements were within the ebb and flow of tide water. But the moment it was proposed to touch those great inland seas which watered the Western States, and which might well be called the Mediterranean of the West, then immediately the constitution contracted its power. To such distinctions he could never subscribe. Mr. Wickliffe then went into some details of facts, going to show the difficulty and danger encountered by those who navigate these rivers, who, possessing the finest climate and soil on earth, found their chief embarrassment to arise from the difficulty of reaching any market with their produce. There descended those rivers, annually, four thousand flat-bottomed boats, averaging 160 tons, and carrying cargoes amounting in value to $4,800,000. There were, besides, 220 steamboats, averaging 175 tons, and worth, with their cargoes, fifteen millions of dollars; forming an aggregate value of the products of the country seeking a market, of upwards of twenty millions of dollars per annum. He then went into an estimate of the extent of water open to steamboat navigation in the Mississippi, and its various tributary streams, the result of which went to show that there were 8,540 miles of such navigation in the West. Was this not an object worthy of a paltry pittance for its preservation? Mr. Wickliffe went on to show that the annual expense of the transportation of the products of the Western States to New-Orleans, amounted to $7,286,000. The losses incurred were very great, amounting on the value of steamboats to sixteen per cent. while the number of persons actually engaged in this work of transportation amounted to not less than 18,000. The whole appropriation which had been made since 1824, amounted to $405,000. In 1826, the appropriation had been $75,000; but owing to the want of experience, that sum had not been very judiciously applied. Since 1827, however, a better system had prevailed, commencing under the superintendence of Mr. M'Kee, and, since his death, farther improved by Mr. Shreeve. Mr. Wickliffe then proceeded to explain the nature of the obstructions from sawyers and planters; and while on the latter subject, adverted to the melancholy loss of the steamboat Tennessee, in 1821, when more property was sacrificed in one hour than all the government had expended in the improvement of those rivers since it commenced to appropriate. He gave some melancholy details of personal suffering and the loss of life on that occasion. The results of the new system were highly beneficial. The snags had been principally removed from an extent of eleven hundred miles on those rivers. He contrasted the former condition of Plum Point, exhibiting a sheet of water two miles in width, rolling with vast rapidity through a forest as thick as any which ever clothed the western valleys, with its present situation, presenting a smooth expanse, free from all obstruction, and affording a safe and easy navigation. With a view to show that the money appropriated had not, as his friend from Tennessee (Mr. Bell) seemed to suppose, been expended to no purpose, he went into a comparative statement of the losses sustained during the five years preceding 1827, and the five years immediately following it. During the former period, the loss had been thirty boats per annum, averaging in value, $300,000; besides seventeen steamboats worth $340,000, and their cargoes worth $682,000, making the average annual loss during those years amount to $1,362,500. Within the latter period, the losses have been five flat-bottomed boats, and seven steamboats, the whole value $381,000, making an annual difference of $981,000. And the loss of even these steamboats, was not so much owing to snags in the river, as to their own frail and decayed condition. Another beneficial result of the improvements had been, that the flat-bottomed boats were now able to run all night, which had before been impossible. The saving in the labor of hands amounted to $24,000 annually; and the whole amount expended by the government while it produced such important public benefits, had been reimbursed more than four-fold in the increased proceeds of the public domain. At the mouth of Red river, two hundred thousand acres of land had been reclaimed, which before was worthless, and now commanded a high price; and at a place called Punch's Point, treble that amount had been reclaimed, and some of it now sold at fifteen dollars an acre. Mr. Wickliffe produced a variety of documents, containing, as he said, abundant evidence of the fidelity and success of the present superintendent, and he quoted from a memorial signed by four or five hundred Western merchants and steamboat owners, praying Congress that the work might be continued. He adverted to the valuable and successful efforts of Mr. Shreeve, in removing the obstructions at the grand chain. In another stage of the discussion, Mr. ASHLEY, of Missouri, described the rapid settlement of the country on the banks of the Missouri, and the still more rapid increase of trade on its waters. He said he had a few days ago received a newspaper, published at St. Louis, wherein seventeen steamboats were advertised, on the same day, for their departure on that day, and in the course of a few days thereafter, of which eight were bound up the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. He had, in the course of the last summer, witnessed, with great pleasure, the difficulty experienced in passing along Water street, in St. Louis, from its being, in a great degree, covered with the products of the Missouri and Upper Mississippi; and, on expressing his surprise at the quantity of Tobacco then on the wharf, he was informed, by a merchant of the city, that in the course of a short time previous, one thousand and four hogsheads of tobacco had been landed at that place. Mr. Ashley estimated the amount of goods, annually transported up the Missouri, including those intended for the Indian and Sante Fe trade, at a million of dollars. The amount intended for the latter trade in 1831, was about $230,000. He said that the snag-boat had been employed in improving the navigation of the Mississippi, between the mouths of the Ohio and Missouri, 45 days, and had removed in that time, 559 snags, from the most dangerous parts of that river. The whole expense attending the operations, did not exceed $83 per day, making a gross amount of $3,735. At one place, 60 miles below St. Louis, he had seen, in one view, and within the distance of one mile, wrecks of four large steam boats, which had been destroyed, by running against snags, Their value, previous to their being wrecked, was not less than $100,000, and, since the operations of the snagboat, no accident of the kind had occurred. Sixteen millions of pounds of lead, he said, had been made in one year in Galena, Illinois. Freights from that place to St. Louis, varied according to the stage of water over the rapids of Desmoine and Rock rivers, from 18 to 50 cents per 100 pounds, and in some instances 62 1-2 cents had been given. It is probable that eight of the sixteen millions was freighted after the water had become low, at fifty cents per hundred pounds, making a difference of $24,000 in the transportation of that quantity. Case of Samuel Houston. The trial of Mr. Houston occupied the House of Representatives a considerable portion of the time from its commencement, early in April, till the 11th of May. On the 18th of April he was brought to the bar of the House, and informed, by the Speaker, of the charge on which he had been arrested. He was attended by his counsel, Francis Key, Esq. Several days were taken up in the examination of witnesses, to prove what Mr. Houston had in substance admitted, viz. the assault on Mr. Stanberry. Mr. Key occupied two days in an argument defending Mr. Houston, and in opposition to the power of the House to punish for breach of privilege. Mr. Houston also delivered a speech in defence of himself. A debate of some days in continuation then followed, on a resolution offered by Mr. Harper of NewHampshire, that the defendant be discharged from custody, and an amendment thereto, proposed by Mr. Huntington of Connecticut, declaring him guilty of contempt. The amendment was finally carried, and Mr. Houston was declared guilty of a contempt and breach of privilege, ayes 106-noes 89. Mr. Clay of Alabama, then moved the followed resolution "Resolved, That it is inexpedient to proceed further in the case of Samuel Houston, and that he be discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. Mr. Huntington moved to amend, by striking out all after the word resolved, and inserting "That Samuel Houston be brought to the bar of the House, on Monday next, at 12 o'clock, and be there reprimanded by the Speaker, for the contempt and violation of the privileges of the House, of which he has been guilty; and that he be then discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. Resolved, That Samuel Houston be excluded from the exercise of the privilege conferred by the 13th standing rule of the House." The first amendment was carried, ayes 106-noes 89. The second was negatived, ayes 90-noes 101. Agreeably to assignment, Mr. Houston was conducted to the bar of the House at 12 o'clock, on the 14th. The Speaker informed him, if he had any thing to offer to the House before judgement was pronounced, it would be received. Mr. Houston then presented the following paper, which, subsequently, on motion of Mr. Archer, was entered on the Journal. To the Honorable the House of Representatives of the United States: The accused, now at the Bar of the House, asks leave respectfully to state, That he understands he is now brought before the House, to receive a reprimand from the Speaker, in execution of the sentence pronounced upon him. Was he to submit in silence to such a sentence, it might imply that he recognized the authority of the House to impose it. He cannot consent that it shall be thus implied. He considers it a mode of punishment unknown to our laws, and, if not forbidden by the prohibition of the Constitution against unusual punishments, yet inconsistent with the spirit of our institutions, and unfit to be inflicted upon a free citizen. He thinks proper to add, in making this declaration, that he has been unwilling to trouble the House. That though he believes that the whole proceeding against him, as well as the sentence he now objects to, unwarranted by the constitution of his country, yet circumstances may exist to justify or excuse a citizen in determining (as he has done on this occasion) to suffer in silent patience, whatever the House may think proper to enforce. SAMUEL HOUSTON. May 14. The Speaker then adddressed him as follows: SAMUEL HOUSTON ! You have been charged with a violation of the rights and privileges of the House of Representatives, in having offered personal violence to one of its members, for words spoken in debate. In exercising the high and delicate power of ascertaining and vindicating their own privileges, the House have proceeded throughout this investigation, and in relation to your individual rights, with all that deliberation and caution which ought to characterize the dignified and moral justice of such an assembly. You have been heard in person in your defence. You have been ably and eloquently defended by eminent counsel, and every facility afforded you, to place your cause fully and fairly before the House, and to urge upon its considexplanation and justification of your conduct! eration, matters of principle as well as fact, in Whatever the motives or causes may have been, which led to the act of violence committed by you, your conduct has been pronounced by the solemn judgement of the House, to be a high breach of their rights and privileges, and to demand their marked disapprobation and censure. If, in fulfilling the order of the House, I were called upon, as its presiding officer, to reprimand an individual, uneducated and uninformed, it might be expected, that I would endeavor, as far as I was able, to impress upon him the importance and propriety of sedulously guarding from violation the rights and privileges, secured to the members of the House, by our invaluable constitution; but, when addressing a citizen of your character and intelligence, and one who has himself been honored by the people with a seat in this House, it cannot be necessary, that I should add to the duty enjoined upon me, by dwelling upon the character or consequences of the offence with which you have been charged and found guilty. Whatever has a tendency to impair the freedom of debate in this house, a freedom no less sacred than the authority of the constitution itself, or to detract from the independence of the Representatives of the people, in the rightful discharge of their high functions, you are no doubt sensible, must, in the same pro 1 |