tered rights, they soon after called the attention of Congress to the subject. In the year 1806 I first had the honor of a seat in the Ohio Legislature. No one then doubted the constitutional boundary of the State; no one thought of a provisional boundary, subject to the after control of Congress, or that any consent of Congress then given or withheld, without the consent of the State, could possibly make any alteration of the actual existing boundary. But as the country in the northwest part of the State was then unsettled, and its geographical situation not well understood, and as political movements of much importance were then taking place in the United States, the attention of the General Assembly was not turned to this subject during this session. But the next session the General Assembly took up the subject, and after expressing a belief that the due east and west line drawn through the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan would not intersect Lake Erie, or would intersect that lake east of the Miami river of the Lake, they therefore instructed their Senators and Representatives in Congress to obtain the passage of a law to ascertain and define the northern boundary of the State, and fix the same agreeably to the proviso contained in the sixth section and seventh article of the constitution. The succeeding session renewed the request, and also in the session of 1811. Congress in 1812 passed an act to authorize the President to ascertain and designate certain boundaries. This act was passed in pursuance of the repeated applications of the General Assembly of Ohio, but (the war intervening) was not carried into effect until 1816. In that year the President directed the Commissioner of the Land Office to authorize the Surveyor General to run and mark the northern boundary of Ohio. In pursuance of this authority, the Surveyor General directed Mr. William Harris to run and mark the line to which Ohio asserted jurisdiction, and contends is her true northern boundary. It may not be improper or useless to notice, but is worthy of remark, that this officer (the Surveyor General) had been president of the convention that formed the constitution of Ohio, he had been the first Governor of the State, and afterwards Senator in Congress. As a faithful public officer of the United States, (and that he was no one will doubt,) he was bound to carry into effect the instruction of the Presi dent; and, being fully acquainted with all the circumstances and public acts that had taken place with regard to the northern boundary of the State, he must have believed, and rightfully, that the act of Congress of the 11th January, 1815, creating the Michigan Territory, was unoperative, so far as the same should be found in contact with the constitution of Ohio, and that Congress had given the proper assent to a change in the northern boundary of the State from that described in the ordinance of '87, as well as in the act of 1802, and he directed Mr. Harris to run the line accordingly; and the line thus run was from the most northerly cape of the Miami bay, on a direct course, to the most southerly extreme of Lake Michigan. Governor Cass, of the Michigan Territory, soon after objected to the correctness of this line; and a correspondence took place between him and the Surveyor General on the subject. In a letter from the latter to the former, in 1817, he concludes with the following remarks: "By attending to the words 'with the assent of the Congress of the United States,' and calling to mind that Congress did assent by receiving the State into the Union upon the terms and conditions above expressed, I should suppose no doubt In December can arise relative to the true boundary. following Governor Worthington, (the same gentleman who had formerly been a member of the United States Senate from Ohio,) in his message to the General Assembly, declared that the northern boundary of the [SENATE. State had been lately ascertained, under the authority In looking into the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States on this boundary question, I am not able to view it in any other light than as sustaining the views I have taken on the subject. He says, "It does not appear to me that the convention of Ohio did transcend their powers in proposing for the consideration of Congress the ultimate extension of the northern limits of the State in the manner suggested in the proviso. And as no express objection was made to any part of the constitution, I think it the sounder opinion, that by the admission of the State into the Union, the Congress of the United States assented to the proviso, as well as every part of that instrument. If the assent of Congress was necessary to the admission of Ohio into the Union, as it surely was, and if Congress assented to the proviso in the same manner as to every other part of the constitution, I think the sounder opinion, and the more safe one, to be that every part of the constitution is of equal validity. But the Attorney General thinks there is a difference between the assent of Congress, thus virtually given to the proviso, and its assent to the actual and present extension of the line as described in the proviso. 1 confess I am not well able to understand this distinction, nor can I very well see how Congress could give an implied assent, without that assent becoming obligatory on the United States. The convention of Ohio never intended a provisional line, but a line in part, and that line at all events to be north of the mouth of the Miami river of the Lake. The Attorney General further remarks" that the unanimity with which the Executive and Legislature of Ohio have recently taken the contrary opinion may well admonish him who questions it to do so with great deference to their opinions, and with some distrust of his own." The Attorney General ought, however, to have remembered that this opinion, unanimously entertained by the Executive and Legislature of Ohio, is not of recent date, but has been entertained by every Executive, as well as the legislative body, in Ohio, since the formation of the State Government; and if unanimity of opinion in the one instance ought to create distrust of the correctness of a contrary opinion, this constant unanimity for more than thirty years, by different individuals who have filled the executive and legislative departments of Ohio, ought to be received as conclusive evidence of the correctness of that opinion. If it be possible to settle a question by force of public opinion—and that is the foundation on which this Government, her constitution and laws, must for ever rest-it seems to me that the third part of a century, the age allotted to man, is sufficiently long for that purpose. The Attorney General, however, endeavors to sustain his argument by a reference to the acts and proceedings of Congress subsequent to the admission of Ohio into the Union. I can only say that he seems to have mistaken the views of Ohio: so far as she was concerned or had any agency in the passage of those acts, in no instance has the State admitted, even impliedly, that her constitutional boundary did not extend to the line she now claims; but as doubts existed at what point that line would strike Lake Erie, when accurately run, application was made to Congress for the purpose of ascertaining that fact; and she has been as solicitous to obtain a settlement of the question as she was confident that the line that has been called the provisional line in her constitution was the true and proper boundary of the State. Thus it appears that we have not only had the unanimous opinion of the citizens and public functionaries of our own State, but the acts and proceedings of the public functionaries and officers of the general Government, constantly in favor of the constitutional boundary of Ohio, as that State now asserts it. Jast, though not least, is the opinion of the first law officer of the Government, who admits that Congress did impliedly assent to this proviso in our constitution; and surely, if any act or proceeding of Congress was of such character that the State and people of Ohio could impliedly infer that such assent was given, then surely Congress is bound by every principle of justice and good faith to sustain the just belief and expectation of Ohio in reaffirming that assent, if there exists any doubt or dissatisfaction on the subject; and such most unfortunately and strangely is the case. We will now examine into the cause why it is so. In January, 1805, Congress passed the act establishing the Michigan Territory, and by the provisions of that act imprudently, if not unwittingly, extended the southern boundary of that Territory over the constitutional limits of Ohio; but I am strongly inclined to the opinion, though I cannot assert it as a fact, that the actual exercise of the authority of Michigan was not attempted within those limits until .1818, and after the authorities of Ohio had assessed a tax on the people living within that part of the State included in the Michigan Territory by the act of Congress before mentioned. After this took place, some of the inhabitants applied to the Governor of Michigan for And [MARCH 10, 1836. commissioners or justices of the peace, and other officers, under the authority of that Government, which were readily granted; and thus commenced the jurisdiction of Michigan within the borders of Ohio. After the possession of the disputed territory was thus acquired by Michigan, under color at least of an act of Congress, the application of the military of Ohio would have been unjustifiable in regaining the possession at that time, and would be so still. Congress having cast over our boundary another title, and possession under that_title being obtained whilst we slept, the President of the United States, who is bound to take care that the laws of Congress are faithfully executed, would have been required, by a faithful discharge of his duty, to have sustained the jurisdiction of Michigan against a military force, until Congress should have withdrawn the jurisdiction of that Territory beyond the boundaries of Ohio; and this is all that Ohio now wishes to be done. The people of Ohio will not, I know they will not, endanger the peace and safety of the country by an attempt to prevent the operation of an act of Congress by force. They have already had too many evidences of the justice as well as the liberality of Congress to believe that this will ever be necessary. But this disposition on the part of Ohio, the forbearance of her citizens, will not, I hope, be construed into an abandonment of their rights, or a dulness in comprehending them. Let it be remembered that Ohio has claimed jurisdiction of the country in contest between the State and Michigan, as her undoubted right, being included in her constitutional limits: nothing short of a recognition of this principle will satisfy her people; and it would be an act of humiliation to the State to give to her territory to which she has not a constitutional right, as an act of law, of equity, or political expediency. Sir, there are situations and circumstances under which an honorable mind would recoil in accepting what is unquestionably his own. So with States and nations. The money due us from the French nation could be obtained from that Government by making acknowledgments for an act done, which was clearly proper; and does not every American heart spurn its reception on such terms? And that, too, for the plain and simple reason that it is our just due by compact, and justice and good faith require its payment. Suppose, sir, you give Ohio the boundary claimed by the State, on the score of political expediency, will it not be expected that Ohio, under this obligation, will, on the score of political expediency, be also bound to favor the political views at least of the donors, for this favor, thus gratuitously bestowed? It may be thought that the smallest return she could make would be to act with or for you in future elections, if it should be at the expense of her honor as well as constitutional rights. It will be an entire mistake if you expect to conciliate the favor of the people of Ohio by letting them know that their constitution gave them no such right, but that the same has been granted out of your abundant favor and good will, and as an act of grace. Sir, is not this the language you hold to Ohio, when you talk of political justice and expediency? Ohio, I am fully persuaded, will never so far humble herself as to acknowledge such a principle. It will probably not be insisted on that this bestowment is a mere act of political justice and expediency alone, but that you will give her the territory contained in her constitutional limits as matter of law. Pray, sir, what laws are to be yet enacted, or are already in force? I doubt the power of Congress, and I doubt the capability of my State, to receive any extension of her constitutional boundary, by the mere operation of any act of this Government. If the territory of a State can be enlarged by act of Congress, why, by virtue of the same power, cannot it be diminished? If such power is vest ed in Congress by virtue of the constitution of the United States, then indeed is State sovereignty a solemn mockery. The most that could be done in a case of this kind would be by an act of Congress, approved and ratified by a convention of the people of a State, elected for that purpose, with power to amend the constitution in this particular. If Ohio is to rest upon existing law for the maintenance of her rights, we should be glad to know what particular law is relied on; if the constitution of Ohio is intended, we thank you for your justice, and would be gratified to have it so expressed; if you mean an act of Congress has given it us without our consent to such act, properly obtained, we are still at a misunderstanding. But suppose Ohio obtains her claim as an act of sheer justice, we would be happy to know upon what principle this act is founded, or from what fountain it springs. Is it drawn from the power of Congress, or does it naturally flow from our rights? It is true we ask for noth. ing but justice-naked, simple justice; but we ask that not as an abstract principle, but as our undeniable right. It seems strange, at least to me, that we should feel so much disposed to assail the constitution of the State, and constantly looking after some principle by which we can, with some degree of plausibility, claim the honor of adding to Ohio a strip of territory, which we would make her citizens believe the constitution of the State had not secured to them; when, if we would look directly to that instrument, and make it the man of our choice, we would find it sufficient for our purpose, and there written all that we ask for. Ohio expects this of her own representatives here at least. But, suppose that, after all we have said and done on this subject, Ohio, with more than her million of inhabitants, has been and is still mistaken in this matter, that mistake has grown with her growth and strengthened with her strength; for the last General Assembly, with but one dissenting vote, resolved that the northern boundary of the State is by a direct line running from the southern extreme of Lake Michigan to the most northerly cape of the Miami bay, thence, northeast, to the territorial line. If it can for a moment be supposed that a mistake thus exists, it must, in the first instance, be imputed to a want of correct understanding in the people of Ohio as it respects their own constitution as to the extent and boundaries of the State; and that the legislative body is equally uninformed. I hope we are not prepared to offer this biting compliment to the intelligent citizens of that State, by giving them, as an act of political justice and expediency, that which they uniformly, and from the first, claimed as their constitutional right, but with which the acts of Congress have improvidently interfered. But if it was the intention of Congress as well as the people of Ohio that the northern boundary of the State should be where it is claimed on the part of Ohio, and if a mistake as to the actual fact existed in the passage of the act of Congress to enable the people to form a State Government, that mistake ought at once to be rectified, and Congress do that now which was originally intended to be done; and a declaratory act is all that is necessary on the subject; and there can be no question of expediency involved that ought to induce a different action. The east and west line, drawn through the southern extreme of Lake Michigan, never was in fact the northern boundary of Ohio; nor could it ever have been intended by Congress that the State should be cut off from Lake Erie at any point after her northern line had touched the border of that water, or that the jurisdiction of the State should not extend to the territorial line in the centre of that lake. Yet such would be the case; and a considerable portion of her territory in the northeast part of the State would be without its jurisdiction, and in fact without government or law of any kind, if the line contend [SENATE. ed for on the part of Michigan be in truth the northern boundary of Ohio. It is a well-settled principle, that compacts in part exist as the parties understood and intended at the time of making such contract, and are to be so carried into effect. This principle, I presume, will not be denied in any case. If we apply it to the Ohio boundary question, I can say, with much confidence, (though young at that time,) that not a single individual then in the boundary of the new State about to be formed by virtue of the act of Congress, 1802, would have accepted the provisions of that act, or formed a convention under it, had they not fully believed that the line contemplated by that act would not have intersected the territorial line at or near the mouth of the Detroit river; much less would they have been willing to accept the provisions of the act I have mentioned, with a knowledge that the line would be found where it actually is. Nor would a single citizen of Ohio be now found of a different opinion, was the question at this moment an original one. And I am equally clear in opinion that Congress would never have passed the act with the line as therein contained, and with a full knowledge that the new State about to be formed would, by the letter of that act, be excluded from the margin of the lake at any point after the intersection of that line with its wa ters, because such an act would be contrary to all former proceedings of Congress in their views with regard to new States. Suppose you pass the act in its present form, which imports on its face to be a mere gratuity on the part of Congress, and you place it on the ground of political justice and expediency, I should be glad to know what will prevent a future Congress from again reviewing this question, and at a time when it may be thought political justice and expediency requires its repeal? Are the boundaries of a sovereign State to depend on the fluctuating legislation of Congress? This doctrine of depending exclusively on an act of Congress for their boundary will not satisfy the people of Ohio; they will require something more permanent; and they will not cease in their endeavors until Congress withdraws all jurisdiction, foreign to their constitution and laws, north of a direct line drawn from the most southerly extreme of Lake Michigan to the most northerly cape of the Miami bay, and thus recognising the jurisdiction of the State under the provisions of their own constitution, and which they are fully satisfied no power on earth but themselves has any right to alter, abridge, or restrain in a single jot or tittle. Mr. CLAYTON said that if it really was the object of the Senator who proposed this amendment to commit the Senate on the question of jurisdiction to the disputed territory, by declaring the title already perfected in the State, that of itself would constitute a sufficient objection to his proposition; and if the reasoning of the gentleman were deemed satisfactory by the Senate, and he had established the title of the State without the assent of Congress, the Senate would for that very cause send the State to the Judiciary for redress, and give her no legislative aid whatever. His argument, therefore, was an argument against the claim set up here by Ohio. But the gentleman's reasoning runs counter to his own proposition. His amendment asks of us to assent to the proviso in the constitution of his State, and the line proposed by that proviso, while his whole argument is, that our assent is unnecessary, and therefore improper. His motion is a complete surrender of all his own principles avowed here on this subject. He yields up, by the very act of asking us to adopt his amendment, the whole claim of Ohio, as founded on strict legal right, to the line she wishes, for he thus admits that our consent to that line is indispensable. He does more. He proposes, by his amendment, that we give our consent to the proviso to the 6th section of the 7th article of his State's consti. SENATE.] Missouri Land Claims-Cumberland Road. tution. This is conceding that we never have assented even to that proviso. Now, sir, I hold that we have assented to that proviso, and, if the committee had not thought so too, we should have reported against Ohio. Mr. C. then referred to the letter of the Attorney General to the President, dated 21st March last, and communicated to the Senate by the President in his message of the 9th of December, and read a passage from it to show the distinction then taken between the assent of Congress to the proviso, which merely proposes that the boundary in the bill shall become the boundary of Ohio, with the assent of Congress, on the ascertainment of a fact not formerly known to exist, and the assent of Congress to the boundary line itself depending on that fact. He held that Congress had adopted the whole constitution of Ohio, and consequently the proviso in question, which was a part of it. But Congress had never assented to the boundary in the bill, although he thought it now bound to give its assent to that, because it had assented to that proviso. The amendment, therefore, was improper, as it admitted that Congress had never assented to this proviso. If the Senate thought so, it would perhaps oppose the bill; at least the strongest argument for Ohio was thus swept away. He hoped the amendment would not prevail, and that the bill would pass to give Ohio her line on the true and only principle on which her claim could be rightfully sustained. Mr. EWING said the bill gave to Ohio all that she asked for or desired; and, for his part, he was unwilling to press the question of legal right to the disputed territory, as it could do no possible good, and might very much embarrass the measure. He regretted that his colleague felt it his duty to delay the passage of the bill, or throw difficulties in its way, by urging his amend ment. Mr. MORRIS said he had offered the amendment under solemn convictions of duty, to carry out a principle in which he believed every citizen of Ohio was deeply interested, and which, he believed, would settle this difficulty, as it related to the people of Ohio. Mr. M. asked for the yeas and nays on his amendment; which were ordered and taken; and his amendment was rejected by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Morris, Niles, Wall--3. NAYS-Messrs. Black, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Hill, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, Linn, McKean, Naudain, Nicholas, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Robinson, Shepley, Southard, Tipton, Tomlinson, Walker, White, Wright--34. The question being on the engrossment of the bill, on which the yeas and nays were ordered, the decision was as follows: [MARCH 11, 1836. in Missouri, on the ground that they are entitled to lands confirmed to others by said report. Mr. K. moved for the printing of the memorial, and its reference to the Committee on Private Land Claims. Mr. LINN expressed his surprise at the presentation of the memorial to the Senate after such a lapse of time, and after the report of the commissioners, which was about to be acted on by Congress. The bill to confirm this report was in such a situation on the general orders that it would have been reached before this but for the protracted discussions which had occupied the Senate on important matters; and he intended to have moved to take it up to-day, but would be prevented from doing so by the understanding that a final action was to be had on the abolition memorial, which would most probably consume the remainder of the day. He could not give his assent that this memorial should interfere with the passage of a bill so important to those he represented; indeed, it ought not to have been presented to the Senate at all. It was the duty of these memorialists to have presented their claims, with the evidence in support of them, to the board of commissioners while in session, who would have given every attention to the subject that it merited. Their failure to pursue this plain and obvious course was certainly a good and sufficient reason why the Senate should not listen to their prayer. Mr. KING, of Alabama, replied that he owed it to himself to say that he had no idea that there was any fault belonging to this memorial, or any reason why it should not be presented. It had been handed to him by the memorialists, who were residents of Arkansas, and consequently had no representative on that floor, with a request that he would present it. Had they been citizens of a State, he should certainly have sent them to their representative; but inasmuch as they had no representative in that body, he felt it his duty to comply with their request. They represented to him that they had offered to submit their claims, with the evidence, to the board of commissioners while in session, but were informed that that was not the proper time to receive them, and that when the time arrived they would have due notice of it. This notice, perhaps in consequence of the distance at which they lived from the place of sitting of the board, they never received. At all events, the commissioners adjourned without acting on their claims. Mr. LINN said he had no intention of imputing blame to the Senator from Alabama for presenting the memorial; but he would observe that the memorialists had stated what was not the fact. He himself was a mem ber of the board of commissioners, and knew that the memorialists made no application to be permitted to present testimony to rebut that before the commission. YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Clay-ers, but wanted to have an argument by counsel. He ton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, Linn, McKean, Morris, Naudain, Nicholas, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Robinson, Southard, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Walker, Wall, White -36. NAYS-Messrs. Niles, Ruggles, Shepley--3. So the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. The Senate adjourned. FRIDAY, MARCH 11. MISSOURI LAND CLAIMS. Mr. KING, of Alabama, presented the memorial of several individuals residing in Arkansas, remonstrating against the confirmation of the report of the commissioners appointed to settle and confirm claims to lands had informed them that the commissioners would cheerfully receive all the testimony they might offer, together with a written argument, and give to them the most deliberate consideration; but that they would not waste time in listening for weeks to the arguments of counsel about a matter they wanted to close at once. The petition was then referred, and ordered to be printed. CUMBERLAND ROAD. On motion of Mr. HENDRICKS, the Senate proceeded to the consideration, as in Committee of the Whole, of the bill making appropriations for the repairs and continuation of the Cumberland road in the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri; the question being on Mr. CRITTENDEN'S motion to strike out those words in the bill declaring that the appropriation is made out of the two per cent. fund reserved for making roads in the above States. Mr. CLAY suggested to Mr. CRITTENDEN to withdraw his amendment, which was done; when Mr. C. offered an amendment making the appropriation for Indiana $250,000, and reducing the appropriation for Illinois to $150,000, so that the sum appropriated in the whole bill would be $600,000. Mr. C. adverted to the amount of appropriations made in several preceding years, and stated that the largest amount appropriated to this road in any one year was $450,000, and the appropriation about to be made now was $150,000 more than that sum. These amendments having been agreed to as in Committee of the Whole, the bill was reported to the Senate, and the question recurred in concurring with the amendments as agreed to in Committee of the Whole. Mr. BENTON observed that the State of Missouri was as deeply interested in the bill as the States of Ohio and Indiana. His State, he said, was much dissatisfied with the slow progress made in carrying this road to the Mississippi. He was much surprised at the manner in which gentlemen had agreed to the reduction of these appropriations. He meant to record his vote in opposition to the retardation of the road towards the Mississippi; and on that question he called for the yeas and Days. The yeas and nays were accordingly ordered. Mr. PORTER said that there was also considerable dissatisfaction among his constituents, but it was caused by very different views from those entertained by the constituents of the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. BENTON.] They were in Louisiana against taking the public funds for this road, unless an appropriation was made in which all the States could participate. They of the Southwest were called upon to vote for an appropriation of $500,000 for a road in which they had an interest so weak as to be virtually no interest at all. The gentleman from Kentucky had said he would bring forward a motion to make the system of appropriation general throughout the United States. He was glad to hear it; and hoped he would do it now, as this was as good a time as any to do it. Voting upon the two per cent. fund was a mere delusion. He hoped the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] would oppose this bill now, unless it was made general. Mr. CLAY said the question now before the Senate was only a question of reduction from a large to a smaller amount, and hoped the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. PORTER] would not vote against that. But when the question came to be taken upon the bill itself, perhaps it would be well enough, if the gentleman continued of the same mind, to vote against it. Mr. PORTER said he was not so well acquainted with the rules as the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY,] and had labored under a misapprehension; but if he had not confined himself to the question before the Senate, he had many illustrious examples before him. Mr. LINN said: My friend from Louisiana, [Mr. PoRTER,] complains of a vote given some days since against an amendment offered to this bill by an honorable member from Mississippi, [Mr. BLACK,] which had for its object the making of a great road through the States of Alabama and Mississippi. The policy, expediency, or power of Congress to make such an appropriation for such an object was not, if I remember right, called in question on that occasion. The question was simply, will the Senate, by adopting this amendment, and others that would probably have been proposed, consent so to load the bill as ultimately to ensure its defeat; for if the amend ment offered by the Senator from Mississippi had prevailed, my duty to my constituents would have obliged me to propose another having for its object an appropriation to make the road through the State of Missouri to its western boundary; other members, doubtless, would VOL. XII.-51 [SENATE. have felt themselves constrained to have pursued a similar course. It became apparent to every friend of this great national work, that this course would have ensured its certain defeat. Now, if the gentleman from Louisiana is anxious his constituents should enjoy a portion of the benefits of this road, all he has to do is to vote a continuance of this great highway through Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana, on to the Gulf of Mexico, in the course of which route it is or will be much wanted for military purposes, on account of our proximity to the Mexicans and the vast hordes of Indians thrown along our borders by the policy of the general Government. Mr. BENTON observed that the question was now to concur in the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole. He did not concur in them. He had been laboring for years to get the annual appropriation for this road increased, that its progress might be accelerated, so as to arrive at the Mississippi within the time of those now living. Heretofore the money was not in the treasury to be spared to a sufficient amount to accomplish the object in view; but now that the treasury was full, there was no earthly reason why this great and necessary work should be delayed. The people of Missouri were becoming impatient on the subject, and he and his colleague had for years been receiving petitions and memorials of citizens, and resolves of their Legislature, earnestly asking for the completion of the road. They had been endeavoring to act on them, so as to carry these views into effect; and now that they thought themselves safe, and nearly at a successful termination of their labors, they found the appropriations reduced, by some arrangement of which he knew nothing; if there had been no arrangement, he mistook the signs evinced, and would take back his words. The question was taken on concurring with the amendments offered by Mr. CLAY, and made in committee, and decided in the affirmative: Yeas 29, nays 11, as follows: YEAS--Messrs. Black, Brown, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Hill, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, McKean, Naudain, Niles, Porter, Prentiss, Robbins, Robinsion, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Walker, Webster, White-29. NAYS--Messrs. Benton, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Hubbard, Linn, Morris, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, Wall, Wright-11. The question on concurring in the remaining amendments made in committee, was taken, and carried in the affirmative. Mr. PORTER here submitted an amendment, in substance the same as the one withdrawn by Mr. CRITTEN. DEN, viz: striking out the words in the bill expressing that the appropriation was made out of the two per cent. fund reserved for making roads in the said States. Mr. PORTER said he would, at all events, try the sense of the Senate by this motion. It had been admitted on all hands that this two per cent. fund had long ago been exhausted, and there seemed to imply an absurdity that the money was appropriated out of this fund. Mr. KING, of Alabama, said that he had never admitted it. Mr. PORTER and Mr. KING made some remarks in opposition to each other in relation to the exhaustion of the two per cent. fund. Hr. HENDRICKS contended that the two per cent. fund would go far beyond the amount expended on this road in the State of Indiana. And as the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. KING] had said the road east of Wheeling was made more for Kentucky and Tennessee than for Indiana, he could not see the object of this amendment, unless it was to make the bill less acceptable to some gentlemen on the grounds of the compact. |