CHAPTER VII.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SURPLUS.

Benton was supremely self-satisfied with the part he had played in the

struggle with the Bank. But very few thinking men would now admit that

his actions, as a whole, on the occasion in question, were to his

credit, although in the matter of the branch drafts he was perfectly

right, and in that of the re-charter at least occupied defensible

ground. His general views on monetary matters, however, were sound, and

on some of the financial questions that shortly arose he occupied a

rather lonely pre-eminence of good sense among his fellow senators; such

being particularly the case as regards the various mischievous schemes

in relation to disposing of the public lands, and of the money drawn

from their sale. The revenue derived from all sources, including these

sales of public lands, had for some years been much in excess of the

governmental expenses, and a surplus had accumulated in the treasury.

This surplus worked more damage than any deficit would have done.

There were gold mines in the Southern States, which had been growing

more and more productive; and, as the cost of freighting the bullion was

excessive, a bill was introduced to establish branch mints at New

Orleans and in the gold regions of Georgia and North Carolina. Benton

advocated this strongly, as a constitutional right of the South and

West, and as greatly in the interest of those two sections; and also as

being another move in favor of a hard-money currency as opposed to one

of paper. There was strong opposition to the bill; many of the Whigs

having been carried so far by their heated devotion to the United States

Bank in its quarrel that they had become paper-money men. But the vote

was neither sectional nor partisan in its character. Clay led the

opposition, while Webster supported Benton.

Before this time propositions to distribute among the states the revenue

from the public lands had become common; and they were succeeded by

propositions to distribute the lands themselves, and then by others to

distribute all the surplus revenue. Calhoun finally introduced an

amendment to the Constitution to enable the surplus in the treasury

during the next eight years to be distributed among the various states;

the estimate being that for the time mentioned there would be about nine

millions surplus annually. Benton attacked the proposal very ably,

showing the viciousness of a scheme which would degrade every state

government into the position of a mendicant, and would allow money to be

collected from the citizens with one hand in order to be given back to

them with the other; and also denying that the surplus would reach

anything like the dimensions indicated. He ridiculed the idea of making

a constitutional amendment to cover so short a period of time; and

stated that he would greatly prefer to see the price paid for public

lands by incoming settlers reduced, and what surplus there was expended

on strengthening the defenses of the United States against foreign

powers. This last proposition was eminently proper. We were then, as

always, in our chronic state of utter defenselessness against any

hostile attack, and yet were in imminent danger of getting embroiled

with at least one great power--France. Our danger is always that we

shall spend too little, and not too much, in keeping ourselves prepared

for foreign war. Calhoun's resolution was a total failure, and was never

even brought to a vote.

Benton's proposed method of using the surplus came in with peculiar

propriety on account of the conduct of the Whigs and Nullifiers in

joining to oppose the appropriation of three millions of dollars for

purposes of defense, which was provided for in the general fortification

bill. The House passed this bill by a great majority. It was eminently

proper that we should at once take steps to provide for the very

possible contingency of a war with France, as the relations with that

power were growing more threatening every day; but the opposition of the

anti-Jackson men to the administration and to all its measures had

become so embittered that they were willing to run the risk of seriously

damaging the national credit and honor, if they could thereby score a

point against their political adversaries. Accordingly, under the lead

of Webster, Clay, and Calhoun, they defeated the bill in the Senate, in

spite of all that could be done to save it by Benton, who, whatever his

faults, was always patriotic. The appropriation had been very irregular

in form, and under ordinary circumstances there would have been good

justification for inquiring into it before permitting its passage; but

under the circumstances its defeat at the moment was most unfortunate.

For the president had been pressing France, even to the point of

tolerably plain threats, in order to induce or compel her to fulfill the

conditions of the recent treaty by which she had bound herself to pay a

considerable indemnity, long owing by her to the United States for

depredations on our commerce. Now she menaced war, avowedly on the

ground that we were unprepared to resist her; and this vote in the

Senate naturally led the French government to suppose that Jackson was

not sustained by the country in the vigorous position which he had

assumed. In speaking on the message of the president which alluded to

this state of affairs, Benton strongly advocated our standing firmly for

our rights, making a good speech, which showed much historical learning.

He severely reproached the anti-administration senators for their

previous conduct in causing the loss of the defense appropriation bill,

and for preferring to do worse than waste the surplus by distributing it

among the different states instead of applying it according to the

provisions of that wise measure.

This brought on a bitter wrangle, in which Benton certainly had the best

of it. Calhoun was in favor of humiliating non-resistance; he never

advocated warlike measures when the dignity of the nation was at stake,

fond though he was of threatening violence on behalf of slavery or that

form of secession known as nullification. Benton quoted from speeches in

the French Chamber of Deputies to show that the French were encouraged

to take the position that they did on account of the action of the

Senate, and the disposition shown by a majority among the senators

rather to pull down the president in a party struggle than to uphold him

in his efforts to save the national honor in a contest with France. A

curious feature of his speech was that in which he warned the latter

power that, in the event of a conflict, it would have to do with a

branch of the same race which, "from the days of Agincourt and Crecy, of

Blenheim and Ramillies, down to the days of Salamanca and Waterloo, has

always known perfectly well how to deal with the impetuous and fiery

courage of the French." This sudden out-cropping of what, in Bentonian

English, might be called Pan-Anglo-Saxon sentiment was all the more

surprising inasmuch as both Benton himself and the party to which he

belonged were strongly anti-English in their way of looking at our

foreign policy, at least so far as North America was concerned. In the

end France yielded, though trying to maintain her dignity by stating

that she had not done so, and the United States received what was due

them.

Benton strongly opposed the payment by the United States of the private

claims of its citizens for damages arising from the French spoliations

at the end of the last century. He pointed out that the effort to pay

such claims, scores of years after the time of their accruing, rarely

benefits any of the parties originally in interest, and can only do real

service to dishonest speculators. His speech on this matter would not be

bad reading for some of the pension-jobbing congressmen of the present

day, and their supporters; but as concerned these French claims he could

have been easily answered.

In the controversy over the bill introduced by Clay, to distribute the

revenue derived from the public lands among the states for the next five

years, Benton showed to great advantage compared both to the introducer

of the bill himself, and to Webster, his supporter. He had all along

taken the view of the land question that would be natural to a

far-seeing Western statesman desirous of encouraging immigration. He

wished the public lands to be sold in small parcels to actual settlers,

at prices that would allow any poor man who was thrifty to take up a

claim. He had already introduced a bill to sell them at graduated

prices, the minimum being established at a dollar and twenty-five cents

an acre; but if land remained unsold at this rate for three years it was

then to be sold for what it would bring in the market. This bill passed

the Senate, but failed in the House.

In opposing Clay's distribution scheme Benton again brought forward his

plan of using the surplus to provide for the national defenses; and in

his speech showed the strongly national turn of his mind, saying:--

In this great system of national defense the whole Union is equally

interested; for the country, in all that concerns its defenses, is

but a unit, and every section is interested in the defense of every

other section, and every individual citizen is interested in the

defense of the whole population. It is in vain to say that the navy

is on the sea, and the fortifications on the sea-board, and that the

citizens in the interior states, or in the valley of the

Mississippi, have no interest in these remote defenses. Such an idea

is mistaken and delusive; the inhabitant of Missouri or of Indiana

has a direct interest in keeping open the mouths of the rivers,

defending the sea-port towns, and preserving a naval force that will

protect the produce of his labor in crossing the ocean and arriving

safely in foreign markets.

Benton's patriotism always included the whole country in spite of the

strength of his local sympathies.

The bill passed the Senate by a rather close vote, and went to the

House, where it soon become evident that it was doomed to failure. There

was another bill, practically of much the same import, before the

Senate, providing for the distribution of the surplus among the states

in proportion to their electoral votes, but omitting the excellent

proviso concerning the defenses. To suit the views of Calhoun and the

sticklers for strict construction generally, the form of this rival bill

was changed, so that the "distribution" purported to be a "deposit"

merely; the money being nominally only loaned to the states, who pledged

their faith to return it when Congress should call for it. As it was of

course evident that such a loan would never be repaid, the substitution

of "deposit" for "distribution" can only be regarded as a verbal change

to give the doctrinaires a loop-hole for escape from their previous

position; they all took advantage of it, and the bill received

overwhelming support, and was passed by both houses.

Benton, however, stood out against it to the last, and in a very

powerful speech foretold the evils which the plan would surely work. He

scornfully exposed the way in which some of the members were trying, by

a trick of wording, to hide the nature of the bill they were enacting

into a law, and thus to seem to justify themselves for the support they

were giving it. "It is in name a deposit; in form, a loan; in essence

and design, a distribution," said Benton. He ridiculed the attitude of

the hair-splitting strict constructionists, like Calhoun, who had

always pretended most scrupulously to respect the exact wording of the

Constitution, and who had previously refused to vote for distribution on

the ground that it was unconstitutional:--

At the commencement of the present session a proposition was made

[by Calhoun] to amend the Constitution, to permit this identical

distribution to be made. That proposition is now upon our calendar,

for the action of Congress. All at once it is discovered that a

change of name will do as well as a change of the Constitution.

Strike out the word "distribute" and insert the word "deposit," and

incontinently the impediment is removed; the constitutional

difficulty is surmounted, and the distribution can be made.

He showed that to the states themselves the moneys distributed would

either be useless, or else--and much more probably--they would be

fruitful sources of corruption and political debauchery. He was quite

right. It would have been very much better to have destroyed the surplus

than to have distributed it as was actually done. None of the states

gained any real benefit by the transaction; most were seriously harmed.

At the best, the money was squandered in the rage for public

improvements that then possessed the whole people; often it was stolen

outright, or never accounted for. In the one case, it was an incentive

to extravagance; in the other, it was a corruption fund. Yet the

popular feeling was strongly in favor of the measure at the time, and

Benton was almost the only public man of note who dared to resist it. On

this occasion, as in the closing act of the struggle with the

Nullifiers, he showed more backbone than did his great chief; for

Jackson signed the bill, although criticising it most forcibly and

pungently.

The success of this measure naturally encouraged the presentation of

others. Clay attempted to revive his land-money distribution bill, but

was defeated, mainly through Benton's efforts. Three or four other

similar schemes, including one of Calhoun's, also failed. Finally a

clause providing for a further "deposit" of surplus moneys with the

states was tacked to a bill appropriating money for defenses, thereby

loading it down so that it was eventually lost. In the Senate the

"deposit" amendment was finally struck out, in spite of the opposition

of Clay, Calhoun, and Webster. Throughout the whole discussion of the

distribution of the surplus Benton certainly shines by comparison with

any one of his three great senatorial rivals.

He shows to equally great advantage compared to them in the part taken

by him in reference to Jackson's so-called specie circulars. The craze

for speculation had affected the sales of public lands, which were

increasing at an extraordinary rate, nearly twenty-five million dollars'

worth being sold in 1836. As a rule, the payments were made in the notes

of irresponsible banks, gotten up in many cases by the land speculators

themselves. The sales were running up to five millions a month, with

prospect of a boundless increase, so that all the public land bade fair

to be converted into inconvertible paper. Benton had foreseen the evil

results attending such a change, and, though well aware that he was

opposing powerful interests in his own section of the country, had

already tried to put a stop to it by law. In his speech he had stated

that the unprecedented increase in the sale of public lands was due to

the accommodations received by speculators from worthless banks, whose

notes in small denominations would be taken to some distant part of the

country, whence it would be a long time before they were returned and

presented for payment. The speculators, with paper of which the real

value was much below par, could outbid settlers and cultivators who

could only offer specie, or notes that were its equivalent. He went on

to say that "the effect was equally injurious to every interest

concerned--except the banks and the speculators: it was injurious to the

treasury, which was filling up with paper; to the new states, which

were flooded with paper; and to settlers and cultivators, who were

outbid by speculators loaded with this borrowed paper. A return to

specie payments for lands was the remedy for all these evils."

Benton's reasoning was perfectly sound. The effects on settlers, on the

new states, and on the government itself were precisely such as he

described, and the proposed remedy was the right one. But his bill

failed; for the Whigs, including even Webster, had by this time worked

themselves up until they were fairly crazy at the mere mention of

paper-money banks.

Jackson, however, not daunted by the fate of the bill, got Benton to

draw up a treasury order, and had it issued. This served the same

purpose, as it forbade the land-offices to receive anything but gold and

silver in payment for land. It was not issued until Congress had

adjourned, for fear that body might counteract it by a law; and this was

precisely what was attempted at the next session, when a joint

resolution was passed rescinding the order, and practically endeavoring

to impose the worthless paper currency of the states upon the federal

government. Benton stood almost alone in the fight he made against this

resolution, although the right of the matter was so plainly on his

side. In his speech he foretold clearly the coming of the great

financial crisis that was then near at hand. The resolution, however,

amounted to nothing, as it turned out, for it was passed so late in the

session that the president, by simply withholding his signature from it,

was enabled to prevent it from having effect.

Thomas Hart Benton · 第 7 / 15 章