DISTRIBUTION OF THE PUBLIC LAND REVENUE AND ASSUMPTION OF THE
STATE DEBTS.
About two hundred millions of dollars were due from States and
corporations to creditors in Europe. These debts were in stocks,
much depreciated by the failure in many instances to pay the
accruing interest--in some instances, failure to provide for the
principal. These creditors became uneasy, and wished the federal
government to assume their debts. As early as the year 1838 this
wish began to be manifested: in the year 1839 it was openly
expressed: in the year 1840, it became a regular question, mixing
itself up in our presidential election; and openly engaging the
active exertions of foreigners. Direct assumption was not urged:
indirect, by giving the public land revenue to the States, was the
mode pursued, and the one recommended by Mr. Tyler. In his first
regular message, he recommended this disposition of the public
lands, and with the expressed view of enabling the States to pay
their debts, and also to raise the value of the stock. It was a
vicious recommendation, and a flagrant and pernicious violation of
the constitution. It was the duty of Congress to provide for the
payment of the federal debts: that was declared in the constitution.
There was no prohibition upon the payment of the State debts: that
was a departure from the objects of the Union too gross to require
prohibition: and the absence of any authority to do so was a
prohibition as absolute as if expressed in the eyes of all those who
held to the limitations of the constitution, and considered a power,
not granted, as a power denied. Mr. Calhoun spoke with force and
clearness, and with more than usual animation, against this proposed
breach in the constitution. He said:
"If the bill should become a law, it would make a wider breach
in the constitution, and be followed by changes more disastrous,
than any other measure which has ever been adopted. It would,
in its violation of the constitution, go far beyond the general
welfare doctrine of former days, which stretched the power of
the government as far as it was then supposed was possible by
construction, however bold. But as wide as were the limits which
it assigned to the powers of the government, it admitted by
implication that there were limits; while this bill, as I shall
show, rests on principles which, if admitted, would supersede
all limits. According to the general welfare doctrine, Congress
had power to raise money and appropriate it to all objects which
might seem calculated to promote the general welfare--that
is, the prosperity of the States, regarded in their aggregate
character as members of the Union: or, to express it more
briefly, and in language once so common, to national objects:
thus excluding, by necessary implication, all that were not
national, as falling within the sphere of the separate States.
It takes in what is excluded under the general welfare doctrine,
and assumes for Congress the right to raise money, to give by
distribution to the States: that is, to be applied by them
to those very local State objects to which that doctrine, by
necessary implication, denied that Congress had a right to
appropriate money; and thus superseding all the limits of the
constitution--as far, at least, as the money power is concerned.
Such, and so overwhelming, are the constitutional difficulties
which beset this measure. No one who can overcome them--who
can bring himself to vote for this bill--need trouble himself
about constitutional scruples hereafter. He may swallow without
hesitation bank, tariff, and every other unconstitutional
measure which has ever been adopted or proposed. Yes; it would
be easier to make a plausible argument for the constitutionality
of the measures proposed by the abolitionists--for abolition
itself--than for this detestable bill. And yet we find senators
from slaveholding States, the very safety of whose constituents
depends upon a strict construction of the constitution,
recording their names in favor of a measure from which they have
nothing to hope, and every thing to fear. To what is a course so
blind to be attributed, but to that fanaticism of party zeal,
openly avowed on this floor, which regards the preservation of
the power of the whig party as the paramount consideration?
It has staked its existence on the passage of this, and the
other measures for which this extraordinary session was called;
and when it is brought to the alternative of their defeat or
success, in their anxiety to avoid the one and secure the other,
constituents, constitution, duty, country,--all are forgotten."
Clearly unconstitutional, the measure itself was brought forward
at the most inauspicious time--when the Treasury was empty, a loan
bill, and a tax bill actually depending; and measures going on to
raise money from the customs, not only to support the government,
but to supply the place of this very land money proposed to be given
to the States. Mr. Benton exposed this aggravation in some pointed
remarks:
What a time to choose for squandering this patrimony! We are just in
the midst of loans, and taxes, and new and extravagant expenditures,
and scraping high and low to find money to support the government.
Congress was called together to provide revenue; and we begin with
throwing away what we have. We have just passed a bill to borrow
twelve millions, which will cost the people sixteen millions to pay.
We have a bill on the calendar--the next one in order--to tax every
thing now free, and to raise every tax now low, to raise eight or
ten millions for the government, at the cost of eighteen or twenty
to the people. Sixteen millions of deficit salute the commencement
of the ensuing year. A new loan of twelve millions is announced
for the next session. All the articles of consumption which escape
taxation now, are to be caught and taxed then. Such are the
revelations of the chairman of the Finance Committee; and they
correspond with our own calculations of their conduct. In addition
to all this, we have just commenced the national defences--neglected
when we had forty millions of surplus, now obliged to be attended
to when we have nothing: these defences are to cost above a hundred
millions to create them, and above ten millions annually to sustain
them. A new and frightful extravagance has broken out in the Indian
Department. Treaties which cannot be named, are to cost millions
upon millions. Wild savages, who cannot count a hundred except by
counting their fingers ten times over, are to have millions; and
the customs to pay all; for the lands are no longer to pay for
themselves, or to discharge the heavy annuities which have grown
out of their acquisition. The chances of a war ahead: the ordinary
expenses of the government, under the new administration, not
thirteen millions as was promised, but above thirty, as this session
proves. To crown all, the federal party in power! that party whose
instinct is debt and tax--whose passion is waste and squander--whose
cry is that of the horse-leech, give! give! give!--whose call is
that of the grave, more! more! more! In such circumstances, and
with such prospects ahead, we are called upon to throw away the
land revenue, and turn our whole attention to taxing and borrowing.
The custom-house duties--that is to say, foreign commerce, founded
upon the labor of the South and West, is to pay all. The farmers
and planters of the South and West are to take the chief load, and
to carry it. Well may the senator from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] announce
the forthcoming of new loans and taxes--the recapture of the tea and
coffee tax, if they escape us now--and the increase and perpetuity
of the salt tax. All this must come, and more too, if federalism
rules a few years longer. A few years more under federal sway, at
the rate things have gone on at this session--this sweet little
session called to relieve the people--and our poor America would be
ripe for the picture for which England now sits, and which has been
so powerfully drawn in the Edinburgh Review. Listen to it, and hear
what federalism would soon bring us to, if not stopped in its mad
career:
"Taxes upon every article which enters into the mouth, or covers
the back, or is placed under the foot. Taxes upon every thing
which it is pleasant to see, hear, feel, smell, or taste. Taxes
upon warmth, light, and locomotion. Taxes on every thing on
earth, and the waters under the earth; on every thing that comes
from abroad, or is grown at home. Taxes on the raw material;
taxes on every fresh value that is added to it by the industry
of man. Taxes on the sauce which pampers a man's appetite,
and the drug that restores him to health; on the ermine which
decorates the judge, and the rope which hangs the criminal; on
the brass nails of the coffin, and the ribbons of the bride. At
bed or board, couchant or levant, we must pay. The schoolboy
whips his taxed top; the beardless youth manages his taxed horse
with a taxed bridle, on a taxed road. The dying Englishman pours
his medicine, which has paid seven per cent., into a spoon that
has paid fifteen per cent.; flings himself back upon his chintz
bed, which has paid twenty-two per cent.; makes his will on an
eight-pound stamp, and expires in the arms of an apothecary,
who has paid a license of a hundred pounds for the privilege of
putting him to death. His whole property is then immediately
taxed from two to ten per cent. Besides the probate, large fees
are demanded for burying him in the chancel; his virtues handed
down to posterity on taxed marble, and he is then gathered to
his fathers, to be taxed no more."
This is the way the English are now taxed, and so it would be with
us if the federalists should remain a few years in power.
Execrable as this bill is in itself, and for its objects, and
for the consequences which it draws after it, it is still more
abominable for the time and manner in which it is driven through
Congress, and the contingencies on which its passage is to depend.
What is the time?--when the new States are just ready to double
their representation, and to present a front which would command
respect for their rights, and secure the grant of all their just
demands. They are pounced upon in this nick of time, before the
arrival of their full representation under the new census, to be
manacled and fettered by a law which assumes to be a perpetual
settlement of the land question, and to bind their interests for
ever. This is the time! what is the manner?--gagged through the
House of Representatives by the previous question, and by new
rules fabricated from day to day, to stifle discussion, prevent
amendments, suppress yeas and nays, and hide the deeds which
shunned the light. This was the manner! What was the contingency on
which its passage was to depend?--the passage of the bankrupt bill!
So that this execrable bill, baited as it was with _douceurs_ to old
States, and bribes to the new ones, and pressed under the gag, and
in the absence of the new representation, was still unable to get
through without a bargain for passing the bankrupt bill at the same
time. Can such legislation stand? Can God, or man, respect such work?
But a circumstance which distinguished the passage of this bill from
all others--which up to that day was without a precedent--was the
open exertion of a foreign interest to influence our legislation.
This interest had already exerted itself in our presidential
election: it now appeared in our legislation. Victorious in the
election, they attended Congress to see that their expectations
were not disappointed. The lobbies of the House contained them:
the boarding-houses of the whig members were their resort: the
democracy kept aloof, though under other circumstances they would
have been glad to have paid honor to respectable strangers, only
avoided now on account of interest and exertions in our elections
and legislation. Mr. Fernando Wood of New York brought this scandal
to the full notice of the House. "In connection with this point
I will add that, at the time this cheat was in preparation--the
merchants' petition being drawn up by the brokers and speculators
for the congressional market--there were conspicuous bankers in Wall
street, anxious observers, if not co-laborers in the movement. Among
them might be named Mr. Bates, partner of the celebrated house of
Baring, Brothers & Company; Mr. Cryder, of the equally celebrated
house of Morrison, Cryder & Company; Mr. Palmer, junior, son of Mr.
Horsley Palmer, now, or lately, the governor of the Bank of England.
Nor were these 'allies' seen only in Wall street. Their visits were
extended to the capitol; and since the commencement of the debate
upon this bill in the other House, they have been in the lobbies,
attentive, and apparently interested listeners. I make no comment.
Comment is unnecessary. I state facts--undeniable facts: and it is
with feelings akin to humiliation and shame that I stand up here
and state them." These respectable visitors had a twofold object
in their attention to our legislation--the getting a national bank
established, as well as the State debts provided for. Mr. Benton
also pointed out this outrage upon our legislation:
He then took a rapid view of the bill--its origin, character, and
effects; and showed it to be federal in its origin, associated
with all the federal measures of the present and past sessions;
with bank, tariff, assumption of State debts, dependent upon the
bankrupt bill for its passage; violative of the constitution and the
compacts with the new States; and crowning all its titles to infamy
by drawing capitalists from London to attend this extra session of
Congress, to promote the passage of this bill for their own benefit.
He read a paragraph from the money article in a New York paper,
reciting the names and attendance, on account of this bill, of the
foreign capitalists at Washington. The passage was in these words:
"At the commencement of the session, almost every foreign house
had a representative here. Wilson, Palmer, Cryder, Bates,
Willinck, Hope, Jaudon, and a host of others, came over on
various pretences; all were in attendance at Washington, and
all seeking to forward the proposed measures. The land bill was
to give them three millions per annum from the public Treasury,
or thirty millions in ten years, and to raise the value of the
stock at least thirty millions more. The revenue bill was to
have supplied the deficiency in the Treasury. The loan bill
was to have been the basis of an increase of importations and
of exchange operations; and the new bank was the instrument of
putting the whole in operation."
This Mr. Benton accompanied by an article from a London paper,
showing that the capitalists in that city were counting upon the
success of their emissaries at Washington, and that the passage
of this land bill was the first and most anxious wish of their
hearts--that they considered it equivalent to the assumption of
the State debts--and that the benefit of the bill would go to
themselves. This established the character of the bill, and showed
that it had been the means of bringing upon the national legislation
the degrading and corrupting influences of a foreign interference.
For the first time in the history of our government, foreigners have
attended our Congress, to promote the passage of laws for their own
benefit. For the first time we have had London capitalists for
lobby members; and, mortifying to be told, instead of being repulsed
by defeat, they have been encouraged by success; and their future
attendance may now be looked for as a matter of course, at our
future sessions of Congress, when they have debts to secure, stocks
to enhance, or a national bank to establish.
Mr. Benton also denounced the bill for its unconstitutionality,
its demagogue character, its demoralizing tendencies, its bid for
popularity, and its undaunted attempt to debauch the people with
their own money.
The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. ARCHER], to whose speech I am
now replying, in allusion to the frequent cry of breach of the
constitution, when there is no breach, says he is sick and weary
of the cry, wolf! wolf! when there is no wolf. I say so too. The
constitution should not be trifled with--should not be invoked on
every petty occasion--should not be proclaimed in danger when there
is no danger. Granting that this has been done sometimes--that too
often, and with too little consideration, the grave question of
constitutionality has been pressed into trivial discussions, and
violation proclaimed where there was none: granting this, I must yet
be permitted to say that such is not the case now. It is not now
a cry of wolf! when there is no wolf. It is no false or sham cry
now. The boy cries in earnest this time. The wolf has come! Long,
lank, gaunt, hungry, voracious, and ferocious, the beast is here!
howling, for its prey, and determined to have it at the expense of
the life of the shepherd. The political stockjobbers and gamblers
raven for the public lands, and tear the constitution to pieces to
get at them. They seize, pillage, and plunder the lands. It is not
a case of misconstruction, but of violation. It is not a case of
misunderstanding the constitution, but of assault and battery--of
maim and murder--of homicide and assassination--committed upon
it. Never has such a daring outrage been perpetrated--never such
a contravention of the object of a confederation--never such a
total perversion, and barefaced departure, from all the purposes
for which a community of States bound themselves together for the
defence, and not for the plunder of each other. No, sir! no! The
constitution was not made to divide money. This confederacy was
not framed for a distribution among its members of lands, money,
property, or effects of any kind. It contains rules and directions
for raising money--for levying duties equally, which the new tariff
will violate; and for raising direct taxes in proportion to federal
population; but it contains no rule for dividing money; and the
distributors have to make one as they go, and the rule they make
is precisely the one that is necessary to carry the bill; and that
varies with the varying strength of the distributing party. In
1836, in the deposit act, it was the federal representation in the
two Houses of Congress: in this bill, as it came from the House
of Representatives, it was the federal numbers. We have put in
representation: it will come back to us with numbers; and numbers
will prevail; for it is a mere case of plunder--the plunder of the
young States by the old ones--of the weak by the strong. Sir, it
is sixteen years since these schemes of distribution were brought
into this chamber, and I have viewed them all in the same light,
and given them all the same indignant opposition. I have opposed
all these schemes as unconstitutional, immoral, fatal to the Union,
degrading to the people, debauching to the States; and inevitably
tending to centralism on one hand or to disruption on the other. I
have opposed the whole, beginning with the first proposition of a
senator from New Jersey [Mr. DICKERSON], to divide five millions
of the sinking fund, and following the baneful scheme through all
its modifications for the distribution of surplus revenue, and
finally of land revenue. I have opposed the whole, adhering to the
constitution, and to the objects of the confederacy, and scorning
the ephemeral popularity which a venal system of plunder could
purchase from the victims, or the dupes of a false and sordid policy.
I scorn the bill: I scout its vaunted popularity: I detest it. Nor
can I conceive of an object more pitiable and contemptible than that
of the demagogue haranguing for votes, and exhibiting his tables of
dollars and acres, in order to show each voter, or each State, how
much money they will be able to obtain from the Treasury if the land
bill passes. Such haranguing, and such exhibition, is the address of
impudence and knavery to supposed ignorance, meanness, and folly.
It is treating the people as if they were penny wise and pound
foolish; and still more mean than foolish. Why, the land revenue,
after deducting the expenses, if fairly divided among the people,
would not exceed ninepence a head per annum; if fairly divided among
the States, and applied to their debts, it would not supersede above
ninepence per annum of taxation upon the units of the population.
The day for land sales have gone by. The sales of this year do not
exceed a million and a half of dollars, which would not leave more
than a million for distribution; which, among sixteen millions of
people would be exactly fourpence half penny, Virginia money, per
head! a _fip_ in New York, and a _picaillon_ in Louisiana. At two
millions, it would be ninepence a head in Virginia, equivalent to a
_levy_ in New York, and a _bit_ in Louisiana! precisely the amount
which, in specie times, a gentleman gives to a negro boy for holding
his horse a minute at the door. And for this miserable doit--this
insignificant subdivision of a shilling--a York shilling--can the
demagogue suppose that the people are base enough to violate their
constitution, mean enough to surrender the defence of their country,
and stupid enough to be taxed in their coffee, tea, salt, sugar,
coats, hats, blankets, shoes, shirts; and every article of comfort,
decency, or necessity, which they eat, drink, or wear; or on which
they stand, sit, sleep, or lie?
* * * * *
The bill was bound to pass. Besides being in the same boat with the
other cardinal whig measures--bank, bankrupt, repeal of independent
treasury--and all arranged to pass together; and besides being
pushed along and supported by the London bankers--it contained
within itself the means of success. It was richly freighted with
inducements to conciliate every interest. To every new State it
made a preliminary distribution of ten per centum (in addition to
the five per centum allowed by compact), on the amount of the sales
within the State: then it came in for a full share of all the rest
in proportion to its population. To the same new States it gave also
five hundred thousand acres of land; or a quantity sufficient to
make up that amount where less had been granted. To the settlers in
the new States, including foreigners who had made the declaration
of their intentions to become naturalized citizens, it gave a
pre-emption right in the public lands, to the amount of one quarter
section: 160 acres. Then it distributed the whole amount of the
land revenue, after deduction of the ten and the five per centum
to the new States, to all the old States and new States together,
in proportion to their population: and included all the States yet
to be created in this scheme of distribution. And that no part of
the people should go without their share in these largesses, the
Territories, though not States, and the District of Columbia, though
not a Territory, were also embraced in the plan--each to receive in
proportion to its numbers. So many inducements to all sections of
the country to desire the bill, and such a chance for popularity to
its authors, made sure, not only of its passage, but of its claim
to the national gratitude. To the eye of patriotism, it was all a
venal proceeding--an attempt to buy up the people with their own
money--having the money to borrow first. For it so happened that
while the distribution bill was passing in one House, to divide
out money among the States and the people, there was a loan bill
depending in the other House, to borrow twelve millions of dollars
for three years; and also, a tax bill to produce eighteen millions
a year to reimburse that loan, and to defray the current expenses
of the government. To make a gratuitous distribution of the land
revenue (equal to several millions per annum), looked like fatuity;
and was so in a financial or governmental point of view. But it
was supposed that the distribution scheme would be irresistibly
popular--that it would chain the people and the States to the party
which passed it--and insure them success in the ensuing presidential
elections. Baseless calculation, as it applied to the people! Vain
hope, as it applied to themselves! The very men that passed the bill
had to repeal it, under the sneaking term of suspension, before
their terms of service were out--within less than one year from the
time it was passed! to be precise, within eleven calendar months
and twelve days, from the day of its passage--counting from the
days, inclusive of both, on which John Tyler, President, approved
and disapproved it--whereof, hereafter. But it passed! and was
obliged to pass. It was a case of mutual assurance with the other
whig measures, and passed the Senate by a party vote--Mr. Preston
excepted--who "broke ranks," and voted with the democracy, making
the negative vote 23. The yeas and nays were:
YEAS--Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Berrien, Choate,
Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Dixon, Evans, Graham, Henderson,
Huntington, Kerr, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Phelps,
Porter, Prentiss, Rives, Simmons, Smith of Indiana, Southard,
Tallmadge, White, Woodbridge.
NAYS--Messrs. Allen, Benton, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama,
Cuthbert, Fulton, King, Linn, McRoberts, Mouton, Nicholson,
Pierce, Preston, Sevier, Smith of Connecticut, Sturgeon, Tappan,
Walker, Williams, Woodbury, Wright, Young.
In the House the vote was close--almost even--116 to 108. The yeas
and nays were:
YEAS--Messrs. John Quincy Adams, Elisha H. Allen, Landaff
W. Andrews, Sherlock J. Andrews, Thomas D. Arnold, John B.
Aycrigg, Alfred Babcock, Osmyn Baker, Daniel D. Barnard, Victory
Birdseye, Henry Black, Bernard Blair, William W. Boardman,
Nathaniel B. Borden, John M. Botts, George N. Briggs, John H.
Brockway, David Bronson, Jeremiah Brown, Barker Burnell, William
B. Calhoun, Thomas J. Campbell, Robert L. Caruthers, Thomas
C. Chittenden, John C. Clark, Staley N. Clarke, James Cooper,
Benjamin S. Cowen, Robert B. Cranston, James H. Cravens, Caleb
Cushing, Edmund Deberry, John Edwards, Horace Everett, William
P. Fessenden, Millard Fillmore, A. Lawrence Foster, Seth M.
Gates, Meredith P. Gentry, Joshua R. Giddings, William L.
Goggin, Patrick G. Goode, Willis Green, John Greig, Hiland Hall,
William Halstead, William S. Hastings, Thomas Henry, Charles
Hudson, Hiram P. Hunt, James Irvin, William W. Irvin, Francis
James, William Cost Johnson, Isaac D. Jones, John P. Kennedy,
Henry S. Lane, Joseph Lawrence, Archibald L. Linn, Thomas F.
Marshall, Samson Mason, Joshua Mathiot, John Mattocks, John
P. B. Maxwell, John Maynard, John Moore, Christopher Morgan,
Calvary Morris, Jeremiah Morrow, Thomas B. Osborne, Bryan Y.
Owsley, James A. Pearce, Nathaniel G. Pendleton, John Pope,
Cuthbert Powell, George H. Proffit, Robert Ramsey, Benjamin
Randall, Alexander Randall, Joseph F. Randolph, Kenneth Rayner,
Joseph Ridgway, George B. Rodney, William Russel, Leverett
Saltonstall, John Sergeant, William Simonton, William Slade,
Truman Smith, Augustus R. Sollers, James C. Sprigg, Edward
Stanly, Samuel Stokely, Charles C. Stratton, Alexander H. H.
Stuart, George W. Summers, John Taliaferro, John B. Thompson,
Richard W. Thompson, Joseph L. Tillinghast, George W. Toland,
Thomas A. Tomlinson, Philip Triplett, Joseph Trumbull, Joseph
R. Underwood, Henry Van Rensselaer, David Wallace, William
H. Washington, Edward D. White, Joseph L. White, Thomas W.
Williams, Lewis Williams, Joseph L. Williams, Robert C.
Winthrop, Thomas Jones Yorke, Augustus Young, John Young.
Those who voted in the negative, are:
NAYS--Messrs. Julius C. Alford, Archibald H. Arrington, Charles
G. Atherton, Linn Banks, Henry W. Beeson, Benjamin A. Bidlack,
Samuel S. Bowne, Linn Boyd, David P. Brewster, Aaron V. Brown,
Milton Brown, Joseph Egbert, Charles G. Ferris, John G. Floyd,
Joseph Fornance, Thomas F. Foster, Roger L. Gamble, Thomas W.
Gilmer, William O. Goode, Samuel Gordon, James Graham, Amos
Gustine, Richard W. Habersham, William A. Harris, John Hastings,
Samuel L. Hays, Isaac E. Holmes, George W. Hopkins, Jacob Houck,
jr., George S. Houston, Edmund W. Hubard, Robert M. T. Hunter,
William Jack, Cave Johnson, John W. Jones, George M. Keim,
Edmund Burke, Sampson H. Butler, William Butler, William O.
Butler, Green W. Caldwell, Patrick C. Caldwell, John Campbell,
William B. Campbell, George B. Cary, Reuben Chapman, Nathan
Clifford, Andrew Kennedy, Thomas Butler King, Dixon H. Lewis,
Nathaniel S. Littlefield, Joshua A. Lowell, Abraham McClellan,
Robert McClellan, James J. McKay, John McKeon, Francis Mallory,
Albert G. Marchand, Alfred Marshall, John Thompson Mason, James
Mathews, William Medill, James A. Meriwether, John Miller,
Peter Newhard, Eugenius A. Nisbet, William M. Oliver, William
Parmenter, Samuel Patridge, William W. Payne, Francis W.
Pickens, Arnold Plumer, James G. Clinton, Walter Coles, John R.
J. Daniel, Richard D. Davis, John B. Dawson, Ezra Dean, Davis
Dimock, jr., William Doan, Andrew W. Doig, Ira A. Eastman, John
C. Edwards, John R. Reding, Abraham Rencher, R. Barnwell Rhett,
Lewis Riggs, James Rogers, James I. Roosevelt, John Sanford,
Romulus M. Saunders, Tristram Shaw, Augustine H. Shepperd,
Benjamin G. Shields, John Snyder, Lewis Steenrod, Thomas D.
Sumter, George Sweney, Hopkins L. Turney, John Van Buren, Aaron
Ward, Lott Warren, Harvey M. Watterson, John B. Weller, John
Westbrook, James W. Williams, Henry A. Wise, Fernando Wood.
The progress of the abuse inherent in a measure so vicious, was
fully illustrated in the course of these distribution-bills. First,
they were merely to relieve the distresses of the people: now they
were to make payment of State debts, and to enhance the price of
State stocks in the hands of London capitalists. In the beginning
they were to divide a surplus on hand, for which the government
had no use, and which ought to be returned to the people who had
paid it, and who now needed it: afterwards it was to divide the
land-money years ahead without knowing whether there would be any
surplus or not: now they are for dividing money when there is none
to divide--when there is a treasury deficit--and loans and taxes
required to supply it. Originally, they were for short and limited
terms--first, for one year--afterwards for five years: now for
perpetuity. This bill provides for eternity. It is a curiosity in
human legislation, and contained a clause which would be ridiculous
if it had not been impious--an attempt to manacle future Congresses,
and to bind posterity through unborn generations. The clause ran
in these words: That if, at any time during the existence of this
act, duties on imported goods should be raised above the rate of
the twenty per centum on the value as provided in the compromise
act of 1833, then the distribution of the land revenue should be
suspended, and continue so until reduced to that rate; and then
be resumed. Fallacious attempt to bind posterity! It did not even
bind those who made it: for the same Congress disregarded it. But
it shows to what length the distribution spirit had gone; and that
even protective tariff--that former sovereign remedy for all the
wants of the people--was sacrificed to it. Mr. Clay undertaking to
bind all the Congresses for ever to uniform twenty per centum ad
valorem duties. And while the distribution-bill thus undertook to
protect and save the compromise of 1833, the new tariff-bill of
this session, undertook to return the favor by assuming to protect
and save the distribution-bill. Its second section contained this
proviso: That if any duty exceeding twenty per centum on the value
shall be levied before the 30th day of June, 1842, it should not
stop the distribution of the land revenue, as provided for in the
distribution act of the present session. Thus, the two acts were
made mutual assurers, each stipulating for the life of the other,
and connecting things which had no mutual relation except in the
coalitions of politicians; but, like other assurers, not able to
save the lives they assured. Both acts were gone in a year! And the
marvel is how such flimsy absurdities could be put into a statute?
And the answer, from the necessity of conciliating some one's
vote, without which the bills could not pass. Thus, some Southern
anti-tariff men would not vote for the distribution bill unless the
compromise of 1833 was protected; and some distribution men of the
West would not vote for the anti-tariff act unless the distribution
bill was protected. And hence the ridiculous, presumptuous, and idle
expedient of mutually insuring each other.