SENATE.] bill. Claims for Slaves. length on this motion, observing that two plans had sug- now. their certificates, they should receive 60 per cent. upon Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, inquired what the difference would be, whether the dollars were paid here, or in England? Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said that, if the dollars were obtained here, they would be worth 100 cents; while, in England, their value was 110 cents. Mr. WHITE did not like the alternative in the 10th section. The course ought to be fixed on by Congress. Every officer of the Government should have, in all payments of money entrusted to him, some specific directions. They ought to know now whether this sum was for the use of the United States, or whether held in trust. If the money was laid out in stock, would the claimants take it? If it was to be considered the money of the United States, then let them take it, and pay the claims with four per cent. interest, when the certificates were presented. If it was to be invested in stock, the section ought to provide for the sale of this stock. As to the Bank of the United States, he thought the Government and the Bank two distinct things. Suppose the Bank had made a purchase of bills of exchange-whether from our Government or the British Minister, the Bank had the benefit of it; it was a Bank operation, and interested the United States no farther than as stockholders in the institution. If the Government made any thing, he should entirely agree with the gentleman from South Carolina, that it ought to be paid to the claimants: but it was not He thought that the project of paying 60 per cent. so. was not practicable. It could not be done until the claims were all ascertained, as, until then, it was impossible to decide how much each one should receive. The definitive list did not, he believed, comprise all the claims. When they were fully decided upon, all the How much it would be, was unclaimants would come forward and receive their proportions of the dividend. certain; it might be 50, and it might be 100 per cent. ; and, if it should pay the whole principal, and 20 per cent. interest, so much the better. He found no fault with the bill; if he had been disposed to recommend any thing, it would be that the old Commissioner, who was well acquainted with all the details of the subject, and could, in a shorter time, settle the questions which would arise in this investigation of these claims, than perMr. SMITH, of South Carolina, did not intend, in what sons unacquainted with them, should be re-appointed. He He was very willing that the claimants should receive an he had said, to arraign the conduct of Government. thought if they made 11 per cent. on the operation, it was interest on their money; but he did not approve of a very good bargain. But he declared again, that it was leaving the disposal of the money to the Secretary of the but just that the claimants should have interest on their Treasury. claims from the time the money was deposited: not that they should be restricted to 4 per cent. when the money was now in the Bank, and discounts making upon it. Give these persons the Government interest on their money. As to the bargain which he had spoken of, he did not pretend to say whether it was made by Mr. Vaughan, or by our own officer. Mr. SMITH said he had been so informed. Mr. JOHNSTON observed that he had heard this statement formerly, and he might as well explain this matter When the British Minister came to fix on the payment of the money, the question was, where it should be paid Mr. Gallatin well knew the rate of exchange, and it was decided that it should be paid in this country. Ar agreement was entered into between the United States' Bank and the British Minister, by which, on certain terms, the sum of one million two hundred thousand dollars was deposited in the Bank, to the credit of the But what had the United States to do United States. with this? Nobody knew the rate paid by the Bank for the bills, nor was it essential that it should be known: all that Congress had any interest in knowing, was, that the one million two hundred thousand dollars were deposited If the Senate there, to the credit of the United States. should see fit to change the directions given in the tenth section, and order the payment of 75 per cent. to the claimants, before further proceedings, he should think it the best arrangement; otherwise, he thought the most expedient course would be, to place it in the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, to invest the money in some four per cent. stock. Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, thought the gentleman from Louisiana, had placed the subject in its proper light-the 10th section ought to be stricken out; and, if it was done, he should move that, whenever the claimants presented Mr. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, observed, that the probability was, that all the claims on the definitive list would not be confirmed; so that there would be no danger in paying to the claimants 75 per centum, as the 1,200,000 dollars received from the British Government was more than 75 per cent, of the whole amount of claims; even supposing all to be confirmed, they As to the time to be amounted to 1,500,000 dollars. taken up in this Commission, the Commissioners could not meet, and organize, before June or July; they then had to decide on the nature of the evidence to be receiv ed; and then the claimants, some in Georgia, and some in Louisiana, could not appear before them in less than three months; and, perhaps, it would be longer. Many other causes of delay might occur. He wished that they might go on as fast as possible, but not, by precipitancy, to cause any claims to be neglected. As to the old Commissioner, he could wish that he might be retained; but, although it was the right of Congress to pass laws, they had no right to appoint officers. If the section should be retained, it would be easy for the Secretary of the Treasury to invest the money in four per cent. stocks. Mr. TAZEWELL said, that the motion to strike out the tenth section did not stand alone. There was another motion, which, although not now before the Senate, had been touched upon, and was, therefore, open to comment. He meant the proposition to pay 75 per cent. of the claims. What were the facts? The Government of Great Britain having acknowledged itself indebted, not to the Government, but to the citizens of the United States, the Government assumes the character of a receiver for those citizens: In discharge of the obliga. tion, Great Britain had already paid a certain sum, and, no doubt, would pay more. It belongs to the United States to provide some method for paying this money, in just proportion, to the claimants. This bill was to provide for that distribution. He thought it encumbered with too much machinery, which he would notice hereafter. It was supposed that the claims could not all be settled until by the end of next Congress; and, meanwhile, it was proposed that the money should be invested. During that period, the United States would have this large sum of money in the Treasury, in which they have no direct interest; and, really, it could not be doubted that justice would dictate its being applied so as to produce a profit to the claimants. This was the course pointed out in courts of justice in every part of the world, and was founded on principles of justice, that, where money was in the hands of the court, and it was ascertained who was the rightful owner, it should not be kept unproductive, but should be so applied as was best for the interest of the person who should finally be decided to be its owner. The principle, then, was plain, and the question was, how should it be applied? Could it be employed by the United States? He believed there was no doubt that it could; there was, he believed, three millions of the public debt due; and why not pay it? Why not apply this money for our own purposes, and then pay to the claimants the interest for its use? Or, why not lay it out for stock of the Bank of the United States, and redeem it at six per cent. Thus, the Government would make two per cent., and four per cent. would be made for the claimants. Indeed, he thought the interest to be paid them might be put higher. The Government were borrowing money at five per cent.; and, it seemed to him, that it would be peculiarly hard if they could allow but four per cent. on this money, which might be looked upon as a kind of forced loan. But, it had been said, that it would be beneficial to the claimants, to give them sixty per cent. on their claims, at once. He should be willing to agree to this, if he thought : but, it appeared to him, that it would be rather injurious than beneficial, if it was at all practicable. It certainly appeared to him that this would be productive of partiality, and consequent discontent. The payment of the claims would then be according to chance, or, perhaps, the caprice of the Commissioners. The claims would not come in at the same time; as they were presented, they would be docketed; and why should one be paid his claim eighteen months before the other, merely because, by chance, it was on the first part of the docket Besides, Mr. T. thought, with the gentleman from Tennessee, that it was entirely uncertain what the amount to be paid might be; and, it might happen, after [SENATE. all the claims were presented, that the claimants would not be entitled to more than thirty per cent. And, suppose one claimant were to apply at an early period, and obtain his seventy-five per cent., while, afterwards, it should turn out that they had paid him more than his share, how could it be forced from him? He would argue that he had a vested right in the money which they had paid him, under an act of Congress, and that he neither could, or would, refund the money. The gen tleman from Louisiana had said, that the amount was ascertained; and that a certain portion could safely be paid now. But it was not so. He knew that 1,500,000 dollars made the whole of the definitive list; but, in the bill, as well as in the treaties, there was a provision for claims not included in that list. He did not know what their amount would be it might be large, and it might be small; but it certainly was not safe to put them out of view, in paying, summarily, a portion of the fund to those claimants now known. A great many questions, of serious import, would require settlement by the Board of Commissioners, before a single certificate could be issued. These reasons induced him to oppose the motion to strike out the tenth section; and, as to the payment of seventy. five per cent., he could easily see that it would be of great advantage to those who would be paid first; and, as easily, that it would be great injustice to the other claimants. : Mr. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, observed, that he was still of opinion, that the divisior. of seventy-five per cent. could be made at this time with perfect safety. The gen tleman from Virginia was under an impression that there would be further claims, which would render it an unsafe measure; but, Mr. J. observed, that he did not draw such a conclusion, either from the bill or the treaty. It appeared to him, that the definitive list, which had been filed in the office of the Secretary of War, was the basis of this Commission. That is, that this fund was applied for the claimants on that list, and that this Commission was to superintend its distribution. The claims could not, by possibility, be established beyond the 1,500,000 dollars; and, if seventy five per centum were now to be paid, there would be a balance remaining to be distributed by the Commissioners at the close of their examination : for the sum now in the hands of the Government, was more than seventy-five per cent. of the 1,500,000 dollars. For his own part, he believed the 1,200,000 dollars would pay the whole principal of the claims that would be found to be properly sustained; because, he believed, that it would be found that many of the slaves had been carried off before the time fixed by the treaty. This would diminish the number of claimants, and enhance the share to each. There was no danger, then, in dividing seventy-five per cent. at this moment; nor was there any impropriety in investing the money in the four per cent. stock. Mr. HOLMES said, that the case, to him, appeared a very clear one. The section did not enjoin it as a duty upon the Secretary of the Treasury to invest the money in four per cent. stocks, but left it to the discretion of that officer, either so to invest it, or, if the United States retained it, the Government were to pay the 4 per cent. As the gentleman from Virginia had said, it was an established usage, where money was held in trust by public authorities, to apply it in such a manner as to yield an interest to the owner. Why, then, should it not be done ? It was of no importance, and not worth disputing about, that the United States received a profit, so that the claimants received the four per cent. Mr. TAZEWELL said, that when the Convention had been appointed by the Emperor Alexander, a defintive list was to be presented. But many bona fide claimants were not, through error, or some other reason, included in the list; and the Government of Great Britain would SENATE.] Claims for Slaves. [FEB. 7, 1827. not include in the treaty any person not named in that they should be performed. He did not think the bill list. One of these cases was that of a gentleman of New Orleans. The treaty lately made, did, however, make provision for those not included in the list. Thus it was highly improper to make any disposition of this matter, until the Commissioners had decided on the full amount of the claims. Mr. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, made a few remarks in relation to the claim alluded to by the gentleman from Virginia. The amount of claims beyond the definitive list, he did not think would amount to more than about 12,000 dollars. He should vote for retaining the tenth section of the bill. After a few observations from Messrs. CHAMBERS, and SMITH, of Maryland, the question on striking out the tenth section, was taken, and negatived-16 to 21. Mr. TAZEWELL moved to strike out the word three, and to insert in its stead the word one; providing for the appointment of one Commissioner, instead of three. encumbered with unnecessary machinery. There were questions of great importance to individuals to be settled by these Commissioners, and he submitted the question, whether decisions, from which there could be no appeal, ought, in justice, to be made by one man, upon the property of his fellow-citizens? What did this differ from any other Court? Would it be permitted to one man, in any other case, to give decisions between citizens, in questions of the kind? The Commissioners were to investigate and settle questions of great delicacy, and their award was to be final-would it not, then, be improper and unjust to subject these clans, includ ing, in some instances, all the individuals possess, to a tribunal in which they should not feel confidence, and whose decision might be erroneous? It had been said that the consultations of three Commissioners would cause delay. Delay and deliberation were certainly preferable to a hasty and ill-digested decision. They must Mr. T. said, that he did not see the necessity of all the and would communicate their opinions to each other-machinery that had been attached to the bill. The dif- and this would occupy considerable time: but this was ficulties attending the object to be effected by it were the price always paid for justice, and was far preferable only increased, as a multiplication of screws and pullies to the necessity of revising those decisions at a greater always increased the friction of the machinery, and con- expense on some future occasion. He intended by no sequently lessened the power of the machine. He did means to insinuate doubts of the capacity or integrity of not conceive that three men were necessary to settle the individual upon whom it was fairly presumable the what had been mainly settled already. And they would appointment would fall, and who had been designated delay very essentially the final adjustment. It was his by the gentleman from Virginia. He should place great opinion that the American Commissioner employed to dependence on the intelligence and the character of settle the claims thus far-who had examined them, and that person; but he did not think his acquaintance with must be more or less acquainted with the nature of each these claims so extensive as the gentleman from Virone, would be the most fit person to perform this duty, ginia supposed, as it would be recollected that, upon and would do it to the more perfect satisfaction of the this subject, the British and American Commissioners parties interested, and of the Government. If this pro- disagreed; in consequence of which, the subject was reposition was agreed to, he should follow it up by pro-ferred to a disinterested Power, and afterwards arranged posing to strike out the other unnecessary wheels and pullies, which now clogged the operation of the bill. In one word, he had no desire to appoint, in any case, a greater number of officers to perform a duty, than were necessary. When large salaries were paid, he thought at least economy might be used in the number of officers to be appointed. By adopting his amendment, and dispensing with two Commissioners, with salaries of three thousand dollars, six thousand dollars would be saved, and he thought the services would be as well, if not better performed. Mr. HOLMES said, the same motion had been made in the Committee, and considerable debate had occurred upon it. On one side, it was said that one Commissioner would be sufficient; while, on the other, it was contended that better satisfaction would be given to the claimants by the appointment of three, and applications to Congress for re-hearing and redress would not be so likely to happen, as if one only were appointed. The principal object in the appointment of the number fixed upon by the Committee, was, to give confidence to the claimants, that their claims would be fairly settled. Mr. H. recollected that, even under the Commission to settle the Spanish claims, of which the gentleman from Virginia was one, there were applications made to Congress, appealing from the decisions of the Commissioners, some of which were before Congress to this day; and, although that Commission was highly respectable and intelligent, there was one case, which, to him, [Mr. H.] appeared very doubtful, and worthy the attention of Congress. It was, therefore, thought most proper to appoint three Commissioners, that there might be a greater prospect of giving entire satisfaction, and putting the claims to rest. Mr. BERRIEN could not conceive what motive, but a desire to waste six thousand dollars, could be attributed to the Committee, if one Commissioner was competent to do the duties of the Commission, as it was desirous by a Convention, in London. There were, therefore, many cases with which the American Commissioner must be unacquainted. These were to be examined; there were rules of testimony to be fixed upon, and the manner in which agencies should be arranged. All these, and many other questions, were to be decided upon; and he could not yield the opinion, that one Commissioner would be found incapable of doing all that would be required of him. And, should there be dissatisfaction at his adjudications, the tables of Congress would be crowded with petitions and memorials, and the whole labor would be again to be performed The People claiming under this treaty have sustained heavy losses, and are entitled to every advantage in the selection of a tribunal before whom their claims are to be heard and decided. Give them, then, the same method of obtaining their rights that you give to other citizens, whenever their property is submitted to the opinions of judges. If the Senate adopted the amendment, Mr. B. should abide by the determination; but still he must retain the impression, that, if Congress refused to appoint three Commissioners, they would refuse to the class of citizens affected by this bill, the rights enjoyed in all other cases. Mr. WHITE thought, if the American Commissioner was appointed, the whole subject would be satisfactorily arranged. It had been said by the member from Georgia, that delay was the price that must be paid for justice; to a certain extent, he agreed that it was so; but he was of opinion that three Commissioners, instead of one, would be of so little advantage, as not to outweigh the consideration of the additional expense. As to appeals to Congress in case of dissatisfaction, it did diminished in one case or the other. not appear probable that it would be at all increased or Whether three Commissioners or one was appointed, persons who did not succeed in obtaining their demands, would appeal to Congress. It was always the case. There was never a Commission from which disappointed claimants did not appeal. It was, however, objected, that the appointment of one Commissioner, in this case, would not give the claimant the same privileges as were enjoyed by citizens in other cases. But he need only remind the Senate that one man had had, in certain cases, the keeping and disposition of the enormous sums entrusted to the United States' Courts, in nine States, and decided on all high criminal cases without appeal. He thought the trust in this case no more dangerous than in others, and he was disposed, therefore, to fall in with the motion. He believed the principles on which the adjudications were to be made, were established in times past, and that there would be no great difficulty, except in the hearing of testimony. He should make no proposition; but would merely inquire whether, in the case of the appointment of three Commissioners, two could not act, if there should be no necessity for the services of the third. He thought, however, that one would be competent to do all that would be required. [SENATE. would be as useful as three, and he therefore persisted in his motion. Mr. BERRIEN trespassed, with reluctance, upon the time and patience of the Senate. The gentleman from Virginia said that there were but two Commissioners when the Commission commenced, and that there was but one on our part This was true; but it was because Great Britain restricted the number; and although we might have thought three preferable, it was hardly a question of sufficient importance to be insisted upon. It was said that the case of the Chief Justice, in the decisions of the Supreme Court, was an apt illustration of the question now at issue. Mr. B. thought it both unhappy and inapplicable. And, as to the Supreme Court, there was an appeal to Congress, in certain cases. The allu. sion to the trial for treason, was not stated by the gentleman from Virginia with his usual clearness. He asks if any one ever supposed it dangerous that one person should decide in cases of treason? This does not put the question fairly. One person does not decide in those Mr. TAZEWELL said, that, if he could believe that cases. The Judge decides with the jury The Judge his proposition would possibly produce the effects anti pronounces upon the law, and the jury, being both judge cipated by the gentleman from Georgia, he should not of law and fact, upon the guilt of the prisoner. Here, press it. But he did not see any great dfference be- then, is a decision arising from the concurrent opinions tween the decision of one Commissioner and that of of thirteen individuals. Is there to be a jury impannelthree. It would still be the opinion of one man, that led to try the claims under this treaty? No! One indiviwould produce the result: for, if they were divided, dual is to pronounce the law and the fact, and decide not two to one on any point, either the yielding, or the per- only upon the evidence, but upon the principle by which severance, of one of the number, decided the question; it is to be judged. The cases would be analogous if the hence, the opinion of one predominated. He [Mr. T. trial for treason was so far confided to the Chief Justice, was astonished that the Senator from Georgia should that he should not only decide upon the law, but, unasconsider it dangerous to entrust the property of the citi-sisted, pronounce the verdict. But this, every one knows, zens to the decision of one man. The gentleman from is not the case. Again, it had been said, that it made no Tennessee had correctly observed, that the interests of difference whether the number of Commissioners was the People of nine States were confided to the disposal four, three, or one. He did not yield his assent to the of a single individual; and he should like to know, if the calculations of the gentleman from Virginia. If the contrial of the crime of treason had ever been considered a current opinions of three persons are had upon any sub dangerous confidence. It was one of the most important ject, more confidence is felt in that opinion than if it had and most delicate decisions that could be made, and it been the opinion of but a single individual. So it was was made by one man, without the power, on the part with a majority of them. The concurrent opinions of of the prisoner, to appeal from the decision. This coun- two individuals were, on the same principle, to be pretry was willing to confide our interests to the judgment ferred to that of only one. And that number which of one Commissioner, associated with a Commissioner ap. would most probably satisfy the claimants appeared to pointed by a foreign Government, to settle interests of him best, and most likely to be advantageous. He hoped the highest importance; and yet we must have three to the motion to amend would not be sustained. decide upon claims existing entirely among ourselves. Mr. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, said he preferred reIf this principle was correct, why not, in every case, taining the three Commissioners, as many serious queswhere the interests of our citizens are concerned, ap- tions would come under their consideration. Among point three public officers to superintend them? Why others would be that of the territorial limits of the United not have three (he would not say Presidents) but why States, and the definition of their bounds, which will renot three Secretaries of State, or three Secretaries of quire much exact knowledge of the matter. There were the Treasury, or indeed three public officers of all grades? a great many difficulties on this subject, of which all were It would increase salaries, if it would do no other good. not aware, and many points on which honest men might He understood that the rule was, where the question to differ. As to the testimony, men might easily differ in be passed upon was between the collusive interests of weighing its force, and deciding upon the influence it individuals, to have as many judges as possible; but ought to have on the claims. The gentleman from where the decision was to be made merely according to Virginia had very ingeniously argued that one man was, the rule of right, and upon the principles of justice, the in every respect, the same as three, and that, in any case, fewer the better, and that one was sufficient. He saw it was the opinion of one man that predominated; but he no necessity for getting up so much machinery to effect thought that gentleman would not deny, that, when three the object, unless it should be said that the claimants re- persons communicated their several opinions to each sided in different States, and a Commissioner from each other, the aggregate of sound sense and reason was most State was to be appointed, or one from each of the three likely to predominate. Nor would it be contended, that great sections of the country. But, be it as it would, the views of all would not vary essentially, although, the decision would be made by the same means-if two upon consultation, they might agree to the same general were against one, the opinion of one would settle the decision. He [Mr. J.] was a great advocate of consultamatter; and were there four, and two were arrayed tion, and had often known the opinion of an able Judge against two, the change of opinion of one would be de- changed by the views of a very ordinary man. eisive. As to fixing upon the kind of testimony to be tleman had said that this Government confided the settle. received, the rules of evidence were already established, ment of the affair to one Commissioner, associated with and that could be done by every Master in Chancery. one on the part of Great Britain, but it was to be recol He was confirmed in his opinion, that one Commissioner lected that this was according to the decision of the Em VOL, IIL-21 The gen. peror of Russia, and was not done by the choice of this Government. Besides, the decision of the Emperor of Russia was, that, in case the Commissioners could not agree, they should be empowered to call in an umpire. Where the two agreed, they were as good as three; but when they did not, the third person came in and turned the scale. [FEB. 8, 1827. by mistake when the list was made out, by any means to be excluded. He had no objection to recommit the bill on this ground. He was also in favor of raising the salary of the Commissioner; and had no objection, since the office of Secretary had been stricken from the bill, to in crease the salary of the Clerk, whose labor would be greater. He also thought the 10th section might be subThe gentleman from Georgia had very satisfactorily ex-mitted to the attention of the Committee, to be altered On all these grounds he should be plained the practice of Courts; and, as to the allusion of should they see fit the Senator from Tennessee, to all cases above two thou- in favor of having the bill recommitted generally. sand dollars, it was a great complaint that the practice Mr. HARRISON then varied his motion, and moved a of which he speaks cannot be changed. But if a small general re-commitment of the bill. number of Commissioners is to be defended, on the ground of the organization of the Supreme Court, the And how was comparison ought to be a consistent one. it that a Judge and a jury were called to decide upon cases of the amount of two thousand dollars, while one man was to be entrusted with the settlement of a mass of complicated claims, amounting to twelve hundred thousand dollars? This could certainly not be considered a forcible manner of argument. He had great confidence in the character, for talents and integrity, of the American Commissioner; but he thought if there were three, all future complaint would be prevented, and the whole matter more equitably and satisfactorily settled. The question on Mr. TAZEWELL'S amendment was then taken, and decided in the affirmative, 19 to 13. Mr. TAZEWELL then moved the further amendment of the bill, by striking out the word Secretary, so that the appointments should be confined to one Commissioner and one Clerk. He observed, he did not see the necessity of such an officer; and he was sure, if one was appointed, the Clerk would be obliged to do all the business. Mr. BERRIEN did not oppose the motion; but would suggest to the gentleman from Virginia, that, as his proposition to lessen the number of Commissioners was made with a design to prevent delay, the motion now under consideration might be productive of delay. The motion was then put, and carried, and the bill was ordered to a third reading. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1827. The bill to provide for the adjustment of claims of persons entitled to indemnification under the first article of the treaty of Ghent, &c. was read the third time. Mr. HARRISON said that, when the bill was first introduced, it made provision for the appointment of three Commissioners. An amendment was however adopted, yesterday, which reduced the number to one; and, as the duty and responsibility must be much greater, he thought it but justice that the compensation should be increased, also. No doubt could be entertained that the duties would be much enhanced by the alteration. It had also been intimated that the appointment was likely to fall on a gentleman who stood high in his country's honor and confidence. And he would ask whether the Senate would enjoin on that individual to accept this office with a small compensation? for delicacy might prevent him from declining it, on account of the narrowness of the salary. He then moved to recommit the bill to the Judiciary Committee, with instructions to make the compen sation four, instead of three thousand dollars per annum. Mr. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, sustained the motion; and made some explanations as to the claims mentioned yesterday, not included in the definitive list, but alluded to in the treaty, which he also moved to submit to the Committee. Mr. TAZEWELL said, that his recollection corresponded with the explanation made by the Senator from Louisiana. The definitive list proper was the list containing all the claims, nor where those which were omitted Mr. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, suggested, that an adtional Clerk, to copy the papers of the claimants, would be found absolutely necessary. The Senate then adopted the motion to re-commit. PUBLIC LANDS. The bill to authorize those persons who have relinquished lands under the provisions of several acts for the relief of purchasers of public lands, to purchase the same at private sale, at a fixed rate, was read a second time. Mr. CHANDLER said, he did not know why the United States should hold the land, for the purpose of allowing persons who relinquished it to come in and take it at one-quarter of the price they originally gave. Mr. KING explained the bill, which, he observed, was to allow such purchasers as, from inability at a former period, to pay for their lands, had relinquished them, to repurchase, at one-quarter of the price paid by them. On former occasions, the United States had passed acts relieving those purchasers of land from their purchases. It was certainly an act of clemency; but it was grounded upon the fact that the United States had been, in some measure, the cause of the speculations by which these persons were involved. They were, by this bill, to be allowed to purchase at a fixed rate at private sale; and there was not only clemency and expediency in the measure, but it was an act of financial importance. The lands, if put up at public sale, would be purchased by speculators, and experience had shown that the price would not exceed 1 dollar 25 cents per acre. The lands would fall into the hands of the speculator, who would pay to the U. States the minimum price, while he would sell it to those who wished to purchase them as additions to their farms and plantations, at an exorbitant rate; thus the cultivator would have his pockets drained, while the United States would gain nothing by the transaction. Every one must perceive that the plan proposed by the bill would bring double the money into the Treasury, and save the farmer and planter from being forced to pay double the worth of the land. Mr. BARTON observed, that this bill would not operate at all on the Northern States; but in Alabama, he knew it was much wanted. In that State, if merely as a measure of revenue, it ought to be adopted, as combinations were usually entered into by speculators, to buy up the land at the minimum price, and sell it to the cultiva tors. This bill would also put more into the Treasury than could possibly be realized, should it not pass. Mr. McKINLEY merely rose to explain as to the combinations mentioned by his colleague and the gentleman from Missouri, lest it might be supposed that the People of Alabama encouraged those combinations. On the contrary, the State Legislature had passed an act to restrain all similar speculations; but they had not been able to prevent them, as the citizens of other States joined those combinations, and evaded the statute. Mr. CHANDLER said he was now inclined to think the bill ought to pass. Mr. BRANCH opposed the bill on the ground of its extending rights of pre-emption to certain individuals, to the exclusion of other settlers. |