know, and I will not inflict pain on the senator by dwelling on it. It is not for me to vindicate her from a charge so degrading and humiliating. She has another senator here, far more able and eloquent than I am, to defend her. Certainly I do not believe, and should be most unwilling to think, that her senator had made a correct estimate of her moral power.

It has been, indeed, said that our whole country is corrupt; that the results of recent elections were brought about by fraudulent means; and that a foreign influence has produced the great political revolution which has just taken place. I pronounce that charge a gross, atrocious, treasonable libel on the people of this country, on the institutions of this country, and on liberty itself. I do not attribute this calumny to any member of this body. I hope there is none who would give it the slightest countenance. But I do charge it upon some of the newspapers in the support of the other party. And it is remarkable, that the very press which originates and propagates this foul calumny of foreign influence, has indicated the right of unnaturalized foreigners to mingle, at the polls, in our elections; and maintained the expediency of their owning portions of the soil of our country before they have renounced their allegiance to foreign sovereigns.

I will not consume the time of the Senate in dwelling long upon the idle and ridiculous story about the correspondence between the London bankers and some Missouri bankers-a correspondence which was kept safely until after the presidential election, in the custody of the directors of what is vaunted as a genuine loco-foco bank in that State, when it was dragged out by a resolution of the Legislature, authorizing the sending for persons and papers. It was then blazed forth as conclusive and damning evidence of the existence of a foreign influence in our presidential election. And what did it all amount to? These British bankers are really strange fellows. They are foolish enough to look to the safety of their money advanced to foreigners! If they see a man going to ruin, they will not lend him; and if they see a nation pursuing the same road, they are so unreasonable as to decline vesting their funds in its bonds. If they find war threatened, they will speculate on the consequences; and they will indulge in conjectures about the future condition of a country in given contingences! Very strange! They have seen-all the world is too familiar with these embarrassments and distresses brought upon the people of the United States by the measures of Mr. Van Buren and his illustrious predecessor. They conclude, that, if he be re-elected, there will be no change of those measures, and no better times in the United States. On the contrary, if General Harrison be elected, they argue that a sound currency may be restored, confidence return, and business once more be active and prosperous. They therefore tell their Missouri banking correspondents, that American bonds and stocks will continue to depreciate if Mr. Van Buren be re-elected; but that, if his competitor should succeed, they will rise in value, and sell more readily in the market. And these opinions and speculations of the English bankers, carefully concealed from the vulgar gaze of the people, and locked

up in the vaults of a loco-foco bank (what wonders they may have wrought there, have not been disclosed), are dragged out and paraded, as full proof of the corrupt exercise of a foreign influence in the election of General Harrison as President of the United States. Why, sir, the amount of the whole of it is, that the gentlemen, calling themselves, most erroneously, the democratic party, have administered the government so badly, that they have lost all credit and confidence at home and abroad, and because the people of the United States have refused to trust them any longer, and foreign bankers will not trust them either, they utter a whining cry that their recent signal defeat has been the work of foreign influence! [Loud laughter in the galleries.]

Democratic party! They have not the slightest pretension to this denomination. In the school of 1798, in which I was taught, and to which I have ever faithfully adhered, we were instructed to be watchful and jealous of executive power, enjoined to practice economy in the public disbursements, and urged to rally around the people, and not attach ourselves to the presidential car. This was Jefferson's democracy. But the modern democrats, who have assumed the name, have reversed all these wholesome maxims, and have given to democracy a totally different version. They have run it down, as they have run down, or at least endangered, State rights, the right of instruction-admirable in their proper sphere—and all other rights, by perversion and extravagance. But, thank God, true democracy and true democrats have not been run down. Thousands of those who have been deceived and deluded by false colors, will now eagerly return to their ancient faith, and unite, under Harrison's banner, with their old and genuine friends and principles, as they were held at the epoch of 1798. We shall, I trust, be all once more united as a fraternal band, ready to defend liberty against all dangers that may threaten it at home, and the country against all that shall menace it from abroad.

But to return from this digression to the patriotic apprehension, entertained by senators, of corruption, if the proceeds of the public lands should be distributed among the States. If, in the hands of the general government, the land fund does not lead to corruption, why should it in the hands of the State governments? Is there less danger from the fund if it remain undivided and concentrated, than if it be distributed? Are the State governments more prone to corruption than the federal government? Are they more wasteful and extravagant in the expenditure of the money of the people? I think that if we are to consult purity and economy, we shall

find fresh motives for distribution.

Mr. President, two plans of disposing of the vast public domain belonging to the United States, have been, from time to time, submitted to the consideration of Congress and the public. According to one of them, it should not be regarded as a source of revenue, either to the general or to the State governments. That, I have, I think, clearly demonstrated, although the supporters of that plan do press the argument of revenue

whenever the rival plan is brought forward. They contend that the general government, being unfit, or less competent than the State governments, to manage the public lands, it ought to hasten to get rid of them, either by reduction of the price, by donation, by pre-emption, or by cessions to certain States, or by all these methods together.

Now, sir, it is manifest that the public lands can not be all settled in a century or centuries to come. The progress of their settlement is indicated by the growth of the population of the United States. There have not been, on an average, five millions of acres per annum sold, during the last half century. Larger quantities will be probably hereafter, although not immediately, annually sold. Now, when we recollect that we have at least a billion of acres to dispose of, some idea may be entertained, judging from the past, of the probable length of time before the whole is sold. Prior to their sale and settlement, the unoccupied portion of the public domain must remain either in the hands of the general government, or in the hands of the State governments, or pass into the hands of speculators. In the hands of the general government, if that government shall perform its duty, we know that the public lands will be distributed on liberal, equal, and moderate terms. The worst fate that can befall them, would be for them to be acquired by speculators. The emigrant and settler would always prefer purchasing from government, at fixed and known rates, rather than from the speculator, at unknown rates, fixed by his cupidity or caprice. But, if they are transferred from the general government, the best of them will be engrossed by speculators. That is the inevitable tendency of reduction of the price by graduation, and of cession to the States within which they lie.

The rival plan is, for the general government to retain the public domain, and make distribution of the proceeds, in time of peace, among the several States, upon equal and just principles, according to the rule of federal numbers, and, in time of war, to resume the proceeds for its vigorous prosecution. We think that the administration of the public lands had better remain with the common government, to be regulated by uniform principles, than confided to the States, to be administered according to various, and, perhaps, conflicting views. As to that important part of them which was ceded by certain States to the United States, for the common benefit of all the States, a trust was thereby created, which has been voluntarily accepted by the United States, and which they are not at liberty now to decide or transfer. The history of public lands held in the United States, demonstrates that they have been wasted or thrown away by most of the States that owned any, and that the general government has displayed more judgment and wisdom in the administration of them than any of the States. While it is readily admitted that revenue should not be regarded as the sole or exclusive object, the pecuniary advantages which may be derived from this great national property, to both the States and the Union, ought not to be altogether overlooked.

The measure which I have had the honor to propose, settles this great and agitating question forever. It is founded upon no partial and unequal basis, aggrandizing a few of the States to the prejudice of the rest. It stands on a just, broad and liberal foundation. It is a measure appicable not only to the States now in being, but to the Territories, as States shall hereafter be formed out of them, and to all new States, as they shall rise, tier behind tier, to the Pacific ocean. It is a system operating upon a space almost boundless and adapted to all future time. It was a noble spirit of harmony and union that prompted the revolutionary States originally to cede to the United States.

How admirably does this measure conform to that spirit, and tend to the perpetuity of our glorious Union! The imagination can hardly conceive one fraught with more harmony and union among the States. If to the other ties that bind us together as one people be superadded the powerful interest springing out of a just administration of our exhaustless public domain, by which, for a long succession of ages, in seasons of peace, the States will enjoy the benefit of the great and growing revenue which it produces, and in periods of war that revenue will be applied to the prosecution of the war, we shall be forever linked together with the strength of adamantine chains. No section, no State, would ever be mad enough to break off from the Union, and deprive itself of the inestimable advantages which it secures. Although thirty or forty more new States should be admitted into this Union, this measure would cement them all fast together. The honorable senator from Missouri, near me (Mr. Linn) is very anxious to have a settlement formed at the mouth of the Oregon, and he will probably be gratified at no very distant day. Then will be seen members of Congress from the Pacific States scaling the Rocky Mountains, passing through the country of the grizzly bear, descending the turbid Missouri, entering the father of rivers, ascending the beautiful Ohio, and coming to this capitol, to take their seats in its spacious and magnificent halls. Proud of the commission they bear, and happy to find themselves here in council with friends, and brothers, and countrymen, enjoying the incalculable benefits of this great confederacy, and, among them, their annual distributive share of the issues of a nation's inheritance, would even they, the remote people of the Pacific, ever desire to separate themselves from such a high and glorious destiny? The fund which is to be dedicated to these great and salutary purposes, does not proceed from a few thousand acres of land, soon to be disposed of; but of more than ten hundred millions of acres ; and age after age may roll away, State after State arise, generation succeed generation, and still the fund will remain not only unexhausted, but improved and increasing, for the benefit of our children's children, to the remotest posterity. The measure is not one pregnant with jealousy, discord, or division, but it is a far-reaching, comprehensive, healing measure of compromise and composure, having for its patriotic object the harmony, the stability, and the prosperity of the States and of the Union.

DEFENSE OF MR. WEBSTER.

IN SENATE, MARCH 1, 1841.

[WHEN Mr. Webster resigned his seat in the Senate, preparatory to his assumption of the duties of the State Department, under General Harrison, Mr. Cuthbert, senator from Georgia, made an attack upon him, alleging, among other things, that he had uttered the opinion, that Congress had power to prohibit the slave-trade between the States; and in the course of his remarks, when the subject was up again, he blamed Mr. Clay somewhat for having spoken in complimentary terms of Mr. Webster when he took leave of the Senate. The incidents of this occasion, and Mr. Clay's reply to Mr. Cuthbert, are stated as follows.]

MR. CUTHBERT said, that on the resignation of the late senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), he had charged upon that senator certain opinions on the subject of southern institutions. This had led to a discussion, in the course of which he (Mr. Cuthbert) had pledged himself to prove certain points. The most important point was, that Mr. Webster had avowed the doctrine, that Congress had full power to prohibit the slave-trade between the States. The next point was, that the Legislature of Massachusetts had maintained the same doctrine, and quoted the opinion of that senator (Mr. Webster) to sustain them. He had pledged himself to produce the document to support and justify the charge.

After some discussion as to the point of order, and Mr. Cuthbert being permitted to proceed, he then desired the clerk to read an extract from a paper which he sent to the desk. It purported to be a memorial drawn up by a committee, of which Mr. Webster was a member, expressing the opinion that Congress had the power to prohibit the slave-trade between the States.

Mr. Cuthbert then animadverted upon the remark made by Mr. Clay, on the 22d of February, complimentary to Mr. Webster, and spoke of three great crises in the history of the two gentlemen when they differed in opinion—namely, on the late war with Great Britain; on the compromise tariff; and on the subject of abolition petitions.