seemed abou; to stop, and then again it has taken a new spring, while the goal has constantly receded. I know not if it is now near the end. But I hope that I shall not seem to interfere with its natural course, or unduly occupy the time of the Senate, if I venture again for one moment to take part in it.

The argument which I submitted on a former occasion has not passed unregarded. And since it can owe little to my individual position, I accept the opposition it has encountered as a tribute to its intrinsic importance. It has been assailed by different Senators, on different days, and in different ways. It has been met by harmless pleasantry, and by equally harmless vituperation; by figures of rhetoric and figures of arithmetic; by minute criticism and extended discussion; also, by that sure resource of a weak cause, hard words and an imputation of personal motives. I do now propose to reply to all this array, least of all shall I retort the hard words or repel the personal imputations. On this head I content myself now with saying —and confidently, too,- that, had he known me better, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Underwood], who is usually so moderate and careful, would have hesitated long before uttering expressions which fell from him in this debate.

The position I took was regarded as natural, or excusable in a Senator from one of the Land States, acting under the vulgar spur of local interest; but it was pronounced unnatural and inexcusable in a Senator from Massachusetts. Now, sir, it is sufficient for me to say, in reply to this suggestion, that, while I know there are influences and biases incident to particular States or sections of the Union, I recognize no differ

ence in the duties of Senators on this floor.

Coming

from different States and opposite sections, we are all Senators of the Union; and our constant duty is, without fear or favor, to introduce into the national legislation the principle of justice. In this spirit, while sustaining the bill now before the Senate, I spoke for ustice to the Land States.

In sustaining this bill, I but followed the example of the Senators and Representatives of Massachusetts on kindred measures from their earliest introduction down to the present time. The first instance was in 1823, on the grant to the State of Ohio of land one hundred and twenty-five feet wide, with one mile on each side, for the construction of a road from the lower rapids of the Miami River to the western boundary of the Connecticut Reserve. On the final passage of this grant in the House, the Massachusetts delegation voted as follows: Yeas Samuel C. Allen, Henry W. Dwight, Timothy Fuller, Jeremiah Nelson, John Reed, Jonathan Russell. Nay Benjamin Gorham. In the Senate, the bill passed without a division. In 1828, a still greater unanimity occurred on the passage of the bill to aid the State of Ohio in extending the Miami canal from Dayton to Lake Erie; and this bill is the first instance of the grant of alternate sections, as in that now before the Senate. On this the Massachusetts delegation in the House voted as follows: Yeas Isaac C. Bates, Benjamin W. Crowninshield, John Davis, Edward Everett, John Locke, John Reed, Joseph Richardson, John Varnum. Nays-none. In the Senate, Messrs. Silsbee and Webster both voted in the affirmative. I pass over the intermediate grants which, I am told, have been sustained by the Massa

The

chusetts delegations with substantial unanimity. extensive grants at the last session of Congress to Illinois, Mississippi, and Alabama, in aid of a railroad from Chicago to Mobile, were sustained by all the Massachusetts votes in the House, except one.

66

Still further, in sustaining the present bill on grounds of justice to the Land States, I but followed the recorded instructions of the Legislature of Massachusetts, addressed to its Senators and Representatives here on a former occasion. The subject was presented in a special message to the Legislature in 1841, by the distinguished Governor at that time, who strongly urged a liberal policy towards the actual settler, and towards the new States, for this is justly due to both." And he added: "Such States are entitled to a more liberal share of the proceeds of the public lands than the old States, as we owe to their enterprise much of the value this property has acquired. It seems to me, therefore, that justice towards the States in which these lands lie, demands a liberal and generous policy towards them." In accordance with this recommendation, it was resolved by the Legislature, "That, in the disposition of the public lands, this Commonwealth approves of making liberal provisions in favor of the new States; and that she ever has been, and still is ready to co-operate with other portions of the Union in securing to those States such provisions." Thus a generous policy towards the Land States, with liberal provisions in their favor, was considered by Massachusetts the part of justice.

It was my purpose, before this debate closed, to consider again the argument I formerly submitted, and to vindicate its accuracy in all respects, both in prin

ciple and n detail. But this has already been so amply done by others so much abler than myself — by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Geyer], both the Senators from Michigan [Mr. Felch and Mr. Cass], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Borland], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Dodge], and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Downs], all of whom, with different degrees of fulness, have urged the same grounds in favor of this bill, that I feel unwilling at this hour, and while the Senate actually waits to vote on the question, to occupy time by further dwelling upon it. Perhaps on some other occasion I may think proper to

return to it.

But, while avoiding what seems superfluous discussion, I cannot forbear to ask your attention to the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Underwood].

This amendment, when addressed to the Senators of the favored States, is of a most plausible character. It proposes to give to the original thirteen States, together with Vermont, Maine, Tennessee, and Kentucky, for purposes of education and internal improvement, portions of the public domain, at the rate of one acre to each inhabitant according to the recent census. This is commended by the declared object-education and internal improvement. Still further, in its discrimination of the old States, it assumes a guise well calculated to tempt them into its support. It holds out the attraction of seeming, though unsubstantial, selfinterest. It offers a lure, a bait to be unjust. I object to it on several grounds.

1. But I put it in the fore-front, as my first objection, its clear, indubitable, and radical injustice, written

on its very face. The amendment confines its donations to the old States, and, in so doing, makes an inequitable discrimination in their favor. It tacitly assumes that, by the bill in question, or in some other way, the Land States have received their proper distributive portion, so as to lose all title to share with the old States in the proposed distribution. But if there be any force in the argument, so much considered in this debate, that these railroad grants actually enhance the neighboring lands of the United States, and constitute a proper mode of bringing them into the market, or if there be any force in the other argument which I have presented, drawn from the equitable claims of the Land States, in comparison with the other States, to the bounty of the great untaxed proprietor, then this assumption is unfounded. There is no basis for the discrimination made by the amendment. If the Iowa land bill be proper to be passed without this amendment, as I submit it is, then this amendment, introducing a new discrimination, is improper to be added to it. Nor do I well see how any one, prepared to sustain the original bill, can sustain this amendment. The Senator from Kentucky, who leads us to expect his vote for the bill, seems to confess the injustice of his attempted addition.

*

2. I object to it as out of place. The amendment proposes to ingraft upon a special railroad grant to a

* Mr. Webster in his greatest speech, the celebrated reply to Mr. Hayne, touched on this consideration. He said: "And, finally, have not these new States singularly strong claims, founded on the ground already stated, that the government is a great untaxed proprietor in the ownership of the soil?" WEBSTER'S SPEECHES, Vol. III. p. 291.