Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

solved, as between us and our public enemies, to stand by the country. I would have the country right, in all its controversies:

"Thrice is he armed, that hath his quarrel just." But I would not suffer my own personal impression of the right or wrong of its cause to impel me to the abandonment of that cause. I shall give my vote, and if need be my voice, as I have hitherto done, to every appropriation which is asked for in good faith, and sustained by reasonable evidence of its propriety. And it matters not to me whether the money is to be expended on the banks of the Merrimac of the East or the Merrimac of the West. Still it is my country.

Entertaining these general views of the public service, acting upon them in the votes I give in this House, I aver that, even upon the liberal rules of appropriation which I advocate and observe, there will remain in the Treasury, at the expiration of the present year, a surplus equal to the whole revenue of ordinary years. To illustrate the fact, I subjoin the following estimate of the appropriations, probable or certain, of the present year, made conformably to the opinions I have declared: Appropriations proposed by the Secretary

of the Treasury, Appropriations in addition to the above, in the bill for the civil and diplomatic service,

[ocr errors]

Appropriations in the navy bill,
Appropriations in the bill for the Indian
service,

Appropriations in the army bill,
Advance to the cities in the District of Co-
lumbia, amount payable the present year,
Appropriation for hostilities among the
Seminoles,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

- $17,515,933

607,250 587,521 1,165,332 97,239

70,883

2,120,000

500,000

300,000 1,000,000 200,000

2,000,000

2,801,105

[H. of R.

ditional sum of unappropriated surplus of the revenue of 1836, to be added to the balance of credit from the last year.

I demand of the members of this House what is to be done with this great treasure? Shall it continue in the hands of the deposite banks, safe or unsafe, to be loaned by them for the benefit of individuals, yielding no advantage to the people of the United States?

We propose to you, on the one hand, the distribution bill. We say that, in principle, it is a just, wise, and proper measure. If it contemplates too large a distribution, diminish the sum. Leave in the Treasury all that is needed for the common defence and general welfare of the Union. Of that I would not touch a dollar. But the residue place in the hands of the States; restore it to the people themselves; let it be applied to the objects of local improvement, which may or may not fall within the scope of the constitutional power of Congress, but which are all-important to the prosperity and the strength of the United States.

If the distribution bill comes in conflict with the graduation bill, cannot the two objects be combined, thus reconciling and conciliating the rights of the old States and the interest of the new ones?

If neither of these things may be done, if it does not comport with the political views of the majority of this House to make an absolute donation of the surplus treasure to the several States-if there be a constitutional ingredient of this Legislature, not a member of the House, not a member of the Senate, whose possible action upon this subject gentlemen can suffer themselves to anticipate, so as to be affected thereby-then I ask the House whether this surplus treasure may not be placed in the respective State treasuries in the form of a deposite or loan? Such a measure would be infinitely less excep tionable than to have the Government of the United States come into the market as a great speculator in stocks, less than to retain the public treasure in the deposite banks at a clear loss of two or three millions of interest, perhaps in part of the principal; less than to squander it in mere idle wastefulness.

I believe in my conscience that a distribution of the surplus revenue ought to be made. The country re882,053 quires it. The public interest demands it. I do not 52,684 urge any plan for the disposition of the public money in 100,000 the spirit of party agitation. Nay, if I sought a topic of party agitation out of this House, a means of rousing the just indignation of the people, I should wish for nothing better than to have Congress adjourn, by the will of the majority, leaving the public treasure dispensed among favored persons or corporations, to be used or abused at the discretion of the administration. Will the majority of the House give to the opposition such a manifest advantage? Will they not rather consult their interest and their public duty, by consenting to the passage of some law, either of grant or of deposite, which may place a portion of the surplus revenue in the control or custody of the respective States? I exhort them by every consideration of interest, I adjure them by every consideration of duty, not to suffer this session of Congress to terminate, leaving the public treasure unguarded, neglected, abandoned. Let us beware of this great wrong to the people and the States we represent.

$30,000,000

Of this sum, there will remain at the end of the year, unexpended, not less than twelve millions of dollars. It exceeded eight millions the last year. It will increase in proportion to the increase of appropriations.

On the other hand, the execution of new treaties with the Indians will call for an appropriation to the amount of $6,259,241, which, for reasons heretofore stated, I do not consider it necessary to charge to the income of the current year.

Such is the result of my reflections on this important subject. I have treated it in good faith, actuated by a sincere wish to arrive at the truth, and especially to avoid all exaggeration as to the available surplus in the Treasury. The sum is large. It cannot be disguised or denied. No part of the surplus of 1835 can be reached by the expenditure of 1836. On the contrary, there is abundant reason to believe that, without speaking of unexpended appropriations, which cannot fall short at the end of this year of twelve millions, there will be an adVOL. XII.-241

With these remarks, it would have given me satisfaction to be able to close what I might wish to say on the subject of these resolutions. But there is one other topic which shows itself in the speeches of prominent friends of the land bill, and which I cannot pass unnoticed. I mean the suggestion that the North enjoys more than a due share of the advantages of the Union. It was very distinctly averred by the gentleman from Kentucky, who preceded me, [Mr. GRAVES,] as an argument in favor of the distribution bill, that the State of New York had re

[blocks in formation]

ceived more of the public revenue than I know not how many of the States of the South and West, which he enumerated; that the North and Northeast were made rich by the public expenditures; in contrast with which was arrayed the liberality of the State of Kentucky towards the manufactures and commerce of the Atlantic States. The gentleman frankly admitted that he had not made any exact calculations on the subject. It would have been well, I think, had he looked into the figures carefully; because, had he done so, he would have ascertained that there is no foundation in fact for such grave charges in denial of the general and impartial value of the Union of these States.

[MAY 23, 1836.

ever the Government of a country disburses money, it must be disbursed somewhere. Certain expenditures are, upon the face of them, absolutely and unequivocally national; as the charges of foreign intercourse, drawn and spent abroad. Others are apparently sectional; as the expenses of a land office in the West, or a light-house in the East. Now, it is natural that a measure local in name should be brought forward by local interests. It must be so, in the operation of local necessities, feelings, and knowledge. I cannot admit that because the members from a particular State, or tier of States, support a measure unanimously, the fact affords ground of presumption against a measure. Who should understand and advocate a thing, if not the mem

As a member of this House, I lie under particular obligation to see to the welfare of my State. That is one thing for which we are severally sent here. Shall not the Representatives from the State of Ohio feel and act unitedly in the defence of their northern frontier? Shall not the Representatives from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, take a deep interest in the measures necessary for the protection of their constituents against the hostilities of the Creeks and Seminoles? Surely. They support locally: we must not reject locally. Our decision should be national in its motives and scope, not sectional.

I take leave to say we have heard something too much of the same tenor from the State of Kentucky, through-bers from the State most immediately concerned with it? out the present session of Congress; and, if it were in order, I should say, in both its chambers. To me, a new member of the House, little versed, of course, in the details of its debates, few things have seemed stranger than the idea, so pertinaciously insisted on, that appropriations are to be made, not where the public service requires them, but in shares to the several States. At an early period of the session, after having heard such things more than once, a strong sense of their injustice drew from me a few observations, somewhat warmer, it may be, than gentlemen were accustomed to hear from the North. If I could suppose that, under the impulses of the moment, I overstepped the limits of manly controversy, I should be sorry of it. Certain I am, on ample reflection, and after deliberate investigation of the details of the question, that I did not go one hair's breadth beyond the truth, in the terms of condemnation which I applied to these reproaches on the States of the Atlantic, and especially the East. I spoke, to be sure, strongly, as I felt. Doubtless, members from other States are attached to their homes. So am I to mine. I can conceive that gentlemen should feel indignant, if they thought their State unjustly assailed: cannot they conceive that I should, also, if my State be unjustly assailed? Or is it imagined that members from the East are to kiss the rod that is raised to strike? Do so they who list. I desire friendship with every member of this House. But I have rights to maintain here, my own and those of my constituents; and I shall not shrink from any issue which their vindication may involve.

Deeming this question of the last importance, in its general bearing on the stability and tranquil action of the Government of the Union, I have taken some pains to probe the matter to the bottom. If the result of my inquiries were other than what it is, it would not be stated to the House. Some time since, a gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. THOMPSON] presented a variety of calculations, tending to show that the North was favored, to the injury of the South. That gentleman was answered, and he will permit me to say, with all due respect, triumphantly answered, by the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. EVANS,] the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. GARLAND,] and another gentleman from Maine, [Mr. JARVIS.] My view of the subject covers the whole United States. I shall demonstrate, by a detailed examination of the public expenditures in its various branches, and upon authentic documents, that there exists a striking equality in its distribution. How could it be otherwise? Witness the zeal and vigilance of members for the cause of their particular constituents. Bear in recollection the interest and the will of every administration to keep well, so far as it may, with all sections of the country. At any rate the fact exists. I shall show it, in terms courteous, but positive, as befits the consciousness of truth; and, sectional matter as it all is, I cannot but hope the effect will be to strengthen, rather than weaken, our common attachment to the Union.

All things done by man must have a locality. When

This whole doctrine of allotting out the public expenditures in shares is rotten to the core. Try it practically: strip it of all disguise, and apply it to any familiar fact. Suppose a bill before this House, proposing to appropriate money for the defence of the Southern frontier; and suppose members from the North to rise, under such circumstances, with the avowal on their lips: We cannot gainsay the propriety of this appropriation; there is flagrant war before our eyes, for the prosecution of which this money is indispensably necessary; but we will not grant it, unless you give us a corresponding sum of money to aid in the construction of such a canal or such a railway in our particular neighborhood. What would be said of this? What ought to be said? There is no language of censure, in the infinite combinations of human speech, which would be considered blasting enough for such a proposition. Yet the case put is but an obvious illustration of the doctrine, presented in the nakedness of its odious deformity. And I desire to tender to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. HAMER,] my grateful estimation of the patriotic nationality of sentiment which he has manifested, in occasional reference heretofore to this topic of debate.

We legislate for a vast country, with its long ocean frontier, and its immense interior expansion. In that stupendous valley of the Mississippi and its tributary waters, the far-western city of St. Louis is, it may be, the geographical centre of the territory of the United States. Our country is destined, possibly, to become coextensive with the continent. I do not speak of this as what I wish; but as what, in the expansive progress of our institutions, it may be impossible to avert. Nature has impressed geographical differences on this wide. spread surface of the United States. Part of it lies on the Atlantic ocean; part on the Gulf of Mexico; part on the inland seas of the North; and part on the thou sand offsprings of the great Father of Waters. country embraces every diversity of climate, of soil, of location, of productions, which the terraqueous globe affords. Our occupations differ, as our lines are cast here or there within it. The manufacturing and commercial industry of the East, the agriculture and mines of the North and centre, the planting of the South and the West, all contribute to swell the sum of our greatness. We differ in the quality of the labor we respectively employ. So many multitudinous causes go to complicate the interests with which Congress has to

Our

[blocks in formation]

deal. Our legislation is to be founded on all these facts, combined, compared, compromised, with reference to the parmount value of the Union.

Times have occurred, in which one or another of the States thought the power of the confederacy pressed heavily on her interests or her principles. It has happened to Pennsylvania, to Virginia, to Massachusetts, to South Carolina. Times have occurred, in which some of the States have thought they had not their due proportion of the benefits of the confederacy. I freely admit that in two of the States of the West, especially, there has been comparatively little of the public money expended in improvements or public works of any kind, comparatively little advantage received under the land system of the United States. I mean Kentucky and Tennessee. It is equally true of one of the States of the East, to wit, Vermont. So far as regards Kentucky and Tennessee, the fact is owing partly to their being intermediate, historically speaking, between the old and new States; partly to their felicitous geographical position, and other natural advantages; and not least to the fact that neither of them is a frontier State. It is not, I am sure, ascribable to any sectionality of feeling or action on the part of the East towards the West. No such feeling ever did exist; no such action ever did occur. We of the Atlantic States may safely challenge a scrutiny of the political and legislative records of the country, upon such a controversy. It will distinctly appear, in the sequel of my remarks, that it is not the West as a section, in any grouping or aggregation of which the States are susceptible, but simply the two States of Kentucky and Tennessee, which have thus failed to partake in the direct local expenditures of the Union. And the error, committed by the gentleman from Kentucky, consists in putting the question sectionally, when there is no tincture of sectionalism, as between East and West, in the facts of the case.

New York, it is alleged, has received more of the public moneys than all the States of the South or Southwest! When this remark struck my ear, it raised before my mind's eye the image of that great State, its boundless enterprise, its magnificent canal which unites the waters of the lakes and those of the ocean, its numerous lesser canals, its railroads, its liberally endowed system of public education. I began to doubt all the familiar facts of contemporaneous history. Did the United States subscribe any of its millions towards the construction of the Erie canal? Did the United States contribute lands, enough for the seat of an empire, to the public schools of the State of New York? Some such things, it seemed to me, I had heard of as falling to the lot of other regions of country; but I had read or imagined that New York was the child, as the Spaniard has it, of her own works; that by her own hands and with her own materials she had built up the structure of her unrivalled prosperity; that she had herself set the example, unaided and alone, of the prosecution of public works of interior communication, on that vast scale, which her success came to render so common throughout the United States.

But it is no question of single States. There is an obvious fallacy in so treating it. To do justice to it, we should take into view sections of country, disregarding political lines, and looking only to geographical relations, or to distinct regions inhabited respectively by a population of congenial interests, occupations, and productions.

I throw together, in one group, the States of the North and East-Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania-ten; the States or Territories of the West-Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Wisconsinnine; those of the South--Maryland, Virginia, North Car

[H. OF R.

olina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida--nine; and I proceed to show in what sums and proportions the public money has gone to each of these great sections of the Union.

By a calculation which I have before me, covering the period from 1789 to 1829, inclusive, it appears that there can be traced into the different States and Territories, excluding the District of Columbia, the sum of $119,455,187. Of this sum, $43,567,522, more than one third, went into Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida--one third in number, greatly less than one third in population, of all the United States. The plain fact needs no comment.

This calculation does not include the diplomatic charges of the Government, nor such portion of the charges belonging to war as evidently have no locality of expenditure. Nor does it include expenditures on account of the public debt; for the repayment of money to the public creditor, wherever he may dwell, is not an act of local partiality. Nor does it include pensions, which are the recompense of personal services and sacrifices, the debts of honor superinduced by war. If pensions were to treated as local expenditures, it would give occasion to inquire how it happens that so large a pro. portion of the persons entitled to pensions reside in par ticular regions of the country; a course of inquiry which a Northern man need feel no unwillingness to pursue.

For the rest, the calculation is conclusive as to the whole question, so far as it is a question between North and South; unless, indeed, we adopt the idea of the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. THOMPSON,] who, to arrive at a different result, reckons Maryland and Vir. ginia among the States of the North. Such a position is evidently untenable. The doctrine would act fatally against itself, by the undue weight of relative population which it would cast upon the section of the North. It is contrary to the plain sense of the thing, also; since Maryland and Virginia belong to the South by the character of their labor and of their productions. They are essen. tial parts of the slaveholding and planting interests. If, indeed, it could be admitted as a just and serious view of the subject, I should heartily welcome the Old Dominion among the States of the North. I am sure Virginia and New England have in the past time breasted shoulder to shoulder shock after shock, and should feel themselves cemented together by the blood of their fathers commingled in many a well-fought and hard-won battle-field, and by their common attachment to the Union. If there is to be a geographical line run through the constitution, I rejoice that, after all, it is not Mason and Dixon's.

It would be wearisome to run over all the details of public expenditure, in reference to the question under debate. Instead of this, I shall select, for detailed analysis, several classes of expenditure, which are those chiefly discussed, and which abundantly illustrate the whole subject.

I begin with the fortifications of the maritime frontier.

All the money hitherto expended on these fortifications has been distributed as follows: (Sen. Doc. 24th Cong., No. 203.)

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Public Lands.

454,103 3,127,837 760,869 324,426 286,184

$4,953,419

[MAY 23, 1836.

Vergennes, Vermont; Watervliet, New York; Rome, New
York; New York, New York; Frankford, Pennsylvania.
SOUTH.-Washington, District of Columbia; Pikesville,
Maryland; Richmond, Virginia; Fort Monroe, Virginia;
Augusta, Georgia; Mt. Vernon, Alabama; Appalachicola,
Florida; Charleston, South Carolina; Fayetteville, North
Carolina.

WEST.-Detroit, Michigan; Pittsburg, Pennsylvania;
Newport, Kentucky; St. Louis, Missouri; Bellefontaine,
Missouri; Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Two new ones, not
1,444,529 located.
1,026,777
704,422
$3,175,728

Upon this table, it is to be remarked, first, that the entire system of which these fortifications form a part, was arranged in 1821, by a commission composed of General Bernard, Captain Jesse D. Elliott, and Colonel Totten. It was arranged under the auspices of a Secretary of War from the State of South Carolina, John C. Calhoun, and adopted by President Monroe. It is not the fruit, therefore, of Northern councils or partialities. Secondly, in that plan, the works to be constructed were divided into three classes. The works for the protection of Burwell's bay and of Boston roads were placed among the first in order of execution, chiefly because Norfolk and Boston were designated to be the great naval arsenals of the country; the one for the South, the other for the North. Certain works in South Carolina were placed in the second and third classes. Yet, by some under-current of causes, fortifications at Charleston are in an active and efficient state, while those of the Chesapeake are still incomplete, and those of Massachusetts bay almost neglected. A single ship of war might sail up and cannonade Boston or New York with perfect impunity. Finally, it should be borne in mind that the fortifications on the Gulf are

essentially defences for the business and population of the

West.

In the

What fortifications have been completed? whole North, with its exposed coast, its numerous and wealthy cities, to tempt an invading foe, only two: Fort Hamilton and Fort Lafayette, at New York. In the South, four: Fort Washington, in Maryland; Fort Macon, in North Carolina; Castle Pinckney, in South Carolina; and Fort Morgan, in Alabama. In the West, five: Fort Pike, Fort Wood, Fort Jackson, Battery Bienvenu, and Tower Bayou Dupré, all in Louisiana.

We have two armories, one at Springfield, in Massachusetts, for the North, the other at Harper's Ferry, for the South. In the public expenditures at each, there has been a very near approach to equality, it having been, at the former, from 1816 to 1834, inclusive, $3,411,765; at the latter, $3,230,884. (Ex. Doc., 24th Cong., No. 44, p. 365.) An armory is, doubtless, required at the West. The establishment of it has been under consideration for eighteen years. Why has it not been constructed? A Western man, at the head of the Committee on Military Affairs, [Mr. R. M. JOHNSON,] himself tells us it is because of the inability of Congress "to reconcile contending interests as to its location." (House Reports., 24th Cong., No. 373.) "Contending interests" in what quarter? Of the East against the West? No! in the heart of the West itself; an edifying example of the mischievous effects of this narrow localism of spirit. I trust that, so far as regards this armory, the evil will not outlive the present Congress.

There is a like regard to the wants of the various parts of the country in the distribution of arsenals and of depots for arms, as appears by the following table: (Ex. Doc., 24th Cong., No. 44, p. 347.)

NORTH. Augusta, Maine; Watertown, Massachusetts;

That is, seven in the section of the North and East, including Lakes Champlain and Ontario, and seventeen in the two sections of the South and the waters of the West. Leaving the article of military works, I proceed to another local expenditure, that of light-houses.

$961,292

82,376

133,422

175,266

There have been expended on light-houses, in the
period from the organization of the Government to the
end of the year 1833, the following sums: (Ex. Doc.
2d sess. 23d Cong., No. 89.)
Maine and Massachusetts,*
New Hampshire,
Rhode Island,
Connecticut,
Vermont,
New York,
New Jersey,
Pennsylvania,
Delaware,

District of Columbia,
Maryland,
Virginia,
North Carolina,
South Carolina,

Georgia,
Florida,
Alabama,
Louisiana,
Mississippi,

6,662 514,955

4,925

33,400

324,861

$2,237,159

$3,000

155,847

361,338

381,450

182,827

275,513

229,791

27,828

199,736

18,852

$1,836,182

Be it remembered, in anticipation of any remark as to the excess of expenditures upon the Northern division of the Union, that it is perpetually thronged, at all seasons of the year, with coasting and fishing vessels, plying along shore; that the registered seamen of the one and the other division are in the proportion of 5,442, to 1,010; (Ex. Doc., 24th Cong., No. 163;) and that of the entire tonnage of the country, about thirteen fif teenths belong to the ten first-named States. Doc. 2d sess. 23d Cong., No. 187, p. 298.)

(Ex.

Now, to the vexed question of internal improvements. This expression is a very vague one, as we all know. In the action of Congress, it is applied to the improvement of the means of moving from place to place, whether in bays and ports of the sea, or rivers, or across the land by canals and roads. To what extent the constitutional power of Congress in this matter reaches, and especially what interior communications are to be deemed national and what not, is among the unsettled points in the construction of the constitution. The following table will show the amount expended within the several States on this class of public works, from 1789 to 1833, inclusive: (Ex. Doc. 2d sess. 23d Cong., No 89.)

* 1 place Maine and Massachusetts together, because the expenditures cover the period when they were one State.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »