Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Twentieth Congress Page: 49
391, 74, viii p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS.
49
Jax. 29, 1829.]
Judiciary.—School Lands.
[SENATE.
trade passing through the Ohio river, and found it to be
as follows;
Years.
Steam Boats.
Arrivals.
Tons.
1823
42
98
19,453
1824
36
120
20,651
1825
42
140
24,969
1826
51
182
28,914
1827
62
277
48,744
And the tonnage for 1828 might be estimated at fifty
thousand tons, all of which would pass this canal.
Mr. BENTON supported the bill on the grounds of its
importance; that it was not a new application; and that it
would not be any loss to the United States.
The question was then taken upon the motion to post-
pone till Friday, and lost
Mr. HOLMES moved to lay the bill on the table till to-
morrow; which was lost.
The question then recurred on ordering1 to a third
reading; and it was decided in the affirmative—yeas 24,
nays 18.
Mr. BRANCH called for the yeas and nays, which were
as follows:
YEAS.—Messrs. Barton, Benton, Bouligny, Burnet,
Chase, Chambers, Eaton, Hendricks, Johnson of Kentuc-
ky, Johnston of Louisiana, Kane, McKinlev, McLean,
Marks, Noble, Ridgely, llobbins, Rowan, Ruggles, Sey-
mour, Silsbee, Smith of Md. Webster, Williams.—24.
NAYS.—Messrs. Bell, Berrien, Branch, Chandler,
Dickerson, Foot, Hayne, Holmes, Iredell, Knight, Prince,
Sanford, Smith of South Carolina, Tazewell, Tyler,
White, Willev, Woodbury.—18.
Thursday, .January 29, 1829.
THE JUDICIARY.
The report of the Committee on the Judiciary on the
resolution instructing them to consider the expediency of
amending the Judicial System of the United States so as
to equalize the distribution of justice, and place all the
States on a similar footing, was considered.
Mr. BERRIEN said, the resolution was upon a subject
of great magnitude and importance; it had excited great
interest in the National Legislature, both now and at other
times. The committee were instructed to inquire into
the expediency of amending certain alleged inequalities
in the present organization, and suggest such measures as
in their opinion would remedy the difficulty. So far as
regarded the present Judicial system, no diversity of
opinion was entertained in the committee; all agreed that
there was an inequality, which should be removed; but
when the committee came to inquire what was the remedy,
they found it impossible to report any specific plan.
The result had been, that, in their report, they had gone
into a historical account of the Judicial system, showing
the inequalities, and stated their inability to concur in any
specific plan. Their object had been to present the
subject to the consideration of the Senate in such a man-
ner that it should be open to the members of the Senate,
whether belonging to the Committee or not, to suggest
any specific plan for the removal of this evil. It was, per-
haps, a subject of to much importance too be discharged at
the present moment, and it appeared to him to be a more
appropriate treatment of the subject to lay it upon the
table, that it might be called up at some future time. Ac-
cordinglv, he moved to lay the report upon the table.
Mr. WEBSTER added, very briefly, that the conclu-
Vot. V.—7.
sion of the report suggested several modes in which the
inequalities might be removed; and the subject had be-
come one of so much importance, that he wished to have
it brought before the Senate. If it could be made the
order of the day for some early day hereafter, he should
prefer it to havingit laid upon the table; but he was wil-
ling to agree in any measure thought most expedient.
Mr. BERRIEN said, he was willing to have it made the
order of the day, if, when that arrived, the Senate would
be prepared to act upon it. But they probably would
not; if it was laid upon the table, itcould be called up at
any moment, and discussed. Therefore, he renewed
his motion, and the bill was laid upon the table.
SCHOOL LANDS.
On motion of Mr. BARTON, the Senate proceeded to
consider the bill allowing the relinquishment of the six-
teenth sections appx-opriated for schools in the State of
Mississippi, and the entry of other lands in lieu thereof.
Mr. BARTON moved to strike out the word " Missis-
sippi," aiid insert " any township in any State or terri-
tory of the United States;" which was agreed to.
On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS,
The amendment offered yesterday by Mr. SANFOKD
to a similar bill for the State of Louisiana was incorpo-
rated with this bill.
Mr. EATON moved to insert the words " in all cases;"
which was agreed to.
The question then arising on the passage of the bill—
Mr. BRANCH said, he could view these grants of the
public lands in no other light than as pure donations, with-
out any equivalent at all. He would ask the gentlemen,
when they were giving the lands away, why they would
not give to the old States? He appealed to their liberali-
ty. He wished the bill to be amended to that effect.
He believed he should get at his object more readily by
the recommitment of the bill, and he therefore made the
motion, for the express object of making some provision
for the old States.
Mr. KANE explained the bill. In the settlement of
the terns upon which the new States were admitted, the
sixteenth section in each township was reserved for the
use of schools; in many cases this sixteenth section
had proved to be barren and unproductive, and the bill
provided that, in such cases, the town should be allowed
to select good land, in order that the original intention
might be carried into effect. Now, said Mr. K. if North
Carolina is laboring under the disadvantages of having
bad school lands granted to her, she is already provided
for by the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri.
If North Carolina has no such lands, she has no interest
in the bill. If the gentleman wished for a new grant, he
would suggest whether it was proper to incorporate it
with the present bill, which was for another purpose?
Mr. BRANCH said, he was not in Congress at the time,
but he remembered perfectly well, some ten or fifteen
years ago, when new States were admitted, when this
provision was made, that the old States made a claim for
a similar grant, which was resisted on the ground that this
was not to be considered as a donation, because the Go-
vernment would receive an equivalent in the enhanced va-
lue of its own lands situated adjacent to such school lands.
He would ask how they received an equivalent when such
lands were worth nothing? If they received no equiva-
lent, then it was a donation.
Mr. BENTON then took the floor in opposition to the
recommitment, and recapitulated the terms upon which
the States were admitted, and the reservations made; and
concluded by saying, ashe had a thousand times before said,
that the new States did not consider this grant of a section
for the benefit of schools as a donation, for the Govern-
ment received an equivalent in the privileges granted.
Mr. HENDRICKS said, that the proposition of the Se-
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales, Joseph, 1761-1841. Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Twentieth Congress, book, 1830; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30754/m1/53/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.