H. OF R.] Five Millions New Stock. [MAY, 1824. cluded the treaty now under consideration, to all other obligations, and ought to be construed indemnify and remunerate them for losses sus-like them. I lay down the following as correct tained in consequence of such unlawful seiz- rules of construction with regard to contracts: ures. For the clear understanding of the All implied contracts (of which this is one) are nature of the obligation of the Government to be construed according to equity and natural to those claimants, it will be necessary to justice, taking into consideration all the circumgive the several clauses of this treaty a sep- stances connected with the transaction, or that arate and distinct consideration. As it re- thing which forms the consideration for makgards the adequacy or inadequacy of the re- ing it. That each has a right to have it perdress secured by it to those claimants; or, in formed according to his reasonable expectation. other words, whether it be a provident or im- That, in express contracts, where there is an provident treaty, I conceive, is not a subject alternative, or more than one mode of disfor our present consideration. If, however, I charging them, the obligor has a right to select were to give an opinion, I should say we had a which of the modes he pleases; but when he right to presume it was the best that could has selected his mode, or made his choice, he have been gotten at the time. There is no hon- is not at liberty afterwards to change it withorable gentleman in this House that does not out the consent of the obliged. I further lay know the deranged-nay, the miserable vassal | it down, as a fundamental principle with regard and bankrupt condition of that nation at the to trust and trustees, that the trustee can never time it was made. And, although it may suit be made accountable beyond the value of the some honorable gentlemen to decry the treaty trust estate, and that, where money is to be and the treaty-makers, I am disposed to make paid out of a certain or uncertain fund, you can the best of the one, and think the most chari- never make the trustee or holder of the fund tably of the others. Yet, however improvident pay the money out of his own estate; and in the whole treaty may be, and inadequate the no case can he be required to pay it until it beredress to the claimants, it is not for us now to comes due. Here, then, it appears clearly, by change the nature of the former, or make up the terms of the treaty, that the Government the deficiency in the latter; a duty has de- intended to reserve to itself the right to take volved upon us to carry it into effect, accord- into its own hands the fund out of which this ing to the terms of it, as the treaty-making money was to be paid, if circumstances would power has laid them down-for that having seem to warrant it-that is, if it should appear passed upon it, it is conclusive with us. It is the lands were likely to turn out a productive a co-ordinate branch of the Government, it has fund, the object of the Government, no doubt, its powers to exercise, and its duties to per- was to hold the land and pay the money immeform; and, having performed them, it is not diately at the Treasury, or in such other manfor us to violate our trust by trampling upon its ner as Congress might prescribe. Several reaauthority, even if it had acted wrong; for, by sons for such construction urge themselves upon so doing, we should make ourselves particeps the mind with great force. criminis. If the honorable gentlemen who signed this treaty have looked over the interests of these claimants, and have taken an insufficient indemnity, let the responsibility rest with them; let us do our duty, and carry it into effect, in the manner they have prescribed. It was their duty to make the treaty; it is ours to carry it into effect; according to its terms. The honorable gentleman from New York cannot see in this treaty a triple alternative; I think I can very plainly see a double one. It is said, by an honorable gentleman on the side of the question with myself, who is somewhat acquainted with its geography, that, although it is called "a land of flowers," it is, in fact, a land of sand-heaps, musquitoes, frogs, serpents, and alligators. I know nothing of it myself, except what I have gathered from the general history of the country. But, I presume, its history or geography, at the time of the purchase, was very little known, which rendered its value very uncertain indeed; be The language of the treaty is: "The Gov-sides which, it may be recollected, that, by that ernment may, after the commissioners shall have admitted and allowed the claims to an amount not exceeding five millions of dollars, pay them immediately at the Treasury, or in the creation of stock at six per centum per annum, payable from the proceeds of sales of the public lands in the territories ceded, or in such other manner as the Congress of the United States may prescribe by law." If these, then, are the terms of the treaty, what is the duty of the Government resulting from it, as regards the claimants? It is the duty of the Government now to discharge its obligations to the claimants in good faith, ac- | cording to equity and justice. Obligations between the Government and the people are like same treaty, a part of that beautiful country, west and south of the Sabine River, and said to be more valuable than all the Floridas, was ceded to Spain as a part of the consideration for making the treaty-leaving it, indeed, very doubtful, whether all the lands ceded to the United States would be more than sufficient to the demands of those claimants. Again, it does appear evident, that something of this kind must have borne weight with the treatymakers, as they have only undertaken by the treaty to secure to the claimants a sum of not more than five millions of dollars-leaving the balance, which is said, by some, to amount to more than ten millions, to future negotiation or total abandonment, guarding, very cautious MAY, 1824.] Five Millions New Stock. [H. OF R. time to make for the claimants the best possible bargain that could be, under these restrictive circumstances. I am here met by a position taken by some of the friends of this bill, that Government is bound, at all events, to pay the interest, annually, on the stock created, and that to issue it, redeemable only out of the proceeds of the sales of the lands in Florida, would be creating a stock, in its nature irredeemable, which is always unfavorable, say they, for the Government, as it goes to create a perpetuity, except at the caprice of the holder. ly, all the time, against pledging the Govern- | yond the value of those lands, and at the same ment, in any shape, for more than five millions of dollars. And further, for the very purpose of meeting the contingent or uncertain value of the Florida lands, they introduced the optional provision in the treaty, before alluded to, which secures to the Government the right to keep those lands, should they be found valuable, as an indemnity for the cession of the lands beyond the Sabine; and at the same time to exclude the idea of a responsibility beyond the value of the Florida lands. The Floridas, while under the dominion of Spain, had already occasioned a hiatus in our sovereignty along the Gulf. To obtain possession of it, there- In reply to this proposition, I would remark, fore, was considered a matter of great impor- (and I think I am warranted by the rule of tance; and, no doubt, a sacrifice of a portion construction and the language of the instruof land beyond the Sabine was made for the ment in making it,) that you cannot torture the purpose of accomplishing an object of so much words of the treaty, or so distort its meaning, importance to the Government as that of secur- as to draw from it such a conclusion. If the ing the control of a maritime frontier, from the treaty-makers had intended that such construcnorthern extremity of Maine to the mouth of tion should be given to it, why were they not the Sabine. I think, then, I am fairly war-explicit-why not put down the very words, ranted in saying, that, considering every cir- to be paid annually? Why use the circumlocumstance connected with the transaction, the cution they have, when they might have come deranged and impoverished condition of Spain, to it at once? Why leave it in doubt, or to the probability of her total incapacity to make construction? I say they have placed it, in my any reparation for injuries done us, the peculiar mind, beyond all doubt, and I conceive, in the situation of the Floridas in relation to the mind of the whole world, except by the most United States, and the necessity of taking unnatural distortion of the fair import of the them, or nothing, this country at the time, still words. Why did they not say the claims bleeding with wounds inflicted by a recent war, should be paid by the creation of stock at six the facility which its possession by a foreign per centum per annum, if such was their intenpower gave to drain the Southern country of tion? If such language had been used, and its black population, the miserable imbecility they had stopped there, there could have been and corruption of the Spanish authorities, cal-no misunderstanding, even with the most illitculated rather to favor than detect and punish erate; or had they said they should be paid at piracies; besides the reflection that the sinuos- the Treasury without saying more, no menities and indentations of the coast, being emi- not even the claimants themselves-could have nently calculated to furnish a safe retreat in pretended to misunderstand them. They might case of pursuit-hence, I say, under all these have been much more concise, and have only considerations, it was thought advisable to ob- said, the United States shall satisfy the claimtain the dominion and sovereignty of the coun- ants to the amount of five millions of dollars; try, if it could be had without actually paying that would have ended the matter with the money out of the Treasury-and hence, the most skeptical mind, and Government would sum stipulated to be paid the claimants was have been left to its discretion to pay it in any limited not to exceed five millions of dollars; way satisfactory to the claimants. But they and, at the same time, the payment confined to, have gone on and said, "Those claims should and contingent upon, the value of the proceeds be paid, not exceeding five millions of dollars, of the sales of the public lands in those terri- in the creation of stock, bearing an interest of tories. This accounts, too, for the peculiar six per centum per annum, payable from the phraseology of the treaty in stating, "The five proceeds of the sales of the lands in the terrimillions to be paid by the creation of stock, tories ceded;" and the friends of the bill supbearing an interest of six per centum per an- ply the words, payable annually, not out of num, payable from the proceeds of the sales of the proceeds of the sales of the lands, but at the public lands, within the territories ceded." the Treasury of the United States: for such is If it were intended that the whole of these the effect of the construction for which they claims should have been paid, why limit them contend. Here principles for which I contendto five millions? or, if it were intended that ed in the outset, apply. The Government beeven this sum should be positively and uncon- comes a trustee for the claimants; it has negoditionally paid, why introduce the above re-tiated for them; has made the best bargain it strictive clause? Why, I say, make it payable by the creation of stock with interest payable from the proceeds of the sales of those lands? The reason, I think, is very obvious. It was never intended to pledge the Government beVOL VIII.-5 could for them, without going into a doubtful contest with the sword. It has secured to them a fund of uncertain value, of which it is willing to give them the whole benefit, if it becomes necessary to the satisfaction of their claims; reserving to itself, however, the right to the surplus, if any there be. I say that it is a fair presumption that it was the best bargain that could have been made for them with a bankrupt nation. The Government being the natural, or rather the legal guardian, of the claimants, it stands completely in the place of a trustee for them, and by no principle in equity can it be required to pay more than the value of the fund which it holds. Let it be however a good or bad bargain, it has been made by the treaty-making power of this country, a power over which this House has no immediate legal control. It is a contract completely binding upon this House, the nation, and the claimants themselves; and unless we mean to trample upon one of the constituted authorities of the country, and usurp a power never intended by the constitution to have been placed in our hands, we shall conform ourselves to the contract made by that power. It is the duty of the Government, as the guardian of these claimants' rights, to make the best of the funds placed in its hands for them; and if they can be paid their interest annually out of the proceeds of the sales of the lands, agreeably to the contract made for them, they ought to be paid; if not, they ought to be paid as speedily as possible, but without encroaching upon other funds of the Government. What will be the principle established by the passage of the bill upon your table? You not only set aside the solemn act of a co-ordinate authority, but, sir, you establish the principle, that, unless you can obtain complete pecuniary redress by treating with a nation, you must go to war. An honorable gentleman on my right tells you, that the Government has interfered between the claimants and the Spanish authorities; it has undertaken their cause, and prevented them from seeking redress in their own way against that power; and now, says the honorable gentleman, after interfering, and preventing them from making the best bargain they could, you are not willing to make them full reparation. And, sir, what are you to get in lieu of your five millions of dollars? I will not say a land of mosquitoes, frogs, serpents, and alligators. I will suppose the best that can be said of it. You know not what you have got; you have got some wild lands in a country whose geography no man in this House can know with any certainty; you have relinquished the bird in the hand for the bare possibility of obtaining the one in the bush. You have indemnified a few insurance companies and underwriters, and have saddled the nation with a certain debt of five millions, and the interest until paid. By the bargain you drive, you violate one of the first rules of private economy, that is, "never to buy, at any price, an article you can neither use nor sell." Have you not already more public lands than you can dispose of to advantage? Are they not the greatest drug in the market? Have you not lands in nine different States and Territories? And, sir, will the Florida lands pay [MAY, 1824. the interest on the capital vested? They certainly will not. If, indeed, you appropriate the proceeds of the sales of all the public lands in the United States, they will scarcely pay the debt and interest in ten years. If you make a calculation of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands in that State where the population is increasing more rapidly than in any other State in the Union, and at that period, too, when there were more lands sold, perhaps, than at any other-I mean the years 1820-'1-2; upon such calculation, sir, it will be found that this debt and the interest can scarcely be paid in one hundred and fifty years. I have allusion to the State which I have the honor in part to represent. The sales of the public lands in that State, if I mistake not, averaged in the years 1820-'1 2, three hundred and thirty-two thousand one hundred and sixty-five dollars. From this sum deduct the interest of the debt, which is three hundred thousand dollars, and we find a balance of $32,165 to be applied annually to the extinguishment of the original debt. And, sir, can you hope that the lands in Florida will ever be as productive as the lands in Indiana? If so, it is a vain hope, which will never be realized. One further view of this subject, and I have done. Gentlemen may endeavor to make themselves believe those calculations are fallacious, and my views visionary. I presume a fair method of calculating, and one that no honorable gentleman can object to, will be to compare the value of the two kinds of stock. What would be the difference in value of stock, payable from the proceeds of these lands, the value of which is totally unknown, and the value of that kind of stock proposed by this bill? The one directs you to the Treasury of the United States annually, for the sum of three hundred thousand dollars; the other leads you through this land of reptiles described by my friend from Virginia. I say, what is the fair value of each, and what the discrepance? This tests the policy of the bill. I put it to every honorable gentleman in this House, what difference would you make in the price of the stock? Would you make 20 per cent.? If so, you are throwing away a million of dollars on the claimants. But, sir, I say there is forty per cent. difference; and, if so, you are throwing away two millions. When Mr. TEST had concluded Mr. RANDOLPH moved its recommitment to the Committee of Ways and Means, and supported the motion by a speech. After some remarks from Mr. BARTLETT, the question was again taken on recommitting the bill, and decided in the negative. The question was then taken on the passage of the bill, by yeas and nays. For the bill 117, against it 66. So the bill was passed, and sent to the Senate for concurrence. MAY, 1824.] SATURDAY, May 8. Virginia Military Lands. Wabash and Miami Canal. On motion of Mr. VANCE, of Ohio, the House took up the bill "authorizing the President of the United States to enter into certain negotiations relative to lands located under Virginia military land warrants, lying between Ludlow's and Roberts' lines, in the State of Ohio." [This bill provides, "That the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby, authorized to ascertain the number of acres, and, by appraisement or otherwise, the value thereof, exclusive of improvements, of all such lands lying between Ludlow's and Roberts' lines, in the State of Ohio, as may, agreeable to the principles of a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Doddridge, lessee, against Thompson and Wright, be held by persons under Virginia military warrants, and on what terms the holders will relinquish the same to the United States; and that he report the facts at the commencement of the next session of Congress."] [H. OF R. on the subject, one of which was, that the bill was one-sided, regarding the United States only, and could not prejudice any interest of the United States. He had hoped the claimants under Virginia would have been allowed a participation in the investigation proposed by this bill, but the committee, it seemed, had determined otherwise. Some of the statements in the petition which had been read, he pronounced to be false, and it had apparently been drawn up without any knowledge of the decision of the Supreme Court. Mr. VANCE, of Ohio, further explained and defended the provisions of the bill, gave a history of the case embraced in it; and, on his motion, the report of the select committee in the case, was read. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, without opposition. Wabash and Miami Canal. The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, (Mr. Ross in the chair,) on the bill to authorize the State of Indiana to Mr. P. P. BARBOUR, of Virginia, presented a open a canal through the public lands, to conmemorial on the subject, which had been trans-nect the navigation of the rivers Wabash and mitted to him by an individual in the State of the Miami of the Lake. Ohio; which was read. Mr. VANCE, of Ohio, stated the grounds of the bill, and the merits of the titles which are proposed to be quieted by it. He replied, also, to certain statements in the petition just read, which he considered not entirely accurate. Mr. P. P. BARBOUR, with a view to cover as well the claims not located, as those which are, and which it appeared to him equally proper to provide for, moved to lay the bill on the table, to allow him time to prepare an amendment for that purpose. Mr. VANCE said, that, however the description of claims referred to by Mr. BARBOUR might require future legislation, he did not think it ought to be connected with this bill, which embraced a distinct class of cases. Mr. BARBOUR withdrew his motion with a view to introduce his proposition separately from it. Mr. WICKLIFFE, of Kentucky, moved to amend the bill by adding to it a provision requiring a statement of the amount paid by the purchasers to the General Government for the land, and when paid, to be included in the communication to Congress. After some observations from Mr. RANKIN and Mr. VANCE, this motion was withdrawn by the mover, under the impression that the information might be otherwise obtained. Mr. McCoy, of Virginia, expressed his doubts of the expediency of legislating on this subject at all. When Congress did legislate on the subject, they ought, at least, to give the holders of military warrants the option of locating the warrants on other lands than those now open to them, &c. Mr. MCARTHUR, of Ohio, feeling himself interested in this bill, said he should decline voting upon it. He stated, however, some of his views 66 Mr. CALL, Delegate from Florida, moved to amend the bill by striking out the words ninety feet," proposed by the bill to be given for the location of the canal, and insert in lieu thereof a provision for giving the square of a mile on each side for the whole length of the canal. He In support of this motion, Mr. CALL delivered a speech of some length, which he commenced by replying to an anticipated objection on the score of precedent, by saying that a grant of land for a road was in principle the same as a grant for a canal, and a grant similar to this, for a road through a part of the State of Ohio towards Detroit, had been lately made. then turned his attention to the importance of the canal proposed to be made, which, he said, would open a communication which would connect New Orleans with the Western Lakes, to the great facilitation of military operations for the purposes of defence, &c., not to speak of the facilitation of commerce. But this channel, however important, it would not be possible to open, for a long time at least, without the aid of a grant of the public lands, &c. Mr. BANKIN, the Chairman of the Committee of Public Lands, stated the views of the committee on the subject. They duly appreciated the importance of such a canal, believing it to be the best point for the connection of these waters, but were restrained, by principles on which they had always acted, from going beyond the space necessary for a canal, and for assisting the collection of tolls thereon. If Congress intended to give a grant to this canal, or any other road or canal, it was much preferable that the grant should be in money, rather than in land. The road which has been spoken of, was claimed as a right, accruing under the H. OF R.] Navigation of Western Rivers. treaty of Brownstown, and could not be considered as a precedent for this measure. With regard to the expediency of granting aid to this measure, Mr. R. said, if it should be included in a general system of internal improvement, he should be in favor of it, but was opposed to acting upon it in the manner now proposed. Mr. MCLEAN, of Ohio, made a few remarks, expressive of the deep interest he felt on this subject, and of his conviction that the benefit to accrue from it to the United States, would doubly repay the whole expense of making the canal. Mr. TEST, of Indiana, explained the geographical character of the country through which the canal is to run. It was a measure so perfectly practicable, that he believed the deepest part of the canal from the surface, supposing the canal to be a dead level, would not be more than twenty-five feet. Its length would be only from fifteen to twenty miles. The country on both sides of the route was extremely rich, as rich, indeed, as it possibly could be, and capable of producing a vast amount of agricultural products. On the importance of this work to that country, and to the United States generally, he dwelt at some length, and then replied to the objections made by Mr. RANKIN, on the ground of the obligations of the compact with Virginia, and showed by computation that the proposed appropriation of land would advance the value of the public lands to a much greater amount than that of the proposed appropriation. On motion of Mr. TRACY, of New York, the committee then rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again. MONDAY, May 10. Navigation of Western Rivers. On motion of Mr. BUCHANAN, of Pennsylvania, the House took up the bill "for the improvement of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers.' Mr. BUCHANAN offered, as an amendment to the bill, the following: "That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to cause the navigation of the Ohio River to be improved over the following sand-bars, or either of them, at his discretion, to wit: the sand-bar which crosses said river one mile and a quarter below Flint Island; the sand-bar two miles above French Island; the bar just below Henderson; the bar below Straight Island; the bar below Willow Island, in the Mississippi bend; and the bar opposite to Lower Southerland, below Cumberland Island; and, for the purpose of ascertaining and directing the best method of carrying the provisions of this act into effect, he may employ any of the engineers in the public service which he may deem proper: Provided, nevertheless, That an experiment shall first be made upon one of the sand-bars, and if, in his judgment, it shall be successful, then, and not otherwise, he is hereby authorized to cause experiments to be made upon the remaining bars.” Mr. STEWART, of Pennsylvania, was opposed [MAY, 1824. to this amendment of the bill, as being calculated to embarrass it, and, in effect, to defeat it. He objected especially to the proviso, which requires a previous experiment before the appropriation is to be applied. The obstacles in the Western rivers are, he said, so various in their kind, that an experiment on one could not apply to the rest of them-and the President must depend on the opinions of others as to the success of the experiment when made, &c. He preferred direct legislation on the subject to any contingent provision. Mr. S. went on at considerable length to show the propriety of the amendment adopted in committee, making Brownsville the point of commencement where the proposed improvement met the national road, and rendered complete and entire the chain of communication between the East and West, &c., stating a variety of facts to show the great advantages to the West which would result from this measure. Mr. HENRY, of Kentucky, replied, and advocated the amendment, on the ground that it was of paramount importance to obtain a recognition of the principle embraced in the bill, and that the particular modification of it was not of so great importance. For the sake of conciliating the opinions of all who were friendly to the principle of the bill, he was willing to yield his own opinion as to the details of it; and, with that view, he was in favor of the amendment. Mr. MALLARY, of Vermont, moved to amend the proposed amendment so as to cause two experiments to be made instead of one, &c. Mr. BUCHANAN rejoined-expressed his regret that the debate should be renewed-the committee's report was confined to certain bars in the river which were not of different kinds, but of one kind; and all he wished was, that a trial should made on one of these before money should be expended on the rest. He Mr. TRIMBLE advocated the amendment. was in favor of an experiment, and thought it ought first to be attempted on the lower part of the river. Mr. MCARTHUR was indifferent whether one or two experiments were made in the Mississippi, but advocated the propriety of extending the experiment to the Ohio River also, the obstructions in which were quite as dangerous to property as those in the Mississippi. Mr. STEWART suggested to Mr. MALLARY to modify his motion, so as to require two "or more" experiments. Mr. MALLARY did not accept of the sugges tion. Mr. KREMER advocated the amendment of Mr. BUCHANAN. He had had some experiments in attempts to remove sand-bars in the Susquehanna, the result of which had been very unfavorable. He therefore wished an experiment made on one of those in the Ohio. Mr. HOGEBOOM, of New York, took similar ground, and stated the difficulties which had been experienced in the Hudson, where vast |