32D CONG.....2D SESS.

considering the sources whence our governmental revenues are raised, what more beneficial one could be devised?

The Homestead Bill-Mr. Charlton.

main guard; and I do this the more readily, as, doubtless, we shall have the homestead bill before us at the close of the session, when it will be too late to debate it.

I cannot yield my assent to the principles involved in this bill. I do not think that sound policy, true political economy, or the great interests of our country are at all protected or preserved by it. Not questioning for a moment the motives of those who advocate it, I consider that its pas

is about the number.

Mr. President, there never was a measure so abused, so misrepresented, so vilified, as has been the homestead bill. In the first place, a large portion of the country has been made erroneously to believe that its grants are made to foreigners, and we of the new States have been told that its enactment would bring hordes of foreign paupers upon us. Like every measure of progress and reform, it is fought with all sorts of rawhead and bloody-bones argument which can be invented. Is there any public man who has the courage to dare to propose a repeal of the naturalization laws of this country? I opine not. I take it that Native Americanism is so dead that it will never kick again. Then, if that be true, and these foreigners come to us in the numbers in which they do, I ask you, in the name of God, what will you do with them? Will you keep them in your cities?will you keep them where they are denied the opportunity of cultivating the soil of the country-or will you hold out to them a generous inducement, such as the homestead bill does, and such as all Governments on this continent have held out? The British on the north, and the Mexican and South American Republics on the south, have invited and attracted foreigners. Will you not rather choose to elevate their condition by inviting them to the magnificent and fertile plains of the West, upon which they can settle, and their daughters and sons grow up and be useful and respectable? It is within the range of human probability that under the spirit and genius of our institutions and the glorious provisions of our Constitution, some of the descendants of these muchabused and hated foreigners may attain even the Presidency of these United States. In your legislation touching the public lands, you seem to have forgotten that population as well as soil is neces

sary.

You forget the lesson taught by a Greek, and elegantly paraphrased by a British, poet: "What constitutes a State?

Not high-raised battlement nor labored mound-
Thick wall nor moated gate;

Nor cities fair, with spires and turrets crowned;
Not bays and broad-armed ports,

Where, laughing at the storm, rich navies ride!
Not starred and spangled courts,

Where low bowed baseness wafts perfume to pride.
No! men! high-minded men !—

Men who their duties know,

But know their rights, and knowing dare maintain,
Prevent the long aimed blow,
And crush the tyrant when they burst the chain.-
These constitute a State."

THE HOMESTEAD BILL.

whose benefit seems to be its main object. I believe that it will lend a helping hand to idleness, profligacy, and vice, and that it will throw a temptation in the way of honest industry, which may turn its feet aside from the path of usefulness and success in order that it may obtain a gift that will be worthless when it is procured. If I am right in these opinions, it is the duty of us all to defeat the measure before us. If I am wrong in my conclusions, I have the satisfaction of knowing that nothing that I can say can pervert the judgment of the "older and better" legislators around me.

I propose to state, very briefly, the reasons for my convictions; and my first objection to it is, that whilst it seems to be founded upon the agrarian principle, that each man shall share equally in the public lands, and that this Government is but the trustee for its citizens, yet it does not carry out the very idea that is its basis; it is unequal in its operation; it gives the public domain only to those who have no land at all at the time of such application, and who will swear that they have not disposed of any land to obtain the benefits of this act. Why these provisions? Why exclude the honest laborer, who, by the sweat of his brow, had purchased his farm and erected his homestead? Why, in the division of the spoil amongst the cestui que trusts, thrust aside the successful tiller of the ground-the experienced cultivator? Why give the common property only to him who, by his idleness had never obtained his tract of land, or by his extravagance, or folly, or inexperience had wasted it? Is this to encourage agriculture and other branches of industry, which the title of this act declares to be its object?-or is it not to waste the country's treasures upon those who had hitherto been too idle to acquire property, or too unskillful to make it useful? It seems to me that the proper course, if any such distribution must take place, (which I exceedingly deprecate,) would be to give equally to all. The indigent man may have become so without his own crime or folly; but what have these done-the successful, the industrious, the honest, that they should be excluded? Why should you put a penalty on thrift, and reward only the man who has had neither the industry nor skill, in this favored land, to shelter his "landless head" from the storm? No successful answer can be given to these questions, unless we are advancing to the opinion that all property in land is a robbery, and that he who has already obtained a portion, though it may be by honest industry, shall have no more,-an opinion which I trust no one here entertains, and no one here will advance.

But it will be said, he that has already an estate in land needs no more; we wish to supply him who has none; we wish the soil to be cultivated; we wish agriculture to be improved; we want to give a start to the poor man, and to throw around him the comforts of a home. We want to convert this barren domain into a beautiful garden

OF GEORGIA,

IN THE SENATE, February 24, 2853, Against the principles of the Homestead bill. Mr. CHARLTON said: Mr. President, I had proposed to address the Senate upon what is often called the homestead bill; and as I understand that the amendment now pending before this body has been made to come as near to that as it is practicable, under the existing rules of the Senate; and as I understand that this is to be but the entering wedge, but the beginning of a system which will end in the homestead hill, I will take the liberty of attacking the true system, and not the false one that is apparently presented before us. I think it is a good rule, in civil as well as in military warfare, to attack the vedettes before you come to the

spade, the hoe, and the plow, the noxious weed into the life-sustaining plant. We want to make the desert blossom like the rose, and to make the untrodden path of the prairie the highway for vast multitudes of freemen. All this sounds well; but if it is said that this act is going to accomplish all or any of these things, I am afraid that, like most such romantic and poetic sentiments, there is more beauty of diction than there will be truth in fulfillment. Let us take them up in their order, and hold them up to the candle of reason.

You begin, as I have already said, by excluding the man, whatever his ability, whatever his industry, whatever his honesty and experience, who owns a single acre of land-a single acre will exclude him. No matter how poor he may be, if he has either the misfortune or crime to own a rood

SENATE.

of land, his unhallowed foot shall never tread this sacred soil. His land may be barren, it matters not; his children may be starving, it is of no consequence; he may, by his experience and knowledge of agriculture, be the very person for the cultivation of this rich soil-all this cannot be listened to. He may be a native born, whose father's blood helped to purchase the freedom of our country; he may be a naturalized citizen, who has proved his devotion to our free institutions by daring valor or indomitable energy; still the answer that will meet his ear will be, You have already land; you can have no more. He offers to sell his parental homestead, even which, to advance his childen's interests, he may be willing to abandon; this act still declares he shall not participate in its benefits, while it gives no other reason for the exclusion than the single and unmeaning one that he has land already.

Now, if the true motive of this bill were to cultivate the soil, and to promote agriculture, one would think that these objects would be obtained by allowing this class of men, who had shown their energy and success, to participate in the benefits, and to extend the circle of their usefulness. Certainly some limit might be made, so as not to thrust aside the mere nominal holder of a few feet of soil. But let us proceed. This act is intended, say some of its advocates, for the aid of the poor man-to give him a start, and to throw around him the comforts of a home. But how does this appear? This act includes only those who have no land. There are hundreds of thousands in this Republic who, while they own no soil, have their gold and silver and jewels, their bank stock, their notes of hand, and other personal estate. They are wealthy and prosperous; they may nevertheless come and take their quarter section. How is this act, then, only meant for the poor man? It will be said, that no man of wealth will come; but that is no answer. He may if he will the law does not exclude him; but the law does exclude the poor man who has no personal property, but a little soil of his own-it matters not how little. Poverty is not the testownership of land is.

But, sir, if this objection were out of the way, it would not change my views. I do not like this bait that is thrown out. I do not like this beginning of a system that seeks to array one class of our country against the other-that suggests to the poor man that he alone is the owner of the soil. I do not like the under current that steals under the apparent tide of sympathy. Let me not be misunderstood, sir. I am not one of those who look upon penury as a crime. In many cases it is the decree of Providence: "The poor ye have with you always," was as well the assertion of a truth as the announcement of a prophecy. So it has ever been, and so will it ever be; and he is but a traitor to the best interests of humanity and his country who does not do what he reasonably can to alleviate the sufferings of those less fortunate than himself; and poverty and suffering are appeals that this Republic of ours has always answered to. Witness its hospitals, its asylums, its charitable institutions. Witness its succor to Greece and to Ireland. Witness its outstretched arms to receive every one upon whose neck the iron heel had pressed.

But there are lawful ways of showing sympathy, and there are unlawful ones-and this system is an instance of the latter. Besides, sir, you encourage poverty by this plan. You reward it, in the first instance, though it may have been the result of vice or sloth; you protect it, you perpetuate it, by making the property you thus bestow, not liable for any debt which may be incurred for five years; and whilst you leave the fruits of the ground subject to legal process, you take away the inducement to produce more than is barely sufficient for sustenance. You encourage recklessness and idleness; you stereotype the indolence and want of foresight which you found in a more imperfect state. Mr. President, I know that poverty is no crime, not always; but I know that idleness is, and ever has been; and I know that poverty which is the result of idleness, is something worse than a misfortune. "He that will not work, neither should he eat," is the language of inspiration. In this free country, where honest effort and brawny arms always meet encouragement and

32D CONG.....2D SESS.

reward, there are few healthy "heads of families" who cannot earn the support of themselves and children; and if they are not healthy, believe me, sir, the great interests of agriculture will not be promoted by giving them in charge to the puny strength of the diseased frame. Human nature is sufficiently prone to inertness. You do not do your duty to your country by encouraging it. Industry has its own reward; stimulate it, do not retard it. Let the young man feel and know that with it the highest honors of his country are within the range of his effort, and let him feel and know that it is his duty to himself and to his country to march forward with untiring energy to the attainment of honor and of usefulness. The walls of this Chamber have often echoed to the eloquent words of those who have worked their way up from honest poverty by their energy and industry, who might this day have been the miserable tillers of a quarter section, "if such a bait had been held out to them; if such a miserable cheat had deluded their minds.

66

The Homestead Bill-Mr. Charlton.

require of us; whether the title, glorious as it is -liberal in its promises, beautiful in its hopeswill not be better without the incumbrance of the body that is tacked to it, and whether we had not better strike out all that comes after its enacting clause, leaving that and its title to stand, monumentum perenius ære, of human wisdom and human genius?

But now, seriously, let us look this title in the face. Apart from its dogmatical assertion, where is the proof that by passing this act you will encourage agriculture alone, much less all other branches of industry? The idea is, that by making every man a farmer, you improve the condition of your whole country; and by improving the condition of the whole country, you necessarily will improve all branches of industry, as the welfare of the whole embraces the welfare of all its parts. Now, I deny both the premises and the conclusions. I deny that it will improve agriculture; and I deny that by improving agriculture, you must necessarily, or even naturally, improve all other branches of industry.

I suppose I must not say that agriculture is a science, although in a subordinate sense it is cer

But still, it may be said that this bill, although highly objectionable in many other respects, has a good principle within it, which should silence all cavils. It is intended to encourage agriculture-tainly that great measure so important to the best interests of our country; and not only that, but it is to encourage commerce, next in importance to this our land; the grain, the fruit, the cotton, the tobacco, the whisky, (last not least,) will be borne beneath our country's flag to all parts of the world, through the means of this bill. Nor these alone: manufactures will be improved by it. The skillful artisan will become more skillful by its influence-how, nobody knows. We must take that on trust; but still, in some way, this will be the result, and the benign blessings of this act will be the medium. These are certainly great objects; no one can deny that. But, say the advocates of this measure, none of your faint praise, none of your garbled laudation; look again at the title of the bill; it does not confine itself to the encouragement of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, but also to "all other branches of industry.' That is true; true so far as the title is concerned. Wonderful act! a kind of physical vice versa Pandora's box, that is to let loose upon this regenerated earth such a multitude of blessings! Do not be skeptical, Mr. President. Do not fall back upon the incredulous query of old-How can these things be? Do not talk about the exploded maxims of political economy. Do not ask how the encouragement of agriculture necessarily includes the encouragement of "all other branches of industry." These things can be done-so they are done by this bill. I beg pardon-by the title of this bill; for there is nothing in the body of it that either declares or promotes any such universal benefit. And how, do you ask? Why by the simplest method in the world. And what is it? The title describes the process, viz: "by granting to every man who is the head of a family a homestead of one hundred and sixty acres of land out of the public domain." This is the short, the sure, the glorious way "to encourage agriculture, commerce, manufactures, and all other branches of industry." It is true, as I have said, the body of the act does not state, much less prove, how these benefits, great and gigantic as they are, will accrue; but then we know that the body of the act is never intended to express the intention of the lawgiver; it is the title, and the title alone, to which you are to refer to ascertain all the objects, and benefits, and "the ways and means" of accomplishing them. When Mathews, the celebrated wag, was here, he told a story of a Yankee, whom, on his first landing, he encountered, and who, with characteristic frankness, informed him that he was about compiling an American jest-book. Mathews met with him some two years afterwards, and asked him how he progressed with his great work, and he answered," Gloriously; it is almost done. I have got the index and the title-page, and only want the body of the work." And Mathews tells this as a joke. A joke indeed! Look at the title of this act; magnificent in its views, overwhelming with its prophecies, and then tell me if the title be not the best, the greatest part of it: whether, when we once have given our high legislative sanction to it, we have not done all that our country can

so. No one can be a successful tiller of the ground without a thorough training, and an enlarged experience. He must know the climate, the seasons, the nature of the soil, the influence of the weather, the seed, the plow, and the sickle; and this knowledge cannot be obtained intuitively, nor got by becoming the owner of a "quarter section" gratuitously. In my part of the country there is a large class of men who earn an ample livelihood by becoming superintendents of large planting interests. They devote their whole lives to acquiring and increasing their knowledge on this subject. No one is rash enough to believe that by buying, or owning, or inheriting a tract of land, he acquires an appendant knowledge of the mode of cultivating it. But this act proceeds upon an assumption that the land and the science of agriculture go together; that as soon as you make your 66 entry" you are equipped "as the law directs," with all the necessary qualifications "to encourage agriculture;" and so you are, so far as the law directs, but not as common sense directs. By some mental, electrical, governmental power, the moment "the head of a family""enters free of cost one quarter section of vacant and unappropriated public lands," the whole science of agriculture is flashed into his brain, and he becomes a fit and proper person "to encourage agriculture, commerce, manufactures, and all other branches of industry." What though such person be an aged widow, with maiden daughters; a rheumatic man, with neither children, friends, or money; a blacksmith, who has never seen a field of corn; a seaman, who could not tell cotton from tobacco, (I mean in the growth;) a politician, whose only knowledge of rye is derived from the whisky distilled from it;-it is all the same-the whole science, with its concomitant blessings and benefits, is conferred upon him instanter; and the only condition imposed is, that he must not hire or sell the land to any other person, who has acquired the science by the slow and regular way, but he must reside on it and cultivate it himself, for the " encouragement of agriculture." Truly, (to speak sarcastically,) this is a wonderful iaw; truly, (to speak seriously,) it is a ridiculous one. Test it by another way: As this law, by the benefits it is said to promote, encourages all species of industry, suppose we try the same experiment with one of these branches of industry; suppose we enact a law with a magnificent title, declaring it to be an act to encourage the successful and safe working of steam-engines, "agriculture, manufactures, and all other branches of industry," by granting to every head of a family a forty-horse steam-engine at the public expense, upon condition of personally working and managing the same for a certain period. We claim to be intelligent men here-doubtless most here are; how long do you think, Mr. President, your lengine would be in successful operation? How ong do you think that mine would encourage manufactures and all other branches of industry? How would you like to trust yourself on a voyage with any one of the learned Senators around you? You can answer that question at your leisure. For myself, I answer that the encouragement I

SENATE.

should give to all branches of industry by my engine would be exceedingly brief. The story of the wise men of Gotham, who went to sea in a bowl, would be reenacted in its brevity and its catastrophe-the difference being, that whilst they went down, myself and crew would go up-a distinction without any very solid difference. And I think, so far as moral effect is concerned, a similar fate would await me in the management of my "quarter section;" my doom would be more protracted and more painful, but just as certain. For I believe myself, and the rest of mankind who are professional men, know about as much of the management of steam-engines as of quartersections, and that we are about as fit in the one as in the other to encourage agriculture, commerce, manufactures, and all other branches of industry. I do not think, therefore, that you encourage agriculture by this bill; but if you do, you certainly do not encourage all other branches of industry. It is true, to a certain degree, that agriculture, when kept within its legitimate limits, has a tendency to improve the commerce of a nation; whether it improves its manufactures is a more disputed point. So far isit from being necessarily so, that we find the agricultural and the manufacturing interests constantly arrayed against each other in this country,-one asks for free trade and the other for a protective tariff.

But be that as it may, you certainly do not increase or encourage all other branches of industry, if you lure away from their successful pursuit the skillful and energetic men who have hitherto adopted them. Our country needs the practical and competent mechanic, as well as the agriculturist. What will we do, without the shoemaker, the carpenter, the tailor, the blacksmith, &c.? Will it improve all these branches of industry to take away from them those who follow them for a livelihood, and send them to cultivate land? Plenty of these will remain, you answer. But it is not the policy of this law that they should remain. All that you could do to get them away, you have done, not only by your free gift of land, but by the argument you have addressed to them in the title of this act, by the assurance you have given to them, that by turning their attention to this new field of labor, they will encourage all other branches of industry. I ask you, therefore, if the policyif the bearing of the law is the true one? And the only way you can answer me is by the assurance that the law will not have the effect it professes to have; that though it invites all, it courts all to come without any exceptions-that although it holds out brilliant promises of wealth and usefulness to all who do come, yet that very few will come in point of fact, and only those who are skillful agriculturists. Well, why not give it, then, to skillful agriculturists? What kind of law is it that says one thing and means another?

Mr. President, I do not know whether you have noticed it, but as I have no doubt you are a keen observer of human nature, I think you must have noticed, as I have, when walking the principal avenue of our metropolis, a man with a magnificent head upon his shoulders and a very decrepit body. If you have extended your researches as far as I have, you have noticed the reverse of this; you have seen a man with a magnificently-framed body and with a very ricketty head. I do not know how it has struck you, but I have always been irresistibly inclined to take a sharp cimetar and clip both heads off, and put the good head on the good body, so as to make one perfect man of the two, and throw away the balance to be dealt with as the law directs. That, to be sure, would be murder, and I do not suppose that either you or I would be inclined to indulge in such an innocent amusement, considering the consequences which might result, although we might think we had benefited mankind by taking away two decrepit species of humanity, and in their places getting a perfect one. We cannot, however, indulge this propensity, because the law suspends a penalty over us; but without any bloodshed, 1 think we might do that in reference to the project before us-I mean the homestead bill.

The honorable Senator from Alabama [Mr. CLEMENS] has submitted informally an amendment, which is to come in at the end of the homestead bill, which is a proposition for a graduation law. What I want to do is not to cut off this

This graduation system was commented on and advocated by Mr. Calhoun and other wise legislators and eminent statesmen, and I do not think there can be any reasonable objection to it. I do not think any man can object if he can purchase by his own industry, at a merely nominal sum, the public land of the country. It is the duty and the policy of the Government to dispose of the public land as soon as practicable. If it cannot receive $125 per acre, after the lapse of so many years, it should fall in price so much per cent. and so on, until it gets down to twelve-and-a-half cents per acre. If I were a poor man I would rather own an acre of land by the payment of twelve-and-ahalf cents, and would feel myself more independent and more of a man than I would by taking a quarter section of land from the public for nothing, clogged with the restriction that I could not sell, but that I must live upon it and cultivate it myself. I think the true policy of this Government is to dispose of the public land as soon as it can, at the prices which it can get for it, falling gradually as the lapse of time admonishes us that the lands are not wanted, or are not rich in their character.

I had intended to go into the constitutional argument on the subject, but I do not wish to delay the Senate any longer, particularly as the Senator from Mississippi has paid particular attention to that branch of it, and I will therefore not trespass further upon the Senate at this time.

THE FEE BILL.

similar services rendered in the supreme court of the respective States. For clerks, in addition to the per diem of five dollars for attending court, it adopts the same rule, with one third added to the amount. It will hence be seen that the compensation of the officers, and the costs taxed in civil suits, is made to depend in a great degree on that allowed in the State courts. There are no two States where the allowance is the same.

When this system was adopted, it had the semblance of equality, which does not now exist. There were then but sixteen States, in all of which the laws prescribed certain taxable costs to attorneys for the prosecution and defense of suits. In several of the States which have since been added to the Union, no such cost is allowed; and in others the amount is inconsiderable. As the State fee bills are made so far the rule of compensation in the Federal courts, the Senate will perceive that totally different systems of taxation prevail in the different districts. In some, the district attorney receives no compensation beyond his small salary and per diem for a large portion of his most important services; while in others his fees are enormous, and the amount of cost which the losing party is made to pay to the attorney on the other side in civil suits, is so large as to be flagrantly oppressive. It is not only the officers of the courts, but the suitors also, that are affected by the present unequal, extravagant, and often oppressive system.

Take, for example, the case of the district attorneys. In some of the States, where no taxable costs are allowed to attorneys, a large amount of business has been thrown upon the district attorneys, in the settlement of land titles in which the United States were interested, and no compensation whatever can be allowed to these officers for their services in such cases. In other States, where a different system prevails in the State courts, adequate, and even extravagant fees are allowed for the same services. So, too, in criminal cases, great inequality prevails. In Georgia, for instance, the

OF MAINE,

IN THE SENATE, February 12, 1853, On the bill to regulate the Fees and Costs in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States.

Mr. BRADBURY said: Mr. President, this bill is designed to accomplish an important object, and I hope it will not be defeated, or its efficiency destroyed by amendments. It seeks reform where reform is very much needed; and while I ask the friends of the measure not to allow its defeat by amendments, I will avoid bringing about the same result by too much speaking on my part. A few remarks may be necessary, and I will be as brief as possible. This bill comes to us from the House; and having been confided to my charge by the committee of the Senate to whom it was referred, I have felt it to be my duty to urge its consideration upon the Senate. Beyond this, I have no other solicitude than that which should be common to every Senator.

The bill is designed to regulate the fees and compensation of district attorneys, marshals, clerks, commissioners, jurors, and witnesses in the circuit and district courts of the United States, and to prescribe the costs which shall be taxed and recovered in these courts against the losing party in civil suits. The bill has, then, two objects in view; and a brief reference to the existing state of things, and the flagrant abuses that have grown up under the present system, will demonstrate the necessity of some measure of the kind.

There is now no uniform rule either for com

pensating the ministerial officers of the courts, or for the regulation of the costs in actions between private suitors. One system prevails in one district, and a totally different one in another; and in some cases it would be difficult to ascertain that any attention had been paid to any law whatever designed to regulate such proceedings. The act of

prosecution are five dollars; in Pennsylvania they are six dollars; in New York, charges have been made to the amount of three, four, and five hundred dollars for precisely the same services. In Virginia a still different rule prevai.s, and twenty dollars are usually allowed for an indictment, and from fifty to one hundred dollars for attending to a criminal prosecution, under a discretionary authority given to the court to determine the compensation in the districts in that State.

The abuses that have grown up in the taxation of attorneys' fees which the losing party has been compelled to pay in civil suits, have been a matter of serious complaint, The papers before the committee show that in some cases those costs have been swelled to an amount exceedingly oppressive to suitors, and altogether disproportionate to the magnitude and importance of the causes in which they are taxed, or the labor bestowed. I have a bill before me where, upon a recovery of some $36 damages in a case of no complicated or expensive litigation, the attorney's fees are swelled with motions, orders, briefs, and attendances, &c., to more than $240, and the clerk's and commissioner's fees are nearly $100 more. This was all taxed against the losing party, who was thus compelled to pay for the services of the attorney employed against him. This was in the southern district of New York; and I notice it to illustrate the fault of the system, and not as matter of censure of the court for administering the law under such a system. Jurists of great eminence have made these abuses the subject of complaint, and they urge upon us the importance of providing a remedy. I have another bill of costs before me, allowed in an admiralty case in Florida, some years ago, in which there is taxed against the libelant, who failed to sustain his libel, more than $5,000; of this sum $2,500 is for the counsel fees of the prevailing party! Comment on such proceedings is unnecessary.

SENATE.

I have not the time to allude now to all the abuses that prevail in other respects. I hold in my hand an official report from the First Comptroller's Office, which shows that a clerk in Mississippi charged more than $3,000 for his per diem in attending court in three old bankrupt cases, from February, 1846, to November, 1849; an amount that is greater than the whole average annual expenditures for the United States judiciary in the great State of Georgia. In another district, a clerk charged his per diem for some ninety-two days more than the whole time the court could have been held.

It is to correct the evils and remedy the defects of the present system, that the bill has been prepared and passed by the House of Representatives. It attempts to simplify the taxation of fees, by prescribing a limited number of definite items to be allowed. It is not in all respects such a bill as f would have preferred, but it is believed to be an improvement upon the present system. I think it would be a still greater improvement to substitute for district attorneys fixed salaries, proportionate to their services in the different districts, in place of the fees now received. There would be no difficulty in ascertaining such an amount as would be a fair and adequate compensation in the respective districts, and the advantage to the Government of having officers to look after its interests, not dependent upon the multiplication of processes and suits to secure a fair compensation for their services, must be obvious to every one.

The amendments recommended by the Senate committee are, with one exception, designed to remedy defects in the bill where fees were omitted, or placed too low to be compensatory for the service rendered. Experience will undoubtedly prove the necessity of further amendments. It is believed, however, that the bill will remedy the enormous abuses to which I have referred, that have grown out of the indefinite and unequal system that now prevails. The increased and increasing expenses of the courts of the United States may be accounted for, in some degree, by the growth of these abuses, as well as by the natural increase of business before the courts. These abuses attach to the system, and not generally to the courts. I will refer the Senate on this subject, to a statement furnished by the First Comptroller of the Treasury, in a communication to the Secretary of the Interior, under date of November 21, 1851. Here it is: Statement showing the aggregate amounts of expenses of courts of the United States paid out of the judiciary fund, with the salaries and compensation of the marshals and district attorneys added thereto, for specified periods from 1791 to 1851, and the average amount paid annually; also, the increase per centum of population, and expenses of courts, from the year 1800 to 1851.

I now refer to another table showing the expenditures in the different districts: Statement of the amounts (exclusive of fractions of a dollar) advanced and paid to marshals to pay the expenses of the circuit and district courts of the United States respectively, during the undermentioned years, being for six months of the year 1843, and for the fiscal years 1844 to 1851.*

DISTRICTS.

Maine......

New Hampshire.. Massachusetts.. Connecticut.. Rhode Island Vermont.....

.........

New York, northern dist..
New York, southern dist..
New Jersey....
Pennsylvania, east. dist...
Pennsylvania, west. dist..
Delaware..
Meryland..

Virginia, castern district..
Virginia, western district.
North Carolina...
South Carolina........
Georgia....

Alabama, northern dist....
Alabama, southern dist...
Mississippi, northern dist.
Mississippi, southern dist.
Louisiana, eastern dist....
Louisiana, western dist...
Tennessee, eastern dist...
Tennessee, middle dist....
Tennessee, western dist..
Indiana...
Illinois..
Kentucky.

Ohio

Missouri..

Arkansas..

Michigan..

Florida, districts of..

Texas..

Wisconsin...

Iowa..

District of Columbia..

4,000 6,300 4,500 8,000 3,814 3,000 3,155 3,000 16,416 1,700 24,045 21,000 15,405 25,000 2,917

1,994

1,000

3,500 7,298 11,664 12,643 26,596 2,700 1,437 1,800 122 4,000 3,000 4,325

300 2,000 3,680 853 6,510 9,500 12,970, 15,000 2,000 4,498 7,500 7,000 9,185 10,580 3,585 8,394 5,104 9,177 9,264 10,090 15,500 19,837, 13,000 25,000 21,870 58,271

4,930 15,519 12,867 19,000 16,011 28,300 45,009 46,530 55,000|

806 2,625 733 1,101 8,200, 12,679 9,986 22,450 5,494 1,950 4,100 16,197 29,372 29,214 19,150 21,850

Mr. Hall charges as follows: Date. Items. 1849-Retaining fee, $8 00;

term, 1849.

warrant of attorney, 37% $8 37% $8 37% 98 37% Motion for trial, $3 00; at

and attorney's taxes.... One term fee...

torney and counsel and motion to

postpone,

$3 00......

Brief, attorney and counsel fee, prepared...... Drawing costs, copying,

Attorney and colleague, on motion to extend recog

nizance, (forfeited).

Other items.

1,335 1,698 1,430 2,000 3,900 5.397 6,025 4,826 3,500 3,000 1,685 300 605 5,000 6,500 4,075 9,206 721 1,798 1,419 3,669 3,300 2,250 3,267 15,151 22,000 10,935 26,052 9,000

600 700 884 2,182 2,121 2,500 3,833 2,790 850 1,000 1,261 1,125 2,398 1,450 14,180 9,000

600 300 450 1,159 4,000 3,968 3,016 2,712 1,600 1,400 1,074 1,000 2,000 2,400 2,70 1,825 3,00 11,975 4,612 11,000 6,045 11,352 3,700 19,594 18,412 4,100 4,000 6,000 2,000 3,000 4,900 4,425 10,000 4.355 15,000 1,232 12,922 14,989 21,044 7,350 17,425 9,000 9,969 10,700 7,142 5,091 6,100 4,900 8,423 12,336 2,500 10,282 14,213 6,470 15,514 10,300 8,000 7,716 22,173 5,003 15,174 18,500 6,383 9,000 9,27 6,612 9,155, 16,000 26,697 86,000 72,993 19,969 19,177 19,117 6.995 13,964 12,262 6,000 8,000 13,950 10,760 10,996 7,000 9,000 15,000 31,953 25,000 24,948 2,260 7,991 6,276 9,5 0 23,700 45,000 29,950 26,500 4,377 3.610 3,487 361 40,000 50,000 45,500 50,000) 55,000 39,403 66,000 73,000 55,526

Though the expenses of the courts are nearly all paid by the marshals, there are some exceptions to the general rule. There have been some bills for counsel fees and other extra services, and some for the ordinary services of clerks and district attorneys, every year audited in the name of the claimants, and paid to them directly, in addition to the sums advanced and paid to the marshals, the principal and largest of which are the following, allowed by my predecessor, and paid during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1849, to wit:

To Thomas J. Durant, district attorney of Louisiana, for professional services rendered by him, from July 1, 1846, to June 30, 1848... .$13,605 20

To S. W. Downs, for professional services in the same district..

To Bailie Peyton, for services in the same district, from 1811 to 1845.....

Statement of the bills and items of costs charged by Prescott Hall, district attorney of the United States, and taxed by
Judge Betts, in the district court of the United States for the southern district of New York, in the causes and at
the terms herein stated, to wit:
THE UNITED STATES

June 27, Retaining fee, $8; warrant of attorney, 37% cents...
Drawing affidavits to found warrant, 6 folios, engrossing and copy...
Motion for warrant, $3; drawing and engrossing do. $1 50.
Motion for temporary commitment..

July 5, Motion for commitment of J. Pelby, a witness..........
Drawing and engrossing commitment....

The same as to J. B Ackeman, a witness....

Drawing subpena for examination, $1; drawing and engrossing ticket, $1 12% and two copies, 50 cents....

1850-January term, 1st, 2d, and 3d items, same as

March term, 1st, 2d, and 3d items, same as April term above..

April term, 1st, 2d, and 3d items, same as al lowed by Mr. Hall, charged.....

Total charge taxed and paid to Shepherd for three terms..........

Total attorneys' fees taxed and paid for eleven terms of court.....

29 87% 29 00

237 12%

517 62

Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Hall both charged for the April term, 1849 the former $29, and the latter $25 75.

1842, which confines the taxation in criminal cases In taxing these bills, the act of Congress of to that of the criminal fee bill of the State, is wholly disregarded. The latter allows no retaining fees, and no term fees for attending to try a cause unless it is actually tried, and yet not less than eight or nine retaining fees are charged in a single cause. To show the different practice under the same law in the State courts, one of the accounts of a district attorney for one of the counties of the State of New York, is furnished by the Comptroller. This account includes all the ordinary services of a term, including the drawing three indictments, five trials, and preparation for the trial of thirteen causes; and yet the aggregate amount for the term is $62 06.

I refer to another table furnished from the same source, to exhibit the mode of charging adopted in some cases by the clerks:

Clerk's fees for attending district court for the southern district of Mississippi in bankruptcy: Accounts of William Burns, clerk, for his per diem from May 19, 1845, to November 18, 1848, for 890 days' sitting in bankruptcy, at $5 per day.... Four days on other business..

32D CONG.....2D SESS.

S. J. Gholson, judge of that district, certified to the account, and "that the attendance upon said court sitting in bankruptcy of William Burns, clerk thereof, as specified in the foregoing abstract, was expressly required by me, and said clerk did actually so attend for the performance ' of the duties of his office."

"Given under my hand and seal," &c.

I now refer to an account for services rendered by the marshal of the district of Massachusetts, in order that I may correct an erroneous impression that prevails in some quarters in regard to it. The Comptroller gives the account in the communication to which I have already referred under the following caption:

Abstract of costs taxed and certified by the district judge and clerk in the district of Massachusetts.

Charges of the Marshal. 1849.-April.-1. Warrant to arrest Wilson--service $2; copy, $1; commitment, 50 cts.; travel, 5 cents...

2. Habeas corpus for Wilson-service, $2; copy $1; discharge, 50 cents; travel, 5

cents....

3. Warrant to commit Wilson-service, $2; copy, $1; commitment, 50 cents; travel, 5 cents....

4. Warrant to commit 6 witnesses-service, $12; copy, 81; 6 commitments, $3; travel, 5 cents..

5. Habeas corpus for 6 witnesses-service, $12; copy, $1; 6 discharges, $3; travel,

5 cents..

During the months of April and May said charges were repeated in the said cause as follows:

HO. OF REPS.

Judge Sprague, the judge of the district court for the district of Massachusetts, upon being informed of this communication of the Comptroller, immediately denied having certified and allowed the account as there presented. He alleges that he certified and allowed but one of the accounts, under one of the indictments; and that when he certified it, it was not connected with the other accounts, which were upon separate sheets. It appears that they were subsequently put together and paged, with the certified sheet placed last in order, and thus presented to the Comptroller, who was thereby erroneously but naturally led to suppose, that all had been certified and allowed by the court. It is difficult to perceive, in a proceeding of this kind, where there would seem to be subTotal Marshal's fees charged in that suit..... $1,085 10 stantially but one offense charged, and but one trial in progress, any apparent object for bringing up each witness on six different writs of habeas corpus, and committing him on six different warrants, daily, week after week, except that of increasing the emoluments of the officers of the court. I shall here dismiss this subject with the remarks of the Comptroller on this point:

Charge No. 2, 27 times, amounting to...

UNITED STATES JAMES W. WILSON.

Date. Charges of the Marshal. 1849.-The same number of charges, in precisely the same words, and during the same time, April and May, and for the same amount each, are made in this case as in indictment No. 1, the marshal's fees amounting to.......

Indictment for the same offense, UNITED STATES 13. charging him with conspiring with John W. Crafts to destroy JAMES W. WILSON. the same ship. Date. Charges of the Marshal. Amount. 1849. The charges of marshal's fees in the third cause or indictment is for serving no less than 28 warrants to commit six witnesses to jail, each time, during the same months, April and May, charged at $16 05 each, as charge No. 3.....

For serving 27 writs of habeas corpus, each
on six witnesses, charged at $16 05 on each
writ.......

UNITED STATES 4. Indictment for combining and con

JOHN W. CRAFTS.

Date.

spiring with persons unknown, to destroy the ship Franklin.

Charges of the Marshal. 1849.-Marshal's fees charged in April and May for serving 29 warrants to commit 6 witnesses to jail, each time, on each writ, $16 05, amounting to......

$465 45 For serving 28 writs of habeas corpus, each on six witnesses, charged at $16 05, on each writ.....

Total on 4th suit..

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I do not wish to consume the time of the committee at this late stage of the session, yet not having had an opportunity previously, I feel impelled by a sense of duty towards a large portion of the people of Louisiana, a State that I have the honor in part to represent, to ask permission to reply to some very erroneous opinUNITED STATES 5. Indicted for combining and conspir-ions expressed by my friend from Virginia, [Mr. ing with C. Smith to destroy said MEADE,] in debate in the early part of the session JOHN W. CRAFTS. ship. in relation to the sugar planters of Louisiana, by Date. Charges of the Marshal. Amount. holding them up as millionaire capitalists, whose 1849. April and May. The charges in this case are interest is opposed to the interest of the laboring precisely the same as in No. 4, for serving classes." 29 warrants to commit and 28 writs of habeas corpus, each on six witnesses, charged on each writ $16 05, amounting ...$914 85

vs.

to........

UNITED STATES 6. Indicted for combining and conspirwith James W. Wilson to destroy JOHN W. CRAFTS. S the same ship. NEW SERIES.-No. 14.

I can assure all who take an interest in the matter, that in order to succeed well in sugar planting, knowledge of the business, together with close attention and strict economy, are required. I would not advise persons entertaining the opinion expressed by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. MEADE,] to engage in sugar planting; they would most assuredly deceive themselves, and fail, as I have known many to do.