"After the delivery of this speech, a motion was made by one of the opponents of the bill, to lay it on the table; which motion, not admitting of debate, prevented many Senators, who were favorable to the main object of the bill, from declaring their sentiments. Among these was Mr. TAZEWELL, of Virginia, one of the most distinguished men in America, and whose sentiments, as a Senator from the State which was the greatest donor of the Western lands, are entitled to peculiar respect, and must have uncommon weight. Disappointed in his expectation of having an opportunity to declare his sentiments on the bill to graduate the price of the public lands, Mr. TAZEWELL afterwards deposited upon the table of the Senate the following resolution;

[SENATE.

Against this motion Mr. ROBBINS spoke to the following effect:

This bill provides the process for enabling the Supreme Court to decide controversies between State and State, but does not provide any process for enforcing the decision. This omission, while it relieves the bill from exception, will not impair its efficacy. The question of right being settled by the Supreme Court, the bill leaves it to the voluntary justice of the State found to be in the wrong to make restitution of the right which had been withheld; presuming coercion to be unnecessary.

For my part, I cannot imagine any reasonable ground on which the adoption of such a law can be resisted. For, as no force is to be employed, no coercion to be resorted to, it cannot endanger the peace of the Union; it need and yet it will be sufficient to vindicate the national jusnot even disturb the fraternity of the contending States; tice, and to redeem the pledge given to the several States when they adopted the constitution, and, by the constitution, that they should obtain this justice under its au

Resolved, That it is expedient for the United States to cede and surrender to the several States within whose limits the same may be situated, all the right, title, and interest of the United States to any land lying and being within the boundaries of such States, respectively, upon such terms and conditions as may be consistent with the due observance of the public faith, and with the general thority.

interest of the United States."

After reading to the Senate the foregoing extract from and if on trial it is found to be inconvenient, of which Besides, the law is limited to a period of five years; the postscript, and the resolution, Mr. B. called on Mr. there is no probability, no possibility indeed, the inconveTAZEWELL, in his place, to say whether he had been pre-nience will be but temporary. It is to be but an experi vented from delivering his sentiments on the graduation ment; an experiment which promises beneficial results, bill, by him, and driven to offer the resolution as an ex- and these very important, and which may be made without pression of those sentiments, as stated in the postscript, or the risk, so far as can be foreseen, of one possible evil. not: and offered to send the postscript and resolution to the Senator from Virginia.

In the course of five years, every subsisting controverMr. TAZEWELL rose, and said it was unnecessary to sy of the kind in question, may be, and probably will be, send them, for he remembered the resolution perfectly prosecuted and closed, and the continuance of the law well; and that, in offering it, he was not influenced by any become unnecessary. The constitution will then stand movement of the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. BARTON] acquitted of its obligation to the States complaining of nor had his movement any connexion with the motion of wrong and claiming redress, of its obligation to afford the Senator to lay the graduation bill on the table; that them that redress, and probably its power need never he had entertained the design to offer such a proposition again be exerted. for some time before the debate alluded to, and had drawn up the resolution and shown it to several members before offering it; and that he had no intention to take any part in the debate on the graduation bill, that had been referred to in the postscript.

Mr. BARTON again rose, and read the following from the postscript to Mr. BENTON's speech:

The objection to this law, if any, should come, I think, from the complaining States, as being a law that may not be effectual to its end, as it provides no means for the enforcement of the decree when made. But it is these complaining States who apply for the law. They say, give us this law, and we are content; we ask for no other, we wish no better. For they are confident it will be "Mr. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, who had, in like man-effectual to its end; that no State in this Union will conner, been disappointed, submitted a resolution to obtain sent to stand under the opprobrium of withholding that from the General Land Office, by the commencement of justice which has been decreed against her, in favor of the next session, a report upon the qualities and value of a sister State, by the Supreme Court of the nation, under the public lands in Louisiana and Mississippi, preparato- the authority of the constitution. That very State pride, ry to the discussion of the bill to graduate the price of which opposes itself to this bill, is their warrant for this the public lands, at the next session.” confidence; for that pride never would brook, for a moHaving read the extract, Mr. BARTON called on Mr.ment, the reproach of persisting in a wrong, pronounced JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, in his place, to say whether he by the constitutional voice of the nation to be a wrong, had been prevented from delivering his sentiments on the and which the State itself could no longer say was not a occasion mentioned in the postscript, or disappointed, as wrong. Besides, they have for this confidence the warrepresented by the motion to lay on the table. rant of all past experience; both our own, and that of every other confederacy which ever has existed. The provision for settling controversies among the federal members by the authority of the federal power has been common to them all. Indeed, it would be preposterous to think of forming a federal constitution without such a provision. For one of the chief ends of forming a confederacy is, to preserve peace among its members; and this is one of the obvious and necessary means of preserving peace. In every instance of a confederated government, that ever has existed, except our own under the present constitution, that provision has been organized, and made effectual to its end; but in no instance has it ever been found necessary to execute by force the decree of the constituted tribunal. The decree alone has always been found sufficient to execute itself. The decree is itself the execution; has all the force of an execution; and, like the decrees of the Exchequer against the

Mr. JOHNSTON said, in substance, that he did speak, at one session, on the graduation bill, which was probably the session after the one referred to. He did not remember to have been prevented at any time, and he was sure the motion to lay the bill on the table was not with a view to prevent his speaking; and that his resolution had in view to obtain a description of the lands in Louisiana, with a view to obtain a cession of them to the State, or to graduate the price to the quality at a subsequent session. [The bill was then ordered to lie on the table.]

CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN STATES. The bill reported to the Senate, "prescribing the modes of commencing, prosecuting, and deciding controversies between States," being next under consideration, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee [Mr. ROWAN] made a motion for its indefinite postponement.

VOL. VI.--52

King of England, carries itself into execution. Such is the testimony of all experience upon the subject.

To notice this matter historically, but briefly, however, very briefly:

[MAY 3, 1830.

is to say that this provision of the constitution ought never to be executed. For they do not say, and will not say, that any thing in the present time forbids it, which will not equally forbid it in all future time. And, if this recommendation is followed, this body also say this provision ought never to be executed.

The Amphictionic council was the Supreme Court of Greece, and decided the civil controversies between the sovereignties which composed that celebrated confederacy; Now let the Senate consider that this provision of the and though those controversies were frequently litigated constitution is not a discretionary trust in the hands of before, and decided by, that august tribunal, yet history the Government, to be executed or not executed at their mentions no instance in which the decree was resisted, or discretion, but that the trust is imperative. The constiin which force was found necessary to its execution, tution says, "the judicial power shall extend to controverthough that tribunal might arm itself with the whole sies between two or more States." That is the injuneforce of the confederacy for this purpose. tion of the constitution upon the Government, its functionIn the Germanic confederacy, the decrees of the Aulic ary and trustee. To refuse to execute this provision, Council and Imperial Chamber, (which was, and I be- then, is to disobey this injunction; and you do refuse its lieve still is, the Supreme Court as to all civil controver-execution, if you refuse the process necessary to the exesies of that confederacy)--these decrees might be en-cution. For the Supreme Court have no power to proforced by the ban of the empire. But when was that vide it; the States have no power to provide it; the comban ever employed to enforce the decree in such contro-mon law does not provide it, for the common law knows versies? We read of none. nothing of a suit by a State against a State, in a confederaIn the Swiss confederacy, civil controversies between cy, before the common tribunal of that confederacy; it the cantons is settled by arbitration; and though the fede- has, therefore, no forms for such a case. Without an allral arm may be employed to enforce the award, it never thorized process, the Supreme Court cannot entertain juis employed, because it never has been found necessary risdiction of a suit by a State against a State; and Congress to employ it. alone can provide it.

The same may be said of the United Netherlands. Un- Suppose you had the power to obliterate this provision der a similar provision, their civil controversies between from the constitution, would you propose to do it? or, if their States are settled, and are peaceably settled; and proposed, would you consent to do it? Such a proposi though force may be employed to enforce the decree, it tion, I am confident, would not find a patron in this House, never is employed, because it never has been found ne-nor a defender in this nation. And yet, if you do refuse cessary to employ it.

to execute this provision, and on the principle that it In our first, commonly called our old confederation, we ought never to be executed, it is blotted out from the conhad the same provision; and that provision was organized stitution; for there is no difference between its remaining by the old Congress; and though the court appointed for a dead letter for ever in the constitution, and its being this national object--(which was to be appointed, and was blotted out for ever from the constitution. Now, where appointed, occasionally, and for the case as it occurred, will gentlemen find a justification for destroying a trust upon application to Congress)-though the court was put into their hands for execution, and that enjoined by clothed with no power to enforce its decree, and though the deed of trust under which they act? I know not; let no means were provided to enforce it, yet the decree gentlemen tell me where, if they can. went silently into complete effect. Witness the decree I beg gentlemen to consider, too, that this provision is in the case of the controversy between the States of Con- not one of doubtful meaning, nor of doubtful intention: necticut and Pennsylvania, and some others, if I rightly on the contrary, it is so direct and explicit that it can neirecollect. ther be misunderstood nor misinterpreted: no commentaThere is no reason, then, to doubt, as it appears to me,ry can elucidate, no glossary can obscure it: for the plain the efficiency of such a law as the bill proposes, to the short scripture is--"The judicial power shall extend to great object of the constitution, though it only provides controversies between two or more States." And the inthe process for enabling the Supreme Court to settle the question of right, and does not provide any process for enfercing the decrees which they may pronounce. Now consider--and I call particularly upon those States to consider, who have no present and direct interest in this question-that these controversies are so many sources of discord between the States who have this present and We all mean to be faithful to the constitution; our direct interest, which this remedy will quietly and expe- trust imposes it as an obligation, to which we have superditiously extinguish, and without which these sources of added the obligation of an oath. Now I ask whether rediscord must remain eternal as the constitution itself, sisting the execution of a provision in the constitution, inrankling in the bosom of the suffering States, and rank-tended to be executed by one party, and understood and ling the more because remediless, and because the keen accepted by the other as intended to be executed, is besense of injustice is to be aggravated to them by the keener ing faithful to the constitution? I put that to the cousense of hopeless despair. When they adopted the con- science of the Senate.

tention of the parties is just as manifest as the meaning of the words. It was important to the States having or to have these controversies, to have them settled. It was the intention of the United States, therefore, that they should be settled; and it was the understanding of these States that they would be settled under this provision.

stitution, they surrendered that prerogative of a sove- Again, let me beg gentlemen to consider that this proreign State which made them their own judges of their vision is, in fact, a stipulation made by the United States own rights, and their own vindicators of their own rights; with these States, that they should have these controver and they made the surrender on the pledge, in that con- sies settled by the adjudication of the Supreme Court; a stitution, and by that constitution, that those rights should stipulation offered on one side, and accepted on the other, be vindicated by the federal authority. And are they and solemnly ratified by both. Now one of the parties, now to be told, and by the Federal Government, too, the party for whom, and with whom, the stipulation is that this was a piece of mockery played off upon them? made, calls upon the other to perform this stipulation; be that they are bound, but that the Federal Government is produces his title deed; he reads the covenant in the not bound? and that the pledge given is not to be re- deed; it is explicit, it is undeniable; he claims its fulldeemed? So it would seem, by the recommendation of ment; he invokes the faith plighted for its fulfilment. the committee who reported the bill; for they recom- Now I ask you, gentlemen--you, the Senate of the United mend its indefinite postponement, which, in other words, States--you, the depositary of this plighted faith, and the

functionary to discharge its obligation, whether this invocation shall be made to you, and made in vain.

[SENATE.

of Missouri, on the fourth Monday in December, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five, did, under and by virtue of the power and authority vested in the said court, by the act of the Congress of the United States, entitled "An act enabling the claimants to lands within the limits of the State of Missouri and Territory of Arkansas to institute proceedings to try the validity of their claims," approved on the twenty-sixth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four, render a final decree of the said court in favor of the United States, and against the validity of the claim of the petitioners, in a certain matter or cause depending in the said court, under the said act, and before that time prosecuted in the said court, before the said Judge, by Julie Soulard, widow of Antoine Soulard, and James G. Soulard, Henry G. Soulard, Eliza Soulard, and Benjamin A. Soulard, children and heirs at law of the said Antoine Soulard, petitioners against the United States, praying for the confirmation of their claim, under the said act, to certain lands situated in the said State of Missouri; and the said court did, thereafter, on the thirtieth day of December, in the said year, adjourn to sit again on the third Monday in April, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-six.

If it could be said that no State controversies were now subsisting, it might be said that the execution of this constitutional trust was not now necessary. But this cannot be said. A number of these controversies do subsist, and have long subsisted, and must for ever subsist, without this remedy to determine them. I speak advisedly as to one in particular. The State, one of whose Representatives I have the honor to be in this body, contends that a portion of her territory and jurisdiction, and the resources involved therein, amounting nearly to one-tenth of that territory, is now occupied (she does not say is now usurped, for that she leaves for the competent tribunal to say) by a neighboring State. Long, and long, and long, have they endeavored to settle this controversy by negotiation, but all their efforts have proved fruitless; and always will and must prove fruitless. Finding negotiation hopeless, Rhode Island proposed to settle the controversy by arbitration. She was desirous that some distinguished civilian or civilians should be called in to settle for us what we could not settle for ourselves; but our neighbor declined the proposition. We then proposed an amicable suit to the Supreme Court of the United States, waiving, by agree- And the said petitioners did, and at the December term ment, all forms of process, and submitting only the ab- of the said court, holden by and before the said James H. stract question of right to that tribunal. This, too, was Peck, Judge as aforesaid, in due form of law, under the refused. So her case, without this or some similar law, said act, appeal against the United States from the judgis without remedy, and without hope. If this, too, be re-ment and decree so made and entered in the said matter, fused by Congress, she must submit to her fate; hard as to the Supreme Court of the United States; of which apit is, she must submit. But she will think, for so it will peal, so made and taken in the said District Court, the be, that the faith of the constitution, pledged to her by said James H. Peck, Judge of the said court, had then And the said James H. Peck, after the constitution, and trusting to which she accepted the and there full notice. constitution, has been forfeited, and that her confidence the said matter or cause had so been duly appealed to the in that pledge has been a delusion. Supreme Court of the United States, and on or about the The Senate then adjourned. thirtieth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-six, did cause to be published, in a certain public newspaper, printed at the city of St. Louis, called "The Missouri Republican," a certain communication, prepared by the said James H. Peck, purporting to be the opinion On motion by Mr. TAZEWELL, the Senate resolved of the said James H. Peck, as Judge of the said court, in itself into a High Court of Impeachment, for the trial of the matter or cause aforesaid, and purporting to set forth James H. Peck, District Judge of Missouri; and the oath the reasons of the said James H. Peck, as such Judge, for prescribed having been administered to the Vice Presi- the said decree; and that Luke Edward Lawless, a citizen of the United States, and an attorney and counsellor dent, and by him to the forty-five Senators following, viz. Messrs. Adams, Barnard, Barton, Bell, Bibb, Brown, at law in the said District Court, and who had been of Burnet, Chase, Clayton, Dickerson, Dudley, Ellis, Foot, counsel for the petitioners in the said court, in the matter Forsyth, Frelinghuysen, Grundy, Hayne, Hendricks, aforesaid, did, thereafter, and on or about the eighth day Holmes, Iredell, Johnston, Kane, King, Knight, Living- of April, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-six, ston, McKinley, McLean, Marks, Naudain, Noble, Rob- cause to be published in a certain other newspaper, printbins, Rowan, Ruggles, Sanford, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, ed at the city of St. Louis, called "The Missouri Advoa certain article signed of South Carolina, Sprague, Tazewell, Troup, Tyler, cate and St. Louis Enquirer, "A Citizen," and purporting to contain an exposition of Webster, White, Willey, WoodburyThe Managers appointed by the House of Representa- certain errors of doctrine and fact alleged to be contained tives then appeared at the bar of the Senate; and, having in the opinion of the said James H. Peck, as before that been conducted and seated within the bar, and the usual time so published, which publication by the said Luke proclamation to keep silence having been made by the Edward Lawless was to the effect following, viz. Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. BUCHANAN, of Pennsylvania, their "SIR: I have read, with the attention which the subChairman, rose, and read the following article of impeachment, which had been agreed to by the House of Repre-ject deserves, the opinion of Judge Peck on the claim of sentatives, against James H. Peck, District Judge of the the widow and heirs of Antoine Soulard, published in the Republican of the thirtieth ultimo. I observe United States for the District of Missouri: that, although the Judge has thought proper to decide against the claim, he leaves the grounds of his decree open for further discussion.

TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1830.

THE IMPEACHMENT.

"To the Editor:

Article exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States, in the name of themselves, and of all the people of the United States, against James H. Peck, "Availing myself, therefore, of this permission, and Judge of the District Court of the United States for considering the opinion so published to be a fair subject the District of Missouri, in maintenance and support of of examination to every citizen who feels himself intetheir impeachment against him for high misdemeanors in office.

ARTICLE.

That the said James H. Peck, Judge of the District Court of the United States for the District of Missouri, at 2 term of the said court, holden at St. Louis, in the State

rested in, or aggrieved by, its operation, I beg leave to point the attention of the public to some of the principal errors which I think I have discovered in it. In doing so, I shall confine myself to little more than an enumeration of those errors, without entering into any demonstration or developed reasoning on the subject.

This

SENATE.]

The Impeachment.

[MAY 4, 1830.

would require more space than a newspaper allows, and, "16th. That the historical fact, that nineteen-twenbesides, is not, as regards most of the points, absolutely tieths of the titles to lands in Upper Louisiana were not necessary. only incomplete, but not conformable to the regulations of O'Reily, Gayoso, or Morales, at the date of the cession to the United States, affords no inference in favor of the general legality of those titles.

"Judge Peck, in this opinion, seems to me to have erred in the following assumptions, as well of fact as of doctrine:

"1. That, by the ordinance of 1754, a sub-delegate was prohibited from making a grant in consideration of services rendered or to be rendered.

17th. That the fact, that incomplete concessions, whether floating or located, were, previous to the cession, treated and considered by the Government and po

“2d. That a sub-delegate in Louisiana was not a sub-pulation of Louisiana as property, saleable, transferable, delegate, as contemplated by the said ordinance.

and the subject of inheritance and distribution ab intestato, furnishes no inference in favor of those titles, or to their claim to the protection of the treaty of cession, or of the law of nations.

"3d. That O'Reily's regulations, made in February, 1770, can be considered as demonstrative of the extent of the granting power of either the governor general or the sub.delegates, under the royal order of August, 1790. "18th. That the laws of Congress heretofore passed in "4th. That the royal order of August, 1770, (as re-favor of incomplete titles, furnish no argument or protectcited or referred to in the preamble to the regulations of ing principle in favor of those titles of a precisely similar Morales, of July, 1799) related exclusively to the govern- character, which remain unconfirmed. or general.

5th. That the word 'mercedes,' in the ordinance of 1754, which, in the Spanish language, means 'gifts,' can be narrowed, by any thing in that ordinance, or in any other law, to the idea of a grant to an Indian, or a reward to an informer, and much less to a mere sale for

money.

"6th. That O'Reily's regulations were in their terms applicable, or ever were in fact applied to, or published in, Upper Louisiana.

7th. That the regulations of O'Reily have any bearing on the grant to Antoine Soulard, or that such a grant was contemplated by them.

8th. That the limitation to a square league, of grants to new settlers in Opelousas, Attakapas, and Natchitoches, (in 8th article of O'Reily's regulations) prohibits a larger grant in Upper Louisiana.

"In addition to the above, a number of other errors, consequential on those indicated, might be stated. The Judge's doctrine as to the forfeiture which he contends is inflicted by Morales's regulations, seems to me to be peculiarly pregnant with grievous consequences. I shall, however, not tire the reader with any further enumeration, and shall detain him only to observe, by way of conclusion, that the Judge's recollection of the argument of the counsel for the petitioner, as delivered at the bar, differs materially from what I can remember, who also heard it. In justice to the counsel, I beg to observe, that all that I have now submitted to the public, has been suggested by that argument as spoken, and by the printed report of it, which is even now before me. "A CITIZEN."

And the said James H. Peck, Judge as aforesaid, unmindful of the solemn duties of his station, and that he "9th. That the regulations of the governor general, held the same, by the constitution of the United States, Gayoso, dated 9th September, 1797, entitled Instruc- during good behavior only, with intention wrongfully tions to be observed for the admission of new settlers,' and unjustly to oppress, imprison, and otherwise injure prohibit, in future, a grant for services, or have the ef- the said Luke Edward Lawless, under color of law, did, fect of annulling that to Antoine Soulard, which was thereafter, at a term of the said District Court of the Unitmade in 1796, and not located or surveyed until Febru-ed States for the District of Missouri, begun and held at ary, 1804. the city of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, on the third Monday in April, one thousand eight hundred and twentysix, arbitrarily, oppressively, and unjustly, and under the further color and pretence that the said Luke Edward "11th. That, although the regulations of Morales Lawless was answerable to the said court for the said pubwere not promulgated as law in Upper Louisiana, the lication signed "A Citizen," as for a contempt thereof, grantee in the principal case was bound by them, inas- institute, in the said court, before him, the said James H. much as he had notice, or must be presumed, from Peck, Judge as aforesaid, certain proceedings against the the official station which he held,' to have had notice, of said Luke Edward Lawless, in a summary way, by attachtheir terms. ment issued for that purpose by the order of the said James

10th. That the complete titles made by Gayoso are not to be referred to as affording the construction made by Gayoso himself, of his own regulations.

"13th. That the complete titles (produced to the court) made by the governor general, or the intendant general, though based on incomplete titles, not conformable to the regulations of O'Reily, Gayoso, or Morales, afford no inference in favor of the power of the lieutenant governor, from whom these incomplete titles emanated, and must be considered as anomalous exercises of power in favor of individual grantees.

12th. That the regulations of Morales exclude all H. Peck, as such Judge, against the person of the said belief that any law existed under which a confirmation of Luke Edward Lawless, touching the said pretended conthe title in question could have been claimed.' tempt, under and by virtue of which said attachment the said Luke Edward Lawless was, on the twenty-first day of April, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-six, arrested, imprisoned, and brought into the said court, before the said Judge, in the custody of the Marshal of the said State; and the said James H. Peck, Judge as aforesaid, did, afterwards, on the same day, under the color and pretences aforesaid, and with the intent aforesaid, in the said court, then and there, unjustly, oppressively, and arbitrarily, order and adjudge that the said Luke Edward Lawless, for the cause aforesaid, should be committed to prison for the period of twenty-four hours, and that he should be suspended from practising as an attorney or counsellor at law in the said District Court for the period of eighteen calendar months from that day, and did then and there further cause the said unjust and oppressive sentence to be carried into execution; and the said Luke Edward Lawless was, under color of the said sentence, and by the order of the said James H. Peck, Judge as aforesaid, thereupon suspended from practising as such

14th. That the language of Morales himself, in the complete titles issued by him, on concessions made by the lieutenant governor of Upper Louisiana, anterior to the date of his regulations, ought not to be referred to as furnishing the construction which he, Morales, put on his own regulations.

15th. That the uniform practice of the sub-delegates, or lieutenant governor of Upper Louisiana, from the first establishment of that province to the 10th March, 1804, is to be disregarded as proof of law, usage, or custom, therein.

MAY 5, 1830.]

The Graduation Bill.

[SENATE.

attorney or counsellor in the said court for the period It appeared to him, however, that, to accomplish this obaforesaid, and immediately committed to the common pri-ject, it was not necessary to provide for the gradual reducson in the said city of St. Louis, to the great disparage- tion, year after year, down to twenty-five cents per acre; ment of public justice, the abuse of judicial authority, and he would submit it to the friends of the bill, whether it and to the subversion of the liberties of the people of the would not make it more generally acceptable, and more conUnited States. sistent with the object of making early sales of these lands, And the House of Representatives, by protestation, to stop for the present at one dollar, or at least at seventysaving to themselves the liberty of exhibiting, at any time five cents, making a distinction of twenty-five cents in fahereafter, any further articles, or other accusations or im-vor of actual settlers. Let the experiment be tried of this peachment, against the said James H. Peck, and also of reduction, and let us see how the system works before we replying to his answers which he shall make unto the arti- go further. The object is to sell the land at a fair price, cle herein preferred against him, and of offering proof to to fix a just and reasonable valuation, and to know whether the same, and every part thereof, and to all and every one dollar or seventy-five cents is the proper amount; other articles, accusation, or impeachment, which shall be the experiment must be fairly tried. To try the sense of exhibited by them as the case shall require, do demand the Senate on this point, he should move to amend the bill that the said James H. Peck may be put to answer the by striking out the two latter resolutions, so as to fix the misdemeanors herein charged against him, and that such amounts at which the lands were to be offered for sale at proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments, may be one dollar and seventy-five cents, and twenty-five cents thereupon had and given, as may be agreeable to law and less to actual settlers. I would also [said Mr. H] strike justice. out the section which provides for donations to the States, five years hence, of the unsold lands, for the purpose of education and internal improvement. Without entering into the questions presented by a proposition to make donations for such subjects, it would be sufficient, for the present, to say, that a section of this kind was wholly unnecessary, and would present serious difficulties in the way of many gentlemen who might otherwise support the bill.

The VICE PRESIDENT informed the managers that the Senate would take proper order thereon, of which the House of Representatives should have due notice; and they then withdrew.

On motion by Mr. TAZEWELL, it was Resolved, That the Secretary be directed to issue a summons, in the usual form, to James H. Peck, Judge of the District Court of the United States for the District of Missouri, to answer a certain article of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives on this day; that the said summons be returnable here on Tuesday next the eleventh instant, and be served by the Sergeant-at-Arms, or some person to be deputed by him, at least three days before the return day thereof; and that the Secretary communicate this resolution to the House of Representatives.

On motion by Mr. TAZEWELL,

Mr. H. concluded, by moving to strike out the sixth section, providing for donations to the States, and, also, the tenth and eleventh lines, providing for a reduction, in two years, to fifty cents, and to twenty-five cents the year afterwards; which motions were agreed to without objection.

Mr. BENTON said, it was undoubtedly true, as stated by the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. HAYNE] that the clauses proposed to be struck out could not operate

The court then adjourned to Tuesday next at 12 for several years, even if retained and passed; and it was

o'clock.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1830.

THE GRADUATION BILL.

Mr. BENTON called up the bill to graduate the price of the public lands, to make provision for actual settlers, and to cede the refuse lands, upon equitable terms, and for meritorious objects, to the States in which they lie.

highly probable, as suggested by him, that the rejection of these clauses may secure the passage of the others, which are of more immediate necessity, and will answer all the purposes of the bill for the present. Mr. B. therefore, would not oppose any objection to striking them out, seeing that the intention was friendly to the main object of the bill, and a part of the purposes of introducing them had been accomplished. One object of the graduation bill was to exhibit a plan for the full, complete, and final disposition of the public lands; and, to answer this purpose, it was necessary to draw the bill in all its details; but it would be sufficient, and answer every purpose to the purchasers of the public lands, to have the different reductions of price made at different times.

Mr. HAYNE said, that viewing this bill as an attempt to relieve the new States from the injurious effects of a system which keeps out of market, and consequently unsettled, all the public lands worth less than one dollar twenty-five cents per acre, he was perfectly willing to give it his support; so far at least as that object was embraced. It Mr. WOODBURY observed, that he had waited for has been represented (and, in support of that representa- such amendments to be adopted in the bill as would enable tion, the reports of the registers and receivers of all the him, consistently with his notions of the constitution and land offices in the United States had been referred to) that the equal interests of the old States in the public lands, to vast quantities of those lands have been liable to entry at vote for a measure so much desired by the new States as the minimum prices for a great number of years, and have the present bill. But as such amendments had not yet not been taken up, in consequence of their being worth been made, he should take the liberty to submit two or less than the prices limited by law. This arose not so three for the consideration of the Senate. He would not much from the inferior quality of the whole of the unsold enter now, at large, into his views about the public lands, lands, as the small proportion of good land in the tracts or the policy of the proposed measure. Those views, as offered for sale. Nothing can be more just and proper to the former, had been fully given on a former occasion, [said Mr. H.] than that land found not to be worth the during this session. He would first move to strike out the prices limited, should be sold for less. This, indeed, is whole of the fourth section; not that he could cherish a the course which every private proprietor would pursue, single feeling of unkindness to the objects of its bounty, and which the United States must pursue, unless this de- but because he did not believe in our constitutional power scription of lands is to remain for ever unsold. He had to make mere donations of the domain of the Union to no objection, therefore, to making a reasonable reduction individuals, however indigent or meritorious. The reain the price of these lands, as proposed, especially as the sons for this opinion it was unnecessary to repeat. bill will embrace no lands that have not been for some [The motion was then put, and carried.] time in market, liable to entry at one dollar and twentyfive cents, and which have not been taken up at that price.

Mr. WOODBURY next moved to strike out the second sum, named as a graduation price in the first section.