of two per cent. on the notes of five dollars, and under twenty; and four per cent. on the notes under five dollars. This he held to be a more moderate tax than that imposed upon the banking interest by the act of 1813, for while it taxed the circulation a little higher than was done by that act, yet it taxed nothing but the circulation. The discounts and the bills of exchange were not included. He justified the higher tax placed on the small bills for the same reason which occasioned them to be more highly taxed in Great Britain when notes under £5 were tolerated there, to wit: because those small notes were more profitable to the makers than the large ones, and therefore could afford to pay higher, and were more injurious to the country, and therefore ought to pay higher.

To collect this tax, Mr. B. said that his bill fol. lowed the plan that had prevailed in England since the year 1815, that is, to require the banks, and other corporations, and the individuals and companies which issued paper money, to give in to the clerk of the United States district court the average of the circulation for the first three quarters of the year, and an estimate of the fourth quarter; upon which the marshal of the district should make the collection, under the instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury. He held this to be a cheap, efficient, and simple method of collecting the tax. It avoided all the objections which applied to a stamp duty; objections so great that, both in England and America, while the stamp duty was nominally imposed, a composition so moderate was permitted that the duty was always compounded for a gross

sum.

The product of the tax was the point to which Mr. B. next adverted. He said the product would be considerable, and well worth the collection. On the present circulation of about one hundred millions, of which more than half might be assumed to be under twenty dollars, and therefore paying the higher tax, the product would not be less than a million and a half of dollars. But the paper system is now in a state of depression: it has been vastly contracted within a year past to make "distress" for the election of 1840, and will soon swell out again to make plunder for speculators. In 1837, the circulation was one hundred and forty millions; it will doubtless expand to that amount again in the course of the year; it is time for the new expansion to begin; and when the Constitutional Treasury is abolished, and all check over the issue of bank paper removed, the circulation will probably amount to two hundred millions of dollars. The product of the bank tax would then be about three millions of dollars; a respectable sum in itself, very nearly equal to the sales of the public lands, and sufficient to admit the suppression of taxes on many articles of comfort and necessity.

Having made this exposition of his bill as a revenue measure-as a measure purely and simply intended to raise revenue from the moneyed interest employed in banking, Mr. B. said there was an additional feature in the bill which he had not yet mentioned, and which he should now proceed to develope. It was in an annual progressive increase of the tax on small notes-hose under the size of twenty dollars-which he had inserted in the bill; and the motive for which increase he would now state. The bill, as already explained to the Senate, proposes a higher tax on the small notes than on the large ones. This was done on the fair revenue principle before stated, and which was acted upon in England when the circulation of small notes was admitted there. But in addition to this higher tax on such no es, an annual increase is proposed to be added to it until the whole tax amounts to twelve per cent. per annum. This increase was not intended solely for revenue, but parily to effect the gra'ual suppression of these notes. This was the motive for the increase; and the bill was so drawn as to present this add tional tax as a separate clause, and as claiming from the Senate a distinct and separate consideration. The provision was, that notes of five dollars and under twenty, should pay one per centum per annum additional tax, and those under five dollais should pay two per centum per annum additional, until the tax on each amounted to twelve per cent. This additional tax,

Mr.

annually increasing, would gradually bear down these notes, and put an end to their circulation at the end of some years, in the mean time supplying revenue. This was the character and object of the second part of the bill; and as it was the first time that a measure of this kind had been brought before the Senate, he felt it to be incumbent upon him to vindicate his proposition, and to anticipate and obviate some of the objections which might be made to it. At the head of these objections stood the question of constitutionalitya question which should be well considered at the proposal of every new measure. It might be objected that the taxing power could not be used for an inciden'al purpose; that it must be confined to its direct object. Before answering this objection, Mr. B. would say that there were five classes of politicians in the United States, and very numerous classes too, who could not use it-who were precluded by their principles from using it. These were, first, all those who admitted the right of Congress to regulate the currency generally; for as there was no specified mode of regulating it, it resulted of course that Congress should use any one of its actual powers for that purpose which would accomplish the object. Secondly, all those who held it constitutional to charter a National Bank to regulate the currency; for it was clear that if Congress, in the exercise of an implied power, could invest a company of individuals with the power of regulating the currency, it might regulate the same currency its If by the exercise of an express power. Thirdly, all those who deemed it constitutional to lay duties for the direct purpose of protection; for if it was constitutional to banish foreign products in that way, it was still more clearly so to use the same power for the suppression of a domestic nuisance. Fourthly, all those who held it constitutional to lay duties with a view to incidental protection; for if an incidental object can be allowed in one case, it may in another. Fifthly, all those who held it constitutional to lay prohibitory duties; for prohibition was the same, whether it applied to one object, or another. B. said, these five classes of politicians were precluded from making the question of constitutionality to the second part of his bill; and he believed these five classes would comprehend nearly the whole of the politicians in the Union; he believed that almost every politician would fall into one or the other of these classes, and not few would fall into the whole of them; all such he held to be e.topped by their principles from objecting to his proposed masure. But there may be others, he said, not included in these classes, and therefore not estopped by their established principles; and to whom a reply upon the merits is due. That reply is as brief as it is obvious, namely, that where the Constitution requies a thing to be done, and has not specified the mode of doing it, Congress may exercise any one of its granted powers for the purpose which is adequate to the object. This is the principle, and now for its application: The Constitution requires the gold and silver currency to be preserved; the small notes destroy that currency, and substitute for it a base paper money. The Constitution requires gold and silver to be the only legal tender in payment of debts; the small notes destroy that tender, and make base paper a forced tender in payment of every every debi. Here, then, are two infractions fof of the Constitution op rated by those small notes; here are two constitutional requisitions defeated by these small notes; here is a two-fold, duty devolve upon the Congress-first, to prevent these infractions, and second, to comply with these requisitions; and no way is pointed out for doing it. The obvious course then is, to use any remedy tha' a granted power will afford for the purpo e. The taxing power will do this. It will kill the small notes, which are killing the Constitution; and it is absurd to think of waiting for an express power to put down these destroyers of the Constitution; for the framers of that instrument never foresaw the evil; they never fosesaw the existence of a thousand banks, and ten thousand individuals, all issuing mall paper money, and refusing to pay it when they pleased; and a great political party sustaining them in their conduct. These are things

not foreseen by the framers of the Constitution; they are evils against which specific remedies cannot be directed; they are evils which must continue unless a remedy can be found in the incidental exercise of a granted power; and to deny this, is to say that the Constitution cannot be used to save itself.

Mr. B. said that neither the idea of his bill, nor the argument in favor of it, was original with him. They had both been used by others long since, and especially by Mr. Gallatin ten years ago. Mr. Gallatin, in his essay on currency, in the year 1830, had proposed this method of putting down small notes; and in an elaborate argument, had vindicated its constitutionality, clearly showing that it avoided the Hamiltonian, and came within the Jeffersonian construction of the Constitution. His argument is too extended to be quoted in full here; but some passages from it will show his opinion, and exhibit a part of his reasoning. He says:

"We have already adverted to the provisions o the Constitution, which declare that no State shall either coin money, emit bills of credit, make any thing but gold and silver coins a tender in payment of debts, or pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, and which vest in Congress the exclusive power to coin money, and to regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin. It was obviously the object of the Union to consolidate the United States into one nation, so far as regarded all their relations with foreign countries, and that the internal powers of the General Government should be applied only to objects necessary for that purpose, or to those few which were deemed essential to the prosperity of the country, and to the general convenience of the people of the several States. Amongst the objects thus selected, were the power to regulate commerce among the several States, and the control over the monetary system of the country."

*

"Congress has the power to lay stamp duties on notes, on bank notes, and on any description of bank notes. That power has already been exercised; and the duties may be laid to such an amount, and in such a manner, as may be necessary to effect the object intended. This object is not merely to provide generally for the general welfare, but to carry into effect, in conformity with the last paragraph of the eighth section of the first article, those several and express provisions of the Constitution which vest in Congres exclusively the control over the monetary system of the United States, and more particularly tho e wich imply the necessity of a uniform currency. The exercise of the power for that object is free of any constitutional objection, provided the duties thus laid shall be uniform, and applied to the Bank of the United States, as well as to the State banks. The act of laying and collecting the duties, which is expressly granted, is alone sufficient to effect the object. As no appropriation of money is wanted for that purpose, the exercise of power which is required, is purely that of laying duties; and it is not liable to the objection, that to assert that the authority to lay taxes implies that of appropriating the proceeds is a forced construction. It is equally free of any objection derived from any presumed meaning of the words "general welfare," since the power to lay duties will, in this instance, be exercised, in order to carry into effect several express provisions of the Censtitution, having the same object in view. Congress may, if it deems proper, lay a stamp duty on small notes, which will put an end to their circulation. It may lay such a duty on all bank notes, as would convert all the banks into banks of discount and deposite only, annihilate the paper currency, and reader a Bank of the United S ates unnecessary in reference to that object. But if this last measure should be deemed pernicious, or prove impracticable, Congress must resort to other and milder means of regulating the curreacy of the country. The Bank of the United States, as has already been shown, was established for that express purpose."

Mr. B. would not go further into the constitutional question, as it concerned the second part of his bill, at present. He held what had been said by himself, and quoted from Mr. Gallatin, to be

sufficient on that head; sufficient, at all events, to warrant the introduction of his bill. The other part of it-that which related to revenue-was free from all constitutional question, and presented no. thing but a question of expediency. It presented the simple question whether the moneyed interest employed in banking ought to be made to contribute to the support of the Government; and to that question he expected a general answer in the affirmative. To the expediency of suppressing the small notes under twenty dollars, he should also expect an affirmative answer from the majority of the Senate and the people. He himself should be for suppressing all under one hundred dollars; but the public mind was not yet ripe for so strong a measure. The small notes under twenty dollars were the great evil at present. They were a pestilence, a nuisance, and a curse to the country. They drove specie out of the country, and made safe banking imposible. They threw the losses, when banks stopped payment, upon those who had no benefit from banks when they were going on: they threw all the losses apon the laboring and small dealing part of the community. They promoted crime and immorality; for the counterfeiting, and passing counterfeit paper, fell almost entirely upon the small notes. They banished silver; for how could a silver dollar circulate against a one dollar note? They banished gold; for how could an eagle circulate against a ten dollar, or a half eagle against a five dollar bill? They were injurious to every interest, except the banking interest, and to them they were the source of enormous, but most undue profit.

Mr. B. submitted his bill, with the declaration that it was one of the measures for the protection of the constitutional currency, and the restriction of the paper system, which went to the foundation of parties; that it concerned the great question of the age-that of the currency-on which Jefferson and Hamilton divided fifty years ago, and on which Democracy and Federalism must continue to divide until the question of mastery and permanent supremacy was decided between the banks and the people.

At the request of Mr. PRESTON, the bill was then read.

Mr. HUNTINGTON said it was not usual, nor in accordance with the courtesy generally extended to Senators, on asking leave to introduce a bill, to make objections; but this bill was of such a character, that, with the views he entertained, it seemed to him it was not properly admissible There was a provision in the Constitution which provided that all bills for the raising of revenue should originate in the House of Representatives, though the Senate might make amendments thereto. Now what was this bill? It was a bill by which it was intended to lay a tax upon all bank notes issued by any banking incorporation in this country. It was not confined to any district or territory, but it was a bill to lay a tax, in the form of a duty, to be assessed and paid into the Treasury of the United States, and thus forming a part of the receipts and the money of the Government, and to be expended as such. Now if he understood the Senator from Missouri [Mr. BENTON] aright, that Senator considered it a part of their obligations to compel these corporations to pay a portion of that which justly goes into the Treasury in the shape of revenue; and if so, it was not within the powers conferred upon them by the Constitution; and could they, then, permit the introduction of a bill containing such a provision? He had no intention to reply to the remarks of the Senator from Missouri on the merits of the bill; with the views he entertained he did not consider the Senate could constitutionally receive the bill, and therefore he should attempt no reply. Some years ago it was a question there whether, indeed, the Senate could reduce a rate of duty proposed to be imposed by a bill which had come up from the other House; but on that subject he had now nothing to say, nor should he say a word on the merits of this bill; he merely felt it to be his duty to state the views he had on the question of its reception, and therefore, on the question of granting leave, he called for the ayes and noes.

Mr. BENTON said the objection of the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. HUNTINGTON] was a very fair one; it was one which he had anticipated, for he should have sat there for twenty years to very little purpose, if he bad not foreseen it. He repeated, it was a fair objection, and it was entitled to the grave consideration of the Senate. But in the twenty years that he had sat there, he had seen the thing done, and that in a piece of legislation which they deemed the most sacred of all the legislation they had ever done; he alluded to the compromise act of 1833, which originated in the Senate, and to that part in which they raised the duty on coarse woollens from five to fifty per cent. That bill was entertained by this body, it was carried through this body, and was perfected by this body.

Mr. WEBSTER. No, no, no; not perfected.

Mr. BENTON repeated that it was perfected by this body. He knew well what be said. It was perfected by this body; it was discussed and amended in this body; afterward adop:ed as an amendment in the House of Representatives, and then was sent up again to this house, and passed as a House bill. That bill, af er being entertained by this body, and perfected by this body, or discussed until they were satisfied with it, was taken as an amendment by the other House, passed there, and sent here, and then passed here. Thus it began here-was discussed here-amended here-perfected here-but not passed till adopted and sent up by the House.

Mr. CLAY of Alabama would suggest the pro. priety of raising no question of this kind on the bill until it was printed; the discussion could come up more properly when the bill was about to have its second reading, or on the question whether it should be read a second time.

Independently of the question raised by the honorable Senator from Connecticu', he believed there was another grave constitutional question to be determined, namely: whether they had the power to regulate State bank institutions at all. If they could raise a tax to the amount proposed, they could lay a tax to any other amount-to an amount that would be a total prohibition of a system of banking which they had had from the foundation of this Government. Let the bill be printed, and then let the question come up when they were acquainted with its provisions.

Mr. WEBSTER asked what could be a clearer case than this? The very head and title of the bill showed that it was intended thereby to lay a tax, and the Constrution said that all such blls should originate in the House of Representatives. The case of the compromise act was different; the general scope of that act was not to raise, but to reduce taxes; but even then it was thought that it had a very doubtful right there. But he was surprised to hear any gentleman asking leave to introduce such a bill as this.

Mr. HUBBARD moved to lay the question of reception on the table, and that the bill be printed. He hoped no question would be taken on the bill until they had had an opportunity to read it.

He

Mr. HUNTINGTON hoped the gentleman would withdraw his motion for a moment. was about to remark that the suggestion of the Senator from Alabama, [Mr. CLAY,] that they should let this bill take the usual course, and that the objections should be considered at another stage, seemed to him to be one that ought not to be indulged in by the Senate. The provisions of the Constitution were directly opposed to the Senate's right to entertain this bill at all, and he thought the Senate ought to meet it at once. Why, then, a motion for postponement? Had not every body heard the bill read? And were they not satisfied that in its very terms it proposed to lay a tax which should be paid, as a part of the revenue, into the Treasury? If this were so, he thought the motion ought to be disposed of; that the question ought to be settled; and he thought the Senate was as ready now as it would be at any other time, even if the bill were printed. They knew what it contained, and if they had not the right to entertain this bill, which in its letter and spirit was a bill to raise revenue, he would like to know why it was there for a moment? It could

not properly be there; and therefore he hoped the question would be taken, and that the yeas and noes would be ordered.

Mr. CALHOUN said it was undoubtedly true the Senate could not originate a bill to raise a revenue by taxation; and at another period, on another measure, when he presided over the Senate, the question was raised, whether, as they had not the power to originate bills to raise revenue, they could reduce taxation; he everruled the objection and the Senate confirmed his decision, and the compromise bill was passed under that decision. But in its progress, as an amendment was made in favor of course woollens, and as the question had arisen as to the right of the Senate, the other House adopted the amendment as its own, to obviale any informality. He argued that the question should be decided by the Chair, whether this bill was admissible.

Mr. KING did not agree with the Senator from South Carolina, that th's question called for the decision of the Chair. It was for the Senate to decide whether this proposition should be entertained; and there could be no agency in the matter until the Senate had decided whether the bill should be received. He would take that occasion to say that he was not prepared to receive it because it was in dire t contradiction to the provisions of the Constitution. He would say, further, that if it came from the other House, it would find but little favor with him; but it was then sufficient for him to say, that it was in direct conflict with the Constitution; and the Senate, knowing what its provisions were, should now come to a decision.

Mr. CALHOUN said, the motion was to receive this bill. He conceived it was the duty of the CHAIR, if the bill was in conflict with the Consti tution, to say so,

Mr. PIERCE had not had the fortune to hear the bil read at length, but he supposed the idea of rejecting the proposition to receive a bill was somewhat extraordinary. He did not, at present, understand its provisions and, therefore he was gratified with the motion of his colleague, [Mr. HUBBARD,] which would settle no principle in regard to it, the motion merely going to the extent of laying it on the table, that they might have it printed, to give to those of them who had not hard the bill raad at length an opportunity to read it. After what he had heard, he concurred with the opinions expressed, but he preferred reading the bill for h mself. As no principle was involved, he hoped the simple moion of reception and printing would be adopted, and with that intention he would make the motion.

Mr. WEBSTER hoped the ayes and noes would be taken thereon.

The PRESIDENT stated the question before the Senate, and

Mr. SEVIER rose to make an appeal to the other side of the hous: he thought the course pursued on the other side was a strange one, and therefore he hoped for their indulgence to allow the bill to be printed. What did they propose to gain by the course they were taking? Dubtless their object was to defeat the bill, if it were introduced at all, and why not then introduce it and defeat it on its merits.

Mr. WEBSTER wished to say that his object was not to defeat the bill-he hoped, himself, to consider it; but he did not permit himself to entertain an opinion on its merits when it was a constitutional question that was before them.

not

As to the question of printing, he thought it was at present sufficient that they had heard the bill read; the bill was entitled a bill for the laying a tax on the issues of banks, and it proceeded to lay that tax; but if Senators were satisfied, they could have it read again, but he wished the Senate to give not the slightest degree of countenance to a measure which the Constitu. tion expressly prohibited. Now, the motion to lay the bill on the table, implied a doubt whether it was not rightly there; he had no doubt it was wrongly there altogether, and they ought not to take the slightest incipient step on such a bill. It had been read, and it was clearly for the laying of a

tax; and it was clear that such a bill was not within their constitutional power.

Mr. CLAY of Alabama said no principle whatever was involved in the motion of his friend from New Hampshire-they neither voted on the adoption nor the rejection of the bill. He hoped the Senate would adopt the motion, allow the bill to be printed, and that they would have another opportunity to vote on its merits. Not doubting that the Senate would give them that opportunity, he would now renew his motion to lay the motion of the Senator from Missouri on the table, and that the bill be printed.

Mr. WEBSTER hoped the question would be determined by the ayes and noes, which were ordered.

After a few words from Mr. CALHOUN, Mr. CLAY of Alabama, and Mr. WEBSTER, the vote was taken on the motion to lay it on the table, and it was determined in the negative-ayes 18, noes 22, as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Ben on, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Fulton, Hubbard, Linn, Lumpkin, Norvell, Pierce, Sevier, Smith of Connecticut, Sturgeon, Tappan, Walker, Wall, and Wright-18.

NAYS-Messrs. Buchanan, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Dixon, Graham, Henderson, Huntington, King, Knight, Mangum, Merrick, Nicholas, Phelps, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Roane, Rugles, Smith of Indiana, Tallmadge, and Webster-22.

Mr. BENTON then said he had accomplished the main, though not the whole of his objects in in. troducing the bill. One object was to bring the question before the country-that he had accomplished, and therefore he would now withdraw his motion for leave to introduce the bill.

Mr. WEBSTER said the Senator could not withdraw it without the consent of the Senate.

On this question a point of order arose, which led to an animated debate, in which Messrs. WEBSTER, TAPPAN, CLAY of Alabama, PIERCE, CALHOUN, KING, CRITTENDEN, HUNTINGTON, PRESTON, SEVIER, MERRICK, PHELPS, and others took part, a report of which will be given hereafter.

It was then resolved, on the motion of Mr. PRESTON, that when the Senate adjourn, it do adjourn to meet again on Monday next. The Senate then adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, December 24, 1840.

The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communications:

1. From the President of the United States, in compliance with a resolution of the House of the 17th inst. asking "what appropriations of money at the last session of Congress were expended by him; designating to what particular objects such appropriations were made, and the specified sums suspended; and what sums continued to be so suspended at the commencement of the present session, and their objects respectivelw."

On motion of Mr. FILLMORE, laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

2. From the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a report, in compliance with a resolution of the House of the 17th inst. relative to a correspondence between himself and the Treasurer of the United States, in respect to the operations of the Independent Treasury.

On motion of Mr. LEWIS WILLIAMS, laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

3. From the Post Office Department, in answer to a resolution of the House, submitted a few days since, inquiring "whether Ralph Jackson is a contractor for carrying the mail in the State of Illi nois," &c; from which communication it appears that Ralph Jackson does not hold any contract under the Department for carrying the mail.

On motion of Mr. GIDDINGS, laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

4. A report from the Clerk of the House, on the sale of damaged and useless paper.

On motion of Mr. GARLAND, laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

The following Senate bills were severally read a

first and second time, and referred to the appropri

ate committees:

The bill amendatory of the act abolishing imprisonment for debt.

The bill in relation to donations of land to certain persons in the State of Arkansas.

The bill to quiet the titles of certain land claim · ants in the States of Missouri and Arkansas, and for other purposes.

The bill to settle the title to certain tracts of land in the State of Arkansas.

The bill to relinquish to the State of Alabama the two per cent. fund reserved by the act for her admission into the Union, to be applied to the making of a road or roads leading to said State.

The bill to establish an additional land district in the State of Alabama.

The bill for the relief of certain settlers on the public lands, who were deprived of the benefits of the act granting pre-emption rights, which was approved on the 19th of June, 1834.

The bill to grant other lands to the inhabitants of townships deprived of the 16th section by Indian

reservations.

The bill to authorize thr inhnbitants of township eight north, range thirty-two west, in the State of Arkansas, to enter a section of land in lieu of the sixteent section in said township, upon condition that the same be surrendered to the United States for military purposes.

The bill authorizing the inhabitants of fractional township ten south, of range one east, in the State of Arkansas, to enter one-half section of land for school purposes.

The bill for the relief of sundry citizens of Arkansas, who lost their improvements in consequence of a treaty between the United States and the Choctaw Indians.

The bill to relinquish the reversionary interest of the United States to a certain reservation in the State of Alabama.

The bill for the relief of James Smith of Arkansas.

The bill for the relief of George W. Paschall.
The bill for the relief of William Jones.

THE PUBLIC LANDS.

The next business in order was the motion or REYNOLDS of Illinois to refer a memorial from the Legislature of shat State to the Committee on Public Lands, with the following instructions:

"To report a bill to grant prospective pre-emptions to settlers on the public lands, and to reduce the price to settlers according to the value of said lands."

Mr. REYNOLDS advocated his motion at some length, and dwelt upon the injustice done to the new States by the present land system.

His remarks will appear hereafter.

Mr. PICKENS regretted exceedingly that his friend from Illinois had thought proper, at this time, to bring forward such a subject. We were now at the commencement of a short session, with many other matters pressing upon us, and, in his opinion it was not the proper period for agitating a subject of the most vital interest to the Union. From what he had heard from the gentleman from Indians the other day, and from what had been manifested from other quarters of the House, he was convinced that no question in future that might be brought up before Congress would be more agitating, or of a greater interest than the disposition of these public lands. For his part, when he came to legislate on this subject, he would, as he did on all other subjects: he would legislate neither for the inhabitants of log cabins, nor for the occupants of palaces; but he would legislate for the justice and honor of his country. This, however, was not the proper time for legislating on so important a subject, and he could not but regret its introduction at this period of a short session. The proper time would be at the next Congress, which would bring a new set of Representatives.

The question on the adjustment of the tariff would be also then brought up, when there would be time to mature some measure which should do justice to both the individuals, as well as to all States. He confessed that, in prospect of the next census, he considered the question of the public lands a very different question from what it was

twenty years ago, when they had to legislate but for a few States, and for a small band of citizens, who had gone forth to seek a living in the wilderness, and to erect their habitations in the forests of the West. The subject of the Western lands was to this Government our colonial system, and his desire was, when the subject should come up, to place these people in a different situation than that in which they had been for the last ten years, and to set free our colonies. He wanted some fixed principle in relation to these lands, not as a money or tar ff question, but as a question of politics. He was interested in the prosperity and freedom of the West, and if we ever had another pre-emption bill, he would prefer that it should be one fixing the law in advance. A general prospective pre-emption law, would be far more preferable than one extending only to two or three years. The latter, in his opinion, was unjust and unwise legislation. This was the reason why he had opposed pre-emption and graduation laws previously introduced, because they were made after the case had occurred, and no system could be wise which was thus exposed to the ope. ration of so much partiality. He would propose that this subject should come up at the next Congress, when they might fix on some system that would do credit to the Government as well as to the citizens concerned. He would not say what he might be forced to do, but if the prediction of the gentleman of Indiana [Mr. PROFFIT] should be verified, and the people of the West came to demand what they called justice, he would then consider what justice was, and do his duty to his own State as well as to them.

He would prefer that they would legislate on some general system, for it was not right to be guided by local interests, as it was impossible for him to know what might be the principal interest in this or that question which might arise. He desired to lop off every branch of corrupt Executive patronage which had crept into the land system during the last ten or fifteen years. He believed a graduation system might be necessary as a matter of justice to the rights of the States, but he would advocate some general system, founded on enlight. ened and statesmanlike views, which would do honor to the country, and not upon this colonial sys tem of the last few years.

Mr. P. concluded by expressing a hope that the whole subject would be suffered to rest until the next Congress, and that his friend from Illinois would not press his motion of instructions.

Mr. WM. COST JOHNSON moved to amend the instructions submitted by Mr. REYNOLDS, by substituting the following:

"To refer to the Committee on Public Lands, with instructions to report a bill to have the proceeds of the sale of the public domain divided among the States in an equitable ratio, to be used by the States for internal improvements, education, or any other purpose, as may be deemed wise by the several States receiving said distribution."

Mr. JOHNSON then advocated his amendment at some length; after which,

Mr. HUBBARD took the floor to reply to some of the statements of Mr. JOHNSON; and, in so doing, proposed to illustrate the accuracy of his own position by reference to statical facts, having relerence to the value of waste lands in Alabama, &c.

Mr. H. had not proceeded far, when he said that this was a more important subject-that the discussion had been sprung suddenly on the House-that he should like time for consideration—and that if any member would move an adjournment, he would yield the floor for that purpose.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Mississippi, then moved that when the House adjourn, it will adjourn over to Monday; which was agreed to.

An adjournment was then moved, and the question was taken by yeas and nays, and decided in the negative: Yeas 59, nays 94.

Mr. CAVE JOHNSON moved to postpone the subject until the second Tuesday in January next; which he afterwards withdrew.

And another motion was made to adjourn, which prevailed. And the House adjourned until Monday.

IN SENATE.

MONDAY, December 28, 1840.

The PRESIDENT presented a memorial from the Legislative council of the Territory of Iowa, asking for the construction of a road and permanent bridge on Big Cedar creek, and a military road from Dubuque to the Missouri line; which, en motion of Mr. NORVELL, was referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals.

Also, from the same, asking for an amendmen of the organic law of said Territory; which, on motion of Mr. NORVELL, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, a communication from the Department of State, transmitting an abstract of returns, showing the number of seamen registered in each collection district in the Union during the year ending September 30, 1840; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

[The total number of seamen registered in 1840, as above, was 8,091, viz: Rative, 7,591; naturalized, 140.]

Also, a communication from the Treasury Department, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 21st inst. that the Secretary of the Treasury be instructed to inform the Senate what sales of pub lic lands have been made in the State of Michigan, north of the line dividing townships twelve and thirteen north, and west of the line dividing ranges two and three, west of the principal meridian; which, on motion by Mr. NORVELL, was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. CLAY of Alabama presented a memorial of citizens of Cherokee county, Alabama, praying for a modification of the pre-emption law; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. TALLMADGE presented the petition of citizens of Waterloo, N. Y. praying the enactment of a general bankrupt law; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. PORTER presented the petition of Ross Wilkins and others, praying the passage of a general bankrupt law; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. WRIGHT presented the petition of Maltry Gelston, executor of David Gelston; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. HENDERSON presented the memorial of citizens of Mississippi, asking for the establish ment of an additional land district in said Stale; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

On motion by Mr. HUBBARD, the petition of Hester Hill was withdrawn from the files of the Senate.

On motion by Mr. WALKER, the petition and papers of Joseph Vidal, now on file, were referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

Mr. WALKER also gave notice that to-morrow he would ask leave to introduce a bill relative to the two-per cent. fund of the Slate of Mississippi. Mr. PRESTON presented the petition of George Taylor for indemnity for French spoliations prior to 1800; which was laid on the table.

Mr. PRESTON also presented the petition of Col. Robert P. Wainwright; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. MANGUM presented the memorial of the Council of the City of Washington, remonstrating against the transfer of the stock held in the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal to the State of Maryland; which was referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. LINN, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, to which was referred, a bill to revive the act entitled "An act to enable claimants to lands within the limits of Missouri and the Territory of Arkansas to institute proceedings to try the validity of their claims," approved the 26th of May, 1824, and an act amending the same, and extending the provisions of said act to claimants to lands within the States of Louisiana and Mississippi; reported the same without amendment.

Mr. PHELPS, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the bill for the relief of Nathaniel Pryor, reported the same with an amendment.

Mr. HUBBARD, from the Committee on Claims, to which was refered the bill for the relief

of Ephraim D. Dixon, reported the same without amendment.

Mr. LUMPKIN, from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, to which was referred the bill for the relief of John M. Strader, reported the same without amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM presented the petition of mechanics who were employed on the arsenal in North Carolina; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.

On motion by Mr. NORVELL, the petitions of citizens of Washington for a renewal and remodification of the charter of said city, now on file, were referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. NICHOLAS, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill authorizing the Legislature of Louisiana to sell the lands heretofore appropriated for the use of schools in that State; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Public Lands.

TAXING BANK NOTES.

Mr. BENTON said when the Senate was last in session, he asked leave to introduce a bill to tax paper issues, to which it was objected that it was not constitutional to introduce such a bill in this body, and he had therefore asked and obtained leave to withdraw it. But he now wished to give notice to the Senate, and to the country, that he should offer that bill in the form of an amendment to the first revenue bill to which it was applicable; and in the mean time he would ask leave to have the bill printed as an amendment. He had struck out the title of the bill, and simply wished that it might be printed and laid on the table, that any gentleman who desired to turn his attention to the subject, might have the opportunity to do so, and that gentlemen might not be taken by surprise.

The PRESIDENT having stated the question to the Senate,

Mr. KING said he presumed it was not necessa ry to state to the CHAIR that the subject-matter to which it was intended to offer this bill as an amendment, was not yet before the Senate, and therefore it could not be received in that form. It had been usual to receive and print amendments as a courtesy to Senators, but never before the proposition to which the amendment was desired to be made had been introduced. He thought the Senator from Missouri was not now in order, but that he would have to wait until the revenue bill to which it would have to be attached, came up. He (Mr. KING) had no wish to prevent the bill going before the country, but he desired that they should adhere to what was regular and proper in their forms of proceeding.

The PRESIDENT remarked that the subject was with the Senate for decision.

Mr. BENTON said perhaps he could relieve the Senate. His object was to give notice to the Se. nate and to the country that he should pursue this subject, and at his earliest convenience; that being done, if gentlemen would look at the subject, he had no desire to have the amendment printed, though he had been anxious to avoid taking them by surprise. However, he would not now press his motion.

COMMERCIAL RECIPROCITY.

Mr. DAVIS presented a memorial from inhabitants of Newburyport, Mass. praying for the repeal or modification of the act of 29th May, 1830, regulating commercial intercourse between the United States and certain British colonies, and moved that it be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. He spoke in support of the prayer of the memorial, but was inaudible at the Reporters' desk.

Mr. WEBSTER had not been aware that his colleague was about to present a memorial on this most important subject; but he desired to say that if it should go to the Committee on Foreign Relations, he hoped the committee would consider thoroughly and carefully the whole extent, and all the consequences of that system of policy which they had been for some years in the habit of calling the reciprocity system. He (Mr. WEBSTER) was not then prepared to express any opinion whether, when the reciprocity treaty expired, it should be renewed, nor on other matters in connection therewith;

but he did hope that the Committee on Foreign Relations would come to no hasty conclusion on this question. He was perfectly satisfied that the subject should take the direction proposed; but he only hoped, and he confidently hoped, that the committee would make a large survey not only of this parucular relation, but of all the consequences of those treaties, which have been in existence for the last fifteen or twenty, if not twenty-five years, many of which were entirely destitute of all the essential principles of reciprocity.

Mr. DAVIS had looked at this subject for some time as one which was entitled to all the consideration which his colleague thought it deserved-for some years he had seen the development of facts of a striking character. But a few years ago memorials were presented in this chamber, from merchants of Baltimore, setting forth the unequal advantages which they enjoyed in the traashipment of tobacco to Germany, as one result of a treaty, to which he now referred, as a sample of the treaties of reciprocity. which, instead of affording reciprocal advantages, drove the Baltimore merchants entirely out of the trade. He could point out many more such results in the operation of these treaties, to show the necessity of an examination of a system, as suggested by his colleague, which was of very doubtful policy, as regarded the interests of this country.

At the request of Mr. CALHOUN, the memcrial was read.

Mr. BUCHANAN then said, certainly this was a very important subject; it was a request to change that policy of the country which they had been ei◄ deavoring to carry into effect with all foreign nations since the year 1815. That it was disastrous in some respects, particularly in regard to our commerce with some of the Hanse Towns, there could be no doub'; but why refer it to the Committee on Foreign Relations? It was

a subject peculiarly relating to the commerce and navigation of the country; and the question was, how have these treaties of reciprocity operated on those two great interests, which in that body were exclusively committed to the Committee on Commerce? It was not a subject connected with their foreign relations, except incidentally; and he moved, therefore, that it be referred to the Committee on Commerce, which was its appropriate reference.

Mr. DAVIS had moved its reference to the Committee on Foreign Relations, because it referred to a conventional agreement of the treaty-making power between the British Colonies and the United States. If, however, it would more appropriately go to the Committee on Commerce, he was willing. that it should go there.

Mr. CALHOUN said it appeared to him that, in the first instance, it should be referred to the Committee on Commerce, and, after that committee had reported, it might be proper to refer their report to the Committee on Foreign Relations. This was the old subject, which the Government had so long found it difficult to manage satisfactorily, and he apprehended it never would be managed satisfacto. rily. If the difficulties could be overcome, he should rejoice; for there was no man on that floor who took a deeper interest than he did in the pros perity, navigation and commerce of the country.

Mr. DAVIS was satisfied to withdraw his motion, and let it go to the Committee on Commerce. After a few words from Mr. MERRICK, Mr. KNIGHT said, whatever committee this memorial might be referred to, he hoped the atten tion of the committee would be drawn to the operation of these treaties, and particularly to the arrangement in regard to the West India trade, and the effect on the trade and navigation of the country. So far as he was informed, this arrangement had been favorable to the British navigation, and injurious to our own. He believed it to be a fact, now ascertain d, that the British tonnage had greatly increased, and that our tonnage in this trade of the Colonies had diminished. In olden times we used to import molasses, rum, salt, sugar, and other commodities, from the West Indies in our own vessels; but under the arrangement, large quantities of these articles are brought in British vessels, and much from the

Northern colonies where they are not grown or manufactured,clearly giving to the British an advartage which we do not possess. He wished the committee also to inquire whether the existing arrangement is reciprocal in its provisions and operations. He understood that the British vessels are now allowed to carry certain goods, wares, and merchandize from this country to the West Indies, which ours are not permitted to carry, and in this particular a decided preference is given to the Bri tish navigator over our own. These are some of the points which it is desirable should be investigated by the committee. Discriminating duties, also, in favor of the Colonies, should not escape the attention of the committee.

Mr. KING said he would greatly prefer that it should go to the Committee on Foreign Relations, especially if the Committee on Commerce was to be merely a conduit through which it should pass to the Committee on Foreign Relations. He was not unwilling to take any labor that might be necessarily imposed upon him in the public service, as the chairman of the Committee on Commerce; but as our foreign relations required a re-examination, it would be better that this subject should now go to the committee to which it must ultimately go.

Mr. BUCHANAN trusted that it would not go to the Committee on Foreign Relations. The question was, whether it was advisable to renew our treaty with Great Britain-whether, when this treaty shall expire, it shall be renewed again? These Newburyport merchants say it ought not, in their opinion, and who was to decide that question? It would be necessary to take a general and broad view of the effect of this treaty on the commerce of the country; and to decide that important question, it should be referred to a committee acquainted with the subject. How could the Committee on Foreign Relations determine a question respecting the effect produced on their commerce? If it were seat to them, it would be sent to a committee, the members of which were supposed not to have entered into its consideration at all, while the Committee on Commerce, during the entire session, were in the daily consideration of questions exclusively connected with it, and therefore he again hoped it would go to the Committee on Commerce. But he had another remark. If this subject was to be investigated as it ought, and as its importance required that it should be, it could not possible be done so as to make a satisfactory report at the present session. They would bave to go back through a variety of sources to ascertain what effect these reciprocity treaties had had on our commerce, and this infor mation could not be collected in the six weeks or two months the Congress would be in session. And then the country must have time to reflect on it after it was collected, and in the expectation that this memorial was to be sent to a committee, the members of which were not conversant with the subject, he had no hesitation in saying that it was idle and vain to suppose they could accomplish any thing this session. He thought the Committee on Commerce might be in po session of informa tion on his subject, and might, therefore, be able to make a report at the present session, though he much out ted; but he was satisfied nothing could grow out of the reference to the Committe on Foreign Relations.

The Senate then divided on the question of reference to the Committee on Commerce, which was decided in the affirmative by a vote of 19 to 9; and the memorial was ordered to be printed.

Mr. BENTON submitted the following resolution, which was considered and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign R:lations be instructed to inquire into the expedi-ncy of making an appropriation to pay the outfit to Commodore Porter, not provided for when he was appointed Minister, resident at Constantinople.

Mr. NORVELL submitted the following motion; which was considered and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on Indian Affairs be instructed to inquire into the expediency of making an appropriation to enable the President of the United States to negotiate for the extinction of the Indian titles to the unpurchased lands lying in the upper peninsula of the State of Michigan.

Mr. CLAY of Alabama submitted the following motion, which was considered and agreed to: Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of providing by law for the appointment of a Marshal and District Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama.

Mr. SMITH of Indiana submitted the following resolution, which was considered and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to report to the Senate a copy of the correspondence between the Department and the Governor of the State of Indiana relative to the lands granted in that S a'e by the act of March 2, 1827, for that part of the Wabash and Erie Canal which lies between the mouth of the Tippecanoe river and the line of the State of Ohio, which could not be set off to the State of Indiana in the adjustment that took place in 1829 and 1830, in consequence of the Indian title thereto not being then extinguished.

And that he also report what quantity of land the State of Indiana is still entitled to, under said act, for that portion of said canal, and what portion of the same has been granted to individuals as Indian reservations by treaty with the Miamies.

Mr. WALKER submitted the following resolution, which was considered and agreed to:

Resolved, Toat the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of assizning the present district judge of the United States for the State of Mi-sis-ippi to one of the districts of said State, and of appointing a separate judge for the remaining district.

The following bills were considered as in Committee of the Whole, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading:

A bill gran ing a pension to Lemuel White. A bill for the relief of Margaret Barnes, widow of Elijah Barnes.

A bill granting a pensi n to David Waller. A bill for the relief of Samuel Collins. A bill for the relief of Joseph Bassett. A bill for the relief of the legal representatives of Richard T. Banks of the State of Arkansas. A bill to authorize the Secretary of War to adjust and pay to Benjamin Murphy, of Arkansas, the value of his corn, cattle, and hogs, taken hy the Cherokee Indians in the month of Dec. 1828 A bill for the rel ef of Joab Seely.

A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to pro-are steam vessels for the revenue service. A bill allowing dayback on foreign met handise exported in the eizmd pinges to Chihuahua and San a Fe, in Mex12),

A bill to amend an act entitled "An act to autherize the State of Tennessee to issue grants and perfect titles to certain lands therein described, and to settle the claims to the vacant and unappropriated lands within the same," passed the 18 h day of April, 186

A bill for the relief of William P. Rathbone.

A bill for her to amend the act entitled "An act to provide for taking the six h census or cnumeration of the inhabitants of the United States," approved March 3, 1839.

The bill making an appropriation to complete the removal of the raft of Red river, and for other purposes, was taken up, as in Committee of the Whole, and, after some remarks by Mr. KING, showing the propriety and necessity of its passage, it was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading

The bill to establish a Board of Commissioners to hear and examine claims against the United Stater, was taken up, as in Committee of the Whole, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

The bill to revive the charters of the banks of the District of Columbia, being taken up

Mr. TAPPAN thought they ought to wait until they had received some papers that were ordered to be printed on the subject.

Mr. MERRICK would be glad, then, if Snators who were desirous to enter into the discussion of this bill, would agree to fix an early day for that purpose.

Mr. TAPPAN would agree with the Senator from Maryland in the appointment of an early day, when the papers to which he referred were received.

The bill to establish a permanent prospective pre emption system in favor of settlers on the public lands who shall inhabit and cultivate the same, and raise a log cabin thereon, coming up in order,

Mr. CLAY of Alabama said he had the honor to report that bill, and he was anxious to have it disposed of; but he wished to take no advantage of Senators, there being several absent from their seats, and therefore he would consent to pass it by informally. It was a bill on which he wished to have a full Senate, that they might all show their hands on the question of its passage.

Mr. CRITTENDEN said, then it would be desireble to assign a particular day for the bill.

Mr. CLAY replied, that a particular day had been named, and it came up this morning as a special order; but as the Senate was not full, he was willing it should be passed informally, and it could be then taken up to-morrow, or any subse. quent convenient day.

After a few remarks from Messrs. MERRICK, HUBBARD, WRIGHT, and others, the bill was passed by informally.

A bill for the benefit of the Selma and Tennessee Railroad Company being taken up as in Com. mittee of the Whole

Mr. CLAY of Alabama said this bill had passed at previous sessions of Congress, and therefore it would not be necessary that he should enter into an explanation of its provisions, unless it were desired by some gentlemen on that floor.

Mr. BENTON wished to have some further explanation on one or two points. He wished to know what progress had been made in the construction of this road, what probability there was of its speedy completion, and whether there was an adequacy of means with those er gaged in it. He had a decided objection to see the United States forcing on any of these works, unless it were such as could be carried speedily through-he had no idea that the United States should take the laboring oar for the carrying on any of these works, or contribut ing where the work was not going on prosperously, and where the means of those engaged in it were inadequate to its completion; and he wished, therefore, the Senator from Alabama would inform him what was the state of the road, whether it was in a state of progression, whether there was a probability of its termination, what were the means of those engaged in it, and whether they were adequate to its successful accomplishment.

Mr. CLAY could only repeat what he had said on o her occasions, that there was no sort of question in regard to the adequacy of the means of the company, for mach the greater portion of the stock was taken by men of capital and respecta. bility in the State of Alabama; nor could there be a doubt of the rapid advance of the work. The track was laid out, the whole of it was surveyed, and much of it was graded; and from the comniencement at the Alabama river, there were excavations and embankments completed from 30 to 40 miles; and the road then entered a valley where neither by excavation nor embankment was neces sary for some 60 or 70 miles. Of the importance of the work, he observed that this road was the connecung link between North Alabama and the bay of Mobile; and between the Tennessee river and the waters of the bay of Mobile; and let this road be opened, and it would open an important means of commercial transit, both to the State of Alabama and the State of Tennessee; it would likewise afford the means of defence of that part of our coast, by the rapid conveyance of men and munitions of war in any emerg ney. It was well known that the means of defence of Mobile and New Orleans must always come from the upper country and this company was willing to undertake the responsibility of conveying men and munitions of war at all times, free of all charge, to the vulnera ble points He hoped the gentleman was now satisfied. The work hitherto, under the peculiar circumstances of the times, had progressed less rapidly than could have been desired, but still it had progressed, and would be completed. This bill proposed to make no donation-it merely gave a pre-emption right. The land was of but little value; and it was but right that this company