MAY 3, 1830. 5. Alabama 9. Michigan 10. Arkansas, (no return.) 39,368 5,505 3,466 1,906 bill, sometimes in physicians' bills, or lawyers' fees, and in the various contingencies of fraud and accident and misfortune, to which the life of man is subject. This is a reason, a true and natural one, why so many people, without any fault of their own, are unable to accumulate the sum, to them an immense one, of one hundred dollars, Having read the document, and shown the number of to buy a piece of federal land. But it is not the only reanon-freeholders in each of these States and Territories, son why they do not buy. There is another and most deMr. B. stated that the aggregate exceeded one hundred cisive reason why they should not if they could. It is this: and forty thousand; and ventured to affirm that the like That these refuse lands upon which they live are not spectacle was not to be seen elsewhere upon the face of worth one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre, and they the earth; that there was not another country under the ought not to give that sum for it, even if they had thouwide canopy of heaven, in which a government having sands! Look at the reports of the registers and receivmore land than it could sell, or even give away to cultiva-ers. See the quality and value of these lands as returned tors, would deprive so large a portion of its citizens of by them. The greater part returned as unfit for cultihomes for themselves and families, by holding up refuse vation; the rest chiefly as second or third rate, averaging and inferior land for a price five times and ten times above twelve and a half cents, fifteen cents, eight cents, twenty its value. This was the exact case with the Federal Go-cents, five cents, three and a half cents, in most instances, vernment. It held about seventy millions of acres of re- per acre; and seldom rising as high as fifty, sixty, or fuse lands in the States and Territories, where these one seventy-five cents. The fact is, that these refuse tracts. hundred and forty thousand non-freeholders live, and yet are mixed with good and bad, the greater part bad, often would not let them have an acre of it at its value! Mr. not more than twenty or thirty acres fit for cultivation, B. did not speak of the new lands which the Government the rest fit for nothing; and it would be absurd, iniquitous, possessed, and which would come hereafter into market; and cruel to the poor, to whom these little tracts are usethey amounted to hundreds of millions of acres, and would ful, to demand the same price all round, as if every acre still continue to be sold at one dollar and twenty-five cents was first rate. These refuse tracts are not worth the preper acre; he spoke of the refuse lands only, those which sent minimum price. They are not worth what the first had been offered at one dollar and twenty-five cents, and choices were, and it is a folly to ask it, as much so as it can find no purchaser; those which are the remains of all would be in a butcher to ask the same price for the shanks. the sales which have taken place since the commencement and necks and offal of his beef, as he demanded for the of the land sales, and many of which had been previously hind quarter. Individuals adapt the prices of the land picked and culled under foreign Governments, as in Mis- they offer for sale, to its quality and actual value. All the souri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida, and a part of Missis-States did the same when they had land to sell. Massasippi, Illinois, and Michigan, before the United States ac-chusetts and Maine are now doing the same. And it is out quired them. These were the lands of which he spoke, of the question for this Federal Government, which has and for which he claimed a reduction of price. It was on become the great landholder of the West, and pays no these that the one hundred and forty thousand non-free-taxes upon its hundreds of millions of acres, to have but holders were chiefly settled, and where they were losing one price for all qualities; to demand the same for first their time between hope and fear-hoping that the Go-rate, second rate, third rate, and no rate at all; to demand vernment will reduce the price, to enable them to pur- the same for a quarter section of broken, hilly ground, chase, and fearing to make any beneficial or valuable im- half barren, part rock, part swamp, part sterile ridges, provement, lest it should excite the avarice of some un-without a spring or well, which is demanded for a quarter principled speculator to enter the land over their heads, section of rich, level land, well watered and timbered, for the sake of the improvement which had been put upon and every acre fit for the plough. This is the case at preit. It was a mistake to suppose that this large body of sent; this is the present mode of conducting land sales by non-freeholders were idle and vicious people; and that it the Federal Government; but it is an unjust mode, it is conwas their vice and idleness which kept them too poor to demned by the common consent and universal practice of buy land at one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre. Mr. all mankind. It cannot be defended. No man can stand B. said that he knew better; he knew this class of people up and say it is right. Justice to the new States and Terwell; he had travelled among them, slept in their houses, ritories, and the interest of the federal treasury, requires it ate at their tables, and knew them to be the best of citi- to be altered-requires the price to be adapted to the zens; men who did not think of living upon the public, quality of this refuse land; and the bill which is now bebut upon their own labor; whose object was to cultivate fore the Senate is intended to accomplish that just and the earth, and to defend it; who were industrious farmers equitable object. at home, and brave soldiers in time of war; who were hos- Mr. B. recurred to the early prices which had been pitable, brave, and honest, and merited the esteem of all proposed for the public lands, and showed that able statesgood men, as well as the favor and protection of the Go- men had fixed lower prices than the graduation bill convernment. How then, it might be demanded, did it hap-tained. He quoted General Hamilton's reports, when Sepen that these persons were not able to buy land at one cretary of the Treasury, the first of which fixed twenty dollar and twenty-five cents per acre? Mr. B. would an- cents, and the next one fifteen cents per acre, as the ave swer that inquiry with the precision and triumph of truth. rage value of the public lands. He quoted also the report In the first place, it is a difficult undertaking for a poor of the first committee of the House of Representatives man, in a new country, where there is but little money, under the organization of the present form of Governand few objects which will command it, to accumulate as ment, which recommended thirty cents per acre; and armuch money as would buy a half-quarter section of land at gued that it would have been better for the United States that price. It would require one hundred dollars to make that these low prices should have been fixed when prothe purchase; and the greatest proportion of poor people, posed near forty years ago, as the sales of the lands would in new countries, never see the day when they have that have been rapid, and the proceeds of them promptly resum on hand. They marry early; their daily labor is ne-ceived and applied to the extinguishment of the public cessary to support their families; they have little to spare debt. Every sixteen years, he said, the price of the land for market, and the proceeds of that little are absorbed was lost in the payment of interest on the public debt. in the purchase of salt and iron, in the payment of taxes, The whole capital was sunk in every period of sixteen in small expenses when they go abroad, in the blacksmith's years, and the lands would have gone as far towards the SENATE.] Judge Peck. [MAY 3, 1830. payment of the debt at thirty cents an acre sixteen years or will give. Let the price be suited to the quality, and ago, as at sixty cents now; and so in future. Mr. B. also the sales will be rapid where they are now stagnant. adverted to the price fixed on the public lands by the or- Farmers will buy the land which they now use gratis; and, dinance of the old Congress in 1788, which was one dol- instead of waiting for it to fall to the lowest minimum, lar per acre, and to the vote then given by the States of they will be careful to buy as soon as it falls to its true vaNew York, New Jersey, Maryland, and South Carolina, lue, lest some other person should buy before them, and to reduce that price to sixty-six and two-thirds cents; and either hold the land to their annoyance and injury, or then contended, that if the price of one dollar per acre make them pay an advanced price for it. This would be (and which, in the opinion of so many other States, ought the operation of the bill. One hundred and forty thouto have been but little more than half that sum) was the sand occupants would be raised to the condition of freeoriginal price when the lands were fresh and unpicked, it holders; several hundred thousand farmers would buy adought to be reduced at least as low as the graduation ditional tracts; the receipts into the public treasury would bill proposed to reduce it, after all the good tracts had be doubled; the State taxes would be increased; the exbeen sold out, and nothing but broken and refuse tracts ports would be augmented; the revenue collected from remained behind. imports would be augmented in the same proportion; and every interest, federal, State, and individual, would be promoted and confirmed. With respect to the donation clause, which the bill contained, Mr. B. advocated it at length, and with many facts and arguments. He stated that it was the policy of Mr. Mr. B. said that he had spoken so often on this subject, Jefferson, at the first acquisition of Louisiana, to make do-that he was afraid of being tiresome to the Senate. This nations to actual settlers, for the purpose of populating fear restrained him from following up the subject. He the country and defending it. He had proposed that a earnestly wished that every Senator could see the question donation of a quarter section should be made to the first in the light he did; could have the benefit of his own obthirty thousand settlers that should go to the country; and servation; and he would feel safe as to the result. In place considered their services, in settling and defending the of that personal knowledge, he must refer them to the country, in subduing the wilderness, and spreading the voice of the members who came from the West; to the. blessings of civilization, as the most meritorious price numerous memorials from the State Legislatures, which which they could pay for the land. prayed for the passage of this bill; and to the reports of Mr. B. considered the settlement of the country, and the the registers and receivers, which showed the average vacultivation of its soil, as the true wealth of the Union; the lue of the land to be less than the graduated prices which mere price of the land, received into the treasury, was a the bill proposed for it. The bill was a favorite one with trifle compared to it. The whole amount of money re-him; but he was not blindly wedded to it. He liked it be ceived for the sale of public lands, was thirty-four millions cause he thought it was good; he preferred it because he of dollars; from which there was to be deducted the heavy thought it was best; but he was not madly enamored of it expenses of surveying and selling it; while the amou because it was his own. He was for the good of the peo received during the same time, from the cultivation of the ple; he was for doing what was the best for the country; land, in the shape of duties collected from the imports and if any member of the Senate could produce a better which were bought with the cotton, tobacco, rice, grain, plan, he would gladly embrace it. One thing he was provisions, and other articles, raised on the soil, and ex-particularly anxious about; and that was, that this bill ported, amounted to five hundred and twenty millions of should be tried upon its own merits, and passed or rejectdollars. Such was the difference between the sale and the ed accordingly; that it should not be postponed for the cultivation of the soil, but not all the difference; for the final policy which might govern the disposition of the pubprice of the land sold could be received but once, while lic lands after the payment of the public debt; but acted the collection of duties from the produce of the land was upon now, and with a view to the single and equitable obperpetual and eternal. As long as crops are raised, duties (ject which the bill presented-that of reducing the price can be collected. The greater the crops, the greater the of the refuse land, which will not sell for one dollar twenrevenue. And it certainly would be wise policy, in a mere ty-five cents per acre, and making equitable provision for money-raising point of view, for the United States to make actual settlers and cultivators. a donation of a quarter section of land to every family Mr. BARTON next rose. He said that he did not intend that would settle and cultivate it. Instead of that, our ci- to enter into this debate; but, as no other member seemed tizens are not allowed to purchase at a fair price; they are disposed to take part in it, he would take this opportunity not allowed to buy land at its first value; one hundred to put himself right before his constituents, with respect to and forty thousand free taxable inhabitants are without an accusation contained in the postscript to a former speech land, in the new States and Territories abounding with va- upon this subject, [Mr. BENTON's speech upon the Graducant land. They are sighing for the waste land which ation bill, May 16th, 1826,] which had been circulated lies around them; realizing the fabulous picture of the throughout Missouri. As the postscript had not been spoman who perished for a drink of water, while standing in ken on this floor, he had no opportunity to refute the water up to his chin. Nor was it these one hundred and charge contained in it at the time; but would now call upforty thousand only that wanted to purchase, but almost on the Senators from Virginia and Louisiana [Messrs. every farmer in the new States and Territories. The TAZEWELL and JOHNSTON] to testify in his behalf as to its whole of these, as their means and families increase, truth. Mr. B. said, the speech of 1826, alluded to, was want more land. They wish to add to the size of their made on the 16th of May, at the close of the session, when farms, either for the purpose of extending their fields, or the Senate was much pressed with business, and concludsecuring wood, or keeping open an outlet, or keeping off ed with an express declaration of the mover of the bill an intrusive neighbor, or making pasture, or providing that he did not intend to ask for a decision upon it at that settlements for children. For some of these various pur-session. Under these circumstances, and no member poses, almost every farmer and landholder, now in the showing any disposition to say any thing upon the subWest, would be desirous to make new purchases, and ject, [Mr. B. said] he moved to lay the bill on the table, would make them, if the price of the land was adapted to its which was unanimously assented to as a matter of course; value. As it is, they take the public timber gratis, injuring and the Senate proceeded to the great mass of business the land, and paying no price to the Federal Government, before it, Mr. B. said, the part of the postscript to which nor any tax to the State Government. But this is not their he now called the attention of the Senator from Virginia, fault, but the fault of the Government, which demands a was the following; in which the author [Mr. BENTON] price above the value, and which no man ought to give, says- MAY 3, 1830.] Controversies between States. [SENATE. Against this motion Mr. ROBBINS spoke to the following effect: "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 This bill provides the process for enabling the Supreme Senators, who were favorable to the main object of the Court to decide controversies between State and State, bill, from declaring their sentiments. Among these was but does not provide any process for enforcing the deciMr. TAZEWELL, of Virginia, one of the most distinguished sion. This omission, while it relieves the bill from excepmen in America, and whose sentiments, as a Senator from tion, will not impair its efficacy. The question of right the State which was the greatest donor of the Western being settled by the Supreme Court, the bill leaves it to lands, are entitled to peculiar respect, and must have un- the voluntary justice of the State found to be in the common weight. Disappointed in his expectation of hav-wrong to make restitution of the right which had been ing an opportunity to declare his sentiments on the bill to withheld; presuming coercion to be unnecessary. graduate the price of the public lands, Mr. TAZEWELL afterwards deposited upon the table of the Senate the following resolution; "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 interest of the United States." 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 authority. 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 inconve TAZEWELL, in his place, to say whether he had been pre-nience will be but temporary. It is to be but an experivented 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. Mr. TAZEWELL rose, and said it was unnecessary to send them, for he remembered the resolution perfectly well; and that, in offering it, he was not influenced by any movement of the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. BARTON] nor had his movement any connexion with the motion of the Senator to lay the graduation bill on the table; that he had entertained the design to offer such a proposition 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: In the course of five years, every subsisting controversy of the kind in question, may be, and probably will be, prosecuted and closed, and the continuance of the law become unnecessary. The constitution will then stand acquitted of its obligation to the States complaining of wrong and claiming redress, of its obligation to afford them that redress, and probably its power need never again be exerted. 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 Mr. JOHNSTON said, in substance, that he did speak, every other confederacy which ever has existed. The at one session, on the graduation bill, which was probably provision for settling controversies among the federal the session after the one referred to. He did not remem- members by the authority of the federal power has been ber to have been prevented at any time, and he was sure common to them all. Indeed, it would be preposterous the motion to lay the bill on the table was not with a view to think of forming a federal constitution without such a to prevent his speaking; and that his resolution had in provision. For one of the chief ends of forming a con. view to obtain a description of the lands in Louisiana, federacy is, to preserve peace among its members; and with a view to obtain a cession of them to the State, or to this is one of the obvious and necessary means of preserv graduate the price to the quality at a subsequent session. ing peace. In every instance of a confederated govern[The bill was then ordered to lie on the table.] ment, 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 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: The Amphictionic council was the Supreme Court of Greece, and decided the civil controversies between the Sovereignties which composed that celebrated confederacy; and though those controversies were frequently litigated before, and decided by, that august tribunal, yet history mentions no instance in which the decree was resisted, or in which force was found necessary to its execution, though that tribunal might arm itself with the whole force of the confederacy for this purpose. [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. Now let the Senate consider that this provision of the constitution is not a discretionary trust in the hands of the Government, to be executed or not exccuted at their discretion, but that the trust is imperative. The constitution says, "the judicial power shall extend to controversies between two or more States." That is the injunction 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 confederacy, before the common tribunal of that confederacy; it has, therefore, no forms for such a case. Without an authorized process, the Supreme Court cannot entertain jurisdiction of a suit by a State against a State; and Congress alone can provide it. In the Swiss confederacy, civil controversies between the cantons is settled by arbitration; and though the federal arm may be employed to enforce the award, it never is employed, because it never has been found necessary to employ 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 proposithough force may be employed to enforce the decrec, 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 in the case of the controversy between the States of Connecticut and Pennsylvania, and some others, if I rightly recollect. There is no reason, then, to doubt, as it appears to me, the efficiency of such a law as the bill proposes, to the great object of the constitution, though it only provides the 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. I beg gentlemen to consider, too, that this provision is not one of doubtful meaning, nor of doubtful intention. on the contrary, it is so direct and explicit that it can neither be misunderstood nor misinterpreted: no commentary can elucidate, no glossary can obscure it: for the plain short scripture is--"The judicial power shall extend to controversies between two or more States." And the intention 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. 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 be sense of injustice is to be aggravated to them by the keener ing faithful to the constitution? I put that to the consense of hopeless despair. When they adopted the con- science of the Senate. 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; s 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; he 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 fulfil deemed? 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. 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 agreement, all forms of process, and submitting only the abstract question of right to that tribunal. This, too, was refused. So her case, without this or some similar law, is without remedy, and without hope. If this, too, be refused by Congress, she must submit to her fate; hard as it is, she must submit. But she will think, for so it will be, that the faith of the constitution, pledged to her by the constitution, and trusting to which she accepted the constitution, has been forfeited, and that her confidence in that pledge has been a delusion. The Senate then adjourned. TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1830. THE IMPEACHMENT. [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. And the said petitioners did, and at the December term of the said court, holden by and before the said James H. Peck, Judge as aforesaid, in due form of law, under the said act, appeal against the United States from the judgment and decree so made and entered in the said matter, to the Supreme Court of the United States; of which appeal, so made and taken in the said District Court, the said James H. Peck, Judge of the said court, had then And the said James H. Peck, after and there full notice. the said matter or cause had so been duly appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and on or about the 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, Woodbury-The 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. "To the Editor: Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. BUCHANAN, of Pennsylvania, their Chairman, rose, and read the following article of impeachment, which had been agreed to by the House of Representatives, against James H. Peck, District Judge of the United States for the District of Missouri: 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, Judge of the District Court of the United States for the District of Missouri, in maintenance and support of their 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 a term of the said court, holden at St. Louis, in the State I observe "Sin: I have read, with the attention which the subject deserves, the opinion of Judge Peck on the claim of the widow and heirs of Antoine Soulard, published in the Republican of the thirtieth ultimo. that, although the Judge has thought proper to decide against the claim, he leaves the grounds of his decree open for further discussion. "Availing myself, therefore, of this permission, and considering the opinion so published to be a fair subject of examination to every citizen who feels himself interested 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 |