26TH CONG.... 1ST SESS.

of a necessary of life was a crime by the laws of all civilized countries, and was punished as such; yet here, on the floor of the American Senate, such a combination was not merely defended, but to ask the United States to cease to aid and encourage it was called an attack upon the property of the monopolizers! Such is the perversion of judgment and feeling which even penetrates this Chamber in this age of monopolies and chartered privileges! He said it was nearly as bad now as it was in John Law's time, under the Regent Duke of Orleansthe Mark Antony of modern times-when monopoly was the order of the day; and when dukes, counts, and marquises, were engaged in monopolies of soap, grease, hay, oats, sugar, spices, coffee, &c.

Mr. B. said it was curious to see the parallel between the present times and those of John Law. He was the father of the credit system, as it is called; that is to say, the system of fictitious and baseless credit-credit which has neither property nor character to rest upon, nothing but the impudence of the creditee and the credulity of the creditor, and the credit of the creditee in multiplying his funds by ten. This was the whole credit system of Law. Decupler was his word. Multiply by ten was his game. With a capital of $100,000 do business for $1,000,000, and draw profit upon the $1,000,000; this was his plan, and it is the plan now followed by the United States, and with the same results in all things, and especially in the business of monopolies. Everything is now a subject of monopoly in the United States, all aided and engendered by the bank monopolies. Beef, bacon, pork, butter, eggs, flour, salt, all, all fall into the vortex of monopoly; and the most odious of these, that of the salt monopoly, is aided and fostered by our duty on foreign salt.

Repeal of the Salt Tax-Mr. Wright.

any one who had listened to this debate, without
a knowledge of these facts, have supposed this
to be the question under discussion? Would they
not rather have supposed that the bill for the re-
peal of the duty on salt, or some measure having
for its object the punishment of monopolies and
frauds in the dealers in salt, was now before the
Senate and about to receive its action? It seemed
to him that no other conclusion could have been
formed by the impartial listener to the discussion.
Yet no such proposition as either of these had
been presented by the Committee on Finance.

It was true a bill had been introduced by the
honorable Senator from Missouri proposing to
repeal the duty on salt, and that bill had been re-
ferred to the Committee on Finance; but it was
also true that the committee had not yet even
taken up that measure for consideration, much
less made any report upon it. It remained in the
hands and possession of the committee wholly
unacted upon, and was not in the possession or
within the reach of the Senate for its action. Still
the debate would have compelled a hearer to sup-
pose that the committee had reported back that
bill, had recommended its passage, and were now
urging the Senate to final action upon it. Not
only so, but the further impression would be pro-
duced that the Committee on Finance of the Sen-
ate had originated and presented to the Senate
penal enactments against those who had attempted
to govern the price of salt in various parts of the
country by associated monopolies.

SENATE.

this system been carried, that of some hundred and sixty manufactories at Kanawha, but forty had been worked for the year, the remaining one hundred and twenty being hired to remain closed, while salt to the consumers dependent upon these works for their supply had been raised to the enormous price of three dollars, and he believed sometimes even much higher, for the bushel of fifty pounds weight.

Another practice was also disclosed, not less reprehensible, and perhaps infinitely more injurious to the public. This was the practice of adulterating, by system and design, the small quantity of salt made and thus sparingly dealt out to the community under the arrangements for extortion before described. The adulteration was effected by using chemical agents to retain in the salt impurities held in solution in the water, and which, without being thus retained, would be principally, if not entirely, separated and excluded by the simple process of boiling. Tallow was said to be the principal agent thus employed, and such was the effect described to be, that, while the salt made would have a more rich and white and beautiful appearance to the uninstructed eye, one hundred pounds of tallow was considered equivalent to the ordinary rent of a manufactory for a season, or about five thousand bushels of salt.

Mr. W. said he would go into no further detail as to the contents of these papers, nor would he stop to consider the pertinency of the facts he had stated to the salt bill in the hands of the committee. It was enough for his purpose that the statements were made, that they were laid before the Senate and the committee as facts, that they rested upon responsible authority, and that they were deeply interesting to the whole country. These considerations were sufficient to induce him, as a member of the committee, to recommend the printing, and would induce him, as a member of the Senate, to vote for it.

It was his duty, standing as he did in relation to that committee, to correct impressions so erroneous, and so certain to follow wherever a report of this debate should go. The committee, as he had already said, had not even considered the bill to repeal the duty upon salt. They had not, so far as he knew, formed any opinion in regard to that measure. Certainly they had not, as a committee, expressed any opinion upon it; much less had they attempted to assert the right in Congress to punish monopolies and mischievous as- The charges against the manufacturers of and sociations in the States of the Union of any chardealers in salt are grave and particular. Are acter. They had simply recommended the printing they founded in truth? If so, the public ought to of certain papers referred to them by an express have full possession of them. Are they false? order of the Senate touching the subject of the They ought to be made known that they may be salt bill and the fishing bounties, though he did met and refuted. Why then should we refuse to not himself consider a portion of the papers as print the papers? Upon what grounds was the relating very directly to any of the provisions of motion opposed? Strange as it might seem, printhe bill before the committee. Yet that portion cipally upon the ground that the printing would of the papers was, as he thought, and as the com- be an infringement of the rights of the States! mittee thought, well worthy of publication. They. An infringement of the great State-rights prindisclosed facts deeply interesting to every inhab-ciple in our system for the Senate to order the

Mr. B. said he never felt more hearty in any cause than in this attack upon the sait tax, its monopoly and abuses. Not even in the case of the most glorious expunging resolution did his feelings and judgment go more ardently together. He was an enemy to a salt tax by itself, and to a monopoly by itself; but here both the tax and the monopoly went together; the two abuses were united and produced unmeasured mischief to the community; and he pledged himself to the Senate and the people to make battle against these abuses until they were abolished or until his capacity.for battle ceased. What he said now was nothing. When he got the papers printed he should bring out the facts, which would be worthy of the public attention. In this nineteenth century the facts and the reasons were all that was wanted. Regular-itant of the whole country, to every interest conbuilt orations were now nothing.

Mr. B. returned to the question before the Senate, which was, not the repeal of the salt tax, but the printing of the papers to show that it ought to be repealed. One thing at a time was enough. When the question of repeal came on he would go into it with a spirit to go through it, and would thank the friends of the tax for their custom. For the present he wanted the information printed, which would show the injury done to the country by the duty on foreign salt, and the injury done to the Treasury by the fishing bounties and allowances. The salt document printed last spring had done great good; it had killed the salt tax as far as it went. He believed no one read it without being convinced that the tax ought to be repealed. The wrath of the friends of the tax against this document shows its value to the country. They denounce it for the harm it does their cause and the good it does ours. So of the present papers; they oppose the printing because it will complete the work which the other document began. They oppose these papers for the same cause they opposed the others.

Mr. WRIGHT said he rose to ask what was the question before the Senate. The debate had taken so wide a range that the real question was likely to be lost sight of. What was it? Simply to print the papers referred to in the motion of the Senator from Missouri. Those papers had been presented by that honorable Senator to the Senate, had been, on his motion, referred to the Committee on Finance, and were now reported back by that member of the committee, with instructions to ask for their printing. The motion to print was now before the body, and was the only question presented for its action. Would

nected with the essential article of salt.

He was not very familiar with the contents of the papers. They were voluminous, and the comhmittee had not thought it necessary to detain them for minute examination in their manuscript form, after they had seen enough of their contents to render the printing, in their judgment, proper. He could not, therefore, speak particularly of the information proposed to be furnished to the Senate and the country by the printing. He would make one or two general references to parts of it, and to those parts less relating to the salt bill, and he would make the practices at the Kanawha saltworks the basis of his statements, because he thought he recollected more particularly the history given in the papers of the fraudulent and mischievous practices there. He would be corrected by the honorable Senator from Missouri, who was perfectly familiar with the whole testimony, if he

should err in his facts.

One of the practices to which he alluded was that of forming an association to monopolize the whole of those extensive works in the hands and under the control of a single company; then to limit the supply of salt for the country depending upon those manufactories for the article, and thus to raise the price most exorbitantly to the consumers. The process was to possess themselves of a small number of the manufactories for actual use, and to pay a stipulated annual rent to all the others to remain idle and make no salt; then to district the country to be supplied with salt; to appoint a selling agent for each district; to send all the salt for each district to that agent, and to him only; and to give him, from time to time, a limit, or minimum of price, below which no salt should be sold in his district. To such an extent had

printing of these papers! Papers, if true, developing the most wicked system of frauds and impositions in reference to one of the necessaries of human and animal life which has ever been developed to an intelligent people! And how is this objection to the printing sustained? By a reference to his own State. He is told here that she is the greatest monopolizer of salt in this Union, and that the printing of these papers will damnify her important interests in the article. Is this so? No, sir; no. Her interests in her extensive and useful salt-works are not to be injured by developing the frauds and impositions practiced elsewhere. On the contrary, her direct interest is to have these papers printed and the truth known in reference to the whole matter, and especially that she may thus show the superiority of her system of police upon this subject. She has not submitted the manufac ture of salt at her works to speculators and monopolizers, so far as the purity of the article is concerned. That power she has retained in her own hands. Every drop of water boiled or evaporated is supplied by State agents and under the supervision of State officers, and every bushel of salt made is carefully inspected by a competent State officer, and its purity thoroughly tested before it is permitted to seek a market among the consumers. Without fraud and perjury in these officers, or smuggling on the part of the manu facturers, no imposition can be practiced upon the public in the quality of the New York salt. The same police is a perfect defense against the monopolies complained of in these papers. They could not exist without the knowledge of the offcers referred to, and they would be faithless to their duty to suffer them to exist for a day without being made known to the whole State and to the whole country. This obligation would

26TH CONG....1ST SESS.

arise from their moral duties as public servants; but there is another obligation upon them more direct and immediate. The State imposes a duty per bushel upon the salt made, and to guard and protect and foster that revenue is the especial daty of these officers. Any association, therefore, to diminish the quantity of salt made would be, to the same extent, a conspiracy to diminish the State revenue, and would, in that way, come within the especial jurisdiction of these officers, and call upon them for prompt exposition.

It is not new to the experience of that State that great frauds may be practiced in the adulteration of the salt made, nor is it that extortion in the price of the salt may be attempted by the manufacturers. Hence the retention by the State of its minute control over the whole matter, and its constant and continued efforts to furnish a pure and wholesome quality of salt. It is not enough, upon this point, that frauds and intended adulterations are guarded against. Expense must be incurred, the nicest processes of manufacture must be adopted, and the extremest vigilance used to expel from the water its impurities, and make it yield a pure salt. To these points the constant attention of the State inspectors have been directed, and the results within the last twenty years have been triumphant.

Is that State, then, to be told that her interests depend upon secrecy in these matters; that her revenue is to be destroyed by the publication of these papers and the exposition of abuses such as he had pointed out existing elsewhere? Are her dignity and sovereignty to be infringed by such a publication, a proclamation of frauds connected with other salt works in the country, similar to those which her experience has taught her would exist at her own but for the vigilant supervision which she has been wise enough to retain over them?

No, Mr. President, New York has no such fears to entertain from this harmless motion. She has, however, a direct interest in the publication of these papers. Her salt is a pure article. It goes into the market without combinations to raise the price. Her works can supply any quantity for which a fair market can be found, and her revenue is graduated by the quantity manufactured and sold. If, then, it be shown that in consequence of frauds at other salines, she can furnish a better and cheaper article to their customers, her interests are promoted by the development. What is the fact now stated by the honorable Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY?] That he has for the last year or two obtained his salt from the New York works, and that he has received a pure article at a fair price. Where are the Kanawha works, compared with those of New York, in reference to him? And if the New York salt can descend the Ohio to the point required to supply the honorable Senator, what portion of the country is there accustomed to depend upon the Kanawhe works for a supply of salt which cannot be supplied from Onondaga? Let the facts be known, then. Let it be understood that a wide and open market exists for pure salt within the reach of the New York works, and he would be responsible for the injury to her interests, her feelings, or her sovereignty, from the publication of the fact.

Suppose, sir, that the charges contained in these papers were directed against the New York salt manufactories. Would it be my duty to rise in my place here and resist their publication? No, sir. Whether true or false, that State would exact no such duty from her Representatives here. It has never been her practice to conceal any attempts at fraud connected with her extensive and rich salines. On the contrary, she has always sought to give to every imposition upon the public the most extensive publication, and she will not require of those who represent her here to attempt to make secrets of that information in relation to others which she invariably makes public in relation to herself.

Another objection to the printing of these papers is urged, not less singular than that which has just been considered. It is said that the motion savors of agrarianism; that the attempt to expose these monopolies and frauds here, by a publication of the proof of their existence and extent, is acting upon a principle which, carried out in practice, would lead to the distribution of property

Repeal of the Salt Tax-Mr. Calhoun.

and the other leveling doctrines of the agrarians.
Mr. W. said it would be difficult to make any dis-
tribution of property by which he should not be
benefited in a pecuniary sense, but it was never-
theless a doctrine which he repudiated, and he
should be compelled to vote against the motion,
if he could see that principle in the order to print. ||
He could not, however; and he was surprised to
hear the opinion advanced. No legislation is pro-
posed, and all that is asked is the simple publica-
tion of most important information upon a subject
of universal interest. If the statements contained
in the papers be true, he was sure no one would
attempt to justify the practices complained of.
Should they not then be made known?

Suppose it were charged here, with the authen-
ticity of this testimony, that a number of farmers
in Western New York had combined to raise and
control the price of provisions, and that to accom-
plish their object they had hired three fourths of
the farmers of that fertile wheat-growing region
not to cultivate their farms for a given season.
Would it be his duty, as a Representative of the
State here, to resist the publication of the fact?
No. It would be his duty, as well to his State
and the people he represented as to himself, to
give it publication, to proclaim it to the world,
and thus do all that is in our power to do to arrest
the intended evil.

The honorable Senator from South Carolina [Mr. PRESTON] had said that we do not represent the people here; that we are the Representatives of the sovereign States, not of the people of the States; that one Senator may represent a million of population, and another one hundred thousand, and yet we are all equal here. This is true; and yet where rests the sovereignty of the States, but in the people? Who are the sovereigns of the States but the people? And would he have those of us who represent populous States forget our increased obligations growing out of the increased interests committed to our charge? Would he make us unmindful of the fact that we represent millions instead of thousands, and of the interests, the wishes, and the safety of those millions? [Here several Senators, among whom the voices of Mr. WEBSTER and Mr. CLAY were heard, said, "Yes, that is the rule; we ought to represent the people of our respective States."] Mr. W. said he thanked the gentlemen for reminding him of the tendency of his remark. It would save him a future explanation. He had said upon that point precisely what he intended. He held it to be his duty truly to represent the wishes and interests of the people of the State which had honored him with a seat here, and he should continue to govern his acts and votes by what he believed to be those interests and wishes, unless arrested in his course by the command of another and a controlling voice. He hoped this explanation would satisfy the gentlemen upon the other side of the House, who had manifested so kind an interest in his faithfulness to his constituents.

Mr. WEBSTER said he had no objection to the printing of these papers. The time is coming when this subject will be dispassionately considered, and at that time, though he would throw out no challenge, he would endeavor to prove that the present moderate duty on salt was necessary to keep the article at fixed and uniform prices, and that it had no tendency to produce or aggravate the high prices which were complained of.

Mr. CALHOUN said, that as the question was about to be put, he desired to make a few remarks on the motion before he gave his vote. In the first place, he wished to know from the chairman of the Committee on Finance [Mr. WRIGHT] whether the proposition to print these papers at this time is intended to have any practical bearing; or, in other words, is it the intention of that committee to report the bill now before it, to repeal the duty on salt, for the action of the Senate this session?

The answer of Mr. WRIGHT not being very definite,

Mr. CALHOUN. I understood from the declaration of the Senator who introduced the bill [Mr. BENTON] that it was intended to press the passage of the bill this session.

Mr. BENTON said yes.

Mr. CALHOUN. Well, then, I shall vote against the printing, because, among other rea

sons,

SENATE.

I am opposed to the repeal, or any other action on the subject, at this time. According to my view of your finances, we shall have not a cent to spare. The most rigid economy will. scarcely be sufficient to carry us through the year without borrowing, or, what is the same, in effect, resorting to our own credit; and if the duty on salt should be repealed, the deficit would have to be made up by laying a corresponding duty on something else, or to borrow money to make good the deficit, to either of which I am opposed. I ask the chairman if my impression as to the state of the Treasury, and what must be the consequence of a repeal of the duty, is not correct? Mr. WRIGHT assented.

Mr. CALHOUN. I now ask the Senators from that portion of the Union, for whose benefit it is proposed to make the repeal, and through which the Cumberland road passes, whether they are prepared to vote the burden off their shoulders at this time, and to ask us in the next breath to borrow money to carry on that road for their accommodation? I hope not; and if not, that they will add their vote against the useless expenditure, at this time, of printing these papers.

But, sir, this is not my only objection to the repeal, even if it should be found to be expedient when the question comes fairly before us, as it must in a short time. The compromise act is taking off the duty on salt as rapidly as the interest of commerce and the community will permit. It is now about six cents the bushel, and will be reduced in the course of the next two years to two cents the bushel, making the reduction at the end of the period, compared to what it is at this time, equal to one hundred per cent. per annum, which is sufficiently rapid, one would suppose, to satisfy the warmest friend of repeal, and certainly as rapid as is consistent with sound commercial principles. I need not tell the most ignorant of the laws of trade that all sudden transitions are ruinous to the regular and fair trader, as well as injurious to the general interest of the community, and ought to be carefully avoidedeven where the change is, in the end, expedient.

There is another decisive objection, not only against the repeal at this time, but the agitation of the subject itself. It is well known that there must be a general revision of the duties on imports at this or the next session, under the compromise act, which ceases to operate in 1842. It is vastly important that the adjustment to be made should be such as will place the system of duties on the most equal and permanent basis, looking to the general interest of the country in the broadest light. To do this, we must come to the great work calmly and dispassionately, with the whole subject before us, free from previous sectional agitation or commitment as to the articles in regard to which the several portions of the Union may be particularly interested. It is thus only that the whole subject may be fairly considered, and satisfactorily adjusted. Every one who knows anything of the difficulties of the task must feel and acknowledge the correctness of these views; and I would now ask, is it fair for any one portion of the Union to ask to be relieved of its burden in advance of the rest? Would it not give it an advantage when the general adjustment comes under consideration? And is the West disposed to seize on such advantage at this time? Would it be either right or manly in her to ask this concession from the other portions of the Union at this time? We must not deceive ourselves. If salt is to be exempt from duty, some other article must bear an additional tax; and, as a southern man, deeply interested in this question, I would wish to know, when it is taken off salt, on what other article it is to be laid. Is it to be laid on iron, or cotton bagging, or some other article as objectionable at least as that on salt, as objectionable as it is to us? These questions, so deeply interesting to us, can be answered, practically and satisfactorily, only on a general revision, to which time, justice, equity, and fairness demand that the subject should be postponed. The delay can be no serious injury to any interest, more especially as the duty is going off as fast as it ought on sound principles.

But it may be said that the information contained in these papers is calculated to throw light on the necessity of repealing the salt duty, and

that they ought to be printed to enable us to act ernments. If these papers have any value at all,
with intelligence when the general subject of re- they ought to be sent to the Legislature of Vir-
vision shall come up. Admit that they are so ginia, now in session, which only is competent
calculated, I still object to their printing, even in to correct the supposed abuses of the salt estab-
that view, at this time, because it is plainly an lishments on the Kanawha and elsewhere within
attempt to forestall public opinion on a single her limits, and which constitute the main object
article said to be particularly oppressive in one of their attack. As great as would be the uncon-
portion of the country, in order to give it an ad-stitutionality of ordering them to Richmond, to
vantage over all others when we come to the
general discussion. I am, sir, against all fore-
stalling as unfair and injurious, whether it be
forestalling of public opinion as to the repeal of
the salt duty or the forestalling the article itself,
of which the mover so loudly complains. Of the
two, the former may prove by far the most ex-
ceptionable and injurious, if it should contribute
to prevent a fair and satisfactory adjustment of
the duties.

be laid before the Legislature of Virginia, 1 would
consider it far less so than to make them the basis
of our legislation.

SENATE.

protective tariff and the State rights men of the South. Now, sir, I hold the Journals of that session in my hand. I hastily turned to votes on the bill while the Senator was making his remarks. I have looked at two decided votes, in which the yeas and nays were called, on that occasion, the only ones that I had time to examine, and I find that Mr. McDuffie and my other friends, as far as I have had time to examine their names, voted with Mr. Verplanck himself, and I will leave it to the Senate to decide whether he opposed his own bill or not.

The truth is, the bill failed in spite of our support; and its failure, notwithstanding the urgent necessity of avoiding civil conflict at the time, is

that nothing short of the means resorted to by South Carolina would have brought to the ground the odious and oppressive system against which it was pointed.

On motion of Mr. WALKER, the Senate then adjourned.

With a few remarks on a single point, I shall close what I intend to say. It is proposed, with the repeal of the duty on salt, to repeal the fishing bounties, which, it is alleged, originated in the former. I do not intend to enter into that ques-proof conclusive, let who will say to the contrary, ||tion; I leave it to others to decide on their origin. I place my refusal to a repeal of these bounties, at this time, on a wholly different basis. The great navigating, like the planting interest, has felt the heavy hand of your protective system. It has had, like the planting interest, to meet foreign competition abroad, not only without protection, but under the weight of oppressive duties, many of which still remain. I, for one, whether the fishing bounties are right or wrong in the abstract, will not agree to repeal them till you are prepared to do justice to that great interest. Take off your duties on iron, on hemp, and on lead, which fall so heavily on it, and then I shall be prepared to consider the expediency of repealing those bounties, but not before. Justice and equity are higher considerations than expe- SPEECH OF HON. A. H. 'SEVIER, diency. I stand up for them. While I insist on

ashamed to stand by and see injustice done to any
other; and in this, I feel assured, I but speak the
sentiments of those I represent.

But, sir, if I had no other objection to the printing of these papers, there is one growing out of their character, if I understand their contents I know correctly, which, with me, is decisive. nothing of their contents except as drawn from the statement of the Senator himself. I infer from it that a large portion consists of correspondence and other evidence, calculated to show that the manufacturers of domestic salt who supply the West with the article are guilty of the most odious monopoly, fraud, imposition, and oppression, for which reason it is proposed to repeal the duty on the imported article. I confess I do not see how the repeal of the small duty still remaining, and the still smaller that will, after a short period, can have the effect intended; but, be that as it may, I utterly oppose the principle on which it is pro-justice for the interest I represent, I would be posed to place the repeal, and cannot give it the countenance which the voting for the printing of the papers would give. The principle involved, according to my conception, is precisely the same as that contained in the bill of the Senator from Kentucky, which was condemned by so decided a vote of this body at the last session. What did that bill propose? That the President should dismiss Federal officers who should interfere in elections. And on what principle was it voted down? That the right of suffrage was a reserved right, left by the Constitution under the regulation of the States respectively, and that it belonged to them, and not to us, to say who should and who should not vote, and under what regulations they should vote, and that it was not for us to supply any supposed defect or omission on the part of the States in the exercise of their power. This was the solid basis on which we rested our objection to the bill, and on which it was voted down by so strong a vote.

Now, sir, if we turn to this case we shall find, if I mistake not, the same principle apply with equal force. The salt-works, with their production, and those employed in them, are under the exclusive legislation of the States wherein they lie, and are exclusively subject to their regulation, as is the right of suffrage. This no one will deny. If, then, there be monopoly, fraud, imposition, or oppression in their management, it belongs clearly to the States where the works are to correct the abuse, and not this Government. None will deny this. In fact, the Senator himself acknowledged this when he asserted that the State was competent to make the acts of which he complains, and which he proposes to establish by these papers, a felony. I now ask what greater right have we to assume in this case that the States have neglected or omitted to do their duty, than in the case of the right of suffrage, and, on that supposition, to modify our legislation so as to remedy the evil and punish the supposed delinquents? Can any one point out any distinction in the two cases? How, then, could we reconcile our vote at the last session with a vote that would give countenance to the principle proposed to be established by these papers? I protest solemnly against an act that could lead to such an inference. If the duty on salt ought to be repealed on financial principles, or considerations of general expediency, let it be repealed. In that case, these papers would not be worth a farthing. But if not if the repeal is to be placed on the supposed defect or omission of duty on the part of the States, a more dangerous and unconstitutional ground could not be assumed. It would make This Government the supervisor of the State Gov-l

MONDAY, February 17.-The question recurring on the motion to print certain documents in relation to the salt duties, Mr. CLAY, of Kentucky, and Mr. DAVIS, withdrew their opposition, and they were accordingly ordered to be printed.

ASSUMPTION OF STATE DEBTS.

--

OF ARKANSAS,

IN SENATE, February 20, 1840,

On Mr. GRUNDY's report in relation to the assumption of the debts of the States by the Federal Government. Mr. SEVIER said:

Mr. PRESIDENT: The resolution of the Senator from Missouri, upon the subject of State debts, though modified by the committee to whom they were referred, are resolutions wholly of a negative character. Neither the originals or the amendments contemplate any legislation; but, on the contrary, the objects of both are avowedly to prevent legislation. These résolutions, though negative, unusual, and extraordinary, lead us into the consideration of the policy and condition of the States; their wisdom, solvency, integrity, and, I will add, their capability of managing with prudence their own local and private affairs. They lead us, also, into the consideration of banking and internal improvements, as now existing in and carried on by the States; and of the consequences, past, present, and future, of such systems upon the general affairs of the States, as well as the influence they are calculated to have upon the policy and welfare of the whole Union.

Mr. BENTON could answer the question put to the chairman on Finance [Mr. WRIGHT] with more precision than he had done it. He held in his hand the answer of the Secretary of the Treasury to the question; for the Secretary had been applied to for information as to the operation of the salt bill on the finances. The answer shows it will save money, that it will save the Treasury from loss. The bill is to repeal the salt tax and the fishing bounties and allowances founded upon them. Now, the question is, what is the product of the tax, and what the amount of the bounties and allowances? And the answer is here [holding up a sheet of paper.] The answer is, that for this year the tax exceeds the bounties and allowances only by $110,000, and after 1842, when the compromise act takes full effect, will fall short of these bounties and allowance about the one half. This was an effect of that act passed through Congress without leave to amend it, and by which duties are reduced without a corresponding reduction of drawbacks and allowances founded upon them. But he would not go further into that subject at present: the time was at hand when he should show, with the proof in hand, the operation of that act which was made out of doors and rushed through Congress without allowing an i to be dotted or a t to be crossed. Mr. Verplanck's bill to reduce and regulate the duties was baffled for months that the Administration should not have the credit of settling the question which the presidential election had already decided; and while that bill was baffled in the House, another was concocted out of the House, which was not a settlement, but an adjournment of the tariff question-which adjourned it from the time when the country was ready to settle it to a time when they will not even be thinking about it. That compromise act expires in June, 1842; and is the South and the West even thinking of the renewed contest to which it is to give rise? That act was a master stroke for the high tariff party. It took the question away-laid it by to recruit-and plunges us again into it in 1842. It conducted the tariff to a point at which it cannot remain,haps less division of sentiment than there was from which there will be reaction. Every interest will be dissatisfied, and there will be a general union of all interests to renew the high duties.

Mr. CALHOUN. I rise simply to correct the erroneous statement of the Senator who has just taken his seat. He affirmed, as a fact, that the two extremes united to defeat the bill to reduce the tariff introduced by Mr. Verplanck in the session of 1832-33, meaning the advocates of the

The first resolution presented for our consideration is, shall we pay those debts of the States (or, which is the same thing, shall we assume them) which have been contracted by them exclusively for local and State purposes? I answer, no. answer that I am unwilling to agree to any such

measure.

I answer that we have no such power conferred upon us by the Constitution; that no such measure was ever contemplated by the framers of that instrument, and that no such power was ever exercised by Congress. The two cases put in this debate, the one of the assumption of the debts of the States by Congress, shortly after the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and the other of the deposit of the surplus revenue with the States in 1836, are not such cases, in my estimation, as warrant the just conclusion that Congress ever did assume or pay the debts of the States, or any of them, which were contracted for local purposes. In regard to the first of these, I will state that if I have properly understood the nature of those debts, they were debts of that charwith peracter which Congress would now pay,

upon that question at the time it was done. These debts were contracted, not for local or State purposes, not for private banking or local internal improvements, but for the common defense. They were contracted by our ancestors in the prosecution of the war of the Revolution; they were contracted by them in resisting the tyranny of George the Third, after they had manfully thrown off their allegiance and boldly defied his power. They were

Assumption of State Debts-Mr. Sevier.

contracted in sustaining themselves in the san- proposition would be met and resisted at the guinary struggle which ensued, in warring against threshold in the new States with as much firmness his troops, his Tories, his foreign mercenaries, and and determination and perseverance, and, if nesavage allies; they were contracted for such pur- cessary, to the same extent that their ancestors reposes as these, out of which have sprung our po- sisted the stamp duties and the tea tax. What, litical and religious freedom, our greatness and then, remains from which we can raise this reveglory, and our beloved country itself. These were nue? The tariff, that universal panacea for every debts not of a local character, nor were they paid pecuniary complaint; and are we prepared to inin violation of either the letter or spirit of the Con-crease the duties for such a purpose? Is the