SPEECH 1 HON. F. W. PICKENS, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ON THE BILL TO DISTRIBUTE THE PROCEEDS OF THE PUBLIC LANDS AMONG THE STATES. In the House of Representatives , July 2, 1841—On the bill to distribute the proceeds of the public lands amongst the States. Mr. PICKENS said he did not rise to trespass upon the time of the committee by any lengthy discussion as to the mere details of the bill. Con¬ tradictory and unsound as many of those details were, he left them to be adjusted and modified by of the measure. It would be his pur¬ pose tp'sjpeak to the great principles and vital poinj^involved in it, and connect it with the other measures, which constitute one system as a whole, to be presented by the dominant party at present, for the adoption of this Congress, and the sanction of the country. We were induced to believe that Congress was called together at this extraordinary session for the purpose of relieving what were said to be the necessities of the Treasu¬ ry—to relieve the wants of the Treasury—because the means would be short of the demands. And the Secretary of the Treasury had laid before us a report, which Mr. P. could not defend, but the statements of which he would avail himself of in the remarks he would make. The Secretary had called the attention of Congress to the fact that there would be, at the end of this year, a deficit in the Treasury of six millions of dollars, and that, in the course of 1842, there would also be a deficiency of six millions more. And, instead of pre¬ paring to meet this supposed exigency by prudence and wise means, we propose, first, to divide out an¬ nually three millions of revenue that has been re¬ ceived in common for forty years, so as to make this supposed deficit still greater, instead of relieving the Treasury by supplying it with means, for which purpose we were called together, you propose first to withhold from it one of its largest and most just sources of supply. The next great proposition we have made to us is, to borrow twelve millions ol dollars for eight years. Con¬ nect this with the other, and it is nothing more nor less than a proposition to borrow money, that you may distribute. You propose to raise taxes with one hand, that you may distribute the revenue with the other. Again: to meet all these arrangements, we have the proposition to raise the taxes, so as to in¬ crease the revenue from customs at least twelve millions of dollars over what it would bhe naked pro¬ positions made, not to relieve the wants of your Treasury, but to relieve the speculating and spend thrilt race, by fixing them through this Govern¬ ment upon the tax-paying people of this Confede¬ racy. So far as the pecuniary operation was in¬ volved—so far as the national finances were con¬ cerned—the effect of this and the other measures now proposed, would be to create eighty-four mil¬ lions of public funds over and above the ordinary sources of revenue, and the ordinary wants of the Government. Such were the naked, undisguised piopositions before the country. This bill is only part and parcel of ihe same Stupendous system. He had thought that Congress was called together to relieve the wants of the Trea¬ sury; but now the argument was to relieve Ihe country—to relieve the States. Did I say to relieve the States? No, the practical operation of the bill was to relieve not the States, but the debtor class of the States—those corporations for turnpikes, railroads, canals, and banks, that had plunged the States into debt for their purposes. Its final ope¬ ration would be to fill with delusive hope all those classes of society who had attempted to tax poste¬ rity for their ex’ravagance and profligacy. Connecting all these measures together as one system, it did not surprise me that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Johnson] had brought for¬ ward this bill as the first to be acted on. If Con¬ gress had been called d ogether really for the pur¬ pose of relieving the wants of the Treasury, would not the loan bill be taken up first? Would we not take up the question of the additional revenue which was called for by the Secretary of the Trea¬ sury? And then after these measures for the re¬ lief of the Treasury had been dispored of, we could then take up any secondary measure following them? But the object in truth was not to relieve the Treasury or the people, but to relieve and assist the great stock interest which had become identified with the States, and had plunged them for ten years past into debts beyond the resources, beyond the immediate abilities of their own people to meet without difficulty. And now they called upon us—upon those States and sections that had kept out of debt—to pledge the land of the country— ihe great public domain, for the purpose of sus¬ taining all their interests. It was a naked and un¬ disguised issue between the speculating and stock interest on the one side, and the great laboring* and landed interest of this Confederacy on the other. Brought down to a proper analysis, this was the sum and substance of the whole matter. You could not have an enlightened view by look¬ ing at these propositions separately; they must be viewed together, as branches of the same general system, relying on each other as fostering and sus¬ taining certain great interests For instance: the public stock to be subscribed in a Bank, was in¬ tended to benefit those immediately identified with the banking interest. The increase of taxes for the benefit of those who received incidental protection and got the disbursements—-the loan bill would sti¬ mulate the money market. And the distribution bill was intended to benefit the foreign fund-holder. It was nominally to relieve Maryland, which was in debt fifteen millions; Pennsylvania, said to be more than twice that amount; New York, also in debt to a large amount; Illinois, Indiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and all those States which were in debt. Suppose ihe debts of the States and their corporations to equal one hundred and eighty millions of dol¬ lars, then the distribution under this bill would not pay half the interest. Those who are now interested in urging it will finally urge this Government to create immediately Government stock equal to the value of the public lands funded, and transfer that to the foreign fund-holder, and take in lieu of it Slate stocks bow held by then’. Then, in adminis¬ tering ihe proceeds of the lands, according to this bill, the Government will concentrate the whole operation within itself, and retain (at first, but will finally yield that) the distributive share of each Slate as an indemnity for the United States stock transferred in lieu of State stocks. Thus, the final operation will be to assume, in this indirect mode, the debts of the States. The whole amount is to mortgage the land and labor of the country for the benefit of those who desire to live by taxing others, and thus, by legislative legerdemain, to enable the swindling speculator and spendthrift to transfer his debts to the honest and industrious, to be collected by Government, under such forms and delusions as almost to defy scrutiny. If there be any in the community who have hus¬ banded their resources and abstained from specu¬ lation, it is but due that they should have the full benefit of their situation in times of reverses and depression. It is not right that they should be put under contributions to relieve their more adventurous neighbors. Perhaps, in former times of speculating mania, they were ridiculed for their parsimony and want of foresight by those “who are wise in their own conceit.” I am for just protection to property. I think one of the first objects of a civilized government is not only to protect property, but never to tax it unnecessa¬ rily for any object, much less for the benefit of any particular classes in community. Sir, there is no magic power in Government to create money. Whenever Government attempts to relieve the debtor class, they must do so by using the credit or resources of those who have kept oui of debt, or by losses made to fall upon the creditor class. I abhor that modern demagoguism that would relieve one portion of the community by taxing another portion. The honest proceeds of labor in all its branches ought never to be touched, except from necessity. Whenever a man has accumu¬ lated property by fair enterprise and industry, let Government protect him in the full enjoyment of it for himself and his heirs. I respect that pro¬ perty which has thus been acquired, and its posses¬ sor, as well as the property that has been inherited from an honest ancestry. I respect it as the expo¬ nent of industry, frugality, enterprise, and worth. But I have no feeling for that artificial wealth which has been fostered by incorporated credit, with all its arrogance and conventional habits. Those who have acquired property by grinding the face of the poor, and by unhallowed schemes of swindling speculation—I care not with what su¬ percilious air and upstart pretension they may claim rank, yet I feel, and have ever felt, towards all such, the most profound contempt. Let Govern¬ ment be impartial—exactly just to all interests, from the peasant who dwells in his mountain cot¬ tage, up to the man of princely fortune who spreads his palace upon the seashore. Mr. Chairman: This bill is calculated to be one of the most important in its future operations that has ever been presented to the adoption of a deliberative assembly. There is nothing like it in the annals of legislation, except, herhap?, Mr. Fox’s great East India bill. That bill was calculated to effect deeply the extensive East India possessions of Great Britain, and the fate of millions of human beings—making them not only vassals of the Bri¬ tish crown, but dependants upon the British Mi¬ nistry. True, its effects were to be felt principally by an ignorant and semi-babarous race, who had slumbered for ages in enervated indolence. But this bill was to operate upon an enterprising and spirited people—it was to embrace in its provi¬ sions an empire as vast and extensive in its re¬ sources as the Indies. Cast your eyes over the map of that mighty country, laved as it is by the Pacific on one side, and that stretches itself to the Gulf of Mexico in the South, and your great inland seas in the North, and you will see that it embraces a region from which empires may be carved. Where is the American heart that does not exult with pride to trace the Missouri and the Mississippi as they roll through that noble valley destined to be an inheritance for millions of free¬ men? Let us rejoice in its hills and plains—its rivers, and mountains, and lakes, rather than look upon them with the miser’s eye as sources from whence we are to draw future contributions, to be divided amongst the needy and the avari¬ cious. You propose, by this bill, to lay that great and growing region under annual exactions, col¬ lected, not for the common support and common defence of a united country, but to be distributed among those who will be pensioned as sturdy beg¬ gars around your plundered Treasury. Why are we now called upon to change your present land system, which has been adopted almost from the commencement of your Government, and under which such great results have been produced? Look back only thirty years ago, (a very short time in national existence,) and has the world ever seen such a change in a country? Your present system has in that period brought into ex¬ istence nine States of this Confederacy. For¬ ty years ago, and we. had but a handful of daring, enterprising citizens, who had sought a home in the wilderness of the West, but now they hold a population equal to that which achieved our independence in the war of the Revolution. Peace, and happiness, and power, and civilization, have been the fruits of your present system; and why now make this great and vital change? Are we prepared to act on this vast and comprehen¬ sive subject at this extra session? You tread upon unknown ground. Other Governments have, by' fatal legislation, lost their finest possessions, and we, too, by hasty and unwise legislation now, may lose our control, and finally our power, over the noblest country that ever expanded its bosom to the sun of Heaven. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Johnson] rests this bill, and the right of this Government to make the distribution, under the Virginia ordi¬ nance of 1784, and other grants from the States, making a transfer of these lands to the Federal Government. He contended that we were bound to make this distribution. Mr. P. said he would net follow the gentleman [Mr. Johnson] through¬ out his ingenious and eloquent argument upon the construction of these deeds of cession. I will not stop to chop logic upon words with that gentleman. The argument upon that point had last winter been exhausted in the other end of this Capitol, and to go into it would be but to tread upon the same ground. Neither will I, Mr. Chairman, appeal to the abracadabra of the Constitution; that has long since ceased to have its charm upon this commit¬ tee. I fear that consecrated parchment is hereaf¬ ter to become, in the future struggles of the Repub- 4 lie, any thing that power may choose to make it. But, sir, if I were to dwell upon the construction of those deeds of cession, I should be totally at a loss to knew how ihe words “common fund,” which were used in all these grants, could be con¬ strued to mean a separate fund belonging to the States separately. Divide this “common fund,” and give it to the States separately, and what is the result? You distribute it to the States; and by the very act of distribution you will destroy the very language of the grants. That which is declared to be “common” becomes separate. The language is, “a common fund for the use and benefit of all the States.” By distri¬ bution you make it a seperate fund for the use and benefit of each State instead of “all the States.” It is a gross and palpable solecism. The lan¬ guage is so plain that it can hardly bear comment. Again, we see the language is, “according to their respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure.” Now, if gentlemen claimed detri¬ tion to the States under these grants, they must *make it upon the rule which the grants lay down according to their doctrines. “According to their respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure”—what was the meaning of that? Could we understand it under our present sys'em? No! we must go back to the period of adoption of those grants. They w@re made under the Articles of Confederation—previous to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, We all know that, under the Confederation, Congress had no power to tax directly. But each State had its quota of taxes to raise, to bear its “proportion in the general charge and expenditure.” Congress fixed the ratio or proportion for each Slate, and each State raised that by taxation to suit itself. What re venue was raised, was from the States as States. N« w, under this system,we can understand the terms used in the grants. They meant that whatever might come in from the lands might be a “common fund” for the “use and benefit of 'all the States”—“according to their respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure.” That is, that their re¬ spective proportions in the general charge should be diminished by the same ratio applied to the calculation of the amount put into the “common fund” from the lands. For instance, if that “com¬ mon fund” was three millions annually, then the States were to have that amount passed to their credit, “in the general charge,” in the same pro¬ portion that their quota of taxes had been esti¬ mated by the Federal Government. There is no other meaning to it. And I defy any man to understand it. without taking into considera¬ tion the manner in which the Federal Government apportioned out taxes amongst the States under the Articles of Confederation. The adoption of the present Constitution had changed the whole power of taxa’ion. Congress was now enabled to raise taxes directly from the people instead of the States. Asfarastho power of taxation was involved by this Government, we were now made one people. Revenue was collected from the people instead of the States. And I defy you, under the present sys¬ tem, to tell what is the “respective proportion in the general charge” to any State in the Union. It cannot be done. If it be true that these words jus¬ tify distribution to the States, then the rule laid down by the grant itself cannot be executed. No sir! it is all a fallacy. Ths substance of the grants was to make it a “common fund.” And if the rule laid down in the grants has been changed, it has been done by the adoption of the Federal Con¬ stitution, and Virginia herself has assented to that change by agreeing to the Constitution. That in¬ strument now makes a common Treasury, and give? power to the Federal Government to fill it by collecting taxes from the people instead of the States, as formerly; and you have no right to make that a separate fund which comes into the common Trea¬ sury as a “common fund.” There is neither logic nor justice in the construction that assumes distri¬ bution as a consequence from the grants. If you as¬ sume to distribute under the grants, you must be controlled by the rule they lay down. If you go according to “their respective proportions in the general charge,” what right have you, in equity, to divide" amongst the new States first ten per cent, from the proceeds over and above their common share in this “common fund?” Yet this bill pro- po;es to give them that much besides their general dividend, and also a large amount of lands over and a^ove. You claim in one line to be governed by the grants, and yet, in the next, you utterly disre¬ gard them. The truth is, the Constitution has made a common Treasury, and all funds coming into it are common funds, applicable to the specific objects granted in that instrument, and whenever you seek out ether objects not defined, you travel int) a wild field of uncertainty, where construclion becomes law, and power executes whatever may be dictated by interest. Since the adoption of the Constitution there cannot be, in the nature of things, separate funds in the revenue, and to divide the Treasury, or any part of it, as of right to the separate States, is to denationalize the Udlon, But, independent of this, where is your right to go beyond the Mississippi and seize upon the lands purchased by treaty? The grants from the States were confined to lands this side of that river. We purchased Florida, also, by treaty; and, besides, we paid Georgia for what we got from her, em¬ bracing Alabama and Mississippi, except a narrow strip of land south of the 35th deg. of latitude, run¬ ning due west to the Mississippi, which South Ca¬ rolina gran ed. The grants from Connecticut and New York embraced lands lying in the Canadas, and were, to a great extent, of no avail. Tennes¬ see was carved from North Carolina, and Ken¬ tucky from Virginia. So that the grants, in reali¬ ty, are applicable to no part except that rich and beautiful country that lies between the Ohio and Mississippi, embracing what was called the North¬ western Territory. Extensive, rich, and valuable as it is, embracing, as it does, four powerful States, with the probability of another very soon, yet, as compared with all that vast region that stretches itself from the Mississippi to the Rocky Moun¬ tains and to the Pacific, where nature revels in her loveliest and most favorite retreats, it is but small. And when we take into consideration that most of it is now settled up, and then compare the lands that are now to be sold there, with those that are to be brought into market in the Territories, that have been purchased by treaty, and it is “as a drop I in the bucket, and dust in the balance.” The lands purchased by treaty, with the incidental expenses, have cost forty millions of dollars. This was paid for out of the common Treasury, by taxes raised from every portion of the Union. This land was paid for by ike old States, and where is the princi¬ ple, or where is the justice, that} uts their proceeds up for division upon the tame grounds that you claim under the grant from Virginia, which you say created a specific trust fund? There must be something understood in this more than would strike the supeificial observer. If you give back to each State precisely what it has contributed or paid, it would be useless, for it would then be im¬ material whether you gave it back, or whether you applied it honestly to the common purposes of the Union, and then diminished the taxes by the same amount. But if you give to cne State more than it contributed, then it would be a fraud; and if you gave to one less, it would then be gross injustice. And if you finally imposed taxes to supply the vacuum created in the revenue, which ope¬ rated unequally, it would then be, adding to fraud and injustice, undisguised and base oppres¬ sion. Sir, it is not intended that this system shall be equal. To taik of distributing the proceeds of lands acquired by purchase, and paid for out of the common revenue of this Government, and to pretend to equality and justice in it, is an outrage upon common sense. To attempt such a thing is ridiculous—it is worse than ridiculous—it is wan¬ tonly sporting with the resources of the Republic. I know of no ground upon which this bill can rest, so far as related to the lands purchased, ex¬ cept the one openly assumed every where—to re¬ lieve the sufferings of the communi'y (that is, the fundholder and stockjobber)—to relieve the credit of the States, &e. The amount to be distributed would not pay half the interest on the debts due, and its relief would be mockery and delusion, and those who rely on it will be fatally deceived. The whole profit and benefit will be divided amongst the money-changers, who may happen to be mo^t in favor, for the time being, with the dominant in¬ terests that will sway your State Legislatures for selfish purposes. These will be the men who will receive the money. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Johnson] had attempted to identify this distribution amongst the States, to relieve, as he says, the wants of the States, with the assumption of what was called the State debts by the General Government, after the Revolution. The gentleman had classified the two together. Was the gentleman seri¬ ous in attempting to rest these two cases upon the same ground? What was the assumption of State debts at that time? What was the situation of the country? There was in fact no central go¬ vernment, or at all events it was impotent so far as taxation was concerned. We were in the midst of a revolution. Immediately after the Declara¬ tion of Independence, active, efficient governments were organized in our States, with power to tax and raise revenue. From their superior organiza¬ tion at the time, they were enabled to raise funds to pay your armies, to advance the means by which they were enabled to fight the battles of indepen¬ dence, for the general defence and welfare of the whole country. The States came forward to ad¬ vance funds in a noble cause where they had plighted to each other their faith—a cause which secured American Independence, and finally sent our stars and stripes streaming in triumph and in glory through every quarter of the habitable globe. It was in this cause ihat Massachusetts and South Carolina had advanced about four millions of dol¬ lars each for the defence of the whole. The rest of the States advanced also, but this was more than was advanced by any other State in the Union. The State debts of the present day were contracted in profound peace—they were contracted for the benefit of the local interests of each State in pursu¬ ing their various schemes of aggrandizement and wealth. And did the gentleman seriously put this distribution upon the same grounds with the assumption of the State debts of the Revolution? A distribution to be made not to them who had encoun¬ tered peril and advanced their means for the purpose of defending the States, or sustaining the common honor of a united country; but to sustain corporations and speculators, who, like leeches, had fastened 'bemselves upon the State Treasuries—who, by th°ir active, exertions—by means of force:: majori¬ ties in the Legislatures, had combined together to plunge the country in debt beyond its immediate resources or present means of payment. Sir, were the two cases parallel? Were they to be put upon the same ground? Feeling a just pride in the un¬ stained honor of the Revolution, and the noble cause of the Stages in those days, I indignantly re¬ pel the idea. You cannot put the two cases to¬ gether, nor was the matter worthy of consideration in that point of view. There has recently sprung up in the country a class of men who desired to get rid of that everlast¬ ing curse placed upon man in the first ages of so¬ ciety, that he should “eat his bread by the sweat of his brow.” They were attempting to live by their » wits instead of their labor. I am against raising funds through Government to feed these drones in society, who are too proud to work. They are the legitimate descendants of those moneychangers, whom Christ kicked from the Temple as hypocrites and swindlers. These are the men who hang around your public Treasury here, and in the States, always pressing for taxes, and eager for a division of the public spoils. But the gentleman [Mr. Johnson] has placed this distribution upon State Rights grounds. He complains of the absorbing influence of this centra¬ lizing Government, ana presses this bill because it will have a contrary tendency. Let us examine into this. The seat of vitality in our system, is the taxing power of this Government. This was a great step towards a stronger and more consolida¬ ted Government’ than the old Confederation. It added vastly to its centralizing power. But add now the power not only to collect taxes directly, but also the power to distribute back again amongst the States the revenue collected, and you make it then work both ways towards centralization. Col- ect money to distribute habitually, and you create a party in every State who will organize and act together to receive that distribution. It will be a moneyed jSarty, looking up to the action of this Government, and forming combinations with par- ties of like kind in f very State, all moving together with eagerness and concert, stimulated by one feel¬ ing, and move? by one power. You link them all together around the Federal car—you make the meanest and lowest of all consolidation—a conso¬ lidation of moneyed interest and moneyed power. With such a system every noble and elevated feel¬ ing of patriotism would wither and die away un¬ der the absorbing and base passion of avarice. A republic is either the nob’est and purest of all go¬ vernments, or it is the most corrupt and profligate. It can scarcely retain a middle position. So long as it is kept free, it nurtures simplicity, manliness, and valor; but when it degenerates, it becomes the hot bed of cunning, treachery, cowardice, and sel¬ fishness. The gentleman [Mr. Johnson] has himself given ns a fearful picture of the centralizing influence at present of this Government; and has spoken of fifteen hundred applicants for one office, and the increasing corruptions of the Federal Government. Mr. P. said he had listened with interest to the gen¬ tleman on* these points. [Mr. W. Cost Johnson said he did not speak of the corruptions of the Federal Government. He spoke of the power of the Government, and among other things, illustrated it by the number of per¬ sons who locked to the central Government for pa¬ tronage, but did not reflect upon the motives of the candidates for public favor, or debate their right or their motives. He spoke altogether of the vast power of the Executive head of this nation ] Yes, sir, it was melancholy to think of these things; and yet the bill on your table is calculated to increase this power r ’ patronage tenfold. When I reflect oa the gre. t t ]e of oflice seekers, who rushed here on the 4th of March last, like half famished wolves on the great prairies of the West, I confess I tremble for the future, as to the increasing power of this Government. How- 'ever, this great herd—this mass, hungry and howl¬ ing as they were, did not effect me as much as other things. When I turned my eyes from them, and saw those who occupied high places, who were considered amongst the distinguished of the land— when I saw them smelling their way into the greasy places of the “Palace,” licking their chops, and, dog-like,wagging their tails for the bones that might be thrown them—I confess I felt every proud emo¬ tion and lofty aspiration sink and sicken with disgust. And now make an habitual distribu¬ tion of money from this Government, and you increase all these disgusting scenes. You create dependants and expectants in every State throughout this Confederacy. The purple of Presidential power would be put up every four years, and bid for by the plunderers of the Republic. All heroism, and patriotism, and valor, would die away, and the lowest vices would reign triumphant. Ava¬ rice—keen, hungry, and lean—would be the god before which the nation would bow down and wor¬ ship in base idolatry. Have we rdad the lessons of history to no advantage? Look at Republican Rome—once a proud and heroic people. They were powerful and vinuous, until demagogues taught them to look to the public granaries for corn. As soon as they began to divide the spoils, they be came a nation of robbers and plunderers, and sunk into the deepest degeneracy and corruption. And are we now to commence a system which will in¬ evitably lead us through the same career? Call up your hordes from this wide-spread land, who will hibitually receive money that you may collect here for distribution, and you create a mighty system, which will finally prove the euthanasia of the Re¬ public. If the States should submit to it (which I think probably would not be the case,) we would then sink down quietly into the basest despotism— the pity and contempt of mankind. Where a Go¬ vernment is aristocratic in its form, those who wield its power may become enervated and corrupt for a time, and yet the nation may recover, because the great body of the people may still be virtuous and patriotic. But when a Republic, where the power is in the people, becomes corrupt, then the whole body politic languishes and dies—there is no recuperative energy—the heart of the system is poi¬ soned, and every puke and muscle becomes feeble and languid. The gentleman speaks of this system as calcu¬ lated to advance State Rights. From what analogy does the gentleman draw his reasoning? Sir, I consider the provisions of the Constitution, strictly construed, not at all incompatible with State R ghts; and it is a great mistake to suppose that those with whom I act would take one particle from the just power of this Government. Engraft upon this Government this system of distribution, so alien to the Constitution, and y