SPEECH ' » ‘ • ‘ * ' ‘ r ’ : f a .f* , OF HON. T. A. HENDRICKS, OF INDIANA, ON ■ i ^ . * ' THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PUBLIC LANDS, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JUNE 7, 1854. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 1854. ... r --s r rV : } XS.lV.Zj '' 7 .* /*v . vor< * < i* 5 J , iS t DISTRIBUTION OF THE PUBLIC LANDS. The House being in the Committee of the Whole I on the state of the Union— Mr. HENDRICKS said: Mr. Chairman: I do not rise to address the committee upon the subject of the bill introduced by the gentleman from California, [Mr. McDou- gall,] providing for the construction of a rail¬ road to the Pacific. I desire to address the com¬ mittee in reference to the public lands. Upon this bill, however, I will only say that, as I now un- | derstand it, I will not give it my support. I am anxious that such a measure shall be brought forward as that I can give it my support. This bill assumes that Congress ought not to establish the route, but that it ought to be decided upon by the Executive Department of the Govern¬ ment; at the same time, it excludes from Execu¬ tive consideration that route in which the section of country which I represent is specially inter¬ ested—the central or St. Louis route. If it is proper that the Executive should decide upon the route for this great railroad, it is right that that department should be left without any restric¬ tion upon the subject. I am not prepared to say that the central route, in which the greater por¬ tion of the country is interested, is not practi¬ cable; and until it is shown that it cannot be adopted, I will not support a bill which excludes it. I have not time now to examine the other provisions of the bill. Long after the tariff shall cease to agitate the country, the public lands will remain “ a subject of deep and enduring interest,” was the prophecy of Mr. Clay. That prophecy has been fulfilled. The Democratic doctrine, that revenue is the only proper and legitimate purpose of taxation, has been acquiesced in by all parties, and become our fixed policy. The tariff is no longer a subject of party strife. But the public domain—the other source of national revenue—is a subject of con¬ stantly increasing interest and controversy. And upon no other question of general concern is pub¬ lic opinion so unsettled,and the policy of the Gov¬ ernment so unfixed. In reference to it the differ¬ ent sections of the country are supposed to have opposing interests, and hence the many and con¬ flicting propositions for its management and dis¬ position. The lands are now asked by every in¬ terest, and for almost every purpose; by States and corporations; by colleges and asylums; by academies and schools; by speculators and citi¬ zens. They are asked for public and private en¬ terprises; for religion and for railroads; for charity and for education; for homes and for monopolies. Every interest, great and small; every enterprise, good and bad, is clamoring for the public lands. Sir, in the midst of this confusion, that policy is wisest and best which is nearest the intention and spirit of the Constitution. The many measures to which I have alluded, may be classed under one of two general proposi¬ tions; first, to give lands upon easy terms to set¬ tlers; and second, to distribute them among the States. I am for the former, and against the latter proposition. Being in favor of cheap lands to the settler, I cannot be for distribution among the States. The measures are incompatible; they cannot stand together. It is not my purpose now to give the reasons of my support of the home¬ stead bill. I did not think that bill free from ob¬ jection. I thought then, I think now, that it is better sustained by principle, better for the Gov¬ ernment, and better for the settler, after he has made a settlement in good faith, to allow him to pay the Government what the land cost her, and receive his patent, and became a freeholder at once, rather than require him to remain upon the land for five years, a Government tenant, with¬ out title, and without power to sell. I earnestly labored to secure for him this privilege. The Government should not speculate upon the homes she secures to the people; but, on the other hand, ought the citizen to receive valuable property from the Government without making any return? The cost is small, not quite twenty-two cents per acre, easily paid by the settler, and the patent secures him the right and independence of a free¬ holder. I supported both the homestead bills which passed this House, not that 1 thought them without objection, as I have said, but because 4 they seemed the best measure we could then get for the settler; but I will say to gentlemen with whom I then voted, that I fear before we secure “ homes for the homeless, and lands for the land¬ less,” we must adopt the better policy and sounder principle, of cost payment and patent upon settlement. But sir, it is the other, and opposing scheme of distributing the public lands among the States, which I wish now to discuss. This measure is pressed upon Congress in two bills. The first proposes to distribute ten millions of acres among the States and Territories, for the support of the indigent insane. It has passed both branches of Congress, but has been returned to the Senate with the President’s veto. The other bill, introduced into this House by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Bennett,] is now pending, and proposes to distribute among nineteen of the States thirty- three millions four hundred and fifty thousand acres “ for the support of schools, the construc¬ tion of railroads or canals, or for other public or national purposes.” It proposes to divide these lands among the nineteen States, in proportion to their representation in Congress, giving one hun¬ dred and fifty thousand acres for each Senator and Representative. The two bills would distribute among the States forty-three millions four hun¬ dred and fifty thousand acres of the public lands. I am opposed to the entire scheme. To provide for the destitute poor, and educate their children; to educate the blind and the deaf and dumb, and to provide for the indigent insane, are obligations upon Government which I freely recognize, and to which I cheerfully respond. But, sir, upon what government do these obligations rest ? Upon the Federal or State governments? When honored with a seat in the Legislature of my State, I sup¬ ported the bills providing for popular education and public charity. But when asked to do the same thing here, I cannot do it. The duty and :>ower of Congress do not extend to these sub- ects. Jurisdiction over them not being conferred jy the Constitution upon Congress, is expressly retained to the States. The power to dispose of the public lands is given by the Constitution to Congress in very general and comprehensive terms, but this-cannot be made to include other and im¬ portant powers; and in its exercise we cannot as¬ sume jurisdiction otherwise denied. The power being conferred exclusively upon Congress, the duty to exercise it, and wisely to dispose of the lands, necessarily results; but, I ask the friend^ of this measure, if the discharge of that duty is the end and object sought, or is it not to provide education and charity in the States ? Are these bills supported for the purpose of making a wise disposition of the lands, and discharging the trust under which the Government holds them; and is it truly incidental to that that you provide education and charity in the States? No, sir. The friends of the measure are as conscious as I am that the real aim and object is to provide educa¬ tion and charity, and make railroads in the States, and that the grant of the lands is the pretext, the means used to accomplish the end. By such sophistries in legislation Federalism once sought to extend the powers of this Government, and give it a controlling influence in the States. Con¬ gress has power to collect and appropriate money; but who will claim that thegeneral power to appro¬ priate is without restriction, and that Congress may appropriate money to purposes not contem¬ plated in the Constitution ? The power to dispose of the lands is not more general and comprehen¬ sive than the power of appropriating money; yet it is claimed that the latter is limited and restricted to objects v/ithin the jurisdiction of this Govern¬ ment, and the former is not. This is not sound reasoning. The rules of construction which limit the one restrict the other. I Under the power of collecting and keeping money, it was once held that Congress might estab¬ lish a National Bank; and that doctrine and con¬ struction prevailed until exposed by President Jackson. Banking was the real object—keeping the public moneys safely but a pretext. The real object not being within the purposes and powers of the Government, the pretext could not make the measure constitutional, and he vetoed it. The doctrine that powers conferred upon Congress should not be used to cover up the exercise of powers not conferred, gave his Administration at the time much of its strength, and has since given it great influence in the country. Sir, by the late ; veto of the bill giving lands to the States for the i support of the insane, the Government has been 1 brought back to its old position. Although I may not be able to concur with the President in all'of his positions and reasoning, yet I fully indorse the veto. It will give his Administration high position in the country. I will not further discuss the question of the power on the part of Congress to distribute the public lands among the States, for the purposes contemplated in these bills. I wish to examine the scheme as a measure of expediency; and first, as a financial measure. It is proposed to take from the General Government forty-three millions four hundred and fifty thousand acres of the public lands, and the proceeds of their sale, and distribute them among the States. Under the present system, the lands yield a revenue of about $1 25 per acre; and the entire quantity proposed to be distributed by these bills, would bring into our Treasury about $53,000,000. If that sum be withdrawn from our revenues, its place must be supplied. And, sir, by whom will it be supplied ? Government has the power to tax, and the faculty of expending, but it possesses no power to produce. The supply must come from the tax-payers of the nation, the citizens of the States. The men who supply the revenues to the States fill the coffers of this Government. They fill the emptied coffers of both State and Federal Government. Were we now to with¬ draw from the National Treasury $20,000,000 and distribute it among the States, we would de¬ crease State taxation; but, to pay the debt and defray the expenses of the nation, must not the emptied vaults be filled, and filled, sir, by the very men whose State taxes have been decreased? Just so far as we have reduced State, we have in¬ creased National taxation. And where is the gain ? None, sir, none; but much loss; loss in this, that State taxation, being upon all property is equal, each man paying in proportion to his wealth—his ability to pay—while Federal taxation, not being at all upon the real estate of the country, but upon the property which is consumed by the people, is 1 unequal. The men of wealth may not, and in hun¬ dreds of thousands of cases do not, consume more of the imported goods which pay a duty, than their poorer neighbors. By taking from the National 5 Treasury and giving to the States, we would greatly relieve the property holders from State taxation, but just so much we increase the burdens upon the men who eat and wear and use the goods which are imported, and which are taxed by this Government. I feel, sir, that I have shown, that if this land distribution scheme would secure to the States the full amount of the $53,000,000 j which it would withdraw from the National Treas¬ ury, it would be an unwise measure. But I go much further and assert, that while the lands bring this Government $1 25 per acre, the States, under these bills, could not realize from them more than the one half of that amount. The price of land, like that of other property, is 1 greatly regulated by demand and supply. Under j these bills, land warrants would issue to the States ; to the amount of forty-three millions four hundred and fifty thousand acres. The warrants would be placed under the control of the States immedi- j ately upon the passage of the laws. Under the provisions of the bills, the States cannot make the locations and hold the lands themselves, but may sell and assign the warrants, and the purchasers will make the locations. There would be a race of speed among the States, to furnish the market before the extraordinary supply would reduce the price, and at once there would be thrown into the market land warrants to the large amount I have mentioned. At no time, not even in 1836, when the spirit of speculation was wildest in the coun¬ try, has there been a demand equal to such a supply. For many years past, the demand, as shown by the sales, has not exceeded, and I think not reached, an average of three millions of acres per annum. I ask the friends of this measure, what can the States realize from the sales of their warrants, when the supply exceeds the demand by more than forty millions of acres? Sir, we cannot estimate the depreciation in a market thus glutted. Look at the effect produced upon the price by the issue of land warrants to the soldiers under the laws of February, 1847, and of September, 1850. During the year ending November 1,1851, warrants were issued amounting to four millions , six hundred and forty thousand six hundred and eighty acres, and during the subsequent year about the same number. These warrants were sent into every neighborhood in the country; and wherever there was a purchaser, a warrant was likely to be found. A large portion of the warrants were never thrown into market, but located by the war¬ rantees. Under such circumstances, when the market supply must have fallen greatly below four millions of acres per annum, what price did the warrants command ? I have not accurate inform¬ ation on this subject, but I think I am safe in saying that during the years 1851-’52 theaverage market value of the warrants of one hundred and sixty acres did not exceed $125, or about seventy- eight cents per acre. If a supply so little beyond the demand reduced the price of the public lands so greatly, what will be the depreciation when the supply is increased ten times as much; when at once there is thrown into the market a supply | equal to the demand of fifteen years; and when, instead of being scattered over the country, the warrants are thrown, in immense quantities, into the stock markets ? Sir, my judgment is well satisfied that the States would not realize for the lands distributed under these bills fifty cents per acre. To favor the States, we are asked to go for land distribution; a miserable scheme that would take from the General Government $53,000,000, to distribute among the States of the Union less than $22,000,000. This is a statesmanship that abandons the general good to address a supposed local interest. Sir, the scheme is wrong—wrong because it will increase the burdens of the tax¬ payers—wrong because it is against sound prin¬ ciple—and wrong because it is a shameful squan¬ dering of the property of the General Govern¬ ment, without securing to the States any adequate or substantial good? Whose scheme is this? Who is to be benefited by it ? Mr. Chairman, let us suppose the deed done, these bills passed, and the warrants delivered to the State authorities. The newspapers have been filled with notices of the times and places of the sales of the warrants. Let us attend some of the sales. On Wall street, New York sells her six millions of acres; Penn¬ sylvania is selling her five millions in Philadelphia; and New England her six millions in Boston. Whom do we meet? The laborer purchasing a homestead ? The mechanic and the farmer secur¬ ing lands for their boys? They are not there. At such sales labor is not a buyer. Modest and retiring, the “sons of toil” are crowded back, while speculation, wealth, and associated capital occupy the front places, and speak in controlling language. These bills do not limit the quantity of the land scrip that may be purchased by any one man or association of men. The sales are over, the receipts by the States are small, but warrants to locate forty-three millions of acres of the public lands are in the vaults of stockjobbers, speculators, and foreign capitalists. The next step is soon taken. The locations are made, and the richest and mostdesirable portions of the lands are gone from the Government, and are under the control and power of capital. Industry is ex¬ cluded except upon hard terms. There are no more homesteads except at the speculators price. Sir, this measure is a scheme for land monopoly, that enemy of civil liberty and greatest curse to any people. The struggle between labor and capital is very unequal, even when a good standing place upon the soil is given to labor, but if the lands are given to capital, the contestis over; labor bends the knee and capital rules. Mr. Clay’s distribu¬ tion measure was condemned by the country, and I believe abandoned by himself and his party. But he proposed no sale of land scrip, no monopoly of land. The present system of sales was to continue, and the proceeds to be distributed among the States. Mr. Clay’s measure—condemned and abandoned—was full of excellence and perfection, compar%l with this scheme. Mr. Chairman, I go against this measure be¬ cause I am an earnest friend of the homestead policy. I would rejoice to see every man a free¬ holder, and industry with no burdens to bear while she tills the soil. In my judgment no man can claim to be a friend of the homestead policy— of cheap lands to the settler—and support this mighty scheme of land monopoly. Do not these bills take from the settlers at once forty-three mil¬ lions of acres of the lands? And does not one of the amendments to the bill, offered by the gentle¬ man from New York, [Mr. Bennett,] propose 6 that the warrants transferred by the States, shall be located upon alternate half sections, and that the remaining; half sections shall not be sold for less than $2 50 per acre? Forty-three millions are given to the States, and upon thirty-three mil¬ lions of the remaining lands the price is doubled. The settler shall be charged a double price to make up the loss for the amount given away to the States, and to enable the speculator to get a high price for his lands. In other words, the settler who is buying land for a home, shall pay a double price for it, that this Government may provide schools and asylums in the old and wealthy States. Sir, I have no language strong enough to express my abhorrence of this proposition. We cannot give the lands to the States in large quan¬ tities, and secure homesteads to the people upon easy terms. It is not a good answer, to say there will be lands enough left. There will be lands left I know, but they will be inaccessible to the settler. This measure would throw forty- three millions of acres into the hands of specula¬ tors. They would secure the lands adjoining the settlements—upon the rivers—the rich bottom land and the ocean coast; and the emigrant, to secure a home, must pay the speculator’s price, or with his family, pass beyond the settlements, beyond the monopolized lands, beyond markets, and schools, and civilization, and upon refuse lands take up his abode in the wilderness. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Bennett] bases his bill upon the position that the western States have obtained, by grants from Congress, more than their proportion of the lands; and he entitles it “ a bill to equalize the grants of lands to the several States.” Sir, if an account of the benefits realized by the States from the public lands is to be taken, I will undertake to maintain that it is in favor of the western States, and that they have returned largely over an equivalent for every grant which they have received. You have given us lands for schools and seminaries, but in return have required us to allow the public lands to remain untaxed for five years after their sale. To facilitate your sales we waived a sovereign right, and for that period the lands were free from the burdens of State and local government—a sur¬ render valuable to you, but burdensome upon us. When lands have been given to aid our internal improvements, it has been upon the condition that our citizens should give an enhanced price for the adjoining lands. A most remarkable speech was made a few weeks since by a gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. Rogers.] He asserted that the lands have cost, at the lowest estimate, $500,000,000, over and above what has been received from their sales. The gentleman would be entitled to credit for the boldness of his proposition, if it had beerilbriginal with him. But he says he gets the facts from a speech delivered by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Bennett,] during the last Congress. Why go to the gentleman from New York for authority? Better refer to the public documents. But they would not serve the gentleman in the argument he was making. Sir, I can but very briefly notice this question. To sustain their position, that the lands have been a charge upon, and not a source of revenue to the Government, the gentlemen bring into the account the most unlooked for and astonishing charges. If the language were becoming this place, I would term it a ‘‘trumped-up account.” First they charge to the cost of the lands the $15,01)0,000 and interest paid for Louisiana, in 1803, and the amount subsequently paid for Florida. A great Territory was acquired, I agree, and a most valu¬ able acquisition was made; but, sir, Mr. Jefferson and his party friends did not make the purchase of Louisiana so much to secure lands, as to ex¬ tend our sovereignty, to obtain a safer western boundary, and to secure the control of the Missis¬ sippi river, so necessary to our national defense and security, and so important to the freedom, safety, and enlargement of our commerce; and in these respects the acquisition was worth to us greatly more than the amount paid. To extend our boundary to the ocean and gulf in that direc¬ tion, and thus increase our security in a military point of view, Florida was purchased. Consider¬ ations of national defense and of commercial policy induced the purchases of Louisiana and Florida, and their cost is not properly chargeable to the public lands. I will pass over many items of the account that are worthy of notice, and among them the ex¬ pense of the forces kept upon the frontier, and come to the most remarkable charges, to wit, the cost of the Florida, Black Hawk, and other Indian wars, set down at $200,000,000, and the cost of the Mexican war charged at $217,175,517, making together the modest sum of $417,175,517. Who, Mr. Chairman, ever before dreamed that the ex¬ penses of these wars of the nation were chargeable to the public lands? In the opinion of the gentle¬ men, we have waged wars of conquest; land was the object; land was the acquisition; and land must be charged with the expenses. Sir, I know of no act of war on the part of this Government, towards the Indians, or towards any nation, which attaches disgrace to our flag. In my judgment, that flag has never been carried in wrong against any people—never but in the right. When the bloody and merciless savages were burning the homes, and massacreing the people of the settle¬ ments in Florida, our forces were sent in war, in righteous, defensive war, against them. After a prolonged and most harrassing strugglethey were subdued, and our Government, as the best, indeed the only means of safety, and security for con¬ tinued peace, took steps for their removal to other lands beyond the Mississippi, and remote from the settlements. That was not a war for the con¬ quest of territory; it was waged for the defense of the property and lives of our citizens. As well may the commerce of the country be taxed with the costs of the war of 1812, because we then fought for its freedom and safety, as the lands with the Florida or other Indian wars. Why charge as a part of the cost of the lands the expensesof theMexican war? Was that, too, a war of conquest, waged to acquire territory ? I suppose the gentlemen so hold. The opponents of that war, those who gave “aid and comfort” to the enemy, at the time so charged. During its progress I believed it just and right; I believe so still. The vindication of the country’s honor required it. Many wrongs had been done our citizens, and they had gone unredressed, until at length, our borders were crossed, our country in¬ vaded by an armed foe, and the blood of our cit¬ izens was shed under their own flag. Peace was no longer possible; war was forced upon us. It j was not a war of conquest. The blood of our murdered citizens called to be avenged. As the Missouri Senator, in his “Thirty Years’ View,” says of the war of 1812, our war with Mexico “ was necessary to the honor and interest of the United States, and was bravely fought and hon¬ orably concluded, and makes a proud era in our history.” Sir, how miserably weak is the claim of the old States to land distribution, when, to sustain it, they must place our country in the wrong, and charge upon the public lands the ex¬ penses of wars waged for the honor of the whole country. I have asked why the gentlemen do not refer to the public documents to prove the lands a charge upon, and not a source of revenue to, the Govern¬ ment. I will show that the documents would not serve their purpose. In his message, at the com¬ mencement of this session, the President says: “You will perceive, from the report of the Secretary of the Interior, that opinions which have often been expressed i in relation to the operation of the land system, as not being a source of revenue to the Federal Treasury, were erro¬ neous. The net profits from the sale of the public lands to June 30,1853, amounted to the sum of $53,289,465.” If the gentlemen will refer to the last report of 11 the Commissionerof the General Land Office, they will find that by another and most accurate esti- || mate, “ the net receipt from the public lands over and above every cost is $60,381,217 79.” And that out of the lands the Government has dis¬ charged its obligations to the soldiers of 1812, of the Indian wars, and of the Mexican war, to the amount of $14,768,432 29. This sum it is proper to add to the net profits. The Commissioner, in his estimate of the cost of the lands, included the amounts paid for Louisiana and Florida. These sums I have attempted to show should not be included as a part of the cost of the lands. They amountfor principal and interest to $30,019,122 09. I This sum being deducted from the cost of the lands, and the amounts given in lands to discharge the obligations to soldiers being added to the re¬ ceipts, we have, as shown by the Commissioner’s report, the profits on lands to this time, over and 1 above all proper charges, $105,168,368 17. The Commissioner estimates the lands unsold, after deducting the cost of survey, management, and sale, at'$283,715,713, which, added to the profits already made, make the public lands worth to the Government, over and above every proper charge, the immense sum of $388,884,081. For the basis of these estimates I refer gentlemen to House doc¬ ument of this session No. 1, pages 110, 111, and 112. To the same document I refer gentlemen for the fact, that the lands when sold to the western people have not cost the Government quite twenty- two cents per acre; and that upon the lands sold to them the Government has made a clear profit of one dollar and three cents per acre. And in the same document it will be found that, upon the lands in the State of Indiana, the Government has made a profit of over sixteen millions of dollars. Sir, we are asked to equalize the grants of lands to the several States; but how? By returning to the people of the West the many millions of profit made off of them in the land sales ? By returning to the farmers of Indiana the $16,000,000 which they have paid for the lands they cultivate, over and above their cost ? When and how have we received any adequate return? Our commerce is greatly obstructed, and heavily taxed at the falls of the Ohio; our produce has paid many millions of dollars on its way to market past that point. Yet we are constantly refused any sufficient ap¬ propriation for the removal of that obstruction. Give us but the one eighth part of the profits the farmers of Indiana have paid upon the lands they cultivate, and our commerce will be provided for. If an accounting is asked, let it be rendered. Credit each section with the amounts paid into the national Treasury, and charge the special benefits received, and when the balances are de¬ clared, let them be paid to the section to which they may be coming; but I will say to gentlemen of the old States, you will get no land distribution, but the great rivers of the West will be so im¬ proved that our produce will float in safety, and without tax on its way to market. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak very briefly of this, as a party question. Since 1 became a voter it has been my pride and pleasure to act with the Democratic party. I feel great solicitude that its position be consistent upon this measure, and satisfy the jast expectations of the country. No party can be truly great unless it stand upon sound principles, and be not moved from that position. In 1841, when Mr. Clay, as the acknowledged leader of the Whig party, brought forward and urged his measure for the distribution of the pro¬ ceeds of the sales of the public lands, our party took decided ground against it. In 1844 our national convention adopted the following resolution, as a part of our platform: “ Resolved, That the proceeds of the public lands ought to be sacredly applied to the national objects specified in the Constitution ; and that we are opposed to the law lately adopted, and to any law for the distribution of such pro¬ ceeds among the States, as alike inexpedient in policy, and repugnant to the Constitution.” In no political contest since 1832, have the prin¬ ciples of the two parties been so decidedly and entirely the subject of controversy as in 1844. The decision of the people was in favor of Democratic principles and Democratic policy; and land distri¬ bution was condemned. In 1848, our party reas¬ serted the doctrines of 1844. in that contest we were beaten; but our principles were not repudi¬ ated. The Whig party, as its subsequent history has shown, achieved the victory; but did not cap¬ ture our flag. Offices were secured; but Whig principles were not established. At the convention of 1852, our standard was placed in the hands of our present Chief Magistrate, with our political doctrines written upon it; and as a part, the fol¬ lowing: “ Resolved, That the proceeds of the public lands ought to be sacredly applied to the national objects specified in the Constitution ; and that we are opposed to any law for the dist^ution of such proceeds among the States, as alike inexpetflkit in policy and repugnant to the Constitution.” But two years since we went before the coun¬ try proclaiming as the policy of our party oppo¬ sition to land distribution, and denouncing it “ as alike inexpedient in policy, and repugnant to the Constitution;” and now, with a controlling ma¬ jority in Congress, we are proposing to enact the most stupendous and objectionable distribution scheme ever known to the country. Where are our pledges given in 1852, and our obligations then incurred? Sir, if we forget or disregard 8 them, I am rejoiced to believe that our President will not; and if our votes will not, that his veto will vindicate the good faith of our party. This is not the time to abandon our principles—to de¬ sert our old positions. Our population is increas¬ ing, our States are multiplying, our country ex¬ tending, and our interests becoming complicated, and sometimes conflicting. Never before has it been so important to adhere closely to the theory of our system, to confine the Federal Government within its prescribed limits, and to leave the States to do all their work. The history of our past, rich with the achievements of the American De¬ mocracy—our present greatness, obtained mainly by the efforts of that party, admonish us to main¬ tain the doctrines which have given the past its glory, and the present its greatness, and which will secure to us a future “as the past has been.” The governing doctrines of our past should not be abandoned for a supposed temporary or local advantage. A glorious future is not to be secured by expedients. Truth, sound doctrine, will ac¬ complish that highest good intended for us by Him who holds our destiny in his hands.