II. of R.] Assaull on the President's Secretary. [MAY 16, 1828. of the sentiments of a very sagacious writer, for the pur-mons mantained that an appeal, taken from the Court pose of showing their danger and injustice. "Suppose, of Chancery to the House of Lords, by Shirley against (savs he) a man had personally offended the majority of Fagg, who was one of their members, was a breach of the individuals who happen to compose a jury that is to their privileges. In another case, which was an appeal try him. But suppose twelve men to commence a prose- taken by Crispe against Valmahoy, who was a member, cution against one, and that those very individuals are, they imprisoned the sergeants and barristers who had immediately, in the very rage of their resentment, enclos- pleaded for Crispe, contrary to an order of the House, as ed to pass a verdict, and determine of a punishment for for a breach of privilege. In the case of Admiral Grif. an offence against themselves. Would this have the fith, a member, certain persons who had trespassed on smallest semblance of justice? On the contrary, is it not his fisheries, were found guilty of a breach of privilege, the very design of law, to take out of the hands of the of- and were ordered to stand committed, and were afterfended, the trial and punishment of the offenders, and put wards discharged, after being reprimanded on their knees, it into those of indifferent persons ?" paying the costs. And, even as late as about the year The same writer asks, why does not the House of Com- 1811, sir Francis Burdett was committed to the Tower of mons let the people know their privileges? Why are London for a breach of privilege, in writing, or publishnot those privileges established by law? When they thinking a libel, as it was deemed by the House of Commons. themselves offended, why do they not prosecute the of- In times more remote, Judges were put in custody of the fender in a legal and constitutional way, which would stop Sergeant-at-Arms, and, in one instance, Judge Berkly all reflection upon them? The king's causes are tried was taken off his bench in Westminster Hall, by the Ushin the courts of justice, by judges and jury, who are in-er of the Black Rod, to the great terror of his brethren; different persons; why is any individual, or any assembly but the instances quoted of counsel being imprisoned for of men whatever, to be judge, jury, and executioners, in arguing a cause, and persons ordered to be committed for their own cause? Again, he says, it may be affirmed, an alleged trespass, are strong illustrations of the position. that the people of England will never, while a spark of That no man, or set of men, can be safely trusted with the fire of liberty remains, be reconciled to an assumed the unrestrained power of judging and punishing in their power in Representatives, to imprison their constituents, own case, it is not sufficient to say, that the House will without trial by jury. not follow such absurd precedents; once let it be setIt would be difficult to add to the force of the argument tled, that it depends upon their discretion alone, to decide in these quotations. It has beer. said that the union of whether there is a contempt or breach of privilege, and the legislative, executive, and judicial powers, in the same to decide both the kind and measure of punishment, with body of men, is the very definition of tyranny. This union out the power of any other tribunal to relieve, then the exists in all its force, in the case of punishment for a legis-citizen's claim to liberty is not matter of right but of sufferlative contempt; the same persons are the accusers, the ance. Besides this view of the case, upon general princi triers, and the executioners; thus, not only violating the ples, the minority of the committee are satisfied, that the principle of immutable justice, that no man ought to be House does not possess the power in question, by force of a judge of his cause, but performing the office of judge various provisions of the Constitution, to which they will under feelings of excitement the most unpropitious to a now refer. In the 6th section of the 1st Article, the pri calm and dispassionate investigation of the case. This vileges of the members are precisely defined, and are general reasoning would, of itself, be sufficient to justify made to consist in exemption from arrest, except in trea the declaration, that the doctrine of privilege and punish-son, &c. and from being questioned, elsewhere, for any ment for Parliamentary contempt is of dangerous tenden-speech in the House. These are privileges in the true cy, and incompatible with the principles of our government but if this conclusion be deducible from general reasoning, how greatly is it strengthened by reference to that series of precedents from which it is said that the law and custom of Parliament must be learned. From a few of the most prominent which will now be quoted, it will be seen that, instead of the stream of justice flowing in a smooth and equable current, it has been thrown into constant agitation, sometines by caprice, sometimes by the violence of angry excitement. A man named Cranfield was fined 500 each, to four members whom he had slandered. Lord Saville was committed to the tower, for refusing to name the person who had written a letter to him, which Parliament had thought treacherous. In 1647, an order was made for several members of the House to take some of the deputies of the Sergeant at-Arms, and to break open doors, and seize trunks and papers of one Captain Vernon. meaning of that term; they are immunities or exemp tions, and are personal to the members, and, as has been justly remarked by the author of the Manual, they were propably defined with a view to arrest the encroaching character of privilege, whose characteristic feature has been, that claims have been advanced from time to time, and repeated, till some example of their admission enabled them to build law on that example. It is believed, that no one will contend, since this provision, that there are any other privileges; when, therefore, the question arises about the right of punishing for contempt, it is really a question, not of privilege, but of power. It will now be attempted briefly to inquire into the powers of the House; they are to be found in several sections of the first article; they are, 1st, To choose their own Speaker, and other officers; 2dly, To originate all bills for raising revenue; 3dly, The sole power of impeachment; 4thly, To determine the rules of its own proceedings, punishing In 1654, a schoolmaster was examined for an Arian its members for disorderly behavior, and expelling a book; the book was burnt by the hands of the hangman. member, with the concurrence of two thirds; 5thly, The He was confined in Newgate, and then banished to the power to judge of the elections, qualifications, and reIsle of Scilly. There is a case which is remarkable for turns, of its members. If the proposition be true, that the the caprice which dictated the punishment; two persons enumeration of two distinct personal privileges to the were placed back to back, upon a horse, and with a la- members be evidence that the framers of the Constitution bel specifying the offence, made to ride in this manner designed them to have no more, it would seem to follow, round Charing Cross; and that, too, for arresting a mem- by parity of reason, that the enumeration of certain powber's servant, in violation of a privilege not now claimed. ers, as being given to the House, was evidence that the As, however, it may be objected to some of these pre-House should have no more powers. It is sometimes cedents, that they occurred in bad times, that is, during the period of the long Parliament, some more modern ones will now be quoted. In the case of Shirley vs. Fagg, in the 27th of Charles the 2d, the House of Com contended, that, from the nature of things, the House must have certain inherent powers, and, amongst others, the power of protecting itself from insult; the provisions of the Constitution above referred to seem to furnish an MAY 16, 1828.] Assault on the President's Secretary. [H. OF R. answer to this argument: for, if we are to impute to the in the same words; and if they can take the last by their House of Representatives any inherent power, what own judgment, in their own case, so they might take the could more emphatically fall within that class than the first. This provision in the fifth amendment is substan following a power to choose its own Speaker, without tially the same with one in Magna Charta. It is true, that, which it could not even be organized; a power to deter in the great case of Sir Francis Burdett against Mr. mine the elections, qualifications, &c. of its members, Abbot, the Speaker of the House of Commons, when without which it could not know who were constitution. this provision of Magna Charta was urged in argument, ally elected; a power to punish its own members for the Court attempted to parry its force, by declaring that disorderly behaviour, without which there would be the law and custom of Parliament are a part of the danger, at some period, of an utter prostration of all or- law of the land, in its large sense; and that the expres der. The guarded caution, which thought it neces- sions, according to the law of the land, and by due prosary to impart to the House, power to give itself orga- cess of law, are, in effect, the same; the first answer to this nization and action within itself, surely did not mean to is, that when the House of Commons imprisoned the leave the same House at liberty to range in the boundless Counsel, for appearing in an appeal, at their bar, against field of wild and capricious precedent, in search of power a member of the Commons, the Lords voted this imprito punish their fellow citizens, whensoever and howso- sonment to be a transcendent invasion on the right and ever it pleased, without any chart or compass to guide its liberty of the subject, and against Magna Charta, the Pecourse, or limitation to restrain it, save only its own mere tition of right, and many other laws, which have providdiscretion, in acting on maxims and modes of proceeding, ed, that no freeman shall be imprisoned, or otherwise relocked up in its own bosom, until applied in individual strained of his liberty, but by due process of law. Again: cases. The correctness of this idea may be strongly en- Those maxims which are locked up in the bosom of Parforced by reference to the provision as to punishment in liament, unknown to the People, and proclaimed only as cases of impeachment; thus it is declared, that punish- particular occasions occur, can, with no propriety, be conment in cases of impeachment shall not extend farther sidered as a part of the law of the land; the characteristics than to removal from office, and disqualification, &c. of which, are, in every point, the contrast of this law and Now, it would be strange, that, in those cases in which custom of Parliament. The law of the land, instead of the accusation was preferred by the House, and tried by being locked up in the bosom of the Legislator, is made the Senate, the accusing and trying bodies being thus dis-known to the People; and, instead of consisting of a set tinct, and in which, too, the Senators are required to be of hasty fragments or sentences, pronounced as the cases upon oath, there should be a strict limitation of power, occur, it consists of general rules of action, not spending and yet, in the cases of contempt, in which the accusing their force in individual cases, but applying to the whole and trying body are the same, and they are not upon oath community. But there is yet another answer to this idea, for that purpose, there should be an unlimited power of which is deemed conclusive: If it were for argument punishment, both as to kind and amount. sake admitted that this law of Parliament was a part But there are other provisions of the Constitution which of the law of the land, in England, it would be part bear upon this question. Thus in the second section of of the common law. Now it is not pretended, that the third article, it is declared that the trial of all crimes, the common law belongs to the United States, as except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury. Now, such; nay, the contrary has been solemnly adjudged, a crime has been defined to be, the omission of some-particularly in reference to the penal part of that systhing commanded, or the commission of something pro- tem. This power is sometimes attempted to be suphibited, by law. Unless the act in question shall corres- ported, by comparing it to that exercised by Courts, pond with one or the other branch of this definition, it is and State Legislatures; as it regards the Courts of the not the subject of punishment at all; and if it be, then it is States, although it is an anomaly, it is claimed upon the a crime, and, as such, ought to be tried by a jury. But ground just discussed, as a part of the Common Law, there is a provision in the fifth amendment of the Consti- which, it has been seen, does not belong to the U.States tution, which is deemed to be conclusive-it is this: that as such. As it regards the State Legislatures, they are no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, with- the depositories of all the power of the People, which are out due process of law. The phrase,due process of law, not otherwise granted, or prohibited to them; whilst, as is believed, ex vi termini, to imply, that it must be before respects Congress, it is apparent from the Constitution, a judicial court or magistrate; but all the judicial power of that it was intended to define the particular powers, which the United States, except that stated in the first article,is together, they should possess, as the Federal Legislature, vested in the Courts of the Union. An application will and also those powers which should belong to each House now be made of this reasoning. The House of Com- separately. The example of the United States' Courts is mons consider it equally a breach of privilege, for which against the argument: for Congress have, by express they punish, to assault, or slander a member; now, is it enactment, given those Courts power to fine and imprisupposed, that, if one of our members were slandered or son for contempt, which would have been wholly nugalibelled in a newspaper, that we should not have the tory, if they possessed it before. power of punishing, (if we exercised that power, we If it should be asked, whether the two Houses of Conshould cease to legislate) and why? Because the first gress are to sit at the mercy of every intruder, who amendment prohibits the passage of any law abridging chooses to insult them, without power to punish him?— the freedom of speech, or of the press; so, when the the answer is a ready one. In the first place, there is no fifth amendment prohibits the deprivation of life, liberty, reasonable probability of such a violent breach of decorum or property, but by due course of law, it follows, that, as being wantonly committed; but as it is a possible, though commitment would be a privation of liberty, that cannot extreme case, it will be met, by showing a very simple be done without due course of law; that is, in a regular and obvious remedy. The chambers in which the two proceeding before a judicial tribunal. It may be useful Houses sit, are under their exclusive control. They are to pursue this idea further; it has been seen, that, in one authorized to establish the rules of their proceedings, and case, the Commons banished a man to the Isle of Scilly; to appoint their officers; it is competent, then, for them to if, without trial by due course of law, the House of Re- declare, by their rules, who shail, and who shall not be adpresentatives can commit, in like manner may they ban-mitted within their chambers; it is equally within their ish, and carrying the process one step further, and the last-they might, if ever they should be wild enough, take the life of a citizen: for life and liberty are only guarded VOL. IV.-171 power to put out any person who may conduct himself indecorously; accordingly, by one of the rules of the House of Representatives, it is provided, that, in case of any disturbance or disorderly conduct, in the galleries or lobby, the Speaker, or Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, shall have power to order the same to be cleared; for that purpose, we are furnished with officers, such as a sergeant-at-arms, doorkeeper, &c. whose duty it is, to execute the warrants and orders of the House, and to preserve order when necessary. This, then, is a plain and adequate remedy for the removal of such interruption as obstructs the progress of business; as to any thing else, let the offending party be prosecuted in the judicial tribunals; or it is competent to Congress to make legislative provision, if it were thought necessary. The same sagacious writer from whom quotations have already been made, holds this language: "We now question the doctrine of a power, in the Commons, of imprisoning for any thing but what stops proceedings of the House, and is done in the House." Such is the doubt expressed, even in relation to the Omnipotent British Parliament. The minority of the Committee hold the true principle, in reference to the two Houses of Congress, to be this: They may remove any disorder or disturbance, within their respective chambers, so as to prevent any obstruction to the progress of their business; but they have not the power of imprisoning for contempt. But if they had this power, still it could not be extended to embrace any case, beyond their own chambers: for if it were, where would be the limits? The court, in the case of Anderson vs. Dunn, give the answer: they say, that they know no bounds to the process of this House for contempt, but those of the United States. This principle they cannot admit to be correct; tremendous would be that power, which could drag before it, any citizen from Maine to Florida, and punish him for a contempt, of which the sole criterion would be, the discretion of the power punishing. They would further state,that, to main tain the power in this case, would be, to assume a stronger ground than that even claimed by courts: for, suppose that a witness had been summoned to attend a court, and after having deposed, should be assaulted upon the court ground,but so as not to disturb the court, and not in relation to his evidence; nay, suppose that a judge himself, after the adjournment of his court, should be assaulted, not in relation to his official conduct, but upon some personal quarrel, would it be contended that the process of contempt would lie, in either of these cases? It is believed that it would not; if so, the power in question cannot be maintained, even by analogy, to that of courts. The minority have felt that they owed it to themselves, to state the grounds of their opinion, upon a great question of Constitutional law, which, to day, is the case of Russel Jarvis, but which may be the case of any citizen in the Union. [MAY 16, 1828. before. This bill, he said, was reported in the Senate, and received the sanction of the committees of public and private land claims-was amended on the motion of two members of the Judiciary Committee, justly distinguished for their legal learning, and finally passed that body, after a discussion of three days. That enlightened branch of the National Legislature, and those eminent lawyers, supposed that the interest and rights of the United States were cautiously guarded, and amply pro tected, by its provisions. Two bills, less oppressive to the claimants, at the two last sessions of Congress, passed the House of Representatives. I could not, therefore, anticipate any objection to this bill, when, by the indulgence of the House, it was called up before; and time was not then afforded to reply to the arguments and insinuations that the government were not sufficiently protected, in the mode of trial provided by the sections which referred a particular class of claims to the Judi ciary for adjudication. Sir, I never have asked, nor wished any thing but a fair and impartial examination and decision of those claims. I have never sought any thing but an honest fulfilment of the stipulations of the Treaty between Spain and the United States. The only interest I have, or feel, is that of a representative, solicitous for the honor and good faith of this government, and the security of the rights of property of the inhabitants transferred to us. I appeal to the members of the committees, who have been charged with the consideration of these claims, to say whether I have not always urged such a bill as would exclude all fraudulent titles, and provide for the confirmation of those founded on equity, and embraced by the Treaty. If this bill does more for the Spanish grantees than we are morally and legally bound to do, let it be so modified as to accomplish the object. The eighth article of the Treaty in substance stipulates that the United States shall confirm to the claimants their titles to the same extent that Spain would have ratified them, if the Provinces had not been ceded to us. The obligation imposed by this treaty cannot be denied or evaded. The quo modo of executing it is left to the wisdom of this government. It must be by legislation, or a tribunal must be organized to decide what is public and what private property. To make the decision final and conclusive, an appeal must be given to the Supreme Court. A legislative act to divert a right secured by treaty would be unconstitutional. Any adjudication which an act of Congress would declare final, without an appeal to the Supreme Court, would be as unjust as it would be ineffectual. Whenever the United States, or any one claiming under them, takes possession, the claimant can assert his right in Court, and have his title Under the influence of these considerations, they re-judicially investigated. To decide these claims, Boards commend the following resolution: Resolved, That it is not competent to the House of Representatives to punish Russel Jarvis for the assault upon the private Secretary of the President, as for a contempt to the House. [Both of the above reports were ordered to lie upon the table.] LAND CLAIMS IN FLORIDA. A bill from the Senate, supplementary to the several acts for the settlement of Private Land Claims in Florida, was read, and considered in Committee of the Whole. of Commissioners have been organized, with limited powers, and all titles to the extent of 3,500 acres have been confirmed, which were decided by them to be valid. That there are valid grants to a larger quantity of land, no one can deny. That the obligation to ratify large as as well as small grants is imposed on the United States, is a proposition too obvious to be questioned. The grants, submitted to the Judiciary by this bill, have been, with a few exceptions, favorably reported by the Commissioners. Six years have elapsed since the surrender of the Floridas, and nothing has been done. These titles, as I before had occasion to re-mark, deMr. WHITE said, it had been his duty, some years pend on the local ordinances of a foreign government, since, when he held the office of Commissioner, under whose civil jurisprudence, in its origin and present conthe Florida Treaty, to devote considerable attention to formation, is entirely different from our own, and whose the various laws of the United States providing for the land system is sui generis. Can this House or its comadjustment of private land claims, as well as to the va-mittees understand these titles? Sit, we might as well lidity of Spanish land titles, He felt it due to himself, and to the House, to make some explanation, more in detail than he had done when the bill was under consideration dismiss all our Auditors, Comptrollers, and Judges, and undertake to give opinions serialim upon all the accounts arising out of the various and complex relations MAY 16, 1828.] one. of this Government. Congress would be truly the Aulation of their treaty, in not having provided for a decision Regis of the nation; we should have a consolidation of before they asserted the right of disposing of the land. all the divisions of power, and the idea of checks in the It may not be unprofitable to take a review of the hisdifferent departments would be exploded. What figure tory of our legislation on this subject. The treaty by would a committee of Congress make in the decision of which Louisiana was acquired, imposed on our GovernJand titles in Kentucky under the compact with Virgin- ment the duty of ratifying all claims derived from the ia, and the numerous statutes of both States? They French and Spanish governments. To fulfil this stipulamust, of course, find themselves more embarrassed in tion, this Government organized a local commission, with relation to titles, the origin, progress, and completion of limited powers, and confirmed their reports on small which are entirely different from our own. I consi- grants. The larger concessions and grants were referred der that a bad title has almost as good a chance as a good to Congress. The Secretary of the Treasury made a reSince I have had the honor of a seat here, I have port asuming one league square as the limit of the power seen favorable reports on claims neither supported by of a Governor, and Congress confirmed to that extent. law or equity, and unfavorable upon those sustained by It was very soon ascertained that this was an arbitrary liboth. The United States have confirmed nearly a mil- mit fixed upon by him,and unsupported by any ordinanco lion of acres of lands held under British titles in the of either government, unless it was an antiquated and exStates of Louisiana and Mississippi, to which I think it ploded one of the French Government, under which few can be demonstrated that there is no color of title. of the titles were held. In fact it was ascertained that These grants, if they had been referred to the Supreme the Secretary did not, and could not understand the subCourt, would have been all rejected. There are titles ject, from the very limited means of information before of the same description to at least a million of acres in him. The claims over this arbitrary quantity have rethe Territory I represent. The commissioners of West mained unadjusted for twenty years, with the exception Florida made such a report upon them that no one who of a few which occasionally find favor in this House, by ever read it has advocated these claims. They were en- the favorable report of a committee, who construe civil deavored to be supported by flimsy and unsatisfactory law titles, by common law rules, and recommend a conexpositions of national law, wholly inapplicable to them. firmation. The remainder have suffered all the anguish Notwithstanding these errors, we are told we ought to go of hope deferred, and worn out the greater part of their on in the same course, because it is unbecoming our dig-lives in unproductive petitions and unavailing supplicanity to be sued ! Sir, I think it more consonant with our tion. The claimants have petitioned, the Legislature has dignity to discharge our treaty of obligations, and save memorialized, the Governor has denounced the injustice, the public domain by a speedy, impartial, decision, than and the President has called on Congress to execute in to display this affectation of sovereign consequence when good faith our treaties. Notwithstanding this formidable just claimants are postponed in their rights, and the pub- array, the claims of Louisiana remain unadjusted. If this lic lands wasted by improvident legislation. Sir, I do not simple question is put to any honest man, if this claim concur either in the fact or the inference from it. This be good ought it not be confirmed? he would answer yes. bill does not authorize a suit against the State; it only If it be bad,ought it not to be rejected? the answer would proposes the means of ascertaining the validity of a grant be in the affirmative. Now, sir, who is so competent to in a court of the United States. The settlement of eve- decide whether these claims are good or bad, valid or inry account at the Treasury is as much a suit against the valid, as a court learned in the laws under which it was United States as this bill authorizes. The accounting derived and consummated, familiar from long practice with officers are required to adjust and pay the claims against such questions, and having access to the records and books the Government, provided for by law. This bill refers necessary to give the information? But, say some genclaims under a treaty, which is the supreme law, to a dif- tlemen, we cannot trust questiɔns of such magnitude to ferent tribunal for settlement. In the one case, Audi- the courts. Sir, this intimation is as derogatory to our tors, Comptrollers, and Secretaries, pronounce, and in national character, as it is unjust to that pure and enlightthe other, Judges make the decisions. There is no dis- ened department of our Government. The judiciary, tinction in reason or in fact-a Government must act the depository of the power that protects life, liberty, through the agency of its officers, judicial or ministerial. and property, the constitutional arbiter of the powers of The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. GURLEY,] has argu- the co-ordinate departments, not to be trusted with a deed that no act of legislation is necessary to enable the cision of meum and tuum for a few thousand acres of land! claimaints to institute suits for the trial of their titles. The idea is unworthy of serious refutation. The sugges Without stopping to inquire how far an action against a tion is not only disreputable and absurd, but it is ineffecmere trespasser, without pretence of right, would bind tual as a pretence for opposing this bill. Suppose the the United States, it appears to me, if his argument be United States refuse to confirm or to pass a law authoriscorrect, it is more forcible than any I could employ, why ing the trial of such a claim as that of the Baron de this bill should pass. The United States to be bound by Bastrop, in Louisiana, or John Forbes & Co. in Florida. an ex parte judicial decision, against a nominal defendant, So long as they do not act, the claimants are kept off, or to the amount of a million of acres of land! This would rather I should say, cannot find a place on which to put be strange, indeed, sir. How much better is it to have a their lever. If the United States survey or sell ten, fair issue taken by the Government and the claimant; twenty, or fifty thousand acres of this land, is there any the one contending it is public, the other private proper power in this government to prevent those claimants from ty; before a tribunal competent to decide, and both re- bringing suits to try the validity of their titles against the presented by counsel. purchasers under the United States? There is not. It is only by a failure to act that those claimants are prejudiced. If the grant is not such as this Government stipulated to confirm under the treaty, it is a part of the public domain ceded by it. The Government will neither survey and sell, or permit the claimants to do so. If a sale were made by them, the title would of course be subject to litigation before the judicial tribunals of the country. The United States would sell to a claimant, who would calculate the issue of a protracted law suit, and give a corres ponding diminution in price, and they would be subject to the imputaton of having been faithless in the execu A suit is then instituted against a purchaser, who does not care for the result, because, having the patent of the government, he has a claim for indemnity if he loses. A collusion might take place between the claimants and this purchaser, by which the interest of the government might be compromitted. It is manifest, from this view of the subject, that the United States make a great sacrifice by selling, when there is an unadjusted title to the same land. When the sale is effected, a suit, under most H. or R.] Distribution of Public Documents. [MAY 17, 1828. and competency; but if I have, in the office I filled un- unpropitious circumstances, will be carried on against their purchaser, by which they are bound. How much better is it, whether we consult policy, principle, or good faith, to have the investigation fairly made, the right judicially determined, before we place a country and claimants in such a situation. But, to proceed with the history of our legislation. The Florida treaty contains a stipulation which is not to be found in any other; it provides for a confirmation to the same extent that the Spanish government would have ratified the titles. In rela-uated out of doors, that I am largely interested in the tion to these, we have also organized a Board of Commissioners with limited powers, and required them to report their opinions, upon all over their jurisdiction, to Congress. This has been done in part. When I came here, two years ago, I asked a confirmation of all claims which had received the favorable recommendation of the Com-neither directly nor indirectly, privately or professionally, missioners. This was denied. There was no precedent. I then solicited an examination and confirmation of such as should be approved. This could not be done for want of time. I then petitioned a reference of them to the Courts. This was agreed to in the House of Representatives, and refused in the Senate. I then endeavored to find out what would meet the views of the Senate, and learned that they preferred a great commission to sit here at Washington, under our supervision, to decide all [Mr. GURLEY opposed the bill in the form in which the claims. I agreed, so far as my constituents were con- it was ordered to be engrossed, and earnestly endeavor. cerned, to submit their rights to this Board. The sub-ed to have it amended in such a manner as to leave the ject was discussed, various objections started. "Chime- settlement of the claims to Congress, and not to the Juras and gorgons dire" conjured up. The commission diciary, but without success.] would not do, but the courts would. The judiciary, that could not be trusted last year, can be at this time, and what they resolved last year in the Senate, has been reversed this, and they send this bill. We are now called upon to reject it; although we passed it two years. If I may be permitted to borrow an illustration from a fable we have all read-it may be play to some, but death to my constituents. It is not so much a matter of importance how the decisions are made, as it is that they shall be made. The general effect is the same upon the coun-read as follows: try. If the land is decreed to belong to the United "First, That, of the return of the last census, and of the States, the government will sell it; if it belong to indivi- Digest of Manufactures, one copy to each member of dual grantees, they will sell or cultivate it. So long as the present Congress, and to each new member of each it is suspended in this way, it is like the miser's treasure, succeeding Congress, till all the copies shall be distri useless to himself and the world. I did not rise to go buted, with the exception of twenty-five copies of each into this debate so fully. I have not time to go into it at work, which shall be reserved in the Library; that the length, at this late period of the session. I entreat the copies of Gales & Seaton's Register of Debates be dis friends of the bill not to discuss it further. The House, I tributed among the several States and Territories, in am sure, understand it fully. I will only express my sur- the ratio of their representation in this House, to be dis prise that the gentleman from Louisiana opposes this posed of as the Legislatures of the said States and Ter bill with so much zeal. I hold in my hand a memorial of ritories shall direct and that they shall be sent, as herethe Legislature of his State, I believe unanimously adopt-inafter provided, to the Governors of the said States and ed, urging the necessity of a reference of their claims to the judiciary. [Here Mr. WHITE read two extracts from the memo rial.] The diversity of opinion between that gentleman and the Legislature of his State may arise from the fact, that there are in his district a number of these unsettled claims, covered by occupants, who have neither titles from the grantees nor the United States. The longer they keep out the claimants, the stronger their right of prescription becomes, and neither the government or the grantees derive any benefit from the land. [Much other business was transacted this day; many private bills were disposed of; but nothing was done to give rise to interesting debate.] SATURDAY, MAY 17, 1828. DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. Mr. EVERETT offered an amendment to the resolution he had offered some days ago, so as to make it : Territories, to be so distributed, reserving two hun "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, of the public documents, and other works, of which several copies are deposited in the Library of Congress, a portion be distributed in the following manner: "First. Of the Return of the last Census, and of the Digest of Manufactures, of Gales and Seaton's Register of Debates, and of Watterston and Van Zandt's Statis tical Tables, one copy to each Member of the present Congress, and to each new Member of each succeeding Congress, till all the copies shall be distributed, with the exception of twenty-five of each work, which shall be reserved in the Library; and the Librarian of Congress is hereby authorized and directed to deliver to each Member, as aforesaid, the copies of the said documents I know that some of my constituents have lands within that gentleman's district, which must come to trial at some day. It is in vain that hopes are entertained that the time is to be procrastinated much longer. It is better now to have a decision, by which all uncertainty will be removed, and permanent improvements be begun. The gentleman is opposed to a decision by the courts, but has done me the honor to say he would be willing to submit the claims to my decision. I thank him for the flattering estimate he has been pleased to place upon my character to which he is hereby entitled. |