|Save page Remove page||Previous||1 of 4||Next|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Loading content ...
eniTED by THOMAS BIT 0 H I K . T | It M H: DAILY, par year, ... - - 010 Ofl 8P.MI-WEEKLY, (pahllalmd trl weekly during Ilia temAon, of Congress) .----- 8 00 WKHKi.V, - 2 <** OVsfft vi" '"■ I'ii ni.hnd in /olloui : Klvneop.e.of the DAILY, I'.r 40 00 Five copies ol the HK.VH-WEKKLY, - • • - -MOO Ton copms of the " " •WW) Klve copies of the VVBKKLY, - - - H 00 |.io< ol llic " - - - 15 00 VOLUME VI. "LIBERTY, THE UNIOW, AND THE CONSTITUTION.» NUMBER OS. WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. Till- ll"EI!K& I'. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1850. BBaaaBssBSsasBasaab-aaBaasBlsy TO SUBSCRIBEBB. Tie rame of no peraon will be entered «pon our books nnlM til* payment of the aubacriiition be made ia advance. Distant subscribe™ niay forward us money by letter, the pot-tag* on vi-hU'h will be paid by us, and all risk aaeunied by ouraetvaa ba sta aafe iraaaaucaion. The COUNTRY PAPER la publisned triweekly drsrsng the tern- slant- af Congress, and semi-weekly during tiie reeeae. Bubscrlptioiis for a period leas than a year will be receivtfl oa tarnii proportioned to the abova annual ratea. POSTMASTERS are authurizeil to uot ax our ageata ; and, try aend» ing ua mvi DAILY euWritiern, with $50 enclosed ; or riva aUsMl- WEEKLY bubscribers, with $*>5 ■nnllftOi ; or fivb WKKKJ.Y attb- scriber.", witli $10 enclosed, will be. entilled to one copy ef she i edition as they furnish us subscribers for, gratis. IN CONGRESS (W THE li. STATEA Tl«l««y-KlTit Ciwi.irn lnl/at Scx*hi<i. rUESD >■ rlBER i". 1880. kKN IOONTY i f)n motion hy Mi. SHIELDS, ihe Senate, .a* in commute • in tbe whole, i • lull grunting lioiiniy laud* iu ii dlvidp ill who bare been .- United States. vVni'ii I. ■• in [(lei i ion. Mr. WALK Kit moved lo imen I tbe ng in line "'> e/ter tbe word "W|i..|-iil-, I," ibe billowing : i j neb iu aitj •' n.inn / i." .vii. BENTON imiv ■ i to amend Ihe amendment by adding thereto tbe followin it-law, oi any m ol hem, or the widow, i Id hi.urn ioi, witli i |u -ii i, by in ■■ ■ ,' ,'. i" n ; "H iii' 'ilal • l.i ii 11 I ; i • i. •■" . - I in.- itlon •■•■ p in the pi i| • id amendment lo the amendment, Mi W \LKEH accepted tbe amendment aa a motliAci tion'ol ih proposition .lubuiilted by him ; arid the quea noil ii i ■ neml neot bh tbu wns i i ilivi.-Mon. tV, l aow ortei m an amendmenl the iir."i i tint |ni rejei led, and on that l a-k the Mi SHIELDS I ii i|ie tbat thuaen itor will not delay tha bill, There le no objection to the amendment. 'tl; aire tdj in the bill. th WALKER in me il ia not in tho bill that it, li un H' i * hi o ijeotlon to it, l will not ask foi ■ i i ii,-i I,., i i.c question h i au >n the amendment viva voetj and appearing to he decided iu the negative! Mi WALKED demanded the yeaaand naya; wbich ordered) aad, being lakeui resulted -yeua 15, naya .'II—us I ol low*: Vi'iA Benton, Bright, Oai ■ hi Wl icon in. i• • i ," ol low i,.l -i • I', lob, l<t iei, oiilelds), Smith, vValkor, s\ . STulwe -15 I IMM. Atuhl i, Itirnwell, Boll, Barrltm, Butl ir, I Hays Divli of Ma .1 lan • mi, l lay ton t Dn h . t rroono, 11 ■ IU, liiiiK-y, Unitei w in i, tjpl] in, Walea, aud V\ Inthrop So tha amendment waa raji cted .ii. MASON. I wish to offer an amendment to the bill ia the shape of an additional section, I ask that it in iv be read, u id then I will detain the Senate for a few i nanta to explain the purpose ol the amendment, and - im oheriof i b • .mm ndmani was ri ad aa follows i •■ t iu bill add the fbllowli Hfisilcd ■ •: brlHtl tiotxaed ■ :b scrip , Illinois, ..1 stuli, mo • BMigO' - .. rirmiii. .1, and - tod ibe • ot the The purpose of tbat amendmeol authorize tbe holders m Virginia land warrants oithe military land office, .10 iar as they bat may bl d, to locate them witbia that north- wtfit territory nasi comprised within the live Statea ■: y public lauds subject indued to tiie Virginia military land war- taiitn lor revolutionary laud bounties. Tbe pro* copied from laws winch bare been passed from time to time by tbe United 8tatea for tbe location 01 un military land warrants. I am aware tbat the locations oi unsatisfied Virginia militarylaod warrants for revolutionary bountiea have latterly met with some disfavor in tbe Congre 1 <<i tbe United Statea; and it bacon therefore, in a very lew words, lo date ihe foundation upon which, on tbe pari ol tne State of Virginia, 1 ask ii> ■ adoption 01 tbia amendment. luring tbe rev duti >n, as all gentlemen know, Vir- ginia owned a large body oi public lands as ber own iperty. Othi some few ol them—or others oi tne colonies,as 1 should more properly nay, also held public lands, but not in nuch quanltlieaj anil the revolutionary Con,;re** of the c.<)l(iiii..\s, by more than one resolution, la order toobtaia troop.s to carry on ihe revo- lutioni urgently impressed on those States holding public lands tbe duly ol inviting enliatmenta aod oiling up tbeii ranks by offering land bounties lor those who engaged for military services daring the revaiu' Virginia, amongst the earliest, responded to tbat appeal, and in mi, while the revolutionary war wuai pending, nhe, in order to ineure good lands to her troops, setapari and reserved from private entry, for her land bountiea to her troops, the countiy then belonging to Virginia, and lying between Green river, Cumberland Netri, the Carolina line, ami Tennessee, and Ohio. '1 his u.i i (he Brat act on the part 01 the State of Virginia to m- sore good laod lo her troops—to set apart that country. In the tii-xl place, hy Un- BCtOl May, 17y«i, Virginia provided ibe mode In winch the evidence requialte to locating land warruuis ihoald be ascertained, it waadeclared that the claim ol an office) was to be allowed upon tbecertifl* estsj of a general officers and in the case of a non-com- lniseioneti officer,or private soldier, uiion the certilicate of a commissioned officer. All thia v.us prior to the formation of our present government. By a later act, passed in 1510, alter the lapse ol quartet 01.1 01 ntury, whea such apecifld evidence, hy reason ol deaths aad removals, could no longer he had, the legialalure ol Virginia passed an act hy which the executive was authorized to allow theae military land bounties, when " satislactory" evidence was produced to siimv that the soldier was entitled to them, and so the law oi Virginia now ia. In 1785 an act ol Congreas passed on : April, directing tbe Secretary 01 War to allow land bountiea to all those who were entitled to tbem upon ibe evidence of tbe armj return from hia office, or upon such other evidence aa tha nature of the case demanded. And so ataoda now the act ol theCongresaof the United States. Ihe obligatioa thus entered into by the State of Virginia at Hie instance of the federated colonies, she has also held a* one ol her most important duties. lUr dense ut the character Of that obligation v aa evinced by the act that I have ijiioied—the act of 17-<u, reciting in its terms tbe iiiient to aasure good lands to her officers and sol- setting apart the best territory that she then 008- nnssotl in the southwest part ol her territory, aa it then I. In 17a7 Virginia again responded to a call of ihe Statea Ol thia Union, then confederated under the i eonatitution, and cedetl to Congress, without other rtsfi vatioiis than lh.it which might be necessary lo satisfy her militury land bounties, all that territory now comprised within the five States named In the amendment Hy tnat net of cession she made no reservation whatever, except that she should be reimbursed the expenses incurred by her in defending the territory, and reclaiming it from the Indians, and that she should be allowed to locate her military land bounties within ihe portion that was set apart northwest of ihe Ohio river. IJy that deed of cession, as I have said, Virginia devolved upon the government ot the United States the duty of reimbursing her expenses in subduing and defending her territory'againat the Indiana, and that 150,000 acres Bhould be granted to Clarke's regiment, the favt rite regiment ot the State of Virginia; and that in case of there being a deficiency oi ^oou land on the south, it should be made up outoi lands between the Scioto and the Little Miami rivers, in Ohio. Thus it appears that the only reservation made was for the purpose of discharging an obligation due to these revolutionary troops; nothing more than that Well, sir, under this reservation, the troops of the continental line have located in Ohio 3,505,000 acres, and since that day, these locations exhausting the reservation, between the Scioto and the Little Miami rivers, Congress hns appropriated, by various laws, lo satisfy the laud warrants 111 the State of Virginia, 1,400,000 acres. Now, what did Virginia rede' Virginia ceded a territory embracing 07,'.20<5,(JOO acres of land. She has reclaimed, or rather there has been reclaimed, in satisfaction oi her military bounty lands, in addition to -1,604,000 what was reHerved lying between the two have named—the Scioto and the Little Miami- acres. Now, how stands the account ? I know very well that there are many citizens in the State of Virginia who have iu their possession military land warrants of the issue I have r.-ferred lo, which remain to this day unified. Why are they unsatisfied? Because of the character of our people. They go away from home but little. They in ike hut little inquiry—a great portion of tbem -into their actual, substantial rights. If there is (litest obstacle to their enjoying any portion of thi ii property, they will not turn aside trout ihe investigation. So it is that at this day land warrants, to a con- Bi/lcrable extent—1 do not know how great—are out- ata iding In tbe state of Virginia Olher Slates have acted differently. The State of (' mnecticut, for example, ceded her lauds lying between iii" list and -rid degrees of north latitude, but reserved lor Iii r own u le and benefit, not for military services, but for her own use and benefit, 3,560^)00 acrea of land, the da of which she now enjoys. Virginia made no reservation whatever, except to satisfy these military warrants, But, sir, what further has been done? The five which were carved out of the territory of the [State of Virginia were the Statea of Ohio. Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the general government had granted to these States, within their respective for purposes of internal improvement, public buildings, canals/, ice , 8,285,000 acres of land up to 1844, when the statistics to which 1 refer were compiled. How much has been granted since I do not know. Still, there bas been granted to ibe Slate of Virginia, to satisfy theae mllitarj land warranto, as I have said, only mo acres. Now, sir, here is a case which addresses itself, net to the liberality or bounty of Congress, but to its justice, in iicbalf of the State of Virginia, to enable her to dis- cbarge the sacred obligation f have named. 1 wish only to bring these facts before the Senate, and shall not detain it longer, but hope ihe. amen linen! will be adopted. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. President, 1 rise for the purpose of expressing my gratification at the amendment I'n- ed by the honorable senator from Virginia, [Mr. Mason,] and to submit a few remarks in addition to un 1 e be has advanced in support of it. Perhaps my position in life has given hh: greater familiarity with Hns subject than any other senator has; fori was brought Qp In the district when: the lands were reserved and granted to tbe soldiers, and in my professional career I have had a great deal to do with them. In addition lo that, the whole subject has been brought before the committee of which I am a member, and we have made a report upon it, and presented a bill for (be Consideration of the Senate, which, I hope at the proper time will be taken up and acted upon. The committee, in Its deliberations upon this subject, tlirectcd me to report a bill providing for satisfying all the warrants issued hy the Slate of Virginia prior to.tjw first of June, 1702, and excluding all Warrants which had been issued subsequent to that period. The ground upon which this distinction waa made by that committee was this: They supposed that it Congress undertook to satisfy those claims issued by the State of Virginia subsequent to L798, (the reason of their selecting that date I will mention presently,) they would have to satisfy a good many which were fraudulent—a good many persons nav- ing made application aad sustained their claims by fraudulent affidavits before the authorities of Virginia, and many Ita having thus been issued improperly. They supposed that all warrants issued prior to 1793 were cor- rectl and proper!) issued, because at that date there were many living persons who could testify as to the service rendered by officers ind soldiers in tbe revolution. The Bubject was familiar with those who administered the lawa, and there was, therefore, no difficult) in reaching their tiulh. Upon that account the committee thought proper to fix upon the first of June, 1102, and to say that all warrants issued prior to that time should be satisfied, and those issued subsequently should not be. Now, the reason why the Brat of June, i7(.i-2, was selected was this: that "was the day on which tho government of Kentucky, is a separate and independent . ommenced its operations. Op to that period, by the compact entered into between Virginia and Kentucky, i:y was bound to satisfy, out or the vacant lands of tbat Male, all warrants issued 10 the officers and .ua ol the ciMitinent.il Stale line, and therefore, up to that period, those warrants which had been previously issued in contemplation of law might have been satisfied out of the vacant domain Of Kentucky. That was the reason of the distinction which the committee made. Now, sir, I have the intention of offering an amendment to this proposi rivers I marks which f have just made, was a wilderness. I .604.000 was brought un in that country, and it was a wilderness tion, to limit the provision made lor satisfying these warrants to those issued prior to the 1st of June, 1792, carrying out the distinction made by the committee. But, in making a motion to amend tbe amendment in that way, 1 shall vote againat my own proposition. I shall merely submit it for the purpose of testing the sense of the Sen- ale upon the subject, and out of respect to the opinions of my associates on the committee, who were against satis lying the warrants subsequently to that date. 1 do it for this further reason: it it shall be the sense of the to make thia distinction in deference to the opinion ol the majority of the committee, then, by passing the amendment ol my friend from Virginia, wiih that distinction upon it, we shall at least secure justice so far as respects the holders of warrants issued prior to the 1st of June,1702. And now, sir, as 1 intend to move that amendment, and to vote against it for the reason I have assigned, allow me 10 make one or two remarks againat my own proposition. [Laughter.] Sir, 1 ask the Senate it it be compatible with our sense of propriety to go into an inquiry whether a few frauds bave been perpetrated upon ihe State of Virginia, and whether a few of the heirs and representatives of the old soldiers o! the revolution get a few acres of land more than they are entitled to. Will you go into an investigation of that sort, and undertake to discriminate between warrants issued prior to the 1st of June, 1792, and those issued subsequently? Why, the number cannot amount to a great deal. 1 have the report before me wbich will give yoi the estimate upon that subject; and when I communicate thai estimate, I shall ask the Senate whether they will i'n into an inquiry how far the authorities of Virginia may have been imposed upon by a few persons presenting fraudulent claims. We all know that in the administration of every government upon earth, the government is liable to be imposed upon occasionally by fraudulent claims. My friend upon the left [Mr. Badokr] riays, "all governments but tins; that we never pay any but fair, and just, and honorable claims." But, sir, the proposition is nevertheless true, that in all governments upon earth a claim vill occasionally come in, and be admitted and paid, which ought not to be paid. 1 hope, then, sir, that we shall not make the discrimination between tiie warrants issued prior to the first of June, 1792, ami those which have hecn issued since that time, but that we shall make a provision to satisfy the whole of them. I wrote to Mr. Parker, and-obtained this letter from him, and, as it is a short letter, I will read it: "Yours of the Kith instant came duly to hand, requesting mo to transmit to you the number ol land warrants and the numbai of acrea, in tbe aggregate, which have been issued lur military service rendered 111 tne -ear ol the on lunon since ibe first day ol September, 1335. In conformity with your request, 1 send you the following statement, to wit: number of warrants issued from September 1, 18.'5, 680 ; aggregate amount of acres, ———." Now, sir, all the warrants prior to September 1st, 1835, were provided for In the act of Congress to which my 11 lend referred when he was upon the floor, and those OUtal indlng warrants were satisfied, except the small per centage which was mentioned by him. That per cent- age he provides for. it is, 1 believe, about 10 per cent, irrants subsequently issued amount to little more than 5UO,000 acres. That is the number outstanding subsequently to 1792, not provided for heretofore, amounting to 500,000 acres, or a little more. Now the question is, whether the Senate, when Congress has heretofore provided in the act referred to in the amendment for the outstanding warrants prior to 1835, except a little per cent- age of 10 or 15 per cent.—I do not recollect the precise amount—the question is, whether the Senate will go into the investigation of how many of these 500,000 acres may have been obtained fraudulently, and how far the authorities of Virginia may have been imposed upon in granting those warrants. I hope it will not be attempted. But if you do it, and it" the majority of the Senate, carrying out the intentions of the committee, think proper to exclude them by adopting the amendment which 1 have proposed, but wbich I shall vote against, you will then contine the satisfaction of warrants to those issued prior to the 1st of June, 1792. Now, Mr. President, a few remarks to show the propriety of satisfying these warrants. My friend from Virginia, not being as familiar perhaps with the subject as I am, baa overlooked oue or two considerations which are entitled to great weight. I beg leave to suggest them. He has stated as the reason why these warrants were not satisfied that the domestic habits of his people and their reluctance to go abroad had prevented it. But there was a much more |>owerful reason than all that. At the time these warrants were issued, the country in which tbe lands lay, and to which I have adverted in the re- was brought up in that'eountry, and it was a wilderness when I went to it—that part of it, which was the western part, the reserved pait, and not the old settled part. South of Greene river, in 1792, was a wilderness. Virginia, seeing that it was impossible that her soldiers should go to tbat country indiviuually to make their own locations and appropriate the land themselves, adopted a system of law hy which it was to be done for them, aiyl to that system I wish to call the attention of the Senate. She provided by law that what were denominated superintending officers should be appointed. These superintendent 1 were to receive the warrants from the soldiers and officers, and go to that wilderness country and have the surveys made, and have the locations made upon the surveys—to superintend the business of procuring the land for the soldiers. By the appointment of these superintendents, Virginia said to her officers and soldiers: Place your warrants iu their hands; they are designed by law to discharge these duties for you, to enable you to obtain the land for which our bounty provides; and you have nothing to do hut to pay the expenses—lor the fees were regulated by law—to hand the warrants over, and your business will be done for you. Now, sir, these superintendents did attend to a great deal of this business. But after the time allowed by the compact between Virginia and Kentuky for tbe accomplishment of this work had expired, a great many of _these contiacts were returned by ihe superintendents without ever having secured the locations. Some of them made entries after the period had expired within which by the compact they were to make their locations, and claimed the lands upon which they made those entries after the lapse of the time. But it was decided by the courts that they had no ri^ht thus to enter the land after the lapse of the time. The ground upon which they mviie ihe entries nnd claimed the .and, notwithstanding the expiration of the time, was that Virginia, by the act of 1779, read and referred to by my friend, hnJ made a grant of country to thes.e oilicers and soldiers, and they had a right to divide that territory among themselves, independent of all subsequent arrangements, to the full extent of the satisfaction of their warrants. This ground was not sustained by the court; but it shows the understanding of the superintendents; and it may show one of the reasons why they were somewhat dilatory in the execution of the duties assigned them. So it was, at any rate, that ihsy did not in the time prescribed locate all the warrants, make their suiveys, and obtain their patents. The question now comes up, whether you will deprive these original liolders of such warrants, under these cir- cumstiinces, of that bounty which the legislature of Virginia prom.ised them for their revolutionary services You have refused to consider it in that light. You have refused to deprive them of their bounty by acts heretofore. The veiy acts you have passed for their support constitute a guarantee that you will go on and complete the work you have begun. How can you discriminate ? How can you distinguish ? The act to which my friend referred appropriated, I think, something like a million of. acres for the satis!action of these outstanding warrants ; but after all were sent to the Secretary of ihe Treasury which then came in, it did not satisfy the whole by some 10 or 15 per cent. 1 have the precise amount here, but will not consume the time to find it. Having commenced the satisfaction of these warrants, and having appropriated land to satisfy (excepting some 10 or 15 per cent.) all those which have been presented, upon what ground do you refuse to satisfy the whole, and particularly those issued prior to 1792 ? Some ot the warrants prior to that date are now pending before the committee of which I am a member, of which less than ball has been satisfied. The warrant issued lo General Morgan, for instance, remains unsatisfied. That claim has been presented by the heir's of General Morgan. The warrant has been exhibited to the committee, or a copy of it, ceitilied by the Register, with the fact that there has been no satisfaction except for about one-half. I might mention other claims equally meritorious with those of General Morgan; but it is enough to give one instance of a most meritorious claim which will be provided for if the amendment of my friend from Virginia shall succeed to any extent. There is another idea which I wish to advance to the Senate, that was not suggested by my friend from Virginia. He has read to you, sir, ihe reservation made by Virginia of thl umntry between the Scioto and the little the bill to provide for the suppression of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. Mr. MASON. 1 am very desirous of voting for the two sections of the bill which have been now ingrafted upon it upon the motion of ihe senator Maryland, [Mr. Pearce,] constituting the fourth and fifth sections ol the bill, with the amendments, as il now stands. Those two amendments were adopted by the Senate in committee, I believe; but they constitute now a portion of the bill. In order to effect ihe object, I move to amend the bill as it now stands, by striking from it the first two sections. I wish to say a few words, and but a few, upon this subject. The two sections which I propose to strike from the bill are those which are intended, in the language of the day, to abolish the slave trade, and, in the language of the honorable senator from Kentucky, [Mr. Clay,] the foreign slave trade in the District of Columbia. Now, sir, apart from my own opinion upon this matter, I am under an imperious obligation to vote against the bill, if it should not be the pleasure of the Senate to strike out these sections; because the constituency which I represent have entered, through the files ol" the general assembly of Virginia, an earnest and strong remonstrance against ihis measure. 1 understood the senator from Kentucky [Mr. Clay] to say, when this subject was under consideration ata former day, that it was but enacting vithin the District of Columbia what was the law of Vir Miami, northwest of the Ohio river; and in the reading, if the Senate would only have attended to it, as one familiar with the subject could, they would have discovered that that reservation was for the benefit of the continental line Mark ihe expression: the reservation was benefit of the continental line only. The construction which tuts been put upon that reservation is this: ihat as the terms used in the reservation were the continental line, it excluded all the troops belonging ta the State line. Virginia had two armies: she had an army of the State, established in the American revolution—and perhaps most of the States had their State establishments—aud then she had her portion of the continental army, or what was denominated the continental line of-service. Virginia, by her legislature, gave bounties both to the continental troops and to the State line troops; but unfortunately, in the reservation between the Scioto and the Little Miami rivers, according to a tradition I have received lroin the oid surveyors, it was a mere mistake, a mere blunder of the copyist, by which the expression "State line" was left out in that reservation made by the Cwmmonwealth of Virginia. The effect of it, however, has been that, owing to the subsequent interpretation put upon the reservotion, it was regarded as a benefit for the continental line only ; and accordingly all the State troops have been excluded from the benefits of that reservation. The effect of that has been that that very favored regiment spoken of by the gentleman from Virginia—the regiment of George Rogers Clark, the conquerors of that country, and by which conquest it was said in the treaty of 1793 it was annexed to the United States, by which very conquest this acquisition was made to the whole governmentof the United States— those very troops have been excluded from the country between the Little Miami and the Scioto, and their warrants, which had been issued prior to the year 1792, have someof them remained unsatisfied. I have stated the ;acts. I have shown you that superintendents were, appointed by the legislature of Virginia to secure these lands for officers and soldiers—that the land was a wilderness, and that the superintendents did not do it. I have stated the fact that alter the 1st of June, 1792, Kentucky refused to allow any more locations to be made in her territory; for that was the time at which, according to the compact with Virginia, these warrants were to be satisfied. I have, then, shown you that the warrants belonging to the State line, outstanding at that time, by mistake in the articles of reservation in reference to the matter, were excluded from the territory between the Scioto and the Little Miami; and 1 ask the Senate if this does not constitute a strong appeal to their sense ot justice to allow these old revolutionary officers and soldiers to come in and have the satisfaction of their bounties in this bounty land bill. Why, sir, what is this bounty land bill ? It is a bill to manifest our feelings of gratitude, and respect, and honor to the soldiers of the war of IS 12, the Indian wars, and the subsequent wars. In this very bill by which you undertake to manifest these feelings of affection and gratitude towards the soldiers of tiie later wars, a proposition comes up, which calls upon us to satisfy the outstanding claims of soldiers of the revolution, whose services enabled you lo make this very provision for the soldiers of subsequent wars. Can you refuse to satisfy such outstanding claims? It seems to me you cannot. I now move to amend the proposition of my friend from Virginia by inserting alter the word " warrant" the words, " completed prior to the 1st of June, 1792." Mr. ATCHISON. I wish to make an inquiry of the Chair. Is it in order for a senator to present an amendment, and to tell us at the same time that he will not vote for it, while he makes an argument of half an hour against it ? [Laughter.] I deem it to be out of order, and 1 ask the decision of the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER, [Mr. Butler.] The Chair cannot regard it out of order. I think the senator has a right to think one way and vote the other. [Renewed laughter.] Mr. CLAY. Tuesday has been assigned for the consideration of a bill which I am very anxious should be finally disposed of. The amendment that has been proposed is one of some importance. In order that it may be deliberated upon—and 1 would like to have the senator in the mean time ascertain the amount of these outstanding warrants, that we may know what the quantity is; it is a subject which I am quite familiar with Mr. CASS. Will the honorable senator allow me to ask him how many times he has voted upon that subject, if he can remeaiber ? Mr. CLAY. Ah ! very often. My object, however, was not to take up any time upon this, but to move that it be postponed until to-morrow, and that the amendments he printed in the meantime. Ihe motion was agreed to. Mr. WALKER intormally submitted an amendment; which was ordered to be printed. SUPPRESSION Or THE SLAVE TRADE. On motion by Mr. CLAY, the prior orders were postponed, and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of g'tnia and of Maryland respectively when the "District was ceded by those States to the United States, Now, sir, if I understood tbe senator correctly, I should take issue with him upon that proposition. There never was a law within the limits of the State of Virginia intended to effect by legislation what is intended to be effected by this bill; and so far as I am informed, beating looked through ihe legist lation of the State of Maryland, there never was such a law within the limits oi the Slate of Maryland. It was at one time the policy of Virginia to prohibit all increase of the slave population within her territory. It was a policy adopted in the spirit which Virginia thea entertained, of preventing, as far as practicable, the increase of that population—a policy which she has been since so blind as lo change. Virginia, I think, was among the earliest of the States, after the present constitution was formed, and in advance of the law of the United States prohibiting the importation of slaves from abroad, to prohibit the importation of slaves into the State of Virginia which came from abroad ; and in 1792—the earliest act which I find affecting domestic slavery—in 1792 a law was passed by the State of Virginia declaring that "do- mostic slaves which shall hereafter be brought into her CommoiAvealth, and be kept therein for one whole year together, or so long as lo be equal to one whole year, shall be free." The third section imposed a fine of $200 for importing slaves contrary lo the act, and $100 tor buying and Belling slaves there imported. The fourth section re- lifcved, however, from the penalties of this law all persons who removed into the State with the bona fide intention of becoming citizens, and who brought their slaves with them. Now, sir, the policy of this bill was in no manner whatever to affect commerce in slaves. It had no such design and no such purpose. It left slaves to stand exactly where they had previously stood, subject precisely to the same commerce that every other property was subject to. It did not prohibit her citizens from dealing in them—from confining them—from treating them precisely, so far as they represented property, as they would treat any other property, of what kind soever. The provision against bringing slaves imo the State, which was intended to prevent the increase of slaves within the Stale, was equally extended to buying and selling slaves so brought in, alter tbey were brought in. But that prohibition was intended as a part of a general policy to prevent the further increase of the slave population. They were prohibited from bringing slaves inio the Slate to remain there, and they were equally prohibited from bringing slaves into the State and selling them after they were brought in. This was but carrying out the purpose of that Jaw, to remove an evil to which Virginia as well as the South generally was subjected. In 1800 it was found necessary upon the part of Virginia, because of the increase of the free negroes within the limits of the State, while it retained the poliey of the law so far as it was intended to prevent the increase of the population, to change the penally. In 1S06 it was enacted that instead of allowing slaves to be brought in against the provisions of the law to become free, they should be sold by the overseers of the poor, and reiaineu in slavery—sold hy the overseers of the poor for the benefit -of the poor of the county; and the penalties for buying aud selling slaves brought in contrary to this act were increased from two hundred to four hundred dol- Jar^. This law carried o'tt the necessary policy which devolved upon Virginia, but changed the penalties tor bringing slaves into the State against the provisions of the law from emancipation into a privation of property by a sale. The tenth section provides that if any slave therein emancipated should not leave the Stale within twelve months, he should be again reduced to a state of slavery. Now, sir, the provisions of those acts, the first of which i« the act of 1792, which was the law of Virginia in 1801, when a portion of her limits were ceded to the general government, were intended solely to prevent the increase of the slave population, and the law of 1792 was in operation until the revisal in 1319, when the whole policy was changed from the necessity of the circumstances under which the slave population then stood in the State. In the year 1819 all the provisions of previous laws prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the State of Virginia were repealed, and any slaves might be imported which were born within the limits of the United States, and which had not been convicted of crime, and changed the whole policy of the State of Virginia. I have noticed this to show, as I understand it, that there, was no law in the Stateof Virginia, and never was j tion of qui'tam—ono-iialtto tho iufornior and the otber'h tit considered forbidden; because Congress will have legislated upon a subject dangerous to aer safety as it is dangerous to the safety of all Ihe slaveholding States Why, sir, we know that many of the southern States have made a test question, if we may so express it, of the abolition of slavery within the District of Columbia; yet, I might say, with equal propriety, that none are not interested in the subject of slavery ii this District, bin the people of the District are alone interested, because none but the slaves of the people of the District are to be affected by it. It is because such legislation goes further that we are interested ; it is because if this bill should pass, by which this traffic in slaves is prohibitec, it is intended to prevent a legitimate traffic in the adjoining States, and 1 presume in tiie other slaveholding States; it is because if this bill should pass, it will place upon vcur siatute-book a denunciation, as a wrong, of this traffic, which the necessity of these States obliges them to tokrate and not to prohibit. I do not mean to detain the Seijate, sir; but 1 did not feel at liberty to allow the occasion to pass, as I really desire to vote "for so much as has jf en ingralted upon the bill by the senator from Miryland, [Mr. Pearce]—to allow the bill to pass, without making the motion to amend it, as 1 have proposed, by striking out. Mr. CLAY. Mr. President, the motion of the honorable senator from Virginia [Mr. Mason] is to strike out the sections of the bill reported by the Committee of Thineen. The first of these sections prohibits ihe introduction of any slaves within the District of Columbia, for the purpose of being sold or placed in a depot, to be subsequently transported to another market. Tke second oi tlie.se sections provides for the abolition of the depots themselves, in which these slaves are confined in the Disuictjof Columbia. If this motion, therefore, of the senator from Virginia prevails, the whole bill in respect to the object, of stnpj,ing the slave trade in the District; of Columbia will be stricken out, and it will become one ol a totally different cbsracler—providing only for the punishment of persons enticing slaves away, and investing a power in the corporation to prohibit persons oi color from coming into the District, h is very important to the Senate to understand the precise effect of the motion of the Senator; because, if it prevails, there is an end to condemning and abolishing the slave trade in the District of Columbia. But, sir, I do not mean to go at any length into the argument upon the subject. The object is now lo arrive at a decision. The senator seemed to suppose that I was mistaken in the law of Virginia and the law of Maryland, 1 think not. On that subject, sir, the law of Virginia, at the time of the cession to ihe general government of the District of Columbia, and the law of Maryland also, both pro hibitlhe introduction into those States respectively of slaves to be sold ; and both provided, if they were introduced in contravention of the law, that the effect should be the freedom of the slaves. The action of the law of Virginia Was changed subsequently; but I know that was the case with regard to the law of Virginia a long time, and also the law of Maryland, which also has been recently altered by the legislation of that State. Both of these States exercised the power at the time of the cession of the District of Columbia to the general government which is proposed to be exercised here, with the difference only that here we propose also to abolish the depots of these foreign slaves brought within the District. That is the sole difference. The prohibition of the introduction to Virginia or Maryland of slaves for sale existed, accompanied with thep nalty4hat if they were introduced they should become free. That was the state of the law in both States. Now, sir, all that is asked upon the present occasion is, that wc shall do what each of these States did, with the further object of abolishing tbe depots themselves. This has been done by numerous slave States ; done by the State of Mississippi; done by her constitution; done bv other States; done in my own State. That law was afso recently altered ; but I have no doubt that it will be revived in the course of a few years. For some sixteen or seventeen years—for I have had occasion to examine into the subject—if I had wished to purchase a house servant, or if I had wished to purchase a slave, and carry him into the State of Kentucky, I was prohibited by the law there. The question is, whether we cannot exercise the power uuder the general grant contained in the constitution, and.in conformity with the action of the various States. The subject has been so much under consideration, ihat I do not mean to dwell upon it, or to occupy the tiixie of the Senate. The senator from Virginia makes the motion in conformity with a resolution passed by the State of Virginia. I hope", sir, that the legislature of Virginia will modify its opinion upon that subject, as, although at one time she attached to it a consequence far beyond anything it merited, >hu modified I'uai afterward*. - .1 insist upon, as a sine qua non, any particular arrangement oi these slavery subjects. I hope, sir, that the amendment will be acted upon, and I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. PEARCE. Before the vote is taken upon the amendment of the senator from Virginia, which proposes to strike oul the first two sections, 1 desire to submit an amendment for the purpose of improving the first section. There are many senators who have no objection to prohibiting the importation of slaves into the District, for the purpose of being sold, who object to the provision by which the violation of the law is proposed to he punished. They object, in other words, to the manumission of the slaves who are thus brought in. I think it likely that the bill will obtain votes if this provision should be amended. I propose, therefore, a pecuniary compeii-a- tion instead of tne emancipation. 1 move to amend the first section by striking out from the end the words, "such slave shall thereupon become liberated and free," and inserting the words : "Such owner, or the agent of such ownor, shall be subject to a penalty of live hundred dollars, U) be ri'coverod by lie a law in the State of Virginia, which was intended to strike at that which the honorable senator from Kentucky [Mr. Clay] considers as the grievance to be removed in the District of Columbia—that of dealing in slaves as merchandise, which is necessarily incident to the institution of slavery. Sir, there is one provision of this bill which authorizes the corporation of the two cities of Washington and of Georgetown, as often as may be necessary, to abate, break up, and abolish any depot or place of confinement of slaves brought into the said District as merchandise, contrary to the provisions of this act, by such proper means as they may consider expedient, &.c. Now, sir, as things stand, and as I understand the law of this District, understanding it very much as expounded the other day by the honorable senator from Maryland, who sits nearest to me, [Mr. Pratt,] under the existing law of the District, slaves cannot be brought from anywhere to be sold within this Distract except from the State of Maryland. I have been informed, upon inquiry, that the fact is that so few slaves within the last Ipw years are even brought into this District to be sold for the purpose of exportation, that the trade or the business which some persons engage in of purchasing slaves for the purpose of selling them again has dwindled down till it has at lajjt ceased to have any existence. Mr. President, none can condemn more than 1 do the practice, which has been denounced here and elsewhere, of dealing in slaves— ipurchasing them for the purpose of selling them again. •But yet, sir, the denunciation is not necessarily to be extended to all those who participate in it. It cannot, and ought not, to be extended, from the necessity of the case, when it arises—as it frequently does arise—under the institution of slavery itself. There is not a slaveholding State that I know of—I know it is so, both in Maryland and Virginia—where those who engaged in this odious traffic do not find it necessary to provide means of custody of their own for the slaves so purchased; and we do not"find the legislation of the States atmed against that; and as much as it may be abhorred and condemned by the citizens of the State as an odious traffic, yet it is one necessarily incident to the institution of slavery; and I cannot see any propriety in legislating upon that subject in the District of Columbia in a manner different from that in which the subject is legislated upon in the adjoining States, and I presume in the other slave States. You can now, without let or hindrance, bring a slave from Maryland or any other State into the Slate of Virginia for the purpose of selling him to the people or trafficing in slaves. There is no prohibition against it of any kind whatsoever. I am not informed that there is any prohibition now in the State of Maryland against that; and yet it is proposed here by the Congress of the United States to legislate for that purpose within the limits of the District of Columbia; and this is extending to the corporate authorities of the District of Columbia the extraordinary power of destroying any means of confinement that may be provided for persons so brought in for sale. Mr. President, I do not at all agree with the suggestion made by the senator from Maryland, who sits near me, [Mr. Pratt,] that the State of Maryland is theonly State that is now interested in this bill, because it is from the State of Maryland alone that slaves can, under existing laws, be brought for 6ale into the District of Columbia. No slaves can be brought from the State of Virginia under existing laws to the District of Columbia, to be sold within the District, as the law now stands; and yet we find the Slate of Virginia remonstrating, in the earnest and zealous manner which I have adduced to the Senate, against the proposed legislation upon a subject which they to the corporation within whose limits tbo oll'enco may l» committed; and in every suclicaso bail shall be required, any law to the contrary notwithstanding. Mr. CLAY. I wish only to say that 1 prefer the bill as it stands, although 1 am indifferent as lo the amendment proposed, and although I think a much larger sum should be proposed in order to be equivalent to the value of the slave. Introductions with a mere fee of a bundled dollars in some cases might be made and yield a profit in the introduction of the slave. I prefer the bill as it stands for two or three reasons, which I will stale. In the first place, this law of Maryland as existing at the time—the law of Virginia as existing at the time—forbid the introduction of a slave, and declared that if introduced contrary to law, he should be freed. Besides that, it is the proper penalty. It is in conformity with the laws which generally prevail upon the subject of contraband articles. Whenever contraband articles of merchandise are introduced, they are forfeited ; and so il ought to be in cases of this kind. But, further, it is much more likely that the law will be efficacious if the person introduced is entitled to his freedom, in consequence of the introduction being contrary to law, than if there be a suit against the parly introducing him by a prosecution, a pecuniary penalty lo be inflicted up m nirn. If the slave be introduced contrary to law, there will be a motive on the part of the slave and his friends to enable him to assert bis freedom, and the law will be much more efficacious than if you let it depend upon the infliction of the pecuniary penalty. which would be nobody's business, and which would cost only one hundred dollars, or a little over. But, nir, my great object is the abolition of the trade. As to the mode of effecting it—-whether by declaring persons free, or by the infliction of the pecuniary penalty—the Senate may decide helwcen the two modeu according to its judgment. The important provision of the bill is the second one, in my opinion, to abolish the depots. Mr. MASON asked for the reading of the amendment; which was read. Mr. BADGER. I am best satisfied with the provisions of this section as it stands in the original bill. I think that there is a great deal in the suggestion of the senator from Kentucky, [Mr. Clay,] that it is the most effectual and appropriate penalty, that the person who in violation of law brings a 6lave here shall incur a forfeiture of the slave. But I have an impression that that provision would be better if the forfeiture was incurred by the proprietor, without changing the status of the slave to that of a free man. The case of contraband to which the senator has referred is a case where the goods are forfeited, but they do not cease to be subjects of property. I have said I am satisfied with the provision as it stands, and shall make no effort myself to amend it; but still it seems to me that the policy would be better if the slaveholder who brings his slave here for sale should forfeit his right in the slave without the Blave becoming a free man. The consequence of the provision that he shall become free is, that you are punishing the Diatrict of Columbia for the misconduct of the man who brings slaves here for sale in violation of the law. One part of tbe amendment put to this bill at the instance of my friend from Maryland [Mr. Pearce] treats the coming of free negroes into this District as a kind of nuisance, and it gives to the local authorities power to prohibit tbeir incoming, and to regulate those who shall be allowed to remain here. The effect of this part of the bill, then, would be to provide tbat every stave who is brought here contrary to the provisions of the law shall be one added free uesjo to the amount already constituting the nuisance which I another part of the bill is intended to remedy. In my own State there are statutes under wbich the master forfeits his right to the slave. When, for instance, a master makes an emancipation without following the provisions of the statute upon that subject, he forfeits his interest in his slave ; out the slave is not treated a* a free man, but is Heated as aslave, and is disposed of according to law lor the benefit of the public. Indeed, it would be manifestly a strange mode of proceeding, the law being intended to restrict emancipation, and requiring previous I conditions to render the emancipation valid, if an invalid emancipation should have the effect of accomplishing the object the law is intended to prevent; that is, the accumulation of the free black population. Therefore our law treated the master as having, hy his attempted emancipation against law, forfeited his right to the slave, and required the slave to be sold. I know the difficulty of shaping any prevision of that kind in this District; and therefore, as I said, 1 do not propose to make any objection to the bill as it now Btands, though I really think it liable lo some exception, and would object if any provision could be introduced as a substitute in the existing state of things. But I rose to say to my friend from Maryland [Mr. Pkakck] thai if his amendment is to prevail, it ought to be in such ft. form as to furnisK an effectual punishment lor aviolation of this ta.w. ll this bill passes, and it prohibits ihe foreign slave trade in the District of Columbia, 1 wish it to pass in a form that will he efficient. l\'ow, I think there are two objections to his amendment as it stands. In the first place, .i fine of from one bundled to live hundred dollars, al the discretion of the court, is not a sufficient punishment. 1 think, on the contrary, that if any one knowing ol the existence of this law will voluntarily set himself up in opposition to it, and bring his slaves here contrary to the expressed determination of Congress with regard to the internal regulation of this District, he ought to be severely and effectually punished. The hoe, therefore, in my judgment, is loo small. In the next place, I think the mode of recovery is wrong. The offender into be proceeded against by indictment. Who is going lo undertake lo prosecute him ? Who has any motive or interest to Undertake it r Who is to lodge informal ion ? Who is to collect evidence ? We are obliged, under such circumstances, to appeal to the pecuniary interests of men ; and therefore, if the penalty is to be a pecuniar j one, I would make the line one thousand dollars in every case, and make it recoveiable at the instance of a common informer by an action of debt Do thai, and you will find no.diffkulty at all. You would find people who would instantly sue, collect evidence, and prosecute to a result, because they would be led to do it by the prospect of advantage held oul lo tbem personally. But I have a strong belief that the provision will not be effectual, if left to Tie carried into operation by the ordinary proceedings of the grand jury. I fear so. Mr. CLAY. The objections stated by the senator from North Carolina, arising Irom the accumulation of free persons of color, will, f think, on reflection, appear to be not well founded. J venture to say thai if this bill shall pass and be duly promulgated, there will not be one slave introduced perhaps to twenty years. Then, in regard to the prosecution, there is another difficulty. A person worth nothing may bring aslave into the District in violation of law, and you may catch him, prosecute him, and get a judg rienl against him ; but, alter all, you will gel nothiog out of him. I am told by my friend before me [Mr. Sj'kuam:kJ that this is the law of the State of Delaware—that il any i-lave is brought in, in contravention of ils laws, he in free. iThl incieal mode of legislation, and 1 prefer to adopt it. Mr. BWIN6. [think, Mr- President, the bill as it stands is lar preferable lo ihe amendment. The great advantage ot it is that it executes itself. It will necessarily prevent the slave trade at which it is aimed, for no man wiii hi ing a slave into the District if by doing so the slave will become fiee. If, by the judgment of the court, he becomes a free man, he is a free man thereafter, wheresoever he may be. Having been once free, he must be reduced to bondage before he can become a slave. This perfect knowledge, upon the part of slaveholders, that a slave brought into this District will become a free man, to be free thereafter as long as he lives, will absolutely prevent their bringm< them i;i, and save the trouble of the machinery for enforcing the law. I think, therefore, that the bill i^ decidedl it stands. Mr. UNDERWOOD. .My objection to thin provision ats it slands is this: It lays tbe foundation for malicious. vindictive, and spiteful stnls Vou bring your mm vatit here, and som" man tells him that, by bringing a suit against you and getting a few affidavits as to yout intending him here, he is free, Now. I am unwilling i- :■:« il thai I believe motives ol that kind may sometimes operate I am furthermore opposed to multiplying free aegroea 1 do n.ol believe ii lo be an advantage eiihei here or else- where. 1 have been .til my life ia favoi ol colonising them aa iaatMpoasible, and gettingcleai ol toeroi ami I am not willing t.i adopt an amendment which mas tend to multiply that desoripuon of population, vrhiohTheYa always regarded as injurious wherever tbey exist, Pot this reason l shall yote agaiual the amendment ; bol If It is the pleasure of the Senate to maintain the bill, I will vole for it lather than to make any ch.in •!• Mr. I'KAlU'K. I desire, Mr. Preaident, to see tha whole bill passed, and I therefore wish to put it In such u shape aa will, I apprehend, aeoun mote votes than a* it originally slood. [admit, however, ihe foice ul tlnir- murks of the senator Irom North Carolina; and I then-line propose in modify myamendi tent by providing— "Th 't the owner. Or SRent of .■such owner, shall he eul>. jeci to iiin penalty 6f ffow, to be reoovered by action of , toe-half to tbe Informer, and the other half to tha corporation witntn wbose hunt, the oflanoe may bo 00m- IllllU'il." Mr. BERRIEN. Mr. President, I have an objection to the provision of this hill as il stood originally, which 1 bad designed to express by offering an amendment similar in substance to ihat iif the. senai. r Irom Maryland, in the event of the amendment propoaed by the senator from Virginia having tailed. Then- [ano doubt ol tha proprie< iy of the course winch has been adopted "i amandtflg the original bill before tne question Is put upon sinking out these two sections. Thai objection, air, would not be overcome by any difficulties which might attend thi an* forcement 01 the alternative mode, or ol thia aubatitutad mode proposed by the senator from Maryland, I had Understood that in our legislation upon this subject tha Question of the power lO abolish shivery in the District of Columbia was to be. avoided ; thai while some, senators deny the existence of the power, and others admit it, yet there wasagenei.il concurrence in tha opinion that thai power ought not to be exercised, and could not he exercised) consistently with good faith towards tba Statea by wbich the cession was made. In my judgment the original bill ia the assertion of the power to abolish slavery. It is an alteration of the atatUJ or condition of the slave. It converts the •lave into ,a I man in the District of Columbia by the action of legislative power alone. The assertion Of such a power, or lite exiKienco of any provision in that acl which may be construed Into an assertion of such a power, deprives me of the possibility of voting for it. Bir, I do not mean to enter into a iliacuaaion of thut very much agitated question, but to slate briefly to the Senate that my view Ol this subject is this: Thai W| have not by the cession made, hy Virginia and Maryland acquired the power possessed by the legislatures of those Slates respectively. The cession wtis made by the legislatures o| Maryland and Virginia to the Congress ol iim United Statea: it was a cession of soil, of jarisdictioh; and when, therefore, by the acceptance oi thai cession, the territory constituting tbe District ol Columbia fell under the jurisdiction Of the Congress ol the United States, this legislative body was to look for the ascertainment ol tba power which was to be exercised over the territory to the only source from whence it derived any legislative power whatever; thai is, the constitution ol the United Slates. And then, in regard to the question in what clause of the constitution, in the construction of what portion ol that instrument,can Congress derive the power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, or anywhere else, the answer I know will be "that Congress shall have the right to exercise exclusive jurisdiction, in nil cases whatsoever, over such territory as may be ceded lor purposes expressed in that instrument. Now, sir, I deny that this clause gives to Congress the power wbich is contended for. It m a grant of exclusive but not of unlimited legislation. In all cases to which the powers of Congress may extend, its legislative power shall be exclusive; but the grant of exclusive legislative power in all cases whatsoever does not extend the legiida'ioii ol Congress one Inch beyond that which is given to it by the constitution of the United States. It is, I repeat, a grant of exclusive legislation, but not of unlimited legislation. The evidence of that fact is very obvious. There are provieiona m this constitution of tbe United States winch Congreaa may not violate in the exercise of its legislative jurisdiction over trictj and if there be one solitary instance in which the constitution Oi the United States would re strain Congress from| exercising unlimited jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, it is proof that the trm- ui< terpreti'in of that clause in the constitution is that it grauth exclusive butnot unlimited powers. Ikside you will perceive tbat in the same clause of the oonsU-
|Title||The Union, Vol. VI, No. 63, September 19, 1850|
United States -- History -- Civil War, 1861-1865
Washington D.C. -- Newspapers
|Description||The Union, Vol. VI, No. 63, Thursday, September 19, 1850. Oversized newspaper consisting of 4 pages. This issue includes headline news "In Congress of the U. States."|
|Rights||All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact Special Collections and University Archives, University of Central Florida Libraries, (407)823-2576. http//library.ucf.edu/SpecialCollections/|
|Physical description||Large size newspaper|
|Number of pages||4 pages|
|Repository||University of Central Florida Libraries, Special Collections & University Archives|
Civil War Collection
African American Legacy, the Carol Mundy Collection
Carol Mundy Library
|Digital Publisher||University of Central Florida Libraries|
|Digital Reproduction Specifications||Jpeg2000 images were derived from 400 dpi tiffs scanned on a Copibook scanner.|
|Uniform Title||The Union|
|Provenance||Acquired by Special Collections & University Archives, University of Central Florida Libraries from Carol Mundy, the collector of African-Americana.|
|Rights||All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact Special Collections and University Archives, University of Central Florida Libraries, (407)823-2576. http//library.ucf.edu/SpecialCollections/|
|Digital Reproduction Specifications||Jpeg2000 images were derived from 400 dpi tiffs scanned on a Copibook scanner.|
THOMAS BIT 0 H I K .
T | It M H:
DAILY, par year, ... - - 010 Ofl
8P.MI-WEEKLY, (pahllalmd trl weekly during Ilia temAon,
of Congress) .----- 8 00
WKHKi.V, - 2 <**
OVsfft vi" '"■ I'ii ni.hnd in /olloui :
Klvneop.e.of the DAILY, I'.r 40 00
Five copies ol the HK.VH-WEKKLY, - • • - -MOO
Ton copms of the " " •WW)
Klve copies of the VVBKKLY, - - - H 00
|.io< ol llic " - - - 15 00
"LIBERTY, THE UNIOW, AND THE CONSTITUTION.»
WASHINGTON CITY, D. C.
Till- ll"EI!K& I'.
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1850.
Tie rame of no peraon will be entered «pon our books nnlM til*
payment of the aubacriiition be made ia advance.
Distant subscribe™ niay forward us money by letter, the pot-tag*
on vi-hU'h will be paid by us, and all risk aaeunied by ouraetvaa ba sta
The COUNTRY PAPER la publisned triweekly drsrsng the tern-
slant- af Congress, and semi-weekly during tiie reeeae.
Bubscrlptioiis for a period leas than a year will be receivtfl oa
tarnii proportioned to the abova annual ratea.
POSTMASTERS are authurizeil to uot ax our ageata ; and, try aend»
ing ua mvi DAILY euWritiern, with $50 enclosed ; or riva aUsMl-
WEEKLY bubscribers, with $*>5 ■nnllftOi ; or fivb WKKKJ.Y attb-
scriber.", witli $10 enclosed, will be. entilled to one copy ef she i
edition as they furnish us subscribers for, gratis.
IN CONGRESS (W THE li. STATEA
Tl«l««y-KlTit Ciwi.irn lnl/at Scx*hi