{"character_count": 6088, "word_count": 1076, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9740999937057495], "ccnet_perplexity": [733.0], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
August 9th. IL was again considered by the &c., nate, as in Committee of the Whole. Two amend ments were offered, one by MT. Walker, of Mssis sippi, and one by MT. Clay, of .4labama, and both were passed. These two amendments increased the iberality of the distribution features towards the Western States. But Henry Clay eoted against them both.-[ See Senate Journal, pp. 146-7-s.

 Thus even in the distribution feature, he opposed any further berality to the Western States, at the very threshold; and, by turning to the Senate jour nal of the extra session, above referred to, it will be seen that this opposition, to any iberality to- ward the new States, manifested at every stage of the proceedings One instance, more, of which, we will particularize:

 On the 18th August, MT. Benton proposed to amend the 1st section of the Bill by giving to the new States Itcelve aud half per cent. upon the pro- ceeds of the lands sold within their respective lim its instead of Ten per cent provided by the Bill This proposition of liberality to the new States roted doacn-yeas II, nays 27; Henry Clay uo- ting against a.[ See Senate Journal, lS4l, p. 174.

 If it were our purpose to discuss this Bill, its merits, a Distribution measure, it would be easy to shew that MT. Clay and his friends made it

  posed every attempt to make it liberal. But such is not our present purpose. We return, therefore, to its pre-empton feature, and the course of MT. Clay and his friends, in that respect

 We have already shewn that, in its passage thro' the House, its authors did not give it the pre-emp- ton feature at first, and only did so at all, by com pulsion; and that so far from advocating it upon that ground they only mentioned it once, and then only to shew their contempt and disregard of it, And further that when it reached the Senate, its object declared to be distribution, and nothing was urged in favor of its pre-emption feature.

 We now propose to shew that when attempts were made by Western Senators, to increase the Hberality and benefcence of the pre-emption fea- ture M1. Cay, and his friends opposed and deteated all such attempts. To prove this, let the following facts be considered.

 The 10th section of the Bill, as passed by the House, provides for preemptions, but requires not only that the Indian title shall have been exngush- ed, but that the land ''ShaH hGce been sueged be- fore the settlement upon it will confer the right of This restriction it was well known, would operate very unfavorably upon the settlers for the public surveys never keep pace with the set tement of new country. In order to remove this restriction and allow pre-emptions to be acquired by settlement soon as the Indian title was extn- guished, and without waiting for the tardy surveys of Government, it was proposed by Mir MeRoB- ERTs to amend the Bill, by by striking out this re- stricton. In support of his proposition to strike it out, MT. McRoberts said.

 ,,To retain this provision in the Bill, would de- fnoft tba l ernment in granting pre-emptions. It would ex- clude the pioneers who first cultivate the wild erness, and therefore have the strongest claims.- have therefore moved 10 strike it out so that the aetual settler, whether he should build his house, and plough his field, and plant his corn, either before or after the land surveyed would stll be entitled to preempticn. But the injustice of the provision, as it now stands in the Bill, will be at once perceived when the fact is recoected by the Senate, that this Government has never been able to carry on its surveys so as to keep pace with the population This branch of the public service has always been in arrear of the public wants. The inability of the Government to hasten the surveys ought not to be taken advantage of, and from that cause refuse empons to actual settlers upon the land. A large portion of the great valley of the Mississippi has been settled and inn proved before the surveys made. Not only this feature in the bill, but other parts of section 10, shew that it was conceived and written in spirit hostile 10 the growh and prosperity ofMe WeSt'

 Yet this proposton just in itself, and so justly lrged, was uoted don by Henry Clay, and his friends The vote stood-yeas 21-nays 26; Guy and his par y voting against it. See Senate Journal I64I, D. l5O

 Again On the proposition to graduate and re- luce the price of land to actual settlers, after it lad been in market certain number of years m amendment which would greatly favor the poor ? class of SeHIers,-Mr Clay and his friends, were ound voting dgainst the graduation and reduction gainst the interest of the poorer setters-against western interests. The amendment alluded to-. was proposed, on the 1lth August, by Mr. You've, and provides as follows that the actual settler may purchase the public lands that have been fifteen ears in market, upon the following terms:

 l. That he may purchase eighty acres, or less uantity, at fifty cents an acre.

 2 That he may purchase any number of acres yer eighty, and not exceeding one Hundred and lrty, at Seuenty,fue cents acre.

 3. That he may purchase over one hundred and lxty, and not exceeding ttree hundred and twenty cres, at one dolIar an acre. with further provision hat purchases over that quantity shall be at the minimum price established by law

 Yet, reasonable and benefcent as this amendment 7as, and favorable, it would be- to the settlement

 the new States, without injury to the older States, r.. Clay, and his friends, poted t do,cn. The vote tood-yeas IS, nays 27 Mr. Clay voting against it. See Senate Journal IS4l, pp 155-6

 Section g. of the Bill, requires the new States to hch grants of land made, not to sell said land 'r less than one dolior and quarter an acre. This cling restriction which might prove inconvenient nd injurious, MT. SEVER, on the I7th of August, roposed to strike a out, and leave the States free to Fl at whatever price they might find most advan- geous. Reasonable and just, however, as this nendment was if was voted doWn-veas IF nave