the COnTnttee: and m thus state Ot the questions the member from South Carolina addressed the Senate in his first speech. He rose, he said to glve us his own free thoughts on the public lands. saw him rise, with pleasure, and listened with expectation, though before he conc ludcd was filled with surprise. Ger tanv. was never more surprised. than to (ind him following up, to the extent he did, the sentiments and opinions, which the gen ,leman from Missouri has put forth, and which it is known, he had long entertained.

 I need not repeat. at large, the general top ics, of the hon. aentleman's speech. When he said, yesterday, that he did not attack the Eastern States, he certainly must have for gotten, no! only particular remarks. hut the whole drift and tenor of his speech; unless he means, by not attacking. that he did not commence hOsti!itics-but that another had preceded him in the attack. He, in the first place. disapprovpd of the whole course of the Government, fu, forty years. in regard to its dispositions of the public land; and then, turning Norlhward and Eastward, and fancy ing he had found cause for alleged narrow ness and niggardlinrss in the ''accursed po- Hey" of the Tariff, to wl.ich he represented the people of New England as weddcd. he went on, fur a full hour, with remarks, the whole scope of which was tO exhibit the re- sults of this policy, in feelings and in meas ures unfavnrable to inc West. thought his opinions unCounded and erroneous, as to the general course of the Government, aud ven tured to reply to them.

 The gentleman remarked on the analogy of other cases, and quoted the conduct of Eurnpcan Governments towards thelr own subjects, settling on this continent, as in point. to show, that we had been harsh and rigid in selling. when we should have given the pub Eel l,nl l,t t,>s fhnn0hf fhn han me ber had suffered his judgment to be betrayed by false analogy that he was struck with an appearance of resemblance. where there was no real similitudr. ] think 90 still. The first settlers of North America were eDterrrl- sing spirits. engaged n private adventure, or fleeing from tyranny at home. When arriv- ed here, they were forgotten by the mother country, OF remembered only to be oppress- ed. Carried away again by the appearance of analogy, or struck with the eIoquence of the passage, the hon. member yesterday ob- served that the conduct of Government to- wards the Western emigrants, or my repre- srntation of it, brought to his mind ceebra- ted speech in the British Parliament. It was, sir, the speech of Col. Barre. On the question Of the stamp act, or tea tax, forget which, Col. Barre had heard member On the Treasury Bench argue, that the people of

 

 1 planted by the maternal care. nolrished by the indulgence, and protected by the arms of ! England, would not grudge their mite to re- Ieve their mother country from the heavy burden under which she groaned. The lan- g'"Sc of Col. Barre in reply to this, was- They planted by your care! Your oppres- sion planted them in America. They fed from your tyranny. and grew by your neglect of them. So soon as you began to care foF 1 them, you showed your care by sending per sons to spy out their liberties, misrepresent their character, prey upon them and eat out their substance.

 And now does the hon. gentleman mean 10 naintain that language like this is applIca- ble tO the conduct of the Government of the United States towards the Western emigrants, or to any representation given by me of that conduct? Were the settlers in the West driven thither by our oppression Have they ilourshed only by our neglect of them Has the Government done nothing but prey upon them, and eat out their substance? Sir, this 'rrvid eloquence of the British speaker, just when and where it was uttered, and fit to re- main an exercise for the schools, is not It. tie out of place, when it is brought thence to he applied here, to the conduct of our own country towards her own citizens. From America 10 England, it may be true; from Ah!cTiCaUS to tnelf own SiOSernment u would te strange language. Let us leave it to be recied and acclaimed by our boys, against a foreign nation; not introduce it here to re- cite and dcclaim ourselves against our own.

 But come to the point ofthe alleged con- tradiction. In my remarks on Wednesday, l contendcd that we could not give away gratuitously all the public lands; that we held them in trust; thatthe Government had soemnly pledged itselfto dispose of them as common fund for the common benefit, and to sell and settle them as its discretion should dictate. Now, sir what contradiction does the gentleman find in this sentiment in tho speech oi 1895? He quotes me as having then said, that we ought not to hug thes. lands as very great treasure. Very well sir, s"pp"sins me to be accurately reported. in that expression, N hat is the contradiction! have not DOW said, that we should hug these lands as favorite source of pecuniary income. No such thing. It is not my view. What have said, and what do say, is, that they are common fund-to be disposed of for the common beneft-tO be sold at low prices for the accommodation of settlers, keeping the object of settling the lands as much in view, as that Ofraisng money from them. This say now, and this I have al- ways said. Is this hugsog them as favor i'e treasure! Is there no difference between hugginT and hOarCinc this ri,n6 r,n tho ana