On the 18th of May, 1836, when the resolution for the ratification of the treaty came up before the senate for consideration, Mr. Clay moved an amendment, declaring, that the writing purporting to be a treaty had not been made by authority on the part of the Cherokee tribe competent to bind it, and was therefore not a valid treaty; and advising the president to open a new negotiation. The motion of Mr. Clay, however, was unsuccessful; and the treaty was confirmed, 31 to 15.

The Cherokees had for some time been divided into two parties, headed, respectively, by Ross and Ridge. The party adhering to the latter, had consented to the treaty, believing they could never prosper under the laws of Georgia ; the former protested against the sale of their lands and their removal to the west.

The 1st session of the 22d congress commenced the 5th of December, *1831, and was protracted to the 16th of July, 1832. This session was distinguished for the number of important subjects which engaged the deliberations of congress, and for the free use of the executive veto.

The subject of the public lands, so prolific of discussion in former years, was again agitated at the present session. Various propositions in relation to the disposal of them were made, none of which received a final and favorable action in both houses. In the senate, the subject was referred to the committee on manufactures, with instructions to inquire into the expediency of reducing the price of public lands, and of ceding them to the states in which they were situated, on reasonable terms. The reference of the question of the public lands to the committee on manufactures, was thought by some to be intended to em. barrass Mr. Clay, as being both chairman of that committee, and a candidate for the presidency. Perhaps, however, this reference was made from a supposed bearing of the question upon the tariff; the modification of which might in some measure be affected by the amount of revenue thereafter to be derived from the sales of public lands.

Mr. Clay, on the 16th of April, made a report sustaining the former

policy of the government, and against the proposed reduction of the price of the lands, and their cession to the states. He thought, although the revenue was not needed by the government at present, it would be wise to provide against seasons of adversity. As the revenue from duties on imports was sufficient for ordinary purposes, he proposed a distribution of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the states, for a limited time, subject to be resumed by the government in the contingency of war. To the five per cent. reserved from these proceeds, ten per cent. was to be added, for making internal improvements in the new states; which was intended to allay the complaints of the people of these states, that the public lands were exempt from taxation until the expiration of five years from the time of sale. The residue of the fund derived from land sales was to be divided among all the states in proportion to their federal population, to be applied to purposes of education, internal improvements, or colonization, as each state should judge most conducive to its interests. The time limited for the distribution of the land

proceeds was by the bill fixed at five years.

The report of Mr. Clay was followed, on the 18th of May, by a counter report from the committee on public lands, to whom the bill reported by the committee on manufactures had been referred. This report was made by Mr. King, of Alabama, and differed fundamentally from that of Mr. Clay. A reduction of the price was recommended, because, the public debt being nearly paid, the lands were released from the pledge they were under for that object; because a large proportion of them were refuse lands, having been long in market; because the extinction of the government title to them was essential to the independence and prosperity of the states in which they were situated, and for other reasons.

As the committee considered the public lands a subject of revenue, and as the question of reducing the revenue from this source had been referred to the committee on manufactures, who had reported "a bill farther to amend the acts imposing duties on imports;" they recommended that an amendment be offered to that bill, to reduce the price of fresh lands to one dollar per acre, and the price of lands having been in market five years, to fifty cents per acre; and secondly, that the bill relating to the public lands reported by the committee on manufactures, and referred to this committee, be amended by striking out the whole, except so much as proposes to allow ten per cent. to the new states, and to increase the same to fifteen per ct. making the whole allowance twenty per cent. The amendment proposed by the committee on public lands, after considerable debate, was negatived by a large majority; and the bill reported by Mr. Clay was passed, 26 to 18.

The bill was sent to the house for concurrence, July 3, when its con

sideration was postponed to the first Monday of December next; which was in effect a rejection of the bill.

Internal improvement, another subject of almost incessant agitation, was again discussed at this session. A bill originated in the house, "making appropriations for certain internal improvements for the year 1832," which passed both houses, against a strenuous opposition from the administration members from the southern and eastern states and the state of New York; and which received the approval of the president, notwithstanding his previously expressed objections to a system of internal improvement. The bill contained about fifty objects of appropriation, some of which were considered of less importance than those which had been negatived by the president at a previous session. The sums appropriated by this bill, exceeded, in the aggregate, $1,200,000.

Another bill, making appropriations for the improvement of harbors and rivers, also originated in the house, passed that body by a vote of 95 to 68. A motion by Mr. Polk to strike out the enacting clause had been previously negatived, 101 to 72. In the senate the bill was ordered to be engrossed by a vote of 25 to 16; and was passed the next day, July 5, by nearly the same vote.

The contradictory action of the president upon former bills for internal improvement and that which he had just approved, rendered the fate of the "harbor bill," as it was termed, somewhat doubtful. Its passage by the senate having been indicated by the vote upon certain amendments, Mr. Miller, of South Carolina, said, he had been informed, that the president had approved a bill for the benefit of internal improvements, containing appropriations for the most limited and local purposes. He hoped he should not again be referred to the vetoes of the Maysville and Rockville roads, as security against this system. Both houses and the president concurred in this power. Mr. Clay "expressed his astonishment that they who held the Maysville and Rockville roads and other objects to be unconstitutional, had, it was announced to-day, supported the harbor bill, which contained objects standing precisely on the same footing. It appeared that, under the present administration, the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a measure depended only upon circumstances of an accidental character."

This bill, though similar in principle to the other, did not receive the signature of the president. It was received by him the 13th of July, three days before the adjournment of congress; and instead of returning it with his objections, he retained it until congress had adjourned, and thus prevented further action upon it.

A bill was also passed at this session, making appropriations for the

final settlement of the claims of the several states for interest on moneys advanced to the United States during the last war. This bill also, passed the day after the passage of the other, was virtually negatived by its retention until after the adjournment. The passage of three bills, therefore, was arrested by the president at this session.

At the session of 1831–32, a new tariff act was passed. A report was made to the house, on the 8th of February, 1832, by Mr. M'Duffie, chairman of the committee of ways and means, in conformity with the views of the opponents of protection. It adopted a general system of ad valorem duties, and proposed a reduction of duties to a standard deemed necessary

for the purpose of revenue, after the payment of the public debt. It proposed a gradual reduction, which should leave a uniform duty of only 12 1-2 per cent. on all goods imported into the United States after the 30th of June, 1834. A counter report was made by Messrs. Ingersoll, of Conn., and Gilmore, of Penn. Mr. Verplanek, of New York, of the same committee, dissented from both.

Another report was made to the house, on the 27th of April, by Mr. M'Lane, secretary of the treasury, in compliance with a resolution of the house. The bill accompanying this report proposed to reduce the duty on coarse wool to the mere nominal duty of 5 per cent., and on woolen goods to 20 per cent.; to abolish entirely the minimum system as to woolens, except the cheaper qualities; and to reduce the duties generally to an aggregate sum equal to the necessary expenditures of the government. Neither of these two bills seems to have received any action in the house, except a very long speech of Mr. M'Duffie in support of the bill reported by himself.

At a late period of the session, (May 24,) John Quincy Adams, from the committee on manufactures, made a long report, with a bill repealing the act of 1828, and essentially reducing the duties on some important articles, as iron, coarse woolens, &c. As a whole, however, it seems to have been more satisfactory to the friends of protection, than the act of 1828. In South Carolina, it was considered by the “union” party as a concession, while the “state rights” party regarded it as no less objectionable than former acts.

The bill of Mr. M'Lane was intended as a compromise; and was satisfactory to neither of the two great interests chiefly to be affected by a reduction of the revenue. It proposed to reduce the revenue from duties on imports to twelve millions; a reduction of about ten millions. Mr. Adams' report was exclusively his own, no other member of the commit. tee agreeing with him in every particular. The bill of the secretary proposed a reduction equal to the amount now pledged for the payment of the national debt, which was nearly paid. Mr. Adams and a majority of the committee thought a reduction to the full amount of the annual appropriation which was to cease—ten millions—too great. Others of the committee considered the reduction insufficient. Such modifications had therefore been made in the bill of the secretary as to command for it the support of a majority of the committee, although it was not, in all its details, satisfactory to any one of its members.

The discussion of the bill was a brief one; and, with a few amend. ments, not materially altering its character, was passed by a vote of 132 to 65. In the senate, it received several amendments, some of which were agreed to by the house. A conference was had; and the committee on the part of the senate, having recommended that they recede from the amendments disagreed to by the house, the same was done. The bill, as amended in the senate, passed that body by a vote of 32 to 16. The votes on receding from the different amendments disagreed to by the house, were various. The votes against it in both houses, were chiefly from members who objected to it on the ground that it did not surrender the principle of protection.

A new apportionment of members of the house of representatives under the fifth census was made at this session. A bill was reported in the house of representatives by Mr. Polk, proposing one representative for every 48,000 inhabitants entitled to representation, and declaring the number of representatives in each state under this rule. The ratio finally adopted, was 47,700; and to avoid the constitutional objection made by president Washington to the apportionment bill under the first census, no member was given to any state on a residuary fraction of population. The bill passed the house by a vote of 130 to 58, sent to the senate.

In the senate, the bill was referred to a select committee of seven members, Mr. Webster chairman, who proposed to amend the bill by striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting a substitute, making the ratio 47,000, and giving to each state a representative for that number of inhabitants. This would give to each state the same number of representatives (240) as the original bill. And to states hav. ing fractions of 25,000, an additional representative was to be given, increasing the number to 255. Mr. W. undertook to show that his amendment was not liable to the objection of Gen. Washington, which was, that no one number, or division, would yield the number of members expressed in the bill, and that it allotted to eight of the states more than one representative for every 30,000, contrary to an express provision of the constitution.

Mr. Clayton also contended, that the bill of 1792, had been rejected solely because it gave more than one representative for each 30,000 to

and was