States at this session would secure to Mr. Van Buren, at the approaching election, six additional electoral votes. And it is quite probable, that the people of Arkansas purposely availed themselves of this circumstance to incorporate into their Constitution this obnoxious provision, presuming there would be in their three electoral votes an argument sufficiently potent to overcome an objection which had been successfully urged against a similar provision in the Constitution of Missouri in 1821.

A favorite measure of Mr. Clay was the distribution of the proceeds of the sales of the Public Lands among the States ; but his efforts to procure the passage of a law for this purpose had not succeeded. The public debt having been paid, and the receipts from land sales having been for a few years unusually large, the surplus revenue had accumulated in the Treasury to the amount of many millions of dollars. At the session of 1835-1836, Mr. Clay again introduced a distribution bill which passed the Senate, 25 to 20; but in the House it was laid on the table, 114 to 85.

A new and successful plan, however, was devised. A bill had been introduced into the Senate further to regulate the deposits of the public money, which was so amended as to provide for the distribution of the surplus public revenue among the States. As constitutional objections to distribution were known to be entertained by some, the money, instead of being distributed among, was to be deposited with, the States, and to be returned at the call of Congress, if it should at any time be needed by the General Government. All the surplus money in the Treasury on the 1st of January, 1837, reserving five millions, was to be thus deposited with the States in proportion to their respective representations in the Senate and House of Representatives. The sum to be distributed was about thirty millions. A few States considering the words "deposited with" a mere evasion, refused for some years to receive their shares of the money. No part of it has yet been called for, nor is it likely to be. It has been loaned by the States, and the income is appropriated to educational and other State purposes.

The recognition of the independence of Texas was pro

posed at this session. Independence had been declared in March, 1836; and after the victory of the Texans at San Jacinto in May, petitions for recognition were received by Congress from different sections of the country. These petitions were in the Senate referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. There was no material opposition to the prayer of the petitioners; but Senators recommended caution. Texas should first have a government de facto. Mr. Calhoun advocated not only immediate recognition, but immediate admission into the Union, and assigned as "powerful reasons," the peace and security of the Slave States, and the benefits to the navigating and manufacturing interests of the North and East. Mr. Niles, of Conn., said we should regard our national faith with Mexico. A hasty acknowledgment might expose our Government to a suspicion of having encouraged our citizens in volunteering to aid the Texans. And this suspicion would be greatly strengthened by annexation.

The memorials were referred; and on the 18th of June the Committee reported in favor of acknowledging the independence of Texas "whenever satisfactory information should be received that it had in successful operation a civil government capable of performing the duties and fulfilling the obligations of an independent power." The resolution was adopted unanimously: Yeas, 39.

At the next session, December, 1836, President Jack son, in a special message, advised Congress not to recognize the independence of Texas, until there should be no longer any danger of her being subjected, as had been our policy in the cases of Mexico and the South American States. The Texans had resolved, if recognized, to seek admission into the Union; and a too early movement might subject us to the imputation of seeking to establish the claims of our neighbors to a territory with a view to its acquisition by ourselves. The Senate, however, on the 1st of March, 1837, adopted a resolution declaring the acknowledgment expedient and proper, 23 to 19. In the House, a similar resolution was laid upon the table, 98 to 86. The object contemplated, however, was afterward attained, by an amendment of the appropriation bill, providing a "salary and outfit of a diplomatic agent to be sent

to the Government of Texas, whenever the President should receive satisfactory evidence that Texas was an independent power, and that it was expedient to appoint such a Minister." The amendment was adopted, 171 to 76.

President Jackson closed his official term with an unsettled difficulty with Mexico on his hands. Since the conclusion of a treaty of amity and commerce with that country in 1831, our flag had been insulted, and injuries had been committed upon the persons and property of our citizens; and our demands for satisfaction had not been complied with. On the 7th of February, 1837, he sent to Congress a special message, in which he stated that these injuries, “independent of recent insults to the Government and people by the late extraordinary Mexican Minister," (who had suddenly taken his departure,) "would justify, in the eyes of all nations, immediate war." But "considering the present. cmbarrassed condition of that country, we should act with wisdom and moderation, by giving to Mexico one more opportunity to atone for the past, before we take redress into our own hands." And he recommended an act authorizing reprisals, and asked the use of the naval force if she should refuse compliance with another demand.

The Message was referred in both Houses; but neither Committee reported in favor of the act asked for; but both reported in favor of another demand. Such an act, they said, would violate the treaty with Mexico, which provided, that "neither of the contracting parties will order or authorize any acts of reprisal, nor declare war against the other, on complaint of injuries or damages, until the party considering itself offended shall first have presented to the other a statement of such injuries or damages, verified by competent proofs, and demanded justice and satisfaction, and the same shall have been refused or unreasonably delayed."

A National Democratic Convention was held in Baltimore as early as May, 1835. Gen. Jackson was well known to be in favor of Mr. Van Buren as his successor; and as the Convention was composed exclusively of the friends of Gen, Jackson, the nomination was unanimous. Richard M. Johnson, of Ky., was nominated for Vice-President, having received 178 votes to 87 for Wm. C. Rives, of Va. No

other candidates were nominated by a National Convention. Gen. Harrison was nominated by Whig Conventions in some of the States, and by the Anti-Masonic State Convention at Harrisburg, Pa., Francis Granger, of N. Y., was nominated at most or all of these Conventions for VicePresident. Several other candidates were nominated by their particular friends. Of the electors chosen in November, 170 voted for Mr. Van Buren; 78 for Wm. H. Harrison ; 26 for Hugh L. White; 14 for Daniel Webster; and 11 for Willie P. Mangum. Óf the votes for Vice-President, R. M. Johnson received 144; Francis Granger, 77; John Tyler, 47; Wm. Smith, 23. The votes were said to have been purposely scattered, in the hope of so weakening Mr. Van Buren, as to bring the election into the House of Representatives.

CHAPTER IV.

Administration of Martin Van Buren.

non

MR. VAN BUREN was inaugurated on the 4th of March, 1837. Being first in the confidence of his predecessor, and having been one of his principal advisers, he was almost universally supposed to be committed to his policy. The extreme caution of Mr. Van Buren against the expres sion of his opinions on public measures, the epithet, committal," was pretty generally applied to him. It had been the policy of Mr. Calhoun, for years before the election, to compel his rivals to "show their hand" on the Slavery question, on which the South felt so very sensitive. Such, especially, had been the case on the subject of the recognition of the independence of Texas, and her annexation to the United States, and also on the questions of prohibiting the transmission of Anti-Slavery papers through the mail, and the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia. And Mr. Van Buren had, in answer to questions propounded to him before the election, declared, that, if elected, he "must go into the Presidential Chair the inflexible and uncompromising opponent of every attempt, on the part of Congress, to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia, against the wishes of the slaveholding States; and also with a determination equally decided to resist the slightest interference with it in the States where it exists." And he declared, in his Inaugural address, that "no bill conflicting with these views can ever receive my constitutional sanction." Mr. Van Buren was generally spoken of as "the Northern man with Southern principles." The declarations above quoted served to confirm his title to this designation. Besides their evidence of his servility to the Slave Power, they were objectionable in principle, as an improper interference, on the part of an Executive, with freedom of legislation. The diminished Democratic majorities.