H. of R. Occupying Claimant Laws, &c. MAY, 1824. to abandon their habitations, and to seek a shelter in the distant woods. That was the very time, sir, when five hundred of those persons, who have been made the subject of ridicule, and who are stigmatized with the epithet of the moccasin gentry, and hunting-shirt gentlemen, would have won for themselves imperishable fame; would have saved millions of money to your country; yes, and would have saved, also, your national honor. He has given to this House a most ludicrous de-ace soldiers' quarters, and compelled your citizens scription of their dress, their appearance, their manners, and their habits. He has taken peculiar pleasure in attempting to exhibit them before this nation as uncivilized savages, rather than as American citizens. I must, said Mr. L., take the liberty of declaring to that gentleman that he is most grossly and inexcusably ignorant of the character, the feelings, the intelligence, and the habits, of the Western people. Sir, with the utmost frankness, I admit, their external appearance is not the most fashionable and elegant But, sir, said Mr. L., it is not to the exterior of kind; they are not decorated in all the style, the men we should look. Fortune affords advantages gaiety, and the taste, of a dandy of the first water. which may enable one to appear well, when, in Their means are too limited, and their discretion truth, there is nothing worthy of admiration. It is too great, I trust, for the indulgence of such is the conduct, the deportment, the principles of foppery and extravagance. The fact is, a dandy men, we should examine. Will the people of is not a character in great demand, with either the West, will Kentuckians, fear an examination sex, in our country; and when, by chance, one of this sort? Can they not undergo the most happens to go there, even with his slender share strict scrutiny as citizens, as patriots, always preof intellect, he soon discovers that is not the pro-pared to present themselves at their country's call; per theatre for him to acquire glory and renown, and accordingly he makes his exit suddenly. I concede, also, that the Kentuckians, in the general, would not make a brilliant figure at a levee or drawing-room. Their bows would not be quite so obsequious, their smiles not quite so fascinating, their manners not quite so refined, as the orders in council or etiquette of the day might demand. They have not acquired that gracefulness of action, that ease of deportment, that elegance of accomplishment, so as to make you three bows in two seconds; nor have their representa tives acquired never-fading laurels for their proficiency in that great science. The people of our country do not attach the least importance to beings entirely lost in admiration of themselves, and devotion to personal appearance. Such trifling follies they leave to the weak; to those who can do nothing else, and who have the means of indulging in a taste so illy directed, and so little envied. Let those, sir, who have a pride of that kind, enjoy, to the fullest extent, all its charms, and all its consequence. Again, we are told these bear-hunters, these fellows with their leather leggings, rifle guns, and moccasins, get every thing they ask for; but not being contented, wish to control the whole political concerns, and to direct the destinies of this nation. Why, sir, are such unfounded and illiberal assertions made, in relation to the people of the West? What fact have you to authorize such imputations? Who, from that quarter of the country, ever attempted to manage every thing, to direct every thing, and require every thing? Ah, sir, there was a time-I hate to think of it; it is with most painful and unfeigned reluctance, I can bring myself to allude to it-there was a time, however, when it would have been better for this nation if these backwoodsmen could have had a little more direction in the management of your military operations in this quarter. Perhaps you have some faint recollection of the time when a few of His Majesty's troops travelled a distance of fifty miles, over broken ground, and through thick woods, burnt your Capitol, made your pal ready, upon all occasions, to afford the most prompt and timely assistance, when that assistance is required? Who can boast of a preference over them? Of the past, however, I will not speak. I will not make disagreeable and invidious comparisons. Let the firmness, the valor, the suffering, of the people of the West, during our recent conflict, be forgotten. Say nothing of the laurels which they won in battle; say nothing of the many patient feats of starvation they endured, without a murmur. Withhold, if you choose, the gratitude of the nation; but I beg of you to do justice to their private virtues, to allow them, at least, a character for integrity of motive, for benevolence of heart, for hospitality of conduct. Suffer me, sir, to tell you, these Kentuckians, who have been treated in the debates with so much unkindness, are about the very finest fellows in this Government. I make no exceptions. Try them in any way you may select, and you will readily acquiesce in the truth of my assertion. Their hospitality is without ostentation, without parade, without hypocrisy; it is not contaminated, and I trust never will be, by the fashionable vices which might be enumerated, as the tip of the ton in some other places. If a Kentuckian meets you, gives you a hearty shake of the hand, and says, "Sir, I am very happy to see you," he tells you the truth; he utters not the commonplace, unmeaning compliments; he speaks the language of his heart. If he make declarations of friendship, you may believe him. If you visit him, there is no waiter to meet you at the door, and avow his master is not at home, when he is actually in the house; and should you spend a few hours unceremoniously with him and his family, in social conversation, so soon as you retire, he will not say, after pressing you to make it convenient to call and see him again, "Oh! what a tiresome visitor; I was never more out of patience in all my life; such another visit would really kill me; I hope he will never come again." And, after you are gone, your reputation is not assailed. No; these wise and happy inventions are unknown to the people of the West. I wish I could use the same remark in MAY, 1824. Occupying Claimant Laws, &c. H. OF R. relation to the people every where else. Why, I have swallowed up all the loaves and fishes, such sir, you may visit the humblest cottage in our are their repeated claims there is no such thing as country, and you will find every thing to admire. tolerating them-"like sturdy beggars, they will So soon as the faithful dog, by his saluting bark, take no denial;"-that rebellion must be the ultiannounces that a stranger is coming, your aston- mate consequence. For myself, I protest against ishment would commence; you would have the this mode of legislation; this display of sectional singular felicity of beholding a most delightful feeling; of crying out to one part of the Union' spectacle about twelve or thirteen fine, ruddy, "You get every thing-we get nothing; the Govwell-formed, hearty-looking young Democrats, ernment is kind to you, careful of your interests, would run out to see the stranger; and upon en- whilst ours is neglected, overlooked, and forgottering the house, you would be met by a very ten." Sir, these suggestions and assertions, so far plain, unaffected woman, to all appearance about as the West is concerned, are not true. What thirty years old, whose countenance would at have we ever received from the fostering hand of once tell you to make yourself easy; you would the Government? Point out the single instance. meet with kindness, and, in casting your eyes Yes, the public lands, it is said, were sold for our around, you would see two more little fellows, accommodation. But who got the money? It who were too small to run out at the first alarm. all came into your coffers; we never have enjoyed Presently, would come from the labors of the day, the benefit of a single copper. But, we are told, an honest, good-looking man, to rest himself the Government has been good enough to suffer awhile in the bosom of his family, dressed, sir, not us to enjoy the privileges of a mail. A mighty in fine ruffles and broadcloth, with powdered hair, privilege, indeed! one for which we ought, in but in good, substantial, plain clothes, manufac- humble submission, with bended knees, to actured by the industry of his wife; and, upon en- knowledge the most unbounded gratitude, for tering into conversation with him, an ample your very great condescension. What news do theme for reflection would be afforded; you would you send to the West by these mails? Very good, wonder how one in his humble station could have I hope. No, sir; doleful, melancholy tidings are known so much, upon so many subjects, with such conveyed to them weekly. You bid them be inlimited opportunities. You might here see a mo- dustrious, labor hard-you have more demands del worthy of admiration, indeed, of imitation against them-your account is already very great; conjugal felicity, parental and filial affection, un- but you are going on every day to make it still divided and unfettered. And here, too, the philo- more enormous: eight hundred thousand dollars sopher, as well as the statesman, might learn some to be appropriated to the erection of fortificationsuseful and practical lessons. In some short time, where? not in the West, but in the East-$250,000 you would find a repast set before you, if not of to be added for this purpose-$200,000 for that purall the niceties, and luxuries, and parade, which pose; and $100,000 to be paid out of the public are to be met with elsewhere, of good plain whole- Treasury, to one gentleman, for his patriotism. This some diet, among which would be one of the most is the kind of news you send them by your mails. pleasant dishes that can possibly be prepared in But, sir, do you ever tell them of any public moneys any country, and that is, a hearty, sincere wel- to be expended in the West? No, sir; no such letcome, without apologies and without price. Sir, ter in your statute book; no one there gets $100,these are the very citizens of whom the nation 000 more than he ought to have, for services renought to be proud, They constitute the bone, and dered in the late war. But you say, all this is so sinew, and strength, of your Government. In the very oppressive, it is not to be borne-rebellion hour of peril and danger, they are always ready to rather than oppression. Why, sir, we should like rally around the standard of their country. Call very much that sort of oppression, of enjoying all upon them to maintain the honor of the nation, the public expenditures. It would be quite comto defend her rights, they set up no Constitutional fortable. If you must have rebellion, suffer me to scruples, in answer to your call, about crossing boun- tell you, you had better travel any other road than dary lines! over the mountains. In the language of the gentleman from Virginia, it would be a stumpy road. Such are the people of the West, the people of Kentucky; and such are those whom our State, by the exercise of her legitimate rights of legislation, has attempted to shield, and protect, from the iron grasp of the land speculator. Are they not entitled, from every consideration, to the kind attention of the Government? These, sir, are the people for whom our occupant law was enacted. Do they not deserve the protection of their Government? What man is there, who could stand by, without exclaiming, "This is not right, to unhouse such families as these, take from 'them their little improvement, and proclaimgo hence; what you have labored for, I will en'joy." Again, sir, we are told, such are the extraordinary demands of the people of the West, who But, Mr. Chairman, this is a most fruitless and unpleasant topic; and really there is no apology for its introduction into the debates of this House, under any circumstances whatever. And why it should make a figure so often, in reference to the West, I am at a loss to perceive. No national or individual advantage is likely to flow from its discussion. If any gentleman, sir, is so mad as to suppose, by the use of such idle threats, his dignity or his importance is enhanced in the estimation of the country, the sooner he is restored to his right reason, the better. He adds nothing to his reputation as a statesman, or to the goodness of his heart as a citizen. I hope never to hear another allusion, in this House, to that sub. H. OF R. Occupying Claimant Laws, &c. ject; for, let it be understood, by these presents, that we, the people of the West, will never suffer any rebellion to take place. There is not the most distant prospect of it; the declaration of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. R.) to the contrary notwithstanding. I do not see that gentleman, at this moment, in his seat. I regret his absence. I had a particular desire, sir, to tender him my best respects, for the many kind civilities he has, voluntarily, paid to the people I have the honor, in part, to represent. His polite attention shall not go unrewarded. I hope to have the pleasure, upon some suitable occasion, in my awkward way, to acknowledge the great debt of gratitude which is so justly due to that gentleman. Mr. FORSYTH offered the following amendment, as a substitute to the first of the above resolutions: Resolved, That a quorum of the Supreme Court, to transact the business of that tribunal, should consist of such a number of the Justices composing it, that a majority of the quorum shall be a majority of the whole court, including the Chief Justice. Mr. FORSYTH Supported his motion in a short speech; and Messrs. WICKLIFFE, CLAY, FORSYTH, WEBSTER, MERCER, P. P. BARBOUR, RANDOLPH, and TRIMBLE, respectively, spoke at considerable length on the question. Mr. WICKLIFFE addressed the Committee, in substance, as follows: Mr. Chairman: The subject is an important one; and, on that account alone, I hope to engage the attention of the Committee in its discussion. Some of the friends of the measure on your table, were inclined not now to press it, under the belief that the time was unfavorable to the full and free discussion which its magnitude demanded. The duty of those, charged by the remonstrance, with its presentation here, required, at their hands, an effort, in furtherance of the views of the Legislature of Kentucky; and I am gratified to discover a wish in the Committee that the debate should now progress. The character of this question, which proposes an important modification in the Judiciary act; the deep interest which one of the States feels upon the occasion; require of Congress an indulgent, and, I hope, a favorable consideration of the resolutions submitted by my colleague, (Mr. LETCHER.) Were it a subject in which the State of Kentucky was alone interested, her representatives on this floor would regard the determination of the Committee now to progress with its discussion, more an act of kindness to them, than a matter of right. But it is one involving a principle of vital importance to the whole Union; and, although presented to us by a single State, (inferior to none in the practice and support of Republican principles,) it demands of Congress a dispassionate deliberation. I will not unnecessarily consume your time, and I hope not to exhaust your patience, whilst I endeavor, in a few words, to call your attention to the true character of the question, presented by the remonstrance and resolutions now before us. It may not be improper, in order to arrive at MAY, 1824. that object, to state some of the causes which have brought them into existence, and forced them upon our attention. You are informed, by the memorial of the Legislature of Kentucky, accompanied by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, (of which it complains,) that the power of that State to pass certain laws, denominated the Occupying Claimant Laws, is denied by that court; that they violate the compact between the States of Virginia and Kentucky; and, therefore, impugn the 10th section of the 1st article of the Constitution of the United States, which declares, among other things, "That no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." A question naturally presents itself to the mind of every person unacquainted with the history of Kentucky and her internal police: "Are these laws of such mighty importance as to call forth, in strong language, the feelings of the Legislature? Are the principles settled by the case of Green and Biddle, and the evils which flow from that decision, such, that the Legislature of Kentucky cannot, by some modification of the laws in question, avert or palliate them?" I answer, Yes; such is their character. They are laws rendered necessary to the prosperity and happiness of the State, by the fatal policy pursued by Virginia, in the disposition of her vacant lands, in the then district of Kentucky. And if the court be correct, to the extent of the principles assumed in that opinion, no legislative aid, no change or modification of these laws, can avert or palliate the miseries which must inevitably ensue. The people, in the exercise of their high and sovereign powers in convention, cannot rid themselves of the effects of the principle settled by the Supreme Court; which principle is fixed like an incubus upon the rights of the State. We can do nothing but present our grievance before you; point to the injury which has been inflicted; and beseech you to adopt the measure on your table, and thereby strengthen the ramparts of State sovereignty. It is by the preservation of legitimate State rights, that you give the best security to the stability and happiness of this Union. I said, sir, these laws were rendered necessary to the prosperity and happiness of the citizens of Kentucky, by the misguided policy of Virginia; a policy ruinous but liberal, benevolent and patriotic in its objects. With the exception of the delegation of Virginia and Kentucky, but few, if indeed any, of the members of this House are acquainted with the mode by which lands were acquired, and are now held, in the latter State. Prior to the Revolution, large portions of those lands were granted by the Crown to the officers of the army engaged in the French and Indian wars, which preceded the Declaration of Independence. Toward the close of the Revolution, many persons, as if in quest of danger, penetrated the wilderness; and after many dire struggles with the savages for empire, maintained with loss of much blood their infant settlements. Virginia, (in a spirit of justice to her creditors, and in fulfilment of that pledge of public faith of which she has always been proudly tenacious,) after securing to the early ad MAY, 1824. Occupying Claimant Laws, &c. venturers and settlers in Kentucky, what are called "settlement and pre-emption rights, poor-rights, and corn-rights;" (terms well understood by the citizens of Kentucky,) opened her land office, 1779-80; and by it she poured out the contents of a Pandora's box upon the ill-fated inhabitants of the State. By the provisions of the land law of 1779, warrants for land were issued to any and every person, upon the payment of the State price in the paper currency of Virginia. The proprietors of these warrants were required to locate the same by an entry in the surveyor's books, with such certainty and precision, that each subseqnent locator, in like manner, could appropriate the adjacent residuum. I am certainly correct when I tell you, that warrants for three times the quantity of vacant land, then owned by Virginia, in the district of Kentucky, were issued. In many districts of country in Kentucky, I have known to exist there, four, five, and six, distinct adversary claims to the same tract of land. Hence the phrase, in frequent use, "that Kentucky is shingled with land claims." Many of these claims were settled by the original proprietors and first adventurers to that country; men who had to contend with dangers, and endure sufferings, not easily to be imagined by the present population; and more easily conceived than described by those who witnessed and participated in them. In this state of things, removed at a great distance from the seat of government in Virginia, laboring under difficulties and embarrassments, which were not felt and duly appreciated by the great body of the people of Virginia, the citizens of the then district of Kentucky petitioned the Legislature of Virginia to permit them to become a free and sovereign State. The politicians who filled the public councils of the State, at that period, upon becoming more intimately acquainted with the wants, interests, and difficulties of the people of Kentucky, were satisfied that their future happiness and prosperity depended upon the favorable issue of their application. In 1789, a law passed the Legislature prescribing the conditions upon which this new government was to be established. This is what is termed, in the decision of the Supreme Court, "The compact with Virginia." By the seventh section of that compact, it is provided that all private rights and interests of lands within the proposed district, derived from the laws of Virginia, prior to such separation, shall remain valid and secure under the laws of the proposed State, and shall be determined by the laws now in existence in this State. H. OF R. This compact is made a part of the constitution of Kentucky. The Supreme Court, in their opinion, do not decide upon it as a part of the constitution of the State, but as a contract between the State of Virginia and the State of Kentucky. Whether this act of the Virginia Legislature can be denominated a contract, within the meaning and purview of the tenth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits "a State from passing laws impairing the obligation of contracts," is a question I leave for others to decide. It is not necessary for my purpose that I should here discuss it. Virginia, at the date of the compact, had no statutory provision similar to the occupying claimant laws of Kentucky. She had not then felt the necessity of them-circumstances since that time have made it necessary for her to protect the occupants of her land, under a practice adopted by her courts, not very unlike the laws of Kentucky. I believe many States in the Union have been compelled to resort to such laws. As early as 1796, Kentucky commenced her legislation upon this subject. Her best and wisest statesmen projected and approved the law which was then enacted. This law provides, in substance, that if any person shall peaceably, and in good faith, seat and improve land, to which he shall have a title derived from the Commonwealth, upon eviction therefrom, by a paramount title, he shall be paid for all valuable and lasting improvements which he shall have made upon the land before notice of the adversary claim, and subjects the occupant to the payment of rents and profits, after suit brought; and also compels him to account for all waste, &c., coinmitted upon the land; and to pay for the deterioration of soil. Is there any thing unjust or iniquitous in this law? I answer, no. It received the sanction of the courts of Kentucky, and was acquiesced in by all classes of her citizens. There was no murmuring, no denial of the power in this State, to legislate upon the subject, from 1796 to 1811 and 1812, at which period the act of 1796 was repealed, and that of 1812 passed. Then it was, for the first time, I believe, made a question of Constitutional power in the State. The law, however, passed, not without a violent opposition, by a respectable and intelligent minority, who, I believe, were governed more in the opposition, by the question of policy and expediency, than Constitutional power. It is due to candor to state this law did not receive the sanction of the Governor of the State. It was suspended for twelve months. Its principles were the subject of free and full discussion before the people; and at the succeeding Legislature it was passed by a Constitutional majority of both branches, the Governor's objection notwithstanding. The latter clause of the eighth section reads as follows: "Nor shall a neglect of cultivation or 'improvement of any land within the proposed 'State, or this Commonwealth, belonging to non- This latter act exempts the occupant from the ' resident citizens of the other, subject such non-payment of rents and profits, until after judgment residents to forfeiture, or other penalty, within of eviction or decree shall be pronounced against 'the term of six years after the admission of the him. It compels the successful claimant to pay 'said State into the Federal Union." These are, the cost of seating and improving the land; and substantially, the only parts of the compact which moreover provides, that, if the valuation of the have any connexion with the present subject. improvements shall exceed three-fourths the value 18th CoN. 1st Seg.-80 H. of R. Occupying Claimant Laws, &c. of the land in its unimproved state, then the successful claimant may compel the occupant to keep the land, and to pay for the same the amount of valuation fixed by commissioners to be appointed by the court. These commissioners are directed to make the estimates, as well of the rents, profits, and value of the land, as the costs of seating and improving the same, together with the waste and damage committed, and reduction of soil. The report of these commissioners upon oath, (seven in number,) was to receive the sanction of the court, and to be made the basis of their judgment. Until the court had thus disposed of the question of improvements, &c., no writ of possession could issue upon the original judgment. Such are the outlines of the two acts of the Legislature of Kentucky, passed under a most thorough conviction that she possessed the power, and deeply impressed with the belief, that they were demanded by the condition of the country. And, whatever may have been said about the infraction of Constitutional law, the purity of the motives of the Legislature who passed, and the judges who approved their adoption, has never been, cannot be, questioned. It requires the efforts of refined legal subtilty to demonstrate clearly the unconstitutionality of those laws. The eighth section of the compact permits the Legislature of Kentucky, after six years, to subject the lands of non-resident proprietors to forfeiture for non-cultivation. From this clause, it seems a milder power might be inferred-one of less magnitude-a power which, by its exercise, saves to the non-resident his land from forfeiture for non-cultivation, by requiring him to pay the meritorious occupant for doing that which the State had a right to compel him to do, viz: the improvement of his land within her territory. The delay incident to the investigation and trial of a land cause, (to say nothing of the designed procrastination of it by the artful claimants, with a view to swell the item of rents on the final account,) furnished a very just reason for a change or repeal of the act of 1796. Suits have lingered upon the dockets for twenty years, and, in some instances, longer. Under the act of 1796, the occupant was charged with the rents after the commencement of the suit; and it not unfrequently happened that, after losing his home, and his labor of twenty years, he was ruined by a demand for rents of land which he believed to be his own. It was thought the act of 1796 was defective in other respects. The number of suits was continually increasing, and the occupants not only feared the loss of their lands and improvements, but ruin by a claim for back rents. The gradual improvement of the country was consequently retarded. I have been thus particular, Mr. Chairman, (and, I fear, tedious,) in order that the Committee and the public shall understand the nature and character of those laws. I am anxious that the councils of my State shall be acquitted of all impurity of motive. If I have given you a correct history and character of these laws, (and I believe l ́have,) you MAY, 1824. will acknowledge that Kentucky ought to feel on this subject; and she has, through her Legislature, expressed that feeling to the nation. Not long after the passage of the act of 1812, its validity was questioned in the appellate court of the State. The judges of that court, men of intelligence, and who, as jurists, would not be shaded in a comparison with the justices of the Supreme or any court, decided, not by a minority, but by the undivided opinion of the whole court, that the Legislature had the power to pass the law of 1812. This decision, supported by reasons irresistible, the Supreme Court, (although the book which contained it, was in the Library of Congress, to which they had unlimited access,) say they "have not had an opportunity of examining it." It was not my purpose, nor is it required of me, by the nature of the proposition on your table, to maintain the validity of those laws; nor will I indulge an uncharitable opinion of those whose interest or duty it was to contest them. I am only anxious to evince to the Committee their importance, and to satisfy them they were not the enactments of hasty and inconsiderate legislation, but the productions of soberness and reason, dictated by a sound policy, imperiously demanded by necessity, and approved by the judgments, not only of the people, but the Legislature and the courts of the State. When laws of so much importance to the prosperity and happiness of a State, sanctioned by successive Legislatures and courts, consisting of judges of great talents, shall have been prostrated by the opinion of three justices, however learned and dignified, it becomes the duty of the States to inquire into the expediency of so organizing that court that more security shall be given to their respective rights. The opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Green and Biddle may be correct; it is, nevertheless, unsatisfactory and afflicting to my constituents; nay, sir, to the whole State-unsatisfactory, because it is the opinion of a minority of the members of the court, without the aid of its head, opposed to the opinion of the Legislature, and the inferior and superior courts of the State; afflicting, because the character of the State has been traduced-not by the court, but by those who, like the justices, were unacquainted with the real condition and character of the people for whose safety and protection these laws were enacted. I will not contend, as some have done, that the case of Green and Biddle was not legitimately before the court, nor that it was an act of usurpation in the court to have assumed jurisdiction of the cause. The question involving the validity of these laws was fairly presented to the court for its decision. I admit the right and the power of the Judiciary to decide upon Constitutional questions; and, when fairly presented, it be comes their duty to decide them upon their Constitutional responsibility. I am desirous, therefore, that, whenever the occasion arises for the exercise of this high and important power by the Judiciary, it shall be exercised in the mode best calculated to administer justice, and inspire confidence in the public mind. What better mode can you |