law was passed, but the most sanguine of the friends of the two measures entertained no doubt but that the loan would be eagerly sought after and taken up by capitalists and speedily reimbursed by a country destined, as they hoped, soon to enjoy an overflowing prosperity.  The very terms of the loan, making it redeemable in three years, demonstrate this beyond all cavil.  Who at the time foresaw or imagined the possibility of the present real state of things, when a nation that has paid off her whole debt since the last peace, while all the other great powers have been increasing theirs, and whose resources, already so great, are yet but in the infancy of their development, should be compelled to haggle in the money market for a paltry sum not equal to one year’s revenue upon her economical system?  If the distribution law is to be indefinitely suspended, according not only to its own terms, but by universal consent, in the case of war, wherein are the actual exigencies of the country or the moral obligation to provide for them less under present circumstances than they could be were we actually involved in war?  It appears to me to be the indispensable duty of all concerned in the administration of public affairs to see that a state of things so humiliating and so perilous should not last a moment longer than is absolutely unavoidable.  Much less excusable should we be in parting with any portion of our available means, at least until the demands of the Treasury are fully supplied.  But besides the urgency of such considerations, the fact is undeniable that the distribution act could not have become a law without the guaranty in the proviso of the act itself.

This connection, thus meant to be inseparable, is severed by the bill presented to me.  The bill violates the principle of the acts of 1833 and September, 1841, by suspending the first and rendering for a time the last inoperative.  Duties above 20 per cent are proposed to be levied, and yet the proviso in the distribution act is disregarded.  The proceeds of the sales are to be distributed on the 1st of August, so that, while the duties proposed to be enacted exceed 20 per cent, no suspension of the distribution to the States is permitted to take place.  To abandon the principle for a month is to open the way for its total abandonment.  If such is not meant, why postpone at all?  Why not let the distribution take place on the 1st of July if the law so directs (which, however, is regarded as questionable)?  But why not have limited the provision to that effect?  Is it for the accommodation of the Treasury?  I see no reason to believe that the Treasury will be in better condition to meet the payment on the 1st of August than on the 1st of July.

The bill assumes that a distribution of the proceeds of the public lands is, by existing laws, to be made on the 1st day of July, 1842, notwithstanding there has been an imposition of duties on imports exceeding 20 per cent up to that day, and directs it to be made on the 1st of August next.  It seems to me very clear that this conclusion is equally erroneous and dangerous, as it would divert from the Treasury a fund sacredly pledged for the general purposes of the Government in the event of a rate of duty above 20 per cent being found necessary for an economical administration of the Government.