is the contradiction?  I have not now said, that we should hug these lands as a favorite source of pecuniary income.  No such thing.  It is not my view.  What I have said, and what I do say, is, that they are a common fund, to be disposed of for the common benefit, to be sold at low prices for the accommodation of settlers, keeping the object of settling the lands as much in view as that of raising money from them.  This I say now, and this I have always said.  Is this hugging them as a favorite treasure?  Is there no difference between hugging and hoarding this fund, on the one hand, as a great treasure, and, on the other, of disposing of it at low prices, placing the proceeds in the general treasury of the Union?  My opinion is, that as much is to be made of the land as fairly and reasonably may be, selling it all the while at such rates as to give the fullest effect to settlement.  This is not giving it all away to the States, as the gentleman would propose; nor is it hugging the fund closely and tenaciously, as a favorite treasure; but it is, in my judgment, a just and wise policy, perfectly according with all the various duties which rest on government.  So much for my contradiction.  And what is it?  Where is the ground of the gentleman’s triumph?  What inconsistency in word or doctrine has he been able to detect?  Sir, if this be a sample of that discomfiture with which the honorable gentleman threatened me, commend me to the word discomfiture for the rest of my life.

But, after all, this is not the point of the debate; and I must now bring the gentleman back to what is the point.

The real question between me and him is, Has the doctrine been advanced at the South or the East, that the population of the West should be retarded, or at least need not be hastened, on account of its effect to drain off the people from the Atlantic States?  Is this doctrine, as has been alleged, of Eastern origin?  That is the question.  Has the gentleman found any thing by which he can make good his accusation?  I submit to the Senate, that he has entirely failed; and, as far as this debate has shown, the only person who has advanced such sentiments is a gentleman from South Carolina, and a friend of the honorable member himself.  The honorable gentleman has given no answer to this; there is none which can be given.  The simple fact, while it requires no comment to enforce it, defies all argument to refute it.  I could refer to the speeches of another Southern gentleman, in years before, of the same general character, and to the same effect, as that which has been quoted; but I will not consume the time of the Senate by the reading of them.

So then, Sir, New England is guiltless of the policy of retarding Western population, and of all envy and jealousy of the growth of the new States.  Whatever there be of that policy in the country, no part of it is hers.  If it has a local habitation, the honorable member has probably seen by this time where to look for it; and if it now has received a name, he has himself christened it.