400 CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS. 



But not only in 1840, but a much later date, when everybody knew 

 that Arkansas had failed for three years to pay her interest,. did the 

 gentleman from Massachusetts bring in a bill in June, 1844 (from 

 which Mr. Owen read) which went further than the bill now before 

 the committee, absolutely declaring that $800,000 was now in the 

 Treasury of the United States, the interest of which, being about 

 $33,000, more than this bill applied, was to be appropriated. 



He alluded to the objection of Mr. Ficklin, that we should doubtless 

 appropriate hundreds of thousands more than this sum if we now 

 began; and said in the unwillingness of members to appropriate even 

 the interest there was no very great reason to imagine that they 

 would be so ready to appropriate a larger sum, not included in this 

 amount at all, over which the Institution has no right and with which 

 no connection. 



He was no lawyer and would not argue the case technically, but he 

 would say, if there be any means of lowering our national character 

 over the whole civilized world (and with so small a gain to the Gov- 

 ernment) more effectually than this, he did not know what it was. He 

 held in regard to public and private morals there is no difference. 

 The interest that had accrued on this sum was about $242,000 (about 

 one-half of which had been paid), or about one-hundreth part of the 

 annual expenditures and receipts of the Government; and in addition 

 to this we had $10,000 or $12,000 surplus in the Treasury. And still we 

 claimed that we were relieved of the obligation for this money because 

 we had invested it in stocks, the interest of which was not paid. It 

 was like a man with an annual income of $2,000, and in addition having 

 (say) $1,000 deposited in bank, who had loaned to a way ward or unfor- 

 tunate son $20 (one hundredth part of his income), which he had received 

 in trust for a friend; and who, one-half of it having been paid when 

 called upon for the return of that trust, should refuse it on the 

 ground that one-half of the sum had not been paid by his son, to whom 

 as trustee of the fund he had loaned it. No one would hesitate to say 

 that as a matter of common justice and honesty he should pay this 

 small amount even if the son never paid it to him. And what we 

 ought to do as individuals we ought also to do as public men. 



He would not follow the gentleman from Massachusetts through 

 the whole course of his remarks. He believed the gentleman admitted 

 that the Government was ultimately responsible for the application of 

 this fund according to the intention of the testator. If it did happen 

 (which was not probable, for he did not doubt her) that Arkansas did 

 not at some future period pay the interest, we should be called upon 

 to pay it from the Treasury, according to the gentleman from Massa- 

 chusetts. Now, he wanted to know what was the difference between 

 taxing our constituents (as the phrase was) then and now? So far as 

 the burden was concerned, it was nothing; so far as reputation was 



