ly 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 admini