Bill making an appropriation for work done upon the State House, was again taken up.2

The question was on the amendment of Mr. Brown of Vermillion.

Mr. Lincoln addressed the House in support of the bill and amendment. He was anxious that the bill should pass, whether the amendment was adopted or not; but he would be gratified if the amendment should also prevail.

It was hardly necessary for him to say, that in common with the rest of the community, the citizens of Springfield felt the severity of the times, and that this was calculated further to distress them, and that too for a claim which many of the disinterested citizens of this state thought of very questionable propriety. But this he would not now discuss. He wished to say in reply to the gentleman from Fulton (Mr. Ross) who had stated that better accommodations were promised as an inducement to the removal of the seat of Government to this place, that so far, as himself and the representatives from this county were concerned, such was not the fact; nor did he believe it was removed from such miserable motives. There was not a member of that Legislature, that would confess that he was influenced by such unworthy considerations. It was from the fact that the great body of population being North, that a more central location was desired, and this it could not be doubted was the govering consideration with the Legislature. If the gentleman from Fulton thought that he was paying too high for his bread and meat, let him go home and invite his constituents to come over and set up a competition in this line of business. This was a matter that would always regulate itself. He hoped the amendment would prevail, but if it did not the bill should pass by all means, as the laborers had been waiting in need for some time.

Mr. Ross replied at some length

Mr. Henderson said he thought the gentleman from Fulton (Mr. Ross) did not understand the question. It was not whether we should give the citizens of Springfield $16,000, but whether we should hastily take from them that amount, at a time when we were extending indulgence on every other hand. Whenever this question was properly presented he should vote to release them entirely from the debt. They had already paid $32,000 and this ought not to have been required of them. It was disgraceful that the citizens of one little town should be taxed so onerously to build a State House in which all the people were alike interested.

Mr. Murphy of Perry followed in opposition to the amendment. If the amendment was adopted, he should vote against the bill. The citizens of Springfield should stand up to their contract.

Mr. Kitchell also opposed the amendment.—His reason was, that he was a friend to the strict performance of contracts, when entered into.—This amendment was a stay law to the extent of that law.

Mr. Hardin spoke at some length in favor of the amendment. He was a member at the time the bill for the removal of the seat of government passed. It was not true that the $50,000 was the consideration upon which it was removed to this place. It was from the fact that a more central location was desired, that induced the Legislature to remove it. For one he never wanted to be better accommodated than he was at Vandalia, though he had been equally as well accommodated here.

Was the consideration for which this Bond was given, such as should induce us to be in a hurry for its collection? Was it for value received? It was entirely a donation to the State from the citizens of Springfield, and as they had paid $32,000, there was no reason for distressing them for the balance. He took the same view of this matter that one of his former colleagues (Mr. Happy)

---

had taken of this matter; and that was that the citizens of Springfield should be released from further obligation on this Bond. That if we exacted this from the citizens of Springfield, it would be admitting their right to a part of this House, and he was for barring all claims of this character.

Mr. Brown of Vermillion said he was not a member of this Legislature when the law passed for the removal of the seat of government; but he well recollected on reading the law, that he considered it unbecoming the dignity of a sovereign state to require the citizens of any town to build her State House. Were this an original question, he should go for releasing them entirely from an obligation which could not but reflect dishonor upon the State. The embarrassed state of our finances had been appealed to as an excuse for precipitably exacting the remaining instalment on this Bond. It was true that this was a gloomy period in our financial history, but there were certain high principles of dignity and honor by which a sovereign state should abide in her gloomiest as well as her brightest hour. As the citizens of Springfield did not ask to be released, he should vote against releasing them, but why was it necessary to be rigorous in the collection of the claim? Deferring the matter was not in the nature of a stay law, as the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. Kitchell) had stated. A stay law affected the ordinary contracts of the country. This simply affected a debt of the character of a donation. Why should such a policy be pursued towards the citizens of Springfield, by the state, when in all humility she had to confess, that she had been recreant to her own engagements?

Without taking the question, the House adjourned until two o’clock.3