I said that injustice is done to the Land States, out of this body and in this body: out of this body, because I often hear them called "land-stealers" and "land pirates"; in this body by the Senator from Virginia, when he complains of the partial distribution of the public lands, and particularly points out the bill now before the Senate as an instance. I said that this charge was without foundation. Why? On what ground? Because there is an existing equity (I so called it,--nothing more) on the part of the Land States as against the General Government. And on what is this founded? On a fact of record in the public acts of this country,--that is, the exemption of the public domain from taxation by the States in which it is situated. The Senator from Virginia does not question this fact; of course he cannot, for it is embodied in Acts of Congress. The next inquiry, then, was, as to the value of this immunity, which I called an equity. To illustrate this value, I went into calculations and estimates, which I presented, after some study of the subject,--not, perhaps, such study as the Senator from Virginia has found time to give, or such as the Senator from Kentucky, in the plenitude of his researches, doubtless has given. On those calculations and estimates I attributed a certain value to the equity in question. My calculations and estimates may be overstated; they may be exaggerated. The Senator from Virginia thinks them so. Other gentlemen with whom I have had the privilege of conversing think them understated. However this may be, it does not touch the argument. I may have done injustice to my argument by overstating them. I intended to understate them. From all that I hear, I still think that I have understated them. But, whether understated or overstated, the argument still stands, that these States have conceded to the General Government an immunity from taxation,--that this immunity has a certain value, I think very large,--and that this value constitutes an equity to which the Land States have a right to appeal for bountiful, ay, for munificent treatment. Has the Senator from Virginia answered this argument? Can he answer it? I forbear to go into the subject at this time. I rose simply to state, that, as the Senator from Virginia generously warns me that I am to expect "a broadside" from the Senator from Kentucky, I am to regard what he said to-day, so far as I am concerned, simply as a signal gun. The Senator will pardon me, if I say it is nothing more; for it has not reached me, or my argument. Meanwhile I await, with resignation, and without anxiety, the "broadside" from Kentucky. * * * * * THIRD SPEECH. The debate was continued for many days, during which the speech of Mr. Sumner was attacked and defended. Finally, on the 16th of March, immediately before the question was taken, he again returned to the subject.