« AnteriorContinuar »
Jar. 18 to 22, 1831.)
Relief Vessels.-- Impeachment Expenses.--Trial of Judge Peck.
most exposed would derive the least benefit from the tional authorities which they intended to produce in support
of the impeachment. Mr. SILSBEE explained. It was Charlestown, in Mas The court and Senate then adjourned. sachusetts, to which he had alluded. The effects of this storm were not over. They might last thirty or forty days.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19. Vessels within one hour's sail of port might be blown off
After disposing of some morning business, the Senate for leagues. Many vessels would be in that situation. It resumed the impeachment. was to supply such ships with men and provisions that this Mr. MEREDITH addressed the court for three hours, bill has been introduced.
in defence of the respondent. Having become exhausted Mr. HAYNE moved to refer the bill to the Committee in physical strength before he could conclude his speech, of Commerce, and suggested that this reference would the court, at three o'clock, adjourned. enable the Senate to afford relief in the most efficient manner. lle also suggested that the Government now
ThunSDAY, JANUARY 20. possessed the means to extend the most prompt aid to vessels in distress. A circular from the Treasury Department of Impeachment.
The Senate spent the principal part of to-day as a Court could put in immediate requisition our revenue cutters for
Mr. MEREDITH continued, without concluding, his arthis purpose.
After one or two additional remarks from Mr. Wood gument in defence of the respondent. BURY, Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, and Mr. LIVINGSTON,
FRIDAY, JANUARY 21. the motion of Mr. HAYNE was negatived, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.
IMPEACHMENT EXPENSES. Mír. LIVINGSTON then moved that the bill be forth The bill making provision for the payment of the witwith read a third time, and passed.
nesses, and of other expenses incurred in the trial of James The VICE PRESIDENT stated that this motion re. H. Peck, District Judge of the United States for the Disquired the unanimous consent of the Senate before it could trict of Missouri, was taken up. (The bill allows each witbe adopted. Mr. BROWN objected to it, and it could not, therefore, travelling expenses.]
ness four dollars per day, and twenty cents mileage for be received.
Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said that the witnesses who TRIAL OF JUDGE PECK.
had attended the trial of Judge Chase had been allowed The Senate then again resolved itself into a High Court but three dollars a day, and elve and a half cents ileof Impeachment.
age. He wished to know the reasons which had induced Jurige Carr appeared at ine bar, and was permitted to the committee to increase the compensation of the witmake some explaration on a point of his former testimony. nesses and the mileage in the present case. Mr. SPENCER, of New York, a manager on the part
Mr. IREDELL replied, that when Judge Chase was of the House of Representatives, then rose, and addressed tried, the pay of members of Congress was six dollars: it a very learned and able argument to the court in support was now eight dollars. The committee conceived it but of the impeachment. Kaving concluded at four o'clock, just to fix the compensation to the witnesses at one-half of the court adjourned.
that which was allowed members. RELIEF VESSELS.
Mr. GRUNDY said that another consideration showed
the propriety of the increase. These witnesses had come The Senate having resumed its legislative character,
from a much greater distance than the witnesses in the case Mr. BROWN withdrew the objection which he had of Judge Chase. Most of them were professional men, made this morning to the third reading of the bill for send- and had, by their absence from home, 'lost nearly a half ing relief vessels off our maritime coast; and it was then year's practice. He should vote for the four dollars, and real a third time, and passed by the following vote, Mr. I would have voted for six dollars if that sum had been in FORSYTH having required the yeas and nays.
the bill. YEAS.--Messrs. Barton, Bell, Burnet, Chambers,
The blank in the bill was filled with the sum of twelve Chase, Clayton, Dickerson, Dudley, Foot, Frelinghuysen, thousand dollars for the expenses of the trial; and, thus Hendricks, Johnston, Kane, Knight, Livingston, Marks, amended, it was engrossed, read a third time, and passed. Naudain, Noble, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee,
TRIAL OF JUDGE PECK. Smith, of Maryland, Sprague, Webster, Woodbury.—26.
NAYS.-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Ellis, Forsyth, Grun The Senate then again resolved itself into a High Court dy, Hayne, King, Mckinley, Poindexter, Robinson, Smith, of Impeachment. of South Carolina, Tazewell, Tyler--13,
Mr. MEREDITH continued his argument for the reAdjowned.
spondent until half past three o'clock, when the court and
SATURDAY, JANUARY 22. committees, the Senate again resolved itself into a High The Senate having again resolved itself into a Court Court of Impeachment.
of Impeachment, Mr. WICKLIFFE, one of the managers of the House of Mr. MEREDITH concluded his argument at twenty Representatives, commenced an argument in support of minutes past one o'clock. the impeachment at twelve o'clock, and concluded at a Mr. WIRT then rose to address the court for the relittle past three. He advanced and maintained the posi- spondent. He regretted that he had been the unwilling tions that Judge Peck had no legal jurisdiction over the cause of so much delay in the progress of this trial, and publication of Mr. Lawless, even supposing it to have been thanked the honorable court for the humanity of the ina contempt, for which he imprisoned and suspended him; dulgence which they had extended towards him. His and that, in truth, that publication was no contempt at all. friend might also have consumed much more time, in the Mr. W. defended the liberty of the press with energy and opinion of some, than was necessary; but it would be rezeal.
collected that two-thirds of that time had been used in Mr. BUCHANAN and Mr. STORRS stated, for the in reading precedents from the books. In a case in which formation of the counsel of the respondent, who will to the respondent was so deeply concerned, it would be a morrow commence the argument in his defence, the addi- dereliction of duty on the part of his counsel, if they were
Trial of Judge Peck.
[Jan. 22, 1831 •
an enemy to
to relinquish any of the ground which the honorable ma- with the respondent. He admitted an equality of infirmity nagers had deemed material to their argument; and time with the honorable managers. This honorable court had probably been saved by the reading of the books would decide between them. To what other cause than which had been produced by his colleague. It would not prejudice could he impute the language in which the rebe necessary to read them again. He should content him- spondent had been held up as a judicial tyrant, a petty proself with bestowing upon them a few passing remarks vincial judge, a monster, walking over the fallen bodies of when he should come to the cases which they presented. the constitution and laws of his country? This picture of Some topics which had, he could not but presume, been wickedness and horror had been sent as far as the press introduced for effect, it would be necessary for him to no- could range; as far as the wings of genius and eloquence tice. In doing so, he begged to be understood as treating could send it. Many a father in the remote parts of the the honorable managers with every possible respect. He country had read this account with feelings of abhorrence. knew the amiable, upright, and enlightened qualities with the paper in his hand, he had probably said to his which adorned them. Whatever they had deemed of im-son-see, what a monster is now before the Senate of the portance, he could not be so presumptuous as to pass by United States! If your country should ever elevate you to unregarded. It had been stated that the House of Repre- public station, never become such a monster as this Peck. sentatives, by a large majority, in which party had no He may no doubt have had respectable parents; he may share, had voted this impeachment. What was the object once have been respectable himself; but see what a monof this remark? Why was it introduced here? Could it ster of crime, of shame, and of ignominy, he has now beenter into the consideration of this honorable court, whe- come! How long would it not be before this cruel error ther the House of Representatives had been hasty or not; could be corrected; before it would be seen, upon the teswhether party had influenced them in the vote which they timony of the most respectable gentlemen, that this mongave for this impeachment? Would it be decorous in the ster was one of the most mild, patient, kind and courteous respondent, or in those who were connected with him, to of human beings: so amiable, that, in the language of one impeach their proceedings? He knew too well his duty of the witnesses, he was dear to all who knew him. He to that honorable House, to this honorable court, and to could not help ascribing the terrible picture which had his humble self, to step so far out of his way as to question been drawn of the respondent, to some unaccountable prethe motives for this impeachment. The House of Repre-judice. He adverted to other topics, of which the honorsentatives were the grand inqnest of the nation. Their able managers appeared to him to have taken a discolored article of impeachment against Judge Peck was the finding and distorted view. of the grand jury. Would it be proper, in a case before a The respondent had been represented as petit jury, for counsel to appeal to the proceedings of the the freedom of the press; a principle sacred to all.
He grand jury; to say that they had, by a large majority, un- was represented to have scofled at it. This judicial moninfluenced by party spirit, found a bill of indictment? ster was described as having walked over the prostrate Would not the court, in that case, stop counsel, and say liberty of the press, and as having attempted to sneer and to him, sir, we have nothing to do with the grand jury, snarl it out of existence. Where had he said this of it? or its motives; we are to try this case upon its merits, Where had he uttered one sentiment of disrespect towards without reference to what passed in the grand jury on the the liberty of the press? Not here, certainly. But he subject? The finding of the grand inquest is simply the had done so in his defence before the House of Represenaccusation. The honorable House had not come here to tatives, which had been introduced as evidence here, for sacrifice a victim whom they !iad fore-doomed to destruc. the purpose of establishing this charge against the respontion. They had done nothing more than to declare that dent. Look at that defence, and see whether he has the offence with which the respondent had been charged, treated the liberty of the press with contempt. “It is was worthy of a trial. The respondent was not there, said, that in punishing this publication as a contempt, the before the honorable House, upon his trial. They had judge has invaded the liberty of the press.” What is the sent him here to be tried. What was the fundamental liberty of the press? And in what does it consist? Does feature of a trial of that sort? It was, that the accused it consist in a right to vilify the tribunals of the country, was presumed to be innocent until he had been found and to bring them into contempt, by gross and wanton guilty. But, if the remark of which he was now complain- misrepresentations of their proceedings? Does it consist ing were to have weight, that principle would be reversed. in a right to obstruct and corrupt the streams of justice, The accused was to be presumed to be guilty until proved by poisoning the public mind with regard to causes in to be innocent. He hoped to hear no more of the majo- these tribunals, before they are heard? Is this a correct rity, or the motive by which this impeachment had been idea of the liberty of the press? If so, the defamer has a instituted by the honorable House. He considered such charter as free as the winds, provided he resort to the remarks improper. The respondent stood here unknown, press for the propagation of his slander; and, under the almost alone, a stranger from the western wilds, to breast prostituted sanction of the liberty of the press, honry age the storm of this impeachment. He trusted to this honor- and virgin innocence lie at his mercy. This is not the idea able court for a fair trial, and relied upon the correctness, of the liberty of the press which prevails in courts of jusand innocence, and purity, of his own conduct, for an ho- tice, or which exists in any sober or well regulated mind. norable acquittal. He would be tried by the simple, na- The liberty of the press is among the greatest of blessings, ked facts and principles of the case, and not by the dramatic civil and political, so long as it is directed to its proper obexhibition of fancied analogies which they had witnessed. ject, that of disseminating correct and useful information Was the respondent to be involved in the turpitude of all among the people. But this greatest of blessings may bethe wicked judges of England; in the guilt of the unspar- come the greatest of curses, if it shall be permitted to ing Jeffreys, the tumultuous Scroggs, and the tyrant Brom- burst its proper barriers. The river Mississippi is a blessley? He trusted not: he hoped that he would be tried ing to the country through which it flows, so long as it upon his own merits alone. He admonished the honorable keeps within its banks; but it becomes a scourge and a managers, that something was continually occurring to destroyer when it breaks them. “ The liberty of the remind us of the infirmity of human reason contending press has always been the favorite watch word of those who against human prejudice. This must teach charity 10 all. live by its licentiousness. It has been, from time immeHe apprehended the existence of some extraordinary pre- morial, is still, and ever will be, the perpetual decantantum judice which bad influenced and inflamed the spirit of this on the lips of all libellers. Oswald attempted to screen prosecution. He, too, might be the victim of prejudice; himself under its ægis, in the case which has been cited of that friendship which a close intimacy had produced from the 1st Dallas. But the attempt was in vain. The
Jan. 22, 1831.)
Trial of Judge Peck.
court taught him the difference between the liberty of the mencement of this trial, been subjected to a commentary press and the licentiousness of the press. and, in his fur- so severe, what might not be expected in its sequel? It ther attempt to raise an impeachment against the judges had been charged upon the respondent, that he had dared for that sentence, the House of Delegates confirmed the to attempt to buy off this impeachment by an intimation wholesome lesson. If, indeed, the liberty of the press was that he was entitled to consideration and exemption, bea panoply broad enough to cover every thing done in its cause he had decided the case of Soulard in favor of the name, nothing in the form of a publication could ever have United States. It had been alleged that he had tried to been punished as a contempt of court. In all the report. buy off the House of Representatives by dirty acres. if ed cases, in which those publishers have been called to be had done so, he was a vile and degraded man, and, he answer for a contempt, wherever the defence has appear-would add, one of the most consummate fools that ever ed in the report, it is the liberty of the press which is the sat upon the bench. But where had he said this? At perpetual theme. It is uniformly claimed to be the right the close of his defence, he (Judge Peck] observed, of the citizen to question the acts of all public men, and that, in this proceeding, he was actuated by a sense the changes are continually rung on that great palladium of official duty. He considered it his duty to sustain of human rights and human happiness-the liberty of the the dignity and authority of the court over which he press; as if human rights and human happiness could be had been appointed to preside: he considered it due to promoted by the prostration and destruction of courts of the Government which he represented; due to the trijustice, or by poisoning their streams in the fountain head. bunal, and due to the suitors whose rights were comIt is unnecessary to pursue this subject. The judge has mitted to its protection, to punish this contempt as he did never pretended that his opinions are not to be questioned. punish it. He did consider himself, and does still consider He insists, however, that they are to be questioned only himself, as sustained, at every step, by the highest authoriaccording to the laws of the land. One mode of question- ty. He believed it, conscientiously, to be his solemn and ing them, under these laws, is by appeal to a superior imperious duty to make the example which he did make, court; and, after the subject matter shall have been finally more especially in relation to the country in which lie <lecided, another mode of questioning them is, by respect- holds his courts, and the nature of the claims which he ful discussion, either in the public prints or elsewhere. was called upon to adjudicate, and which had produced In the present case, the first mode of questioning the opi- this agitation. If, in so doing, he has erred, he has erred nion, that by appeal, had been resorted to. For the second in company with judicial characters with whom any judge mode, that of respectful discussion, the case was not ready, may be proud to associate; and he has yet to learn that because the subject-matter had not been disposed of final. such an error would be a high misdemeanor in the sense ly; and even if it bad been, it has been shown that there of the constitution of the United States. Judge Peck is was no semblance of investigation in this article; no pre- perfectly aware of the purposes to be answered by his tence of discussion of any kind. It was sheer misrepre- removal, and is, therefore, not at all surprised at the persentation; and it does not follow, that, because an opinion of tinacity with which it has been sought for the last four a court may be respectfully discussed, it may, therefore, be years. Whether these purposes are such as the interests misrepresented; much less, that it may be so misrepresent of the United States call upon them to countenance, by ed as not only to impair the confidence of the public in the ordering further proceedings in this case, is a question dignity, intelligence, and purity of the tribunal, but to ren- for others, not for Judge Peck. Confident he is, that, if der both the judge and the court objects of universal con- he had been made of more pliant materials, and could tempt, scorn, and ridicule; and least of all, that, in doing have reconciled it to himself to consult his repose, rather this, a strong prejudice shall also be infused into the pub-than his sense of duty, the House would not have been lic mind with regard to causes still pending in the court." troubled with this inquiry.” Was this, sir, a proposition to Was this (demanded Mr. Wirt) a sneer at the liberty of buy off impeachment? Was this the language of a man the press? Was there here any snarl at the liberty of the crouching under the charge which had been alleged against press! Was the declaration, that it was the greatest of hu- him? There was no attempt, here, to screen himself by man blessings, confined to the dissemination of truth and a bribe; by an appeal to the interest of the honorable intelligence among the people, an attempt to bring the li- House of Representatives. It was the language of a man berty of the press into contempt? Was not the doctrine indignantly asserting his innocence, and turning upon his here laid down by the judge the sound doctrine concern- accuser. It was no attempt to buy off punishment. Let ing the liberty of the press? And would it not meet the candid and honorable men read and decide for themselves. approbation of all, except the libeller? To be useful, the There was another circumstance which he felt himself liberty of the press must be restrained. The principle of called upon to notice with unspeakable regret. He had restraint was impressed upon every part of creation. By heard of it with pain, while confined to his bed. The restraint the planets were kept in their orbits. The earth respondent, held up, as he had been, before these crowd. performed its regular evolutions by the restraint of the ed galleries, and this assembled multitude, as a judici centrifugal force operating upon it. The vine would shoot monster; a petty provincial tyrant; thus caricatured, eminto rank luxuriance, if not under the restraint of the laws paled and crucified, before this nation, with these lacerated of nature, by which every thing was preserved within its feelings, having occasion to speak to a point of evidence, proper bounds. Was not every thing on earth impressed he had betrayed an emotion with his trembling hand; a with this principle? and was not the liberty of the press to tear had started from his eye. Was it wonderful that the be restrained to the performance of its rightful functions respondent, innocent and simple-hearted as a child, with of propagating truth for just ends? It was not always his reputation at hazard; with an aged parent, whose gray those who were loudest in their clamors for the liberty of hairs he did not wish to send down to the grave with sor. the press, who were its best friends. There be those who, row, should have thus betrayed his feelings on the occawhen they hear those bursts of genius and eloquence upon sion? Yet, an honorable manager [Mr. Wickliffe] bad the liberty of the press, could say, like poor Cordelia--- represented him as shedding feigned tears, crocodile tears, s Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave
before this assembly and this nation. Did the honorable My heart into iny mouth: I love your Majesty
manager recollect the prosecution of Sir Walter Raleigh According to my bond; nor more, nor less."
by Sir Edward Coke? Did he remember the spirit in He thought there had been no occasion for the remarks which that prosecution had been conducted? Did he rewhich had been made on this subject. Judge Peck loved collect that Sir Edward Coke had stigmatized that gallant the liberty of the press with as much purity as those who soldier as a spider of hell? Let him ask the honorable had been so loud in its praises. If he had, in the com- manager which character he would rather bear with pos.
[Jan. 24 to 28, 1831. terity--that of Sir Walter Raleigh or Sir Edward Coke? causes not pending in court, were misdemeanors, which He had the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with the could only be punished by indictment and trial, and that honorable manager; he well knew that unkindness and the conduct of Judge Peck tended to break down all the barbarity were far removed from his heart. Wbat, then, sccurities and guards which the law had raised for the probut some unaccountable prejudice could have induced tection of the liberties of the American people. these remarks? They had gone to the world. It would Before he concluded, the court adjourned. be a long time before this trial would go before the world, to correct the impressions which the representations of
THURSDAY, JANUARY 27. honorable managers had made. He had, therefore, been anxious to show that the respondent was not the judicial vestigate the present condition of the Post Office Depart
Mr. CLAYTON, from the Committee appointed to inmonster that he was charged with being; that he had not ment, offered the following resolution, observing that the violated the liberty of the press; that he had not attempt. committee were unanimously of the opinion, that, in order ed to buy off this impeachment; that he was amiable, to prosecute that investigation with effect, it was necessapatient, and forbearing, both as a man and a judge, and ry that they should be empowered to send for persons and that the epithets applied to him had been the effect of
papers. prejudice, of heated and perverted imaginations, having Resolved, that the Select Committee appointed to exno foundation in fact. Mr. Wirt was proceeding to consider the merits of the Department liave power to send for persons and papers.
amine and report the present condition of the Post Office case; when, at the suggestion of Mr. Websten, the court Nr. CLAYTON moved the second reacling and adoption adjourned.
of the resolution at this time; but this motion requiring
the unanimous assent of the Senate for its passage, and MONDAY, JANUARY 24.
Mr. BENTON objecting to it, the resolution lies on the The Senate having again resolved itself into a Court of table one day, Impeachment,
Mr. LIVINGSTON submitted the following resolution: Mr. McDUFFIE rose and said, that in consequence of
Resolved, that the Committee on Finance be instructed a remark of Mr. Wint yesterday, he felt himself called to inquire into the experiency of making further proviupon to say, in substance, that ihe publication of his re- sion for the support of Africans captured by vessels of the marks, in opening the case against Judge Peck, had been United States, and brought into the United States. made without his authority; that the report of these re
TRIAL OF JUDGE PECK. marks must have appeared evidently imperfect, though The Senate then again resolved itself into a Court of probably as perfect as, under the circumstances, it could Impeachment. have been; and that, if he had been consulted, he should Mr. STORRS concluded his argyment in support of the bave advised against the publication.
impeachment. Its sequel was peculiarly impressive and Mr. WIRT acceded to the correctness of these sugges- eloquent. Onc sentiment uttered by the honorable mantions, and appeared to do so the more readily from the ager is especially worthy of record. He said the best fact that he had seen his own remarks, made on Saturday, support of the judiciary was to be found in the affections published this morning, without his having been consulted of the people. The people would be true to the judiciary on the subject. He added, that he was sure that nothing as long as they were true to themselves. The judiciary had been said by the honorable manager in his opening would find protection with the people, and in their legisspeech, of the truth of which he had not been entirely lative halls, until they should become so debased as to be satisfied.
unworthy of protection. It was not by the usurpation of
an unlawful and tyrannical power, nor by the esercise of TUESDAY, JANUARY 25.
an unlawful jurisdiction, that they could expect their indeThe Senate again resolved itself into a High Court of pendence to be respected or preserved; and he seemed to Impeachment.
press this point so far as to think that the character', utility, Mr. WIRT occupied four hours in concluding his speech and fate of the judicial branch of the Government dependfor the respondent. Wit, sarcasm, searching argument,
cd upon the decision of this case.
The court and Senate adjourned. and impressive eloquence, poured forth in streams, riveted the attention and elicited the admiration of a crowded
FRIDAY JANUARY 28. Senate-room and crowded galleries during that long space of time. Whatever might be the fate of the respondent, The resolutions submitted yesterday by Mr.CLAYTON, said the graceful orator, in subdued and almost exhausted and Mr. LIVINGSTON, were severally taken up and tones; whether convicted or acquitted, he should always adopted. be proud to take him by the hand as that noblest of God's
TRIAL OF JUDGE PECK. works, Ax HONEST MAN, and to call him HIS FRIEND.
The Senate again resolved itself into a High Court of The ourt cand Senate then adjourned.
Mr. WIRT, with permission, explained a remark which WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26.
he was understood to have made towards the conclusion After the consideration of a number of private bills, of his argument in favor of the respondent. &c. the Senate again resolved itself into a Court of Im Mr. BUCHANAN then rose, and addressed the court peachment.
in an able argument in support of the impeachment. He Mr. STORRS rose and addressed the Court in support declared, that the usurpation of an authority not legally of the impeachment, for upwards of three hours. He possessed by a judge, or the manifest abuse of a power maintained the position, that no free citizen could be pun- really given, was a misbehavior in the sense of the conished by the summary process of attachment for a libel or stitution, for which he should be dismissed from office. contempt against any court in a cause not pending in that He contended, that the conduct of Judge Peck, in the case court; that such a power bad never been exercised, even of Mr. Lawless, was in express violation of the constitu; by the courts of England; that the charge against Judge tion and the laws of the lard; that the circunstances of Peck was not so much for suspending Mr. Lawless, as an that case were amply sufficient to show a criminal intenattorney, from practice in his court, but for imprisoning tion on his part in the summary punishment of Mr. Law. hin, and depriving him of his liberty as a citizen, without lc83; that, in order to prove the criminality of liis intention; indictment and trial by jury; that libels or contempts, for it was not necessary to demonstrate an actually malicious
Jax. 29, 1831.]
Duty on Iron.
action, or a lurking revenge; that the infliction upon Mr. Mr. WOODBURY admitted the fact, that the subject of Lawless of a summary and cruel punishment, for having the memorial related immediately to manufactures, and to written an article decorous in its language, was itself suf manufactures the most important to the country; but they ficient to prove the badness of the motive; that the conse- were directly concerned with commerce, and, in the end, quences of the judge's actions were indicative of his in- were vitally interesting to it. The memorial should then tentions; that our courts had no right to punish, as for go to that distinct committee. The gentleman from New contempts, in a summary mode, libels, eren in pending Jersey had made an allusion to the memorial, praying for causes; and that, if he succeeded, as he believed he should, a drawback on nails. He had and still thought that that in establishing these positions, he should consider that he memorial had been very properly referred to the Commithad a right to demand the judgment of the court against tee on Commerce; not that nails were not manufactures, the respondent. The honorable manager continued to but because the object of the memorial was for the beneaddress the court for three hours and a quarter; and find- fit of the commercial interest. Suppose, (said Mr. W.] ing that he could not conclude his argunient at this sitting, the memorial related to the manufacture of cannon and the court adjourned till to-morrow.
gunpowder, would it not be more appropriately referred to the Military Committee than the Committee on Manu
factures? SATURDAY, JANUARY 29.
Mr. DICKERSON said he could explain the reasons DUTY ON IRON.
which induced him to wish this subject referred to the The VICE PRESIDENT communicated a memorial Committee on Manufactures. It was becoming the pracfrom the mechanics and others, workers in iron, of the tice of late, whenever a petition was presented to the city and county of Philadelphia, praying for a reduction Senate praying for the repeal or reduction of duties on of the duties upon imported iron. It was referred to the iron, on woollens, or almost any other article, it was imSelect Committee, to whom a former memorial on the mediately sent to the Committee on Commerce, thus same subject was committed.
tending to throw the weight of these interests into the The VICE PRESIDENT also communicated a memo- hands of the merchants of the country, to the exclusion rial from sundry inhabitants of New Jersey, praying a of a fair representation of the views of the manufacdrawback of the duties on iron, and other articles employ-turers. If we take the view of the gentleman from New ed in the building of American ships.
New Hampshire, (said Mr. D.,] the Committee on Mr. DICKERSON moved the reference of this paper to Manufactures will soon be
nominal comthe Committee on Manufactures.
mittee, shorn of its influence upon the action of Mr. HAYNE suggested that it more appropriately be.
Congress. longed to the Committee on Commerce; and he made a
Mr. KING observed, that he had been under the immotion accordingly. The question being first taken on the reference to the United States to give to every subject presented to them
pression that it was the object of the Congress of the Committee on Manufactures, there appeared ayes 12, by our fellow-citizens such a consideration as would innoes 10.
duce them to believe that the investigation had been There being no quorum voting,
conducted with fairness and deliberation. Mr. WOODBURY called for the reading of the memo- said he, if we refer this memorial to the committee on
Now, sir, rial; which being done, Mr. HAYNE said he still thought the Committee of
Manufactures-a committee confessedly hostile to its obCommerce to be the proper direction for this memorial. jects, will it be believed by the memorialists that their It referred to drawbacks on various articles, and this con- liberate examination? By our sending it to that commit
views and arguments had met with fair, candid, and desideration would induce him to adhere to his motion, to refer it to that committee.
tee, they cannot think otherwise than that we have preMr. DICKERSON said the first motion was on referring judged their case, and decided against it without giving the memorial to the Committee on Manufactures. It
it the slightest consideration. deeply involved the interests of one of the most important
Mr. K. would not enlarge on this view of the subject; manufactures in the country, ship building, which, though he would only leave it to the gentleman from New Jerultimately looking to the commercial, yet was as vitally sey, whether he believed that any report of the commitinteresting to the manufacturing concerns of the country? tee, over which he presided, would be favorable to the
A memorial praying for a drawback on nails, had been memorial, if, indeed, they reported at all. Without at referred to the Committee on Commerce, although the this time entering into any argument, he would merely subject would more appropriately come under the cogni- express the hope that the memorial would be referred to zance of the Comunittee on Manufactures.
such a committee as would satisfy the memorialists that Mr. BENTON said, if lie comprehended the views of the Senate was disposed to give to their views a fair and the gentleman from New Jersey, he was hostile to the ob- candid examination. jects of the memorial; and, therefore, the committee over Mr. FOOT said he was somewhat surprised to hcar it which he presided was not a fit tribunal to decide on its contended that this subject belonged exclusively to the merits. Under that belief, he [Mr. B.] would invoke to his Committee on Commerce. The memorial prayed for a aid a rule of the Senate, which he had successfully done drawback upon various articles, classed among the maon a former occasion, providing that no bill or memorial nufactures of the country. The practice of both Houses should be committed to a commitee hostile to it. "As far of Congress seemed, in any event, to forbid its being back as our legislation had commenced, it had been the sent to the Committee on Commerce. If it were not wholesome practice, except in a few instances, to refer referred to the Committee on Manufactures, it surely all subjects to committees deemed favorably disposed to should rather go to the Committee on Finance, them, on the principle “that a child should not be put out Mr. WOODBURY said he wished to state, in illustrato nurse to those who would strangle or destroy it, by re- tion, one or two facts that had occurred to him, in consefusing it sufficient nourishment.” Under the belief, then, quence of the remarks of the gentleman from New Jerthat the Committee on Manufactures, over which the gen- sey. The memorial on the subject of a drawback on tleman from New Jersey presided, was hostile to the nails manufactured from imported iron, had first been prayer of the memorial, he hoped it would be referred to referred to the Committee on Finance, and that commit. the Committee on Commerce, where it would mect with tee had been discharged from its further consideration, a more favorable consideration.
land it had been sent to the Committee on Commerce; so