H. OF R.]

[Mr. ADAMS read the section as follows:]

our navy when in the Mediterranean, and many other SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That where any sum objects. or sums of money shall be drawn from the treasury, un- Almost all the ministers in Europe are paid by one or der any law making appropriation for the contingent expen- other of these houses. Even our ministers to the South ses of intercourse between the United States and foreign American Governments have heretofore been paid by nations, the President shall be, and he hereby is, autho- bills on these houses. Each of these banking houses has rized to cause the same to be duly settled, annually, with an account opened with the Department of State, denothe accounting officers of the treasury, in the manner minated the "diplomatic fund." It has nothing to do following, that is to say: By causing the same to be ac with the appropriations made here. The department counted for, especially in all instances wherein the ex- makes its remittances generally, without specifying any penditure thereof may, in his judgment, be made public, particulars. The whole is passed to the diplomatic fund. and by making a certificate of the amount of such expen- It is a lumping remittance, of twenty, thirty, fifty, a ditures as he may think it advisable not to specify; and hundred thousand dollars at a time, with a request that it every such certificate shall be deemed a sufficient voucher be passed to the credit of the diplomatic fund. for the sum or sums therein expressed to have been expended."

Then,

when the minister goes out, he receives a letter of credit on the banker in England, France, or Holland, requiring This is that fund which in common parlance is called him to pay the minister the amount of his outfit, (unless secret service money; and it was that portion of the dis- it had previously been paid here,) and so much for salary, cretionary power of the President which authorizes him and the contingencies of the missions, and to charge the to apply this fund to secret services, which I yesterday amount to the diplomatic fund. That, I presume, is the stated that the Committee on Retrenchment had proposed diplomatic fund that is meant when it is said that the minto abolish in time of peace, precisely at the moment isters to South America received their outfits from the when, in time of peace, the whole fund thus disposable diplomatic fund. They received letters of credit upon at the discretion of the President was actually applied to the bankers of the United States at London, for their outthe negotiation of the Turkish treaty. But the House will fits, and the amount has been charged, in the accounts of perceive that it was intended not for secret service exclu- the bankers with this Government, to the diplomatic sively. It is placed at the discretion of the President of fund. Yet it may sometimes happen that the Department the United States, and he is authorized to draw from it at of State may not have it in its power to give letters of crehis pleasure: but he is by law required to make annually dit, because no appropriation has been made to meet them. to the Treasury Department a return showing in what The minister is entitled to his money from the moment he manner it has been applied. I mention this because the is appointed, but he may be obliged to go without it, if the honorable chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means diplomatic fund is exhausted. intimated, as I understood him, that there was some defi- If any scruple exists on the mind of the President of ciency in the laws on this subject. That is not the case. the United States, (I regret to be obliged to refer to him The President of the United States is required to depo- on any occasion,) I suppose it arises from the fact that if site vouchers at the treasury for every part of its expendi- the appropriation shall be refused, there may not be funds ture. These vouchers are open to inspection, and the in the hands of the bankers in England to meet a letter of account is as public in its character as any other account credit, if it shall be given. If so, the scruple is right, it in the department. If, in making this return, the Presi- is constitutional.

questions referring to the scruple on the mind of the President. If it is what I suppose it to be, I consider it as very proper, and I shall do all I can to remove it. But I beg leave to read one or two short passages from the constitution of the United States:

dent shall think that any of the items are of a description| That is the reason I am opposed to this species of cavilnot proper to be made public, he, under the solemn re-ling, and I, for one, utterly disclaim it. sponsibilities of his office, and the sanction of his signa- Having but little more to add, I wish to set aside all ture, states that, in relation to such expenditures, either from the object to which they were applied, or from the persons to whom they were paid, it is not expedient to make them public. The secret may be limited as he thinks best: he may state the person and conceal the object, or he may designate the object and withhold the person. Speaking from the experience I have myself had, I presume that it has been the practice of every President of the United States to deposite in the Treasury| Department an account of every cent expended of this fund. The House may call for such account at any moment, and then they will know how much of the fund has been used for secret service, and how much of it has been applied to public purposes.

A variety of observations have been made, and some incorrect information given, (owing, I presume, to erroneous documents,) in relation to the funds called here, indiscriminately, the contingent and the diplomatic fund. The documents will show that, in 1829, when the estimates for the outfits of the ministers to South America were submitted, it appeared that their outfits had already been paid out of the diplomatic fund.

The President of the United States "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, "&c. And then-

"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."-Constitution U. S., Art. 2, Sec. 2.

These clauses, I know, are familiar to every gentleman I address; yet they contain the great principle involved in the question now before the House. It was observed by the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means yesterday, that the second of these clauses was introduced only ex necessitate rei. Sir, every grant of power in this constitution, whether to the President or to either of the Houses of Congress, is made ex necessitate rei. The ne cessities of the people are the real source of every grant That is a fund extremely well known at the Depart- of power, and they ought never to grant it but on that ments of State and of the Treasury. But it is not re-ground. No argument, therefore, will lie from any sucognised by law. It is a fund with which Congress never perior or inferior necessity alleged to have prompted the have had any thing to do. It is an account with certain different portions of the instrument. We have no right to foreign houses: in London, with the house of Barings; inquire why this or any other clause was inserted before in Amsterdam, with the houses of Willing and Van Stap we yield our obedience to it. There it is. It gives the horst; and in Paris, with the house of Hottinguer. All President this right; the President has said that he intends these are bankers on whom the United States draw for to exercise it, and the appropriate department has called expenditures of various kinds, needed for sustaining upon Congress to make the appropriation necessary to

APRIL 28, 1332.]

Mission to France.

[H. OF R.

enable him to do so. The appropriation was brought be-out the item, and I am at liberty to conjecture what its fore this House by the proper organ, the Committee of reasons may have been.

Ways and Means; nor was this item agreed to without An example has been referred to from the practice of question. The inquiry was distinctly put, not to the the British Parliament. Sir, if I know any thing of the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, but to the practice of the House of Commons, that body would nechairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, whe-ver suffer the House of Lords either to strike out or to ther the appointment would be made; and that gentleman add any thing to a bill of theirs. They would not submit had as distinctly answered that it would. I believe I am to it. The Lords, whether satisfied or displeased with in order to say that if the answer had been of an opposite an appropriation bill, must either take or reject it, withimport, the House would have been called upon to deny out alteration. But I do not recur to examples from the the appropriation. practice of a body constituted on principles very differAs to the different branches of this Government, there ent from ours. I do not know but that an appropriation are two characters in which they stand to each other. Dill might even originate in the Senate. I know that the The first is the character of co-operators; (and the present constitution forbids that a bill to raise revenue shall origi question is a question of concurrence.) Concurrence is nate any where but in this House; but this is not a bill to the great and main object for which they were all creat-raise revenue; it is a bill to spend it. Yet I need not ask ed. The three great departments of Government can what prospect of success there would be for any approenact the laws only by co-operation. It is therefore their priation bill coming to this House from the Senate. I do duty to co-operate together--a duty always imperative, un-not deny that the Senate can strike out an item from a bill less there exists a sound and substantial reason for refus- going from the House. I know they have the power; and ing it. That, then, is the general law for which the seve-here they have exercised it. I ask, then, what was their ral branches of the Government were constituted. But reason for so doing? No doubt there was a reason for it, the people of the United States, aware of the dangers of which they considered as sufficient. I know that it is not conferring upon any one man, or body of men, arbitrary in order to recur to their debates; but I am at liberty to or unlimited power, have also made this a Government of suppose what that reason was, and I find it a critical quesmutual control. It is a Government of checks and ba- tion of power between the Senate and the Executive; lances; the duties of it, several departments are not con- and it has been intimated by the chairman of the Comfined to co-operation, but extend, also, to mutual control.mittee of Ways and Means, that if this House shall preThis is the other relation in which the branches stand to-sume to refuse its concurrence, the Senate will take fire, ward each other. There is a power conferred on each of and refuse to pass the appropriation bill itself, unless this the departments to control the operation of the others. House will concur with them in striking out this item. This is not their general duty; it is not the rule, but the Sir, I am unwilling to suppose this. The Senate will act exception, and never to be resorted to, unless from ne-under its responsibility; and if it shall see that the House cessity, and for the manifest benefit of the people, under of Representatives is not disposed to join it, they will rathe assumption that the department controlled had done ther suffer this appropriation to stand, and the bill to pass, something wrong. These are the general principles of the than arrest the whole action of this Government, and deny constitution, as they apply to the relations and powers of to the people the expenditure, for their benefit, of nine the several branches of the Government in respect to each or ten millions of dollars, which is the amount appropriother. Now, to the case before us. The President of ated by this bill. But if it should prove otherwise, is this the United States has given notice that a particular mis-House to be considered as having a less estimate of its sion will expire during the next recess of Congress, and own rights and duties, than the Senate? The question that it is his intention to replace the returning minister is not whether the Senate would take fire, and sink the by a successor. Through the Department of State, and whole general appropriation bill. But if the Senate do the Committee of Ways and Means, it is brought before put the matter on that ground, it is not for me to say what this House: and the House, not blindly, not precipitately, the determination of this House would be; but I for one but with deliberation and forethought, agrees to the ap- would rather lose the bill than yield the principle. If it propriation. For it is distinctly within my recollection, must come to extremes, let it come to extremes; and then and I trust will be within that of most of the members of let us see on whom the consequences are to be cast, whethis House, that a member had risen in his place, and ther upon the President for doing what it is his constitucalled, not upon the chairman of the Committee of Ways tional right to do, and upon this House concurring with and Means, but of the Committee on Foreign relations, to him in the right and expediency of the measure proposed, know whether this identical appointment was to be made, or on the Senate, who should thus determine that they and received for answer that it was. The appropriation would sooner lose the bill than yield to him, and to the was therefore to be viewed as the deliberate act of the deliberate action of this House concurring with him. Sir, House. Here then there was a concurrence between two I do not think this is language which ought to be used branches of the Government, the Executive and the here; but it has been used, and this, to me, is an additionHouse of Representatives. The bill containing this ap-al reason for adhering to the appropriation. propriation goes to the Senate. The Senate strike the Sir, I believe I have now said all that I intended to say. item out of the bill, and the bill comes back to the House I consider a most important principle to be involved in rewith this amendment. Let me then ask, if there does taining this item in the bill. Not knowing the reason exist any controversy, where did it begin? The Se- why the Senate have stricken it out, I presume it to have nate has stricken out this item, after it had received the been this: a wish to say to the President of the United concurrence of the Executive and of this House, on full States, "Sir, you shall not exercise the power which is deliberation. They give no reason for what they have given to you by the constitution to appoint a minister to done; but we are left to conjecture what the reason was. a foreign Government, upon a vacancy occurring during Sir, it has been very properly remarked by a respected the recess of Congress, for we will control you, not as member from South Carolina [Mr. DRAYTON] that it is not your constitutional advisers upon the appointment, but by usual to refer here to debates which have occurred in the refusing, in our legislative capaciy, the appropriation of other House, and I wish to keep myself within that rule. an outfit for the minister, to which he would be entitled upon I wish to avoid all conflict between the two bodies. The his departure from the United States upon his mission. character of co-operation is that in which I most delight; The question whether the outfit can be paid from out the character of mutual control, that which I would as of the contingent fund, is perfectly unnecessary and irrelong as possible avoid. The Senate, however, has stricken levant. It has been said that as our minister is expected

H. OF R.]

Mission to France.

[APRIL 28, 1832.

to return in October, it will be a matter of indelicacy in singular fate, without parallel in the annals of Congress. the President to appoint a successor at a period so short- A circumstance so singular, that I cannot omit to call the ly before the reassembling of Congress. But this is not attention of the House to it. Yesterday another bill, and the question. Whether he shall return one day, or one one which I believe to be a favorite of a large majority of month, or six months before the next meeting of Congress, the House, had a rightful preference over the bill constill it is an attempt to control the Executive; and that taining this disputed item, but the latter happened to obnot directly, by the exercise of a power granted by the tain the preference over the former. Several gentlemen constitution, but indirectly, and by a side wind, which debated the question now under consideration so much cannot be effective without the joint action and concur- at length as to consume the day and prevent the pension rence of this House. It has been urged by the chairman bill from being taken up. To-day the bill under considerof the Committee of Ways and Means that the President ation happened to get the preference again, and this cannot appoint without the consent of the Senate; that whole day has been consumed again by the very same the Senate have an essential right to reject his nomina-identical gentlemen, and no other, who appropriated yestion. They certainly have that right; they have exer- terday to themselves in debating the same question, until cised that right in another case during the present ses- it is too late to take up the pension bill again. Perhaps On that I have nothing to say: this House has no-such another case may never again occur in this or any thing to say. This was conformable to their own power other Congress. under the constitution, and they have exercised it under Mr. BURGES moved an adjournment, but the motion their responsibility to their constituents. But if they had did not prevail. stricken out the appropriation for the outfit of that minis

sion.

Mr. McDUFFIE rose to correct a misunderstanding

ter, due to him on the appointment which he received into which the gentleman from Massachusetts had fallen from the President during the recess of the Senate, that with respect to his remarks when last up. He had said would be, in principle, the case now before us; it is the nothing to convey the idea that the Senate had taken a same case as if the appropriation was asked for a minister stand from which it never would recede, or that the disappointed by the President during the recess, and reject-sent of the House to its amendment would set the Senate ed afterwards upon the nomination to the Senate. on fire. He felt very sure, however, that the Senate

These, sir, are the reasons which induced me, when rose, to ask for the yeas and nays.

I

Mr. DODDRIDGE was unwilling at that late hour to address a word to the House; and would not have done it, but for a single remark which had fallen from the gentleman last up, [Mr. ADAMS,] who applied to the remark of those who opposed this appropriation, the term "cavilling." Here the SPEAKER interposed, and said that he had not so understood the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I say this only as an answer to the chairman of the Com- could not in any case possibly exhibit more fire than had mittee of Ways and Means. The Senate have under-been displayed by the gentleman himself. He did not taken, by the exertion of their legislative power, to con- think the question of a nature to produce excitement, nor trol the President in the exercise of his Executive autho-that it affected at all the privileges of the House. His rerity; and they come here and ask this House to join them. mark was, that if he had been a member of the Senate, I am unwilling to have the question put to me; but I can- and had voted as a majority of that body had done, he not help it. The Senate has compelled the House to act, would suffer the bill to be lost, before he would yield the and they cannot avoid the question. If they concur with ground he had taken. This, however, was merely his own the Senate, they go against the Executive; and if they view. He had not expressed any opinion as to what the refuse, they may be considered as taking sides with the Senate would do. As a co-ordinate branch of the LegisExecutive. Whichever way we decide, we are made par-lature, the Senate had as good a right to stand out as the ties to the question. House had. The House had no more right to call upon the Senate to agree with it, than the Senate had to call upon the House. The gentleman had spoken about the duty of co-operation; but Mr. McD. held a very different view of the subject. It was the duty of each branch of the Government to co-operate with the other, only when it believed that its co-operation was a duty: and it was equally its duty to refuse, when it did not. The Senate was not only a branch of the Legislature, but also a branch of the Executive Government. In this latter it had put forth Mr. ADAMS also disclaimed any such application of the its prerogative, and struck out this appropriation. It was term. If he had used the term at all, he had no recollection his opinion that the House had no right to interfere beof it, and had certainly intended it in no offensive sense. tween the two constituent parts of the executive branch; Mr. DODDRIDGE asked the attention of the House for and he thought the respect which was due to that branch not more than three minutes. He said he would not have of the Government would forbid any vote avowedly foundtroubled the House at all, but for what he deemed an un-fed on such a purpose. courtly remark of the gentleman from Massachusetts. That gentleman spoke of the opposition to this outfit as a species of cavilling in which he could take no part. Being determined to vote against the item in question, said Mr. YEAS.--Messrs. Adams, Adair, Alexander, Allison, D., I beg leave to say that I made up my mind yes- Anderson, Angel, Archer, Ashley, John S. Barbour, terday to do so, from what fell from the honorable chair- Barringer, James Bates, Beardsley, Bell, Bergen, Beman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. I have thune, James Blair, John Blair, Boon, Bouck, Bouldin, always deprecated the practice of creating vacancies du-J. Brodhead, J. C. Brodhead, Bucher, Burd, Cambrering the recess of the Senate, and then filling them. This leng, Chandler, Claiborne, Clay, Clayton, Conner, Craig, practice, when the nomination is afterwards made, adds Crawford, Davenport, Dayan, Denny, Dewart, Doubleto the weight of the nominee's pretensions the value of day, Drayton, J. Evans, Ford, Foster, Gaither, Gilmore, the outfit, ($9,000.) Gordon, T. H. Hall, Wm. Hall, Harper, Hawes, Haw

The question was then taken by yeas and nays on disagreeing to the amendment of the Senate, and decided in the affirmative as follows:

I think we have a rule, which, if better observed than it kins, Hoffman, Hogan, Holland, Horn, Howard, Hubbard, has been of late, and perhaps formerly, would restrain us Ihrie, Irvin, Jarvis, Jewett, R. M. Johnson, Cave Johnson, from entering into the views, arguments, or debates of C. C. Johnston, Kavanagh, Kennon, J. King, H. King, Lathe Senate. The departure from this rule has led us to mar, Lansing, Leavitt, Lecompte, Mann, Mardis, Mason, imitate the angry language of sundry gazettes towards W. McCoy, McIntire, G. E. Mitchell, T. R. Mitchell, that body, and, in doing this, to protract our debates to an Muhlenberg, Newnan, Pierson, Pitcher, Plummer, Polk, unreasonable length. It is, perhaps, owing to this, that E. C. Reed, Roane, A. H. Shepperd, Smith, Speight, the question on this item of outfit has experienced a most Standifer, Stephens, F. Thomas, W. Thompson, J. Thom

APRIL 30, 1832.]

Naval Depot.--Extra Session.-Right of Way.

[H. OF R.

son, Verplanck, Ward, Wardwell, Wayne, Weeks, Wheel-viz. where was the best place for a national depot? The er, C. P. White, Wilde, Worthington.—102. Committee on Naval Affairs had reported in favor of NarNAYS.-Messrs. C. Allan, R. Allen, Armstrong, Arnold, ragansett bay. That was a question settled. But that did Babcock, Banks, Noyes Barber, Barnwell, Barstow, I. C. not pledge the nation now to make a depot there. The Bates, Briggs, Bullard, Burges, Cahoon, Choate, Coke, question at present was, in what part of those waters the Collier, L. Condict, S. Condit, E. Cooke, B. Cooke, depot, when needed, should be fixed. This did not comCooper, Corwin, Coulter, Crane, Creighton, Daniel, J.mit the country to any thing. Two gentlemen from New Davis, Dickson, Doddridge, Ellsworth, G. Evans, E. Eve-York [Mr. VERPLANCK and Mr. HOFFMAN] were underrett, H. Everett, Felder, Grennell, Griffin, Heister, stood to be in favor of the survey, which would not be the Hodges, Hughes, Huntington, Ingersoll, Kendall, Letcher, case, if it settled the question between New York and Lyon, Marshall, Maxwell, R. McCoy, McDuffie, McKay, Rhode Island. McKennan, Mercer, Milligan, Newton, Pearce, Potts, Mr. B. proceeded to argue that there was no incongruRandolph, J. Reed, Russel, Semmes, W. B. Shepard, ity between civil and naval expenditures, nor any reason Slade, Southard, Stanberry, Storrs, Sutherland, Taylor, why they should not be placed in the same bill. P. Thomas, Tompkins, Tracy, Vance, Watmough, E. Whittlesey, F. Whittlesey, Wickliffe, Williams, Young.--77. So the House disagreed to the Senate's amendment, thereby resolving to retain the appropriation in the bill.

MONDAY, APRIL 30.

The further hearing of the case of Samuel Houston was again postponed, in consequence of the continued indisposition of Mr. Key, his counsel.

EXTRA SESSION.

Mr. DODDRIDGE asked leave to submit a resolution on the subject of fixing an earlier day for the commencement of the next session of Congress.

Objections having been made, he moved for a suspension of the rule of the House to enable him to submit the resolution, accompanying his motion with a few words of remark on the necessity of the measure.

Mr. WICKLIFFE said that, before he voted for the resolution, he wished first to be certain that the House would adjourn before the 1st of December next. He saw no prospect of it at present. He hoped that Congress would fix some day for the adjournment of this session before they went into the subject of the commencement of the next.

Mr. DODDRIDGE hoped that the remark of his friend from Kentucky had been made only in jest.

Mr. SPEIGHT demanded the yeas and nays on suspending the rule; they were ordered accordingly; and being taken, stood as follows--yeas 74, nays 66.

So the rule was not suspended, (two-thirds not having voted for it.)

NAVAL DEPOT.

The House then again proceeded to consider the general appropriation bill-the question being on agreeing to the item of appropriation for a survey of Narragansett bay, with a view to determine the best location for a naval depot. The Committee of the Whole had recommended the rejection of this item.

Mr. HOFFMAN said that, with a view to get rid of all this controversy about localities, the Committee on Naval Affairs had recommended a general and minute survey of the whole coast, in which the advantages of each particular harbor would appear.

Mr. BURGES said that that bill did not contain, he believed, any provision for an inquiry which was the best spot for a naval station; it ordered merely a nautical survey, which would not reach the object proposed by this amendment. The gentleman's argument reminded him of the charge of a certain judge, who urged the jury to decide quickly, as the court had the case of another man who was to be hanged after this was over. The general survey of the coast, if ever finished, would not be for years to come. ment, and decided in the negative-yeas 62, nays 80. The question was then taken on concurring in the amend

RIGHT OF WAY.

The question was next proposed on an amendment for the purchase of a road and bridge at the navy yard at Norfolk. Mr. HOFFMAN explained the facts of the case. The United States had a dry dock and navy yard on Elizabeth river, above the bridge in question. The dry dock and navy yard were separated by the bridge. All which was proposed to purchase was a right of way, as the draw in the bridge was too narrow for vessels of the largest size to pass. A negotiation had been going on between the Navy Department and the Bridge Company, and it had resulted in an arbitration. Sixteen thousand dollars was asked for the right of way, and the removal of the bridge. If it was not given, the navy yard would be inaccessible, and the Government left completely in the hands of the company.

After a debate, in which Messrs. McDUFFIE, WICKLIFFE, HOFFMAN, MERCER, HUNTINGTON, and NEWTON took part, and which turned on the point whether, after the right of way should have been purchased, the fee simple of the land would not have also to be paid for, the question was taken, and the House concurred with the committee in disagreeing to the amendment. Mr. PEARCE, of Rhode Island, observed that the obThe amendment proposing an appropriation of five Jections of the chairman of the Committee of Ways and thousand dollars for a statue of General Washington had Means had respect, not so much to the object of this ap-been struck out of the bill by the Senate, and their amendpropriation, as to the mode of introducing it into the bill. ment had been carried in the committee. The question He stated that the Secretary of the Navy had recommended being whether the House would agree with the committee, the measure, and quoted a report from the Navy Depart- Mr. VERPLANCK explained what he understood to ment in its favor. have been the Senate's reason for striking out this item of Mr. McDUFFIE replied that the Committee of Ways appropriation. They did not disapprove the design of and Means had several objections to this item. The sub-procuring a statue of Washington. On the contrary, it ject was more appropriate to the Naval Committee; but had, he believed, their warm and unanimous approbation, his chief objection to it was a general disapprobation of but, through inadvertence, the resolution empowering the the practice of introducing new projects into an appro- President to contract for the work, instead of being put priation bill. If this amendment should be granted, it in the form of a joint resolution of the two Houses, had would lead much further; and if the House began, it must been drawn up as a simple resolution of the House of Reproceed, and the long disputed question between New presentatives alone. The Senate disapproved, and very York and Rhode Island would be settled by a side wind,

without due examination.

Mr. BURGES denied that this was a local question at all. It was absurd to make it a question between New York and Rhode Island; it was strictly a national question,

properly, as he thought, of the President's acting on such authority. They had, therefore, stricken out the item, but at the same time referred the subject to the Joint Committee on the Library. That committee would shortly report a joint resolution to cover the object; in the mean

H. of R.]

Bank of the United States.

[APRIL 30, 1832.

while, he presumed the House would agree to the amendment, there is a column stating the amount of American ment of the Senate, and the subject could be disposed of gold bought and sold by the bank, without stating where in a more regular manner.

The appropriation was accordingly disagreed to.

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

purchased or where sold. I have no doubt, though we obtained no explanation from the bank, that this is an or dinary and unavoidable transaction, and that it can, with no propriety of language, be denominated a dealing in rela-American coin. Under the tender laws of the United States, the legal value of gold and silver does not corre spond with the intrinsic value. By these laws, an ounce of gold is estimated to be worth only fifteen ounces of silver, whereas the real market value of gold is sixteen times as great as that of silver.

Mr. CLAYTON asked leave to make a report in tion to the Bank of the United States; and leave having been granted,

Mr. C., from the committee of visitation and inquiry into the affairs of the Bank of the United States, made a report, [see Appendix,] and moved that, without being read, it be committed to a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and be printed.

Now, no one will dispute the right of the bank to receive its debts in American gold, and much less its right, Mr. McDUFFIE said he felt bound to make one or two and indeed its obligation, to allow for this gold what it is remarks, in explanation of the doctrines of the report, really worth. In like manner, no one can dispute the before the question was taken. In justification of this right of the bank to pay its debts in American gold, nor course, he would remark that this investigation of the its consequent right of receiving for this gold what it is committee extended over a great deal of ground, and really worth. This surely cannot be denominated a dealtouched upon a great variety of topics, some of them high- ing in coin, any further than unavoidably results from ly important. The report, said he, is voluminous, and having pecuniary transactions, and using money. The the committee did not finally agree upon the form in which very object for which the bank was created, was to deal it should be presented until this morning. The minority in money, and it is a strange idea that no such power of the committee has, in consequence, had no opportunity exists because it is not expressly given in the charter. of presenting their views in relation to some interesting The power to deal in bullion was given expressly, only questions adverted to and discussed in this document. I because it was not implied in the very nature of the shall be very brief, however, in the remarks I propose to transactions of a money-dealing institution. Another tomake, and will barely state distinctly the opinions of the pic has been, very unexpectedly to me, introduced into minority on the points in which it dissents from the majo- the report. A doubt seems to be entertained by the marity. The attention of the committee, it would be recol- jority of the committee, as to the right of the bank to lected, had been directed to a great many specifications sell the Government stock, for which it subscribed, under of abuse by the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. CLAYTON,] the express authority of Congress. Nothing can be more when he first proposed this inquiry. Many of these had self-evident, in my judgment, than the right of the bank turned out to be trivial on examination, and had been to sell the stock which it holds by the authority of law. permitted to pass away without notice. The committee The act which authorized the bank to subscribe for this have selected in the report those only which, in the opi- stock necessarily conveyed the right to sell it; as much nion of the majority, deserved the particular attention of as the authority to hold land conveys the right to sell it. Congress. As to the charges of taking usurious interest, It is essentially involved in the elementary notion of and of issuing branch drafts, I have nothing to remark, property. One cannot be said to have a property in that since they have been fully discussed heretofore, and since which he cannot use as he pleases, in all modes not prono new disclosures have been obtained in relation to them. hibited by law. To deny the right of the bank to sell Some new questions in relation to the violation of the its stock, would be to deny it the right of making use of charter of the bank are raised in the report, which I feel its own property. The principal value of Government bound to notice. Some general calls for information bad stock, as a bank investment, consists in its prompt conbeen made for information from the bank, which were vertibility into money; and in this view it is undoubtedly not answered before I left Philadelphia. No explanations one of the most safe and beneficial investments a bank were asked from the president, and the facts were com- can make. It furnishes a resource to meet great emermunicated without comment. These facts, thus unex-gencies in the money market, which no other investment plained, the majority of the committee have made the can furnish. The condition of the commercial community, subject of speculative conjecture, and have intimated and of the banks, would have been utterly disastrous in doubts whether some of the practices disclosed are not 1825, if the bank had not sold the Government stocks for against the spirit of the charter. In the absence of the which it had subscribed in 1824. Every one must reexplanations, which would no doubt have been satisfac- member the memorable panic of 1825, produced by protory, if it had been intimated that these practices were bably one of the greatest revulsions in commerce the deemed irregular by the committee, I present such views world has ever witnessed. It may now be adverted to, as now occur to me. The report refers, among others, as furnishing the most triumphant proof of the utility of to the practice of buying and selling coin. In relation to the Bank of the United States, and of the admirable state this practice, the president did give an explanation, so far of soundness and security to which it has brought the as it regarded foreign coin. The report seems to imply banking system of this country. At that period it is well that such dealing is not authorized by the charter. By known that most of the country banks in England failed, the charter, the bank is expressly authorized to deal in and that the Bank of England itself, an institution which bullion. The opinion of eminent counsel was obtained had stood unmoved for more than a century, amidst poby the bank on this question; and it was that foreign coin litical revolutions and commercial revulsions, was on the was included under the term "bullion." That, indeed, very brink of failure. One of the most philosophical of is the usual form in which bullion is received in this coun- the English writers on subjects of this sort, states that it try. Upon this mere legal question, somewhat technical was a providential circumstance alone that saved that bank in its character, I will make no further remark. A por- from stopping payment. There can be no higher eulotion of the committee seem to entertain the opinion that gium pronounced on the management of the Bank of the the bank has been in the habit of dealing in American United States, than to state the fact, that, during this pe coin, without any authority from the charter. I believe riod of general consternation and disaster in the commer they are mistaken in this matter in point of fact. The cial world, not a single bank in the United States failed bank was called upon to state what amount of coin it had that had been considered solvent. It was by the sale of purchased and sold; and, in presenting the tabular state- these Government stocks, of which a portion of the com.