FEB. 26, 1834.] Indian Appropriation Bill. [H. OF R. blushed, until it was manned by an American President it but courteous to give gentlemen an opportunity to bring against American citizens. There was another fort which forward their amendments. had been commenced, but had not yet risen above the Mr. POLK said that, if it was intended to go into a dissurface of the water, and he thought no more money cussion of the policy of the system of defence, it would should be expended on it. Fort Moultrie had gained an then be proper to recommit the bill. He reminded the important victory, and had now been put in repair for the House that this bill was only in conformity with the pracpurpose of being used against the city of Charleston. He tice of Congress for many years past; and that it was to adverted to the course of the President under the force complete works which our predecessors had commenced. act, and declared that he would never vote for an appro- The CHAIR reminded the gentleman that he was out priation to erect a fort in Charleston harbor, while that of order. bill remained unrepealed. He asked if the Federal Government could erect a fort in a State without the consent of the State. On the ground that he had stated, he should oppose the appropriation for a new fort in Charleston harbor, which might be used, at the discretion of the President, against the city of Charleston. He wished the bill recommitted, that he might move to strike out the appropriation for fortifications in Charleston harbor. Mr. POLK then went on with his observations; when The CHAIR again called the gentleman to order, and said he could not permit the discussion to proceed. Mr. POLK then said that, if gentlemen wished to recommit the bill, he should make no strenuous opposition to the motion. He afterwards withdrew his opposition, as he would not shrink from the discussion. The motion for the yeas and nays was then withdrawn by unanimous consent. Mr. WAYNE opposed the motion to recommit, and took a view of the financial condition of the country, to show that the estimates for the fortifications had been founded on the fiscal statements communicated to the House. As the revenue would be equal to the demands to be made on it during the year, and as all the works embraced in the bill were in progress, and were of national importance, he did not see that any benefit could result The question being on a motion of Mr. H. EVERETT, from the recommitment. He did not reply to the remarks to recommit this bill to the Committee on Indian Affairs, of the gentleman from South Carolina, because he be- Mr. EVERETT stated that he had made this motion lieved that they could evoke no responsive feeling in the by the direction of the Committee on Indian Affairs; but House or in the nation; but he reminded the gentleman that, as information had been subsequently sent in from that these forts were not exclusively for the use of South the department, which had explained the items concernCarolina, but for the benefit of the whole country. They ing which doubts had existed, he was now instructed to were intended for the defence of the city, and to secure withdraw the motion. a safe passage to our fleets in time of war. He did not desire the recommitment, because it would lead to a debate upon abstractions, which could have no effect but to unsettle the country. The motion to recommit the bill was then agreed to. The bill making appropriations for the Indian Department for the year 1834 was then taken up, on its third reading. The motion being withdrawn, the bill was then read a third time. On the question of its passage, Mr. McKAY asked the chairman of the Committee on Mr. McKAY wished to recommit the bill, in order to Indian Affairs if it was intended by that committee to inhave a more equal distribution of the appropriations. He troduce any bill to regulate the intercourse with the Indian also desired to impose a check on the practice of expend- tribes? ing larger sums than were appropriated. He reviewed Mr. H. EVERETT said he could not speak in the the estimates for Fort Independence in 1831 and 1832, name of the committee, but he would give his opinion that and then compared these with the communication made a bill would be introduced on the subject. to Congress at this session. In 1831, $20,000 was said to be sufficient to repair the fort; in 1832, it was stated that $17,000 would finish the fort; and now, a large sum was again asked. The CHAIR called the member to order, as going too widely into the discussion. Mr. POLK rose, and commenced some remarks. Mr. MCDUFFIE expressed a hope that the gentleman from North Carolina would not be silenced. Mr. POLK said he did not wish to say any thing, unless the gentleman from North Carolina yielded the floor. Mr. McKAY then resumed his reference to the reports which had been made to Congress; when The CHAIR again pronounced him to be out of or der. Mr. PARKER was in favor of recommitting the bill, because it had not been sufficiently discussed and considered in Committee of the Whole. Mr. VANDERPOEL thought that the motion to recommit was reasonable. As there had been so much of pressure and famine before the House for some time past, it was not to be wondered at that minor subjects should have escaped that critical examination which they demanded. In order to give gentlemen an opportunity to make any amendments they desired, he thought the bill should be recommitted. Mr. CHILTON was also in favor of a recommitment of Mr. McKAY then made a few remarks on the enormous expenditures in this Department, and the necessity which there was for some investigation of the subject, especially into the appointment of agents. Mr. H. EVERETT explained that he acquiesced in the views of the gentleman from North Carolina, and repeated that the subject would be brought before the House in the form of a bill. Mr. POLK explained that this was the customary annual bill, and that it appropriated less than usual, on account of the discontinuance of three sub-agencies. After an interrogatory by a member, as to an item in the bill, Mr. McKAY made some further observations on the incongruities and extravagant appropriations in the bill. Some further discussion took place, in which Mr. ASHLEY, Mr. H. EVERETT, Mr. POLK, and Mr. McKAY took part. Mr. McKAY then moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and, the question being put, the motion was negatived-ayes 70, noes 102. Mr. BROWN, of New York, moved that the House do now adjourn-ayes 120. The House then adjourned. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26. After disposing of some morning business, the House rethe bill, in consequence of the differences of opinion sumed the consideration of the resolution submitted by which exhibited themselves in every part of the House, Mr. MARDIS, on a former day, in relation to the future concerning particular provisions of the bill. He thought place of deposite of VOL. X.-175 |