« AnteriorContinuar »
defended, is an excellent station for the navy. It is also valuable as a shelter for vessels bound out or home, and desirous of avoiding a blockading squadron off Sandy Hook. In the plan of defence, the present Forts Trumbull and Griswold give place to more efficient works, of which the expense is estimated at $314,515.” The port of New London has probably as strong claims as any other; yet I feel no particular solicitude concerning it, or any other fortifications for my own State, as the events of the late war proved that the intrepidity of our citizens is some security against attacks, even without fortifications. The inhabitants of Stonington, with a single gun upon the beach, successfully repelled and drove off the enemy’s barges. And as respects any advantages of local expenditures, I do not regard them as deserving of any consideration; the number of persons who may be benefited by such expendi. tures is too small to be of any general advantage to the contiguous population. Neither the workmen nor materials are necessarily to be procured on the spot, and a small portion of the disbursements only may in any way benefit our citizens. Mr. President, I will now notice some of the objections which have been urged against the bill before the Senate. It is contended that one million is all that can be expended the present year; and that this ought to be applied in completing the present forts. It is believed that a much larger sum may be advantageously and economically expended the present year; but if it should not be disbursed, the appropriation can do no harm. As regards confining the action of the Government to the old works, and neglecting the commencement of others for the defence of points equally exposed, and having equal claims on us for protection, that would be very unjust, and a very partial dispensation of the blessings of the Government. The existing forts are, most of them, already in a condition to afford protection to the places they are intended to defend, whilst many of the places designed to be protected by the new forts are wholly defenceless. Protection, like justice, should, as far as practicable, be extended to all, and with an equal hand. Another objection which has been urged is, that such large appropriations for public works would derange the business of the country; that it would withdraw from other pursuits so large a number of persons as to occasion serious inconvenience, if not actual embarrassment. The price of labor is said now to be unusually high, and it is contended that the price would be greatiy augmented by the demands of the Government on the labor of the country, should so large appropriations be expended on fortifications; and that it would be unwise to enlarge this branch of the public service at a time when labor is at an advanced price. Whatever force there may be in these arguments, they come with an ill grace from the advocates of a measure to which they will apply with much more weight. How is it that gentlemen propose to apply thirty-six millions the current year to works of internal improvement, and yet are alarmed at appropriating three millions to objects of defence? If there are any grounds for apprehension that our legislation in the latter case should make too large a drain upon the industry of the country, would not the same objection apply with much more force to the distribution schemes? If the expenditure of three millions on fortifications is to derange the productive industry of the country, what would be the effect of the sudden application of more than thirty millions to works of internal improvement? But the present demand for labor, and the high prices consequent on that demand, can hardly be expected to continue. This has been the result of the overaction in every kind of business the past year; and that has already occasioned a reaction and a pressure for money,
which cannot fail to check and restrain private enterprise, and curtail the operations of every kind of business. How long the pressure may continue, and to what extent the reaction may go, no one can determine; but it would by no means be surprising if these causes now in operation should so diminish the demand for labor, as to occasion a surplus of this most useful commodity, and occasion distress among the laboring classes, for want of employment. When the embarrassments of business become such as to essentially diminish the demand for labor, a reduction in the price must take place, and a portion of the working class must be thrown out of employment, and of course will be deprived of the means of subsistence. Should this be the result of present causes, which there is some reason to fear, the usual demand which the Government might afford for labor would be extremely fortunate, by supplying the deficiency which might be occasioned by the curtailments in individual enterprise. It can be no object for the Government to desire to cheapen labor, or diminish the profits of industry. It is the policy of a wise and just Government to increase, rather than to weaken, the stimulus to industry; and whether we pay a few thousand dollars more or less for that portion of labor which the Government may have occasion to employ, is of little consequence. So far as the measures of the Government are to be influenced at all by considerations of this kind, it should rather be our object to keep the prices of labor up to their maximum, than to reduce them to their minimum standard. Another very novel, and, as it appears to me, strange argument, was urged by the Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. South Ann.] It was, that the necessity for fortifications was not so great now, as when our seaports were small, and less able to defend themselves. I had supposed that the reverse was the case, and that the necessity of fortifications was in proportion to the population, commerce, and wealth of our cities, which might stimulate the cupidity of an enemy. [Here Mr. SOUTHARD explained, and said he had used no such language, and no argument of the kind.] Mr. N. said he did not profess to give the gentleman's language, but thought he had stated the substance of his argument correctly; it struck him very forcibly at the time, as he thought it a very extraordinary argument, and he noted it down. But if the Senator saw fit to disclaim it, he would not pursue his remarks upon it. He would advert to another objection urged by the Senator from New Jersey; but as he found it difficult to state the gentleman's arguments in a manner to satisfy him, he desired the gentleman to say whether his remarks were correctly stated in this instance. The observation of the Senator to which he referred was this: that the development of the powers of steam, and the improvements in its application, were such, that it might soon change the system of defence, and fortifications be superseded by steam batteries. [Mr. SOUTHARD said that his remarks were not stated exactly correct.] Mr. N. said he only professed to give the substance of the gentleman’s argument, which he thought rather an extraordinary one, and he did not understand the Senator to deny that he was so far correct. Are we to neglect to put the country in a state of defence, and wait to see if the progress of science and experiments may not develop some better system? If we had unfortunately become involved in a war with France, and any of our defenceless towns had been destroyed, would they have been satisfied with this reason for our neglecting to provide the means of their defence? How will this argument hold, when applied to the common concerns of life? What would be thought of the husbandman who should neglect to cultivate the soil, from an
MAr 12, 1836.]
expectation that a better system of cultivation might after a while be discovered, which would entirely supersede the present? Would not this argument apply with much more propriety of force to canals and railroads, which are comparatively of recent origin, particularly the latter? Fortifications for the defence of towns are almost as ancient, and their utility and necessity as well established, as the common arts of life—as the art of tilling the earth, by which we are supplied with food, or those mechanical arts by which some of its products are wrought into fabrics for the clothing of man. In the progress of discovery and improvement, the present plan of fortifications may be superseded, and so may all the arts of life; but if we were to neglect to avail ourselves of those now known and in use, from an expectation that they might be superseded by better systems, we should not be acting very wisely, or hardly consistent with the instinct of self-preservation.
Mr. President, whence comes the opposition to this bill? I have witnessed it with some surprise, after what has occurred the present session. How many times are we to fight our battles over? An English author gives the character of an old veteran soldier, who in his latter days was employed in fighting over the battles of his youth; but our battles have to be fought over again and again, and then remain undecided. During the early part of the session, five or six weeks were spent in debating a resolution offered by the Senator from Missouri, which declared that the public revenue ought to be applied to the defence of the country. As the resolution was introduced, it directed that the surplus revenue was to be thus applied; but, on motion, I think, of the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Websten,) the word “surplus” was stricken out, and the Senate, after a protracted and elaborate debate, decided by a unanimous vote that the entire revenue should be applied for the defence of the country. But what did this resolution amount to? We seem now to have, on the part of some gentlemen, a practical construction of their votes. It seems that in this deliberate decision, made after so protracted a debate, that to appropriate the revenue of the country to its defence, meant nothing more than that they were willing to vote the ordinary annual appropriations for fortifications. Did gentlemen mean this, and this only, at the time! or has any thing since occurred which has changed their views? It is true at that time there was some apprehension of a rupture with a powersul nation; but it is not the less true that the mover of that resolution repeatedly declared that it was not offered in conscquence of the impending danger, and that if he had the bond of fate for peace, he should press its adoption with the same earnestness. It was advocated as a settled policy, and upon general considerations, and not as a measure dictated by any immediate prospect of war. It is not for me to reconcile the votes of Senators for that resolution with their determined hostility to this bill, which appropriates less than a million and a half for new fortifications; neither will I charge them with inconsistency; I leave it for the gentlemen themselves to reconcile their speeches and votes on that resolution, with their speeches and votes on this bill. When another subject was under discussion, (the bill for the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands,) it was declared by the Senator from Missouri that it was a measure in direct conflict with the defence bills; which was denied by the Senators to whom I have referred, who insisted that, after appropriating all that could be possibly disbursed for purposes of defence, which they professed to be willing to do, the surplus from the sales of the public lands would remain to be distributed. Has the pas.#. of that bill changed the sentiments of gentlemen? After the strong declarations to the contrary, are they
now alarmed that the surplus will be diminished? Is the
secret of the opposition to this measure to be discovered in the apprehension that it may interfere with the distribution schemes? Sir, I fear we are already gathering the first-fruits of that dangerous and mischievous measure; a scheme which comes in direct conflict with our entire legislation; and, by arraying the interests of the States against those of the Union, its corrupting influence tends to embarrass all our deliberations, and to defeat the wisest measures which the interest and safety of the country may demand. Mr. CALHOUN observed, that the Senator from Maine put these large appropriations on the ground that the Secretary would make the contracts to run through the whole time. Now he had had some little experience in these matters, and well knew the disadvantages attending the making long contracts. If they were made when prices were high, the profit consequent on the fall of prices enured to the contractor; and if they were made when prices were low, the contractor was sure to violate his contract, when he found himself losing by the fall of prices; so that in either case the Government must be a great loser. One great objection that he had to the large appropriations in this bill was, that they were calculated to empty the public purse and fill the pockets of the contractors. The Senator from Connecticut said that labor is now falling. Well, what would be the result? Why, the fall in the price of labor would put thousands into the pockets of individuals, for no earthly benefit to the public. There never was a time better fitted to make fortunes for contractors than the present. He understood this thing very well. He would not attribute motives to any gentleman; but it had been almost openly avowed on that floor, that the design was to retain the public money where it is, and prevent it from going back to the people, to whom it rightfully belonged. There were powerful combinations interested in this matter. Millions were deposited in these deposite banks, who paid no interest on it, and were, therefore, deeply interested in retaining this money; a vast number of individuals who were indebted to them, were equally interested in the same object; and this powerful combina: tion would make every effort to prevent the withdrawal of this money. If this bill was a question of fortifications, there would be no difficulty; it would be passed at once; but these were not the real objects in view. The question now was not for fortifications, for they were not even dreamed of; but how to prevent this immense amount of public money from being withdrawn from the deposite banks. With respect to these appropriations, the passing them at this time, and in the absence of surveys and sufficient information, would be a departure from the long settled practice of the Government, for which no sufficient reason could be given. Their custom had been, to wait for the action of the other House, and to pass such fortification bills as came from that body. There was a fortification bill now in progress there, and there was no danger of its not being sent to the Senate in time to be acted on. It was not expected to expend this money this year, for the Secretary would have too much discretion to make contracts at this time. There never was a time when there was so little use in expending money on new fortifications as the Pre: sent. There were only two nations in the world against whose attacks they would be wanted, and these were france and Great Britain. Our difficulties with **** were, thanks to Providence, happily settled; . ..., Great Britain there was not the slightest expo." - - - animous interference our coming in conflict. Her magnan 1 with France to settle our foolish and wicked quarrel ": hi * . . . . . . oriendly intentions towards to Sounplainly showed her friendly intain her friendly relstry, and her strong desire to o §: C.) lies not on ... with us, Öur danger (said Mr. 9.
the seacoast; it lies in another way—in the southwest. Let me tell you, (said Mr. C.,) that every dollar of our surplus may be wanted, and that soon. They knew not even what the next mail might bring them. Wait then (said Mr. C.) a few days, and watch the progress of events; let this bill lie, and rest until the Senate has time to consider and reflect upon it. They were proceeding with too much precipitation on idle schemes to prevent the surplus money from going back to the people, from whom it was derived. He was anxious to have the bill to provide for the safety of the public money taken up and considered; it being, in his opinion, a more important matter than any that could be brought before them; and he had hoped that the Senator from New York [Mr. Wright] would have called it up before this. He now gave notice that he would himself call up that bill on Saturday next, if the Senator from New York did not call it up before that day. Mr. WRIGHT expressed a wish to address the Senate on the subject; but it being late in the day, he moved an adjournment, which was carried; and The Senate adjourned.
FRIDAY, MAY 13. There appearing to be no quorum present at the usual hour of meeting—
Mr. GRUNDY moved that the Senate adjourn–Ayes 14, noes 8.
The Senate they adjourned.
SATURDAY, MAY 14. FLORIDA BANKS.
Mr. HUBBARD remarked, that he had that morning received, through the medium of one of the public journals of the country, information, which had created in his mind no inconsiderable degree of astonishment, and which information, he presumed, would produce a like effect upon the mind Fo individual who should be made acquainted with the facts. He had noticed that the Legislative Council of Florida had recently established “banking institutions,” the maximum of whose capital amounted to at least twelve millions of dollars. This, said he, may be all necessary for the “fair business transactions” of the Territory; but it was, however, an amount of banking capital quadruple the amount of banking capital employed in his own State, with a population of nearly three hundred thousand white male inhabitants, while there was not at this time within the Territory a sufficient white population to entitle Florida to a place among the States of this Union. There had been established a “Life Insurance and Trust Company,” with banking powers, to be located at St. Augustine, its maximum capital amounting to four millions of dollars. The charter of this company extends for the term of fifty years, and it possesses the power of establishing branches in any part of the Territory. Beside this Trust Company, “there are in Florida,” as he learned, “several other moneyed institutions; the Union and Central Banks at Tallahassee—one with three, the other with two millions of capital;” and he believed that it would appear, if an examination should take place into this subject, that in the course of the last winter the Territorial Government of Florida had established “banking companies” at Pensacola and at St. Joseph, the maximum capital of each consisting of three millions of dollars. From what he had stated, it would result that moneyca institutions had been recently chartered in Florida, whose maximum capital amounted to the enormous sum of twelve millions of dollars. This is, however, not the whole story.
it will be found, upon examination, he had no doubt,
Florida Banks—Stockton and Stokes.
[May 14, 1836.
that other moneyed institutions had been previously established at Pensacola, and in other parts of the Territory. All this (as he had remarked before) may be right, necessary, and proper; the condition, the state, of the commercial business may demand this most extraordinary, if not alarming, increase of the moneyed institutions of the Territory. But it may be wrong; it may proceed, it may spring, from that uncontrollable spirit for speculation which is abroad in the land. He would not presume to pass judgment upon these transactions. The account given had made a strong impression upon his mind, and he felt it to be his duty to bring the matter to the notice of the Senate. He had prepared a resolution instructing the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire into the character, condition, and the amount of capital of the several moneyed institutions exercising banking powers, which have been chartered within the last three years by the Territorial Government of Florida, and to report to the Senate whether in their opinion any proceeding on the part of the Senate, or any legislation on the part of Congress, is necessary.
He could not doubt but that Congress possessed “supervisory authority over Territorial legislation;” that Congress possessed the power to disapprove of and to annul the laws which might be enacted by the proper authority of this Territory. This was his impression; and he believed that our own statutes would show that we had “disapproved and declared null and void” a legislative act of Florida, years after the act had been approved. At any event, he believed it was competent for the Senate to express its own opinion, its own views, upon the legislative proceedings of Florida to which he had referred. He would, therefore, ask leave to present the resolution he had prepared, and he hoped the Senate would adopt it, and that the Committee on the Judiciary would investigate this whole matter, and make report whether the business of the Territory called for this increase of her moneyed institutions. For himself, he most conscientiously believed that there was imminent danger that the credulous, the thoughtless, the con: fiding portion of our community, may be overwhelmed in this deluge of speculation which is now spreading over our beloved country.
Mr. H. then submitted the following resolution, which lies on the table one day:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the character, condition, and the amount of capital of the several “banking institutions” which have been chartered within the last three years by the Territorial Government of Florida; and that they report to the Senate whether in their opinion any legislation of Congress is necessary to disaffirm the establishment of said charters.
stockton AND STOREs.
Mr. CLAYTON, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a bill for the relief of Richard C. Stockton, William B. Stokes, and others. Mr. C. explained the object of this bill, which was to refer the case of those gentlemen to the Solicitor of the Treasury, who, after examining all the evidence on the subject, should decide according to the principles of equity and justice. The committee (Mr. C. said) were unanimous in favor of this bill, believing that these gentlemen were justly entitled to relief. Mr. BUCHANAN advocated the bill in a speech of some length, observing that this case was, early in the session, submitted to the committee, and there was not a member of it who was not of the opinion that thesepersons were entitled to compensation for the services they had rendered. Mr. B. spoke of the fidelity with which the contracts had been performed; and observed Mar 14, 1836.]
District of Columbia.
that he had had no communication on this subject with these gentlemen at all; but he knew them to be highly meritorious contractors, who, in order to sustain themselves thus far, had made great exertions, and had stretched their credit to the utmost. Aster being amended, the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, without a division.
D1STRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Mr. KING of Alabama, from the Committee for the District of Columbia, to which had been referred the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill for the relief of the several corporations of the District of Columbia, made a report thereon, recommending that the Senate agree to the first amendment, and submitting an amendment to the second. Mr. K. then proceeded to explaine the bearing of the amendments of the House of Representatives upon the bill as it had passed the Senate. One of the amendments of the House had reduced the appropriation $600,000, in which he supposed the Senate would concur. The other amendment proposed to take the stock in the canal absolutely; whereas the Senate had only proposed to take it as a security. For his part, he was opposed to taking the stock absolutely, and hoped the amendment of the House authorizing it would be stricken out; and if the House of Representatives should not concur in the amendment to strike it out, perhaps some arrangement could be made in committee of conference upon the amendment, which would meet the views of both branches. If, however, the Senate should not think proper to strike it out, he had an amendment prepared to offer, which would make the section more acceptable to him, and he thought it would make it more so to others. He wished the Senate to understand distinctly the principles on which they were voting. If they struck out the second section, it would be relinquishing entirely the stock to these corporations, and making the appropriations in the bill without taking any security for reimbursement; if they retained this second section, it would be taking this stock as the absolute property of the Government, and depriving the three cities of the resources by which they might relieve themselves from their great pecuniary embarrassments. He had insuperable objections to the Government owning this stock, and he would therefore be glad to see this section stricken out. Mr. WALKER said, that, being a member of the committee which reported this bill, it seemed necessary that he should explain his reasons for agreeing to the report. He never could have voted for the bill in the shape that it came from the House, as it proposed to make the Government the purchasers of stock in this canal company, in the same manner as if it had originally subscribed to the same amount. He had strong objections to the Government becoming joint stockholders in any company; and he should therefore vote for the amendment to strike out the second section; believing it better for the United States to have no security at all for the advances they were to make, than to be secured in so objectionable a way. On taking the question, the first amendment of the House was concurred in without a division; and the amendment to the second amendment reported by the committee, striking out the second section, which provides that the stock held by the three corporations shall be relinquished to the Government, was agreed to--Ayes 21, noes 9. Mr. LEIGH, who had voted with the majority, moved a reconsideration of the vote striking out the second section of the bill for the relief of the corporate cities of the District of Columbia, as amended by the House. This vote, he said, gave to these cities a large sum of money, without taking any consideration whatever for
the repayment of the money. He confessed that he had not attended sufficiently to this amendment to understand its purport when he gave his vote; indeed, he was under the impression that the question then taken had a different import from the one it really had. He did not consider that he had a right to vote to give this money to the city of Washington, or to any body else, without security for reimbursement; and he therefore moved for a reconsideration of the vote. Mr. KING of Alabama thought that he had stated the simple question before the Senate as plainly as language could make it. If they struck out the second section, they gave up the stock and advanced the money without any pledge whatever; if they retained the section, there would be a transfer of this stock to the Government. He did not mean to mislead a single individual in the explanation he had given. He wished further to state, that if the object was to take from these corporations the stock for which they had paid $650,000, it would leave them without any resources to rid themselves from the heavy embarrassments under which they were laboring. Mr. LEIGH did not doubt that the honorable Senator [Mr. King of Alabama] had made the explanation as stated, and he confessed it was his own fault for not understanding it; but his mind, at that moment, had been abstracted from the subject. If he had understood the question, he should have voted directly contrary to the vote he gave. He agreed with the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Walker] that the Government had no right to become a joint stockholder, but would not enter into a discussion of that question at that time. He would prefer the amendment proposed to be offered by the Senator from Alabama, [Mr. KING, in case this amendment to strike out failed, to the section as it now stood. The reconsideration was then ordered, and the question recurred on striking out the second section. Mr. GRUNDY wished to know from the chairman of the committee whether, if this amendment were adopted, these corporations would remain in debt to the Government, or whether the appropriation in the bill was to be considered as a free gift. Mr. KING replied, that there was no obligation whatever on the part of these corporations to refund this money. The object (Mr. K. said) was to relieve these corporations from their embarrassment, and to get rid of the whole matter. If gentlemen were not prepared to go this far, he was; for he believed that the expenses incurred by one of these corporations had greatly enhanced the value of the Government's property, the taxes on which alone would amount to the sum granted. He hoped this bill would be sent to the other House unembarrassed by any stock transactions whatever. Mr. WEBSTER could not see any difference in the principle between lending these corporations money on security, and giving it to them as a donation. He was here when the loan was contracted, and, foreseeing the difficulties that would be created by it, had remonstrated againstit; and, in fact, none protested more loudly against it than the good people of Washington themselves. It was well known that the corporations (the city of Washington in particular) pretended to have claims against the Government, on account of expenditures, which had had the effect of raising the value of its property. . This was no doubt true, to some extent; and he thought the money granted by this bill would be a very liberal wo of paying all claims they might have of that nature. He was willing to give them this money, and to have the debt considered as cancelled. Mr. cAlhoun said the chairman of the Committee for the District of Columbia [Mr. KINo. of Alabama] had avowed this appropriation to be a donation. He (Mr. c.) doubted the propriety and also the constitutionality of making it. He would much rather support the bil SENATE.]
as sent from the Senate. He believed, when the canal was extended to the mineral regions, the stock would rise above par. He would much rather the bill would be sent back to the House of Representatives as it had originally passed the Senate. He doubted the right of Congress to vote away the money of the people, without making provision to have it returned to their Treasury again. Mr. NILES said it was a very ungracious task in any one to oppose this bill, containing a donation to these corporations, which a high sense of public duty required him to do. Congress, in his opinion, had no right to interfere in this matter, except as the local Legislature of the District of Columbia. These people had involved themselves in this great work, and, for his part, he could see no foundation for this claim either in law or equity. So far as the Government had stepped in as an endorser, they ought to see the debt paid. If they paid the debt in the capacity of an endorser, they ought, as an endorser, to secure themselves for the reimbursement of it. He believed conscientiously that to relieve these people from these improvident acts, would be to encourage improvidence. The value of this stock at this time was not worth one-sixth of the amount of the debt, and the very property which the money appropriated by Congress had purchased, might not be worth $10,000; but whether worth much or little, they ought to take security, not as a hard creditor on the whole property of the District, but on this canal property, on account of which the debt had been incurred. Mr. WRIGHT said, as he had opposed this bill originally, he owed it to himself to explain the views which would govern his vote upon the question now presented. It seemed to him to be simple, and to rest within a very narrow compass. The Senate passed this bill assuming the Holland debt, amounting, as he understood, to one and a half million of dollars, and also appropriating from the public Treasury from six to seven hundred thousand dollars, to pay to the several cities of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria, the interest and charges they had respectively paid on account of their respective portions of the loan from Holland; and, as a show of security to the Government for those payments, the bill provided for a pledge or mortgage to the United States of the stock held by each city respectively in the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company. The bill went to the House in this shape, where it was amended by striking out the appropriation of from six to seven hundred thousand dollars for interest and cxpenses, and by striking out also the provision for the pledge or mortgage of the stock, and inserting, in lieu thereof, a provision for a positive transfer of the stock to the United States, in consideration of the assumption by the Government of an equal amount of the Holland debt. The committee of the Senate, as he thought most wisely, had disagreed to the amendment of the House providing for a positive transfer of the stock, because he considered that provision entirely objectionable in principle, as in effect making the United States a purchaser of this amount of the stock of the canal company at par, for money advanced, or for an equal liability, less advantageous to the public Treasury than an advance of money. He was unable to discover any difference in principle between this proposition and a proposition to subscribe, on the part of the Government, to an equal amount of the stock of this canal company. The committee of the Senate now recommend to us to concur in the first amendment of the Ilouse to strike out the appropriation for interest and expenses, amounting to between six and seven hundred thousand dollars; and, in consideration of this, to give up to the cities the pledge, or mortgage, upon the canal stock proposed to
be taken by the bill, as it originally passed the Senate; and to strike out the amendment of the House requiring the transfer of the stock to the United States. Mr. W. said he should vote for the amendment proposed by the committee of the Senate, simply because he considered the bill in that shape much more favorable to the public Treasury than in the shape in which it originally passed the Senate, and because he could not consent to the principle contained in the amendment of the House, requiring a positive transfer of the stock to the United States. He did not consider the intrinsic value of the stock worth the six or seven hundred thousand dollars stricken from the bill as the consideration for a release of all claim upon the canal stock. He would not now vote for an appropriation of that amount of money from the Treasury for the purchase of the stock, as a mere financial measure, without any objection of principle to such a use of the public money. He therefore thought we should make a more profitable bargain for the public Treasury by passing the bill in this shape, than in the shape in which it had been first put by the Senate. He must be most distinctly understood as entirely opposed to the whole appropriation in any shape; and his present object was, having seen that a majority of the Senate were favorable to the bill in some shape, to make the best bargain for the Treasury in his power. It seemed to him that soune gentlemen were treating rather with matters of form than matters of substance. ‘ihey were insisting upon the form of security for the entire amount of liability assumed by the Government; while no man did contend, and he was sure no man would contend, that the real value of the security proposed to be taken was not equal to the actual payment of money from which we propose to relieve the Treasury, in consideration of yielding our mortgage upon the stock, which is all the security offered, or proposed to be taken. Mr. W. said, entertaining these vic w8, he should vote for the amendment recommended by the committee, though he should at all times, and in any shape, while his feelings remained as they now were, vote against the bill. Mr. BLACK had always voted against bills similar to this. In the first place, he was opposed to the claim; and in the second place, he was opposed to taking nominal security, which was, in fact, no security at all, and which he was opposed to having any thing to do with. iie concurred in opinion with the Senator from Alabama, [Mr. KING, J that it was better to give it as a donation, than to have anything to do with the stock. He could not see the difference in the power of Congress between loaning the money on the security of a transfer of the stock, and giving it as a donation without security. Mr. CLAYTON said that he could vote to grant relief to the city of Washington, because, had the Government paid taxes on its property in the same manner that the citizens had, the surn would have amounted to more than was given to it by this bill; but this principle did not apply to the towns of Georgetown and Alexandria, and he must therefore vote against the bill. He could vote for it, if it applied to Washington alone; but as he could not vote for Washington unconnected with the other towns, he must oppose the whole bill. The question was then taken on striking out the second section, and it was decided in the negative-Yeas 13, nays 26, as follows: - - -Y gas—Messrs. Black, Ewing of Illinois, Kent, King of Alabama, Nicholas, Porter, Preston, Southard, Tallmadge, walker, Wall, Webster, Wright—13. Noyo --Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Grundy, Hill, Hubbard, King of Georgia, Knigh', Leigh,