Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

favor of his liberators? Mr. B. did not believe he would have the least desire to try a war with Texas again. [At this stage of the debate, the Senate took its daily recess.]

EVENING SESSION.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution on the independence of Texas, the question being on the substitute offered by Mr. NORVELL.

Mr. PRESTON addressed the Senate at some length, chiefly in reply to Mr. BUCHANAN, urging that former precedents not only warranted but required the express action of Congress at this time, the subject having been referred to them by the President, and the facts being such as not only to justify but demand a recognition. He urged both the impropriety of referring the subject wholly to the President, and his unwillingness to trust with him the whole responsibility. He insisted that for Congress to wait till Mexico should recognise the independence of Texas was at variance with all former precedents.

Mr. BUCHANAN, waiving reply, moved to lay the resolution on the table; which motion was negatived, by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Davis, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Knight, Morris, Nicholas, Norvell, Page, Prentiss, Ruggles, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Wright-19.

NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Linn, Moore, Mouton, Niles, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Spence, Strange, Walker, White-22. The amendment offered by Mr. NORVELL was lost, by yeas and nays, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Davis, Hubbard, Knight, Morris, Norvell, Page, Prentiss, Ruggles, Swift, Tallmadge, Tomlinson, Wall, Wright-16. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, King of Alabama, Linn, Moore, Mouton, Nicholas, Niles, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Spence, Strange, Tipton, Walker, White-25.

The original resolution, as offered by Mr. WALKER, was as follows:

"Resolved, That the State of Texas having established and maintained an independent Government, capable of performing those duties, foreign and domestic, which appertain to independent Governments, and it appearing that there is no longer any reasonable prospect of the Successful prosecution of the war by Mexico against said State, it is expedient and proper, and in conformity with the laws of nations and the practice of this Government in like cases, that the independent political existence of said State be acknowledged by the Government of the United States."

The question on agreeing to this resolution was deci

ded as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Fuiton, Grundy, Hendricks, Linn, Moore, Mouton, Niles, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Spence, Strange, Walker, White-23.

NAYS-Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Davis, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Morris, Nicholas, Norvell, Page, Prentiss, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Wright--19.

So the resolution was agreed to.

The announcement of this vote called forth some applause from the gallery, which was promptly checked by the Chair.

NAVAL SERVICE.

On motion of Mr. DAVIS, the Senate proceeded to

[SENATE.

the consideration of the bill making appropriations for the naval service for the year 1837.

The amendments offered by the committee were adopted.

On motion of Mr. RIVES, the bill was further amended, by appropriating $100,000 to launch and secure the United States ship of the line Pennsylvania.

Mr. CALHOUN remarked that the balances on hand for the naval service amounted to about $4,800,000. This, with the appropriations of this bill, would make the whole a very large sum, rather greater than the whole expenditure of Government under Mr. Monroe, and about equal to the highest entire expenditure under Mr. Adams.

Mr. RIVES replied that these appropriations were in addition to outstanding balances, except where the contrary was expressed in the bill. The objects, he said, were distinct. Former outstanding appropriations were for the completion of works begun; but the objects of the appropriations of this bill were new and distinct.

Mr. CALHOUN said he would now say to the Senate that this bill, in connexion with previous appropriations, would put under the control of the Navy Department something like $12,000,000.

The bill was then ordered to a third reading, and subsequently read a third time and passed.

OLD HARBORS, &c.

On motion of Mr. DAVIS, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill making appropriations for certain harbors, and for the removal of obstructions at the mouths of certain rivers.

Several amendments from the committee were adopted. On the amendment to this bill, proposed by the committee, for the relief of the citizens of Alexandria,

Mr. WRIGHT called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. He remarked that this amendment was identical with the bill lately passed by the Senate for this purpose, and protested against this mode of legislation, by which members might be compelled either to vote for an amendment having no connexion with the objects of the bill, or to vote against the bill itself.

Mr. DAVIS admitted the mode to be generally exceptionable. But the committee, he said, were influenced by the considerations that this measure ought to pass, and that the bill sent to the other House for this purpose, loaded as it was there with other important business, was not likely to pass in that House. He proceeded to show that justice demanded this appropriation for Alexandria, and that the amount would but just place Alexandria on the same footing with Georgetown and Washington, which cities had obtained so much greater aid from Congress on the Holland debt.

This amendment was further and earnestly discussed by Messrs. PARKER, WRIGHT, NILES, BUCHANAN, KENT, and PRESTON, and was carried in the affirmative, by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Black, Buchanan, Clayton, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Hendricks, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Linn, Moore, Nicholas, Norvell, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robbins, Sevier, Spence, Walker, White-24.

NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Hubbard, Lyon, Morris, Mouton, Niles, Page, Prentiss, Ruggles, Strange, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Wright-17.

Mr. HENDRICKS moved to amend the bill by appropriating $50,000 for the improvement of the navigation of the Wabash river. Negatived.

Also negatived, an amendment offered by Mr. MOORE, of $100,000 for the completion of the canal around the Muscle shoals, in Tennessee river.

SENATE.]

General Appropriation Bill—Brigs Encomium, Enterprise, and Comet.

Mr. WALL moved to amend the bill by an appro priation of $9,900 for Raritan river; which he pressed with great ardor and perseverance, in which he was earnestly supported by Mr. SOUTHARD.

After must debate, this amendment was lost in committee: Yeas 16, nays 16; but was carried afterwards in the Senate: Yeas 21, nays 14.

An amendment by Mr. WALKER, of $5,000 for the mouth of Pascagoula river, and of $1,000 for that of Pearl river, was lost in committee: Ayes 10, noes not counted; and lost again in Senate: Ayes 12.

Mr. LYON moved to increase the $15,000 in the bill, for a pier at the mouth of St. Joseph's river, to $30,000. Negatived.

An amendment by Mr. EWING, of Ohio, of $20,000
for the mouth of Maumee river, was lost in Senate.
Also, of $12,000, by Mr. LYON, for Kalamazoo river.
The bill was then ordered to a third reading.

GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.

[MARCH 2, 1837.

YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Black, Calhoun, Crittenden, Fulton, Hendricks, Linn, Moore, Mouton, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Walker, White-16.

NAYS-Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright-21.

Mr. PRESTON moved to strike out that part of the bill which relates to the salaries of librarian, assistant li brarian, and messengers, with a view to increase them; but it was rejected.

On his motion, $400 was appropriated for part pay ment of the artist who made a bust of the late Chief Justice Ellsworth.

Mr. KING, of Georgia, moved an amendment for extra compensation to the judge of the district of East Florida, who had adjudicated on certain private land claims, $1,500, accompanied with a clause repealing the act for this charge in future. It was not agreed to. The bill was then reported to the Senate. The amend

reading.

Mr. WRIGHT, from the Finance Committee, reported the appropriation bill for the civil and diplo-ments were agreed to, and the bill ordered to its third matic expenses of the Government for the year 1837, with numerous amendments; which were agreed to. Mr. WEBSTER moved to amend the bill by inserting $5,000 to complete the law library of Congress, according to a catalogue to be furnished by the Chief Justice of the United States. It was agreed to.

Mr. WALKER moved to amend the bill by increasing the salary of the recorder of the General Land Office to $2,500; which was agreed to.

Mr. WRIGHT moved to insert $2,000 for the salary of a secretary of legation to Mexico. Agreed to.

Mr. PARKER moved to insert $30,000 for the purchase of the manuscripts of Mr. Madison, containing a record of the debates of the convention.

Mr. HUBBARD asked the yeas and nays; which, being taken, stood as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Crittenden, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Hendricks, Kent, Linn, Lyon, Mouton, Norvell, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Southard, Tallmadge, Walker, Wall, Webster, White, Wright-25.

NAYS-Messrs. Calhoun, Davis, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Moore, Nicholas, Niles, Prentiss, Ruggles, Swift, Tipton-12.

Mr. BUCHANAN moved for statuary for the eastern front of the Capitol, $8,000.

He said he had been advised not to insert the name of any artist, although, from his knowledge of Mr. Persico, (on whose character and talents he pronounced a handsome eulogy,) he was strongly inclined to insert his name here, as it had been in the bill from the House. He, however, would waive doing so, in the hope that Mr. Persico might be appointed to execute the work.

Mr. WEBSTER advocated the amendment; but as art, like science, belonged to the world, and not to any particular nation, he was opposed to designating any individual artist, whether an American or a foreigner. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FULTON moved an amendment for the compensation of the surveyor general of Arkansas, $2,000. Agreed to.

Mr. WALKER moved to amend the bill by striking out of the appropriation for the contingent appointment of a diplomatic agent to Texas the words "may receive satisfactory evidence that Texas is an independent

Power."

Mr. W. advocated the amendment, on the ground that the Senate had this day decided that, in their judgment, Texas was independent.

The amendment was negatived, by yeas and nays, as follows:

[ocr errors]

Several other bills received their third reading, were passed, and sent to the House for concurrence. And the Senate then adjourned.

THURSDAY, MARCH 2.

BRIGS ENCOMIUM, ENTERPRISE, AND COMET. Mr. CALHOUN said that it would be remembered that on his motion a resolution was adopted, requesting the President to communicate to the Senate the corre spondence between this Government and that of Great Britain, in relation to the case of the brigs Encomium and Enterprise. He held in his hand the message of the Presi dent in answer to the resolution, from which he found that there was another case (that of the Comet) of a similar character, of which he was not aware when he made his motion, and which occurred as far back as 1832. He had read with care the correspondence, but, he must say, with very little satisfaction. It was all on one side. Our Executive has been knocking, (no, that is too strong a term,) tapping gently at the door of the British Secre tary, to obtain justice, for these five years, without receiving an answer, and this in the plainest case imagina ble. It was not his intention to censure those who had been intrusted with the correspondence on our part. They had written enough, and more than enough; but truth compelled him to say the tone was not high enough, considering the injustice to our citizens, and the outrage on the flag and honor of the Union. His remarks were intended more especially for the latter part of the correspondence, after the long delay without an answer from the British Government. At first, in so plain a case, little more could be thought necessary than a plain statement of the facts, which was given in a very clear and satisfactory manner in the letter of the Presi dent elect in the case of the Comet.

Without repeating what he said on the introduction of the resolution, he would remind the Senate of the facts of the case in the briefest manner possible.

The three brigs were engaged in the coasting trade, and, among other passengers, had slaves on board, belonging to our citizens, who were sending them to the Southwestern States, with a view to settlement. The Enterprise was forced, by stress of weather, into Port Hamilton, Bermuda, where the slaves on board were forcibly seized and detained by the local authorities. The other two were wrecked on the Keys belonging to the Bahama islands, and the passengers and crew taken by wreckers, contrary to their wishes, into Nassau, New

MARCH 2, 1837.]

General Appropriation and Harbor Bills—Road Bill.

Providence, where the slaves shared the same fate as at Bermuda.

These were the essential facts of the case. He did not intend to argue the questions that grew out of them. There was, indeed, little or no ground for argument. No one in the least conversant with the laws of nations can doubt that these vessels were as much under the protection of our flag, while on their voyage, proceeding from one port of the Union to another, as if they were in port, lying at the wharves, within our acknowledged jurisdiction. Nor is it less clear, that forced as the Enterprise was by stress of weather, and taken, under the circumstances that the passengers and crews of the other two were, into the British dominions, they lost none of the rights which belonged to them while on their voyage on the ocean. So far otherwise, so far from losing the protection which our flag gave them while on the ocean, they had superadded, by their misfortunes, the additional rights which the laws of humanity extend to the unfortunate in their situation, and which are regarded by all civilized nations as sacred. It follows, as a necessary consequence, that the municipal laws of the place could not divest the owners of the property which, as citizens of the United States, they had in the slaves who were passengers in the vessels; and yet, as clear as is this conclusion, they were forcibly seized and detained by the local authorities of the islands; and the Government of Great Britain, after five years' negotiation, has not only withheld redress, but has not even deigned to answer the often-repeated application of our Government for redress. We are thus left by its silence to conjecture the reason for so extraordinary a course.

On casting his eyes over the whole subject, he could fix on but one that had the least plausibility, and that resting on a principle which it was scarcely credible that a Government so intelligent could assume: he meant the principle that there could not be property in persons. It was not for him to object that Great Britain, or any other country, should assume that or any other principle it might think proper, as applicable to its subjects; but he must protest against the right to adopt it as applicable to our country or citizens. It would strike at the independence of our country, and would not be less insulting than outrageous; while it would ill become a nation that was the greatest slaveholder of any on earth, notwithstanding all cant about emancipation, to apply such a principle in her intercourse with others. It is time to speak out boldly on this subject, and to expose freely the folly and hypocrisy of those who accuse others of what, if there be guilt, they are more guilty themselves.

Ours is not the only mode in which man may have dominion over man. The principle which would abrogate the propetry of our citizens in their slaves would equal ly abrogate the dominion of Great Britain over the subject nations under her control. If one individual can have no property in another, how can one nation, which is but an aggregate of individuals, have dominion, which involves the highest right of property, over another? If man has, by nature, the right of self-government, have not nations, on the same principle, an equal right? And if the former forbids one individual from having property in another individual, does not the other equally forbid one nation holding dominion over another? How inconsistent would it be in Great Britain to withhold redress for injustice to our citizens committed in the West Indies, on the ground that persons could not be property, while in the East Indies she exercises unlimited dominion over more than a hundred millions of human beings, whose labor she controls as effectually as our citizens do that of their slaves! It is not to be credited that she will venture to assume, in her relation with us, a principle so utterly indefensible, and which could not but expose her to imputations which would make her

[SENATE.

sincerity questionable. This she must see, and to the fact that she does he attributed her long and obstinate silence.

But it may be asked, why, then, does she not make reparation at once in so clear a case? Why not restore the slaves, or make ample compensation to their owners? He could imagine but one motive: she had among her subjects many whose fanatical feelings on this subject she was unwilling to offend; but, while respecting the feelings of her subjects, blind and misdirected as they are, she ought not to forget that our Government is also bound to respect the feelings of its citizens. Let her remember that, if to respect the rights which our citizens have over their slaves be offensive to any portion of her subjects, how much more so would it be to our citizens for our Government to acquiesce in her refusal to respect our right to establish the relation which one por. tion of our population shall have to another, and how unreasonable it would be for her to expect that our Government should be more indifferent to the feelings of its citizens than hers to any portion of her subjects. He, with every lover of his country, on both sides, desired sincerely to see the peace and harmony of the two countries preserved; but he held that the only condition on which they could possibly be preserved was that of perfect equality and a mutual respect for their respective institutions; and he could not but see that a perseverance in withholding redress in these cases must, in the end, disturb the friendly relations which now so happily exist between the two countries.

He hoped, on resuming the correspondence, our Government would press the claim for redress in a manner far more earnest and becoming the importance of the subject than it has beretofore done. It seemed to him that a vast deal too much had been said about the decision of the courts and the acts of the British Government than ought to have been. They have little or nothing to do with the case, and can have no force whatever against the grounds on which our claims for justice However binding on their own subjects, or foreigners voluntarily entering her dominions, they can have no binding effect whatever, where misfortune, such as in these cases, placed our citizens within her jurisdic

stand.

tion.

If they be properly presented, and pressed on the attention of the British Government, he could not doubt but that speedy and ample justice would be done. It could not be withheld but by an open refusal to do justice, which he could not anticipate. As to himself, he should feel bound, as one of the representatives from the slaveholding States, which had a peculiar and deep interest in the question, to bring this case annually before Congress, so long as he held a seat on this floor, if redress shall be so long withheld.

GENERAL APPROPRIATION AND HARBOR BILLS.

The bill making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the year 1837, and the bill making appropriations for certain (old) harbors, &c. for 1837, were severally read a third time, and passed; the latter by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Buchanan, Clayton, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Linn, McKean, Morris, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Southard, Tallmadge, Tipton, Wall, Webster, Wright-26.

NAYS-Messrs. Calhoun, Clay, Hubbard, King of Ala bama, King of Georgia, Moore, Parker, Preston, Rives, Strange, Walker, White-12.

ROAD BILL.

The bill making appropriations for the repair and con

[ocr errors]

SENATE.]

Texas Distribution Question.

struction of certain roads (including the Cumberland road) having been taken up

Mr. NORVELL, after making a few remarks, moved to strike out the fourth section, which provides for the repayment of the appropriation for the road out of the two per cent. fund.

The question on the amendment being taken by yeas and nays, it was rejected, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Black, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Lyon, McKean, Moore, Norvell, Preston, Ruggles, Southard, Spence, Webster, White-21. NAYS-Messrs. Brown, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of linois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Ken', Linn, Morris, Nicholas, Niles, Robbins, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wright-22.

The bill was then ordered to a third reading, and passed.

TEXAS.

Mr. RUGGLES moved a reconsideration of the vote

[MARCH 2, 1837.

Mr. WRIGHT moved that the Senate do insist upon its amendment.

Mr. CALHOUN expressed his hope that the Senate woul! recede, and not resist an expression of the will of the Representatives of the people, given by so decided a majority as was said to have voted in the other House.

Mr. CLAY said it was at least in order to indulge in suppositions as to what had passed elsewhere; and sup posing the land bill to have been rejected in the other House, (a fact he rejoiced to hear,) could any Senator doubt that there would remain a large surplus in the Treasury, especially if other measures which had passed the Senate, and which contemplated large expenditures, should follow the fate of the land bili?

He urged the propriety of submitting to an expression of the popular will, so distinctly manifested as it had now been. Was it not wisdom to look ahead?--to provide for the future? If a surplus accumulated, was it not better to return it to the people of the several States than to leave it in the hands of the deposite banks? As to what had lately been said by the Senator from Penn by which the resolution relative to recognising the inde-sylvania [Mr. BUCHANAN] in regard to his favor for a land pendence of Texas was adopted, in order that he might bill he had formerly had the honor to introduce, and the change his vote, which was given, under misapprehen- favorable prospects of that bill, Mr. C. had not seen any sion, in the affirmative. indications in the course of the Senate which would encourage much hope for that measure, (though Mr. C. though he should infinitely prefer such a disposition of did not finally relinquish hope in regard to it;) but al the surplus revenue as that bill proposed, he would ac cept, as an alternative measure, the distribution clause inserted by the other House in the fortification bill, rather than leave the money in the deposite banks. Mr. C. said that the country owed its thanks to the other House for what it had recently done; he rejoiced to see light breaking out in that glorious quarter, so immediately related to the people; and was it possible that a majority of the Senate would oppose the ascertained popular will in relation to the disposition of the surplus revenue? The Senate had tried the House once, and they insisted on the amendment. They knew the ground on which they stood, they well knew that they were with the people in the stand they had taken.

Mr. WALKER was opposed to the motion, because he regarded it as a violation of the spirit of the rule, at least. If the vote were reconsidered, the result as to the resolution would not be disturbed. Being satisfied that this would be the case, and as time was now so precious, he felt it his duty to move to lay the motion of reconsideration on the table. Mr. W. withdrew the motion at the request of

Mr. CALHOUN, who said he concurred with the Senator from Mississippi in what he had said as to the rule. And Mr. C. did not regard the motion of the Senator from Maine as going the whole length of reconsideration; all that he wanted was to correct his vote. Mr. C. renewed the motion to lay the motion of reconsideration on the table.

Mr. HUBBARD asked for the yeas and nays, which were ordered; and the question was determined in the negative: Yeas 23, nays 25, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Ken', Linn, Lyon, Moore, Mouton, Nicholas, Parker,

Preston, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Walker, White-23. NAYS-Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, McKean, Morris, Norvell, Page, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tall madge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright-25.

The question then recurred on the motion to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted, which was decided in the negative, as follows-the votes being equal:

YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, McKean, Morris, Norvell, Page, Prentiss, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright--24.

NAYS--Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Linn, Lyon, Moore, Mouton, Nicholas,

Would the Senate, with all these facts before them, repeat the vote they had before given? He trusted not. He put it to the majority, who held the power of this body, whether they would not yield to the wishes of the people--wishes known not merely by the course of their Representatives, but through a thousand other channels, so that it was impossible to mistake it? Would gentlemen insist on leaving the public money in the hands of the deposite banks, and under such an agency as now superintended them?

Mr. CRITTENDEN made some remarks. He was understood to refer to the reproaches cast on him, and those who voted with him, on a former occasion, for cation bill should now be lost, at whose door the blame the loss of the fortification bill; and to ask, if the fortifi

would lie?

the surplus revenue should be left in the deposite banks, Mr. CALHOUN said the naked question was, whether or should be returned to the people to whom it belonged. The question was now taken, and decided, by yeas and nays, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy,

Walker, White--24.

DISTRIBUTION QUESTION.

A message having been received from the House of Representatives, disagreeing to the amendment of the Senate in striking out the 24 section of the fortification bill, providing for the distribution of the surplus revenue among the States-

Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn,
Lyon, Mouton, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Parker,
Rives, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Walker,
Wall, Wright--28.

NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton,
Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Kent,
Knight, McKean, Moore, Morris, Prentiss, Preston,

MARCH 3, 1837.]

Falmouth and Alexandria Railroad-Distribution Question, &c.

Robbins, Southard, Spence, Swift, Tomlinson, Webster,
White-22.

So it was resolved that the Senate insist on their amendment; and it was ordered that the House be notified accordingly.

FALMOUTH AND ALEXANDRIA RAILROAD.

The bill to aid the Falmouth and Alexandria Railroad Company to construct their road within the District of Columbia having undergone much debate, and some amendments, the Senate took a recess.

EVENING SESSION.

The Senate informally passed over the bill under consideration, and took up the bill for the relief of Furley Kellogg; which was ordered to a third reading.

They then took up the Indian appropriation bill, which had come from the House with amendments, covering the expenses of several Indian treaties on our Northwestern frontier, and sundry minor items for examining the country to the southwest of Missouri, and into the depredations in Florida previous to the war, and for the salaries of additional Indian agents.

After some remarks by Mr. WHITE, objections by Mr. SEVIER, and replies by Mr. TIPTON, the amendments were concurred in.

FALMOUTH AND ALEXANDRIA RAILROAD. The Senate then resumed the bill respecting the railroad to Fredericksburg.

Mr. HUBBARD strenuously opposed the amendments to the bill, which, as he stated, went to appropriate $300,000 to the construction of the road. He asked the yeas and nays.

Mr. PARKER replied, contending that the money was to be spent exclusively within the District of Colum bia, by which all constitutional objection was removed.

Mr. PRESTON advocated the amendments, stated the miserable state of the road at present, and asked why, when public works were made toward every other point of the compass, the moment any thing was proposed towards the South it was strenuously opposed.

After a desultory debate, in which Mr. KENT, Mr. HUBBARD, Mr. PRESTON, Mr. WALKER, Mr. NORVELL, Mr. SWIFT, Mr. RIVES, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. PARKER, Mr. HENDRICKS, Mr. BROWN, and Mr. LYON, took part, and in which the constitutional objections to the measure were discuss ed, (the bill being zealously advocated, especially by Mr. PARKER,) the bill was slightly amended, and then ordered to its third reading, by yeas and nays, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Hendricks, Kent, King of Georgia, Lian, Mouton, Norvell, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Southard Strange, Tipton, Walk

er--19.

NAYS--Messrs. Black, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clayton, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Prentiss, Sevier, Swift, Tallmadge, Tomlinson, Wall, White--17.

The Senate then proceeded to the consideration of executive business, and remained engaged in it until a late hour, and then adjourned.

FRIDAY, MARCH 3.

The various standing committees were successively discharged from the consideration of all subjects before them on which they had not reported.

DISTRIBUTION QUESTION.

A message was received from the House of Representatives, stating that the House insisted in its disagreement

[SENATE.

to the amendment of the Senate to the fortification bill, (which amendment struck out the clause providing for a distribution of the surplus revenue,) whereupon it

was

Resolved, That the Senate request a conference, and appoint, on their part, Messrs. WRIGHT, PARKER, and WEBSTER, as a committee to conduct the same.

After transacting some other business,

The CHAIR announced to the Senate that there was no business on the table, or otherwise before the Senate. The Senate then took a recess.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. RIVES, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, reported a recommendation that the Senate disagree to the amendments from the House of Representatives to the bill for the more equitable administration of the navy pension fund.

Mr. R. explained the ground of the recommendation. The bill of the Senate went to raise the pensions of the widows of officers before March, 1835, to the level of those since that date, while the amendment of the House proposed to cut down the pensions since 1835 to the level of those before that time.

The recommendation of the committee was assented to, and the Senate disagreed to the amendment from the

House.

DISTRIBUTION QUESTION.

A message was received from the House of Representatives, informing the Senate that the House adhered to its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate to the fortification bill.

Mr. WRIGHT thereupon moved that the Senate adhere to its amendment.

Mr. CALHOUN observed that this was a very important amendment indeed, and one which he deeply regretted the committee had deemed it proper to report. He could not consent to sit by in silence, and suffer the question to be taken, without at least requesting to hear some reason why an amendment of this character had been reported. If there should be a large surplus in the

« AnteriorContinuar »