are guilty, and to which I thought the member from New York had fully assented.

[Here Mr. MANN asked leave to explain, and said that he was in favor of a full and thorough examination; but his objection consisted in the generality of the investigation without specifications; a course which seemed to him too much like a general search warrant, and therefore inconsistent with sound constitutional principles; and he hoped the gentleman from Kentucky would take his idea.]

I think (said Mr. UNDERWOOD) I comprehend the gentleman from New York, and will not pervert his meaning. If we were in pursuit of stolen goods, and desired to search for them, the gentleman's idea is correct. We should then be bound to specify the article lost, and the place where we expected to find it; and, before subjecting a citizen to the humiliating process of having his private apartments searched, the constitutions of the United States and State of Kentucky, and probably of every other State in this Union, would require an oath or affirmation in support of the facts before the magistrate issues the warrant, and then the warrant should specify the place to be searched and the thing to be taken. But, sir, who ever heard these well-settled constitutional principles, until now, applied to political investigations, to the examination of the departments of this or any other Government? Has it come to this: that, when we ask for the appointment of a committee to as certain whether our affairs have been properly managed and conducted by the servants of the people, gentlemen consider the proceeding analogous to the pursuit of thieves and stolen property, and contend that we ought to proceed with the same caution and formality? Sir, such a suggestion can result from nothing less than inconsiderate zeal in support of men who may be pure, and who ought to court, rather than shun, investigation, if their conduct fears no scrutiny. The idea that there is something wrong in a general commission or warrant to search and examine the political movements and official conduct of the departments of this Government seems to me totally at variance with the genius of all our institutions. What are the departments of this Government? Nothing but executive trusts, confided to agents, to be exercised according to the will and for the benefit of the people. The trustee or agent is amenable and responsible to the people; and how can that responsibility be enforced unless the people, whenever they choose, and at all times, can look into and examine as they please the records and official acts of every public functionary? And how, sir, can the people do this, un less it be through their Representatives on this floor? I demand it as a right, in the name of my constituents; and in their behalf I call for the practical exercise of that right, which will enable a committee of this House to Jay before them the official correspondence of every Secretary, the condition of their offices, and the whole evidences of their official conduct, whether it be good or whether it be evil.

If such an examination be not legitimate, if we have no such power, then indeed are the officers of Government placed above the reach of the people, and from nominal servants have become practical masters. The ample investigation tolerated by the gentleman from New York is coupled with the condition that we shall first charge some specific offence, and then he would allow us to examine the records, without restriction, for Evidence in support of it. Now, sir, such a proceeding would be well calculated to turn the investigation into ridicule. It would be necessary, if that be the appropriate course, to form charges and specifications by guessing; and unless we happened to guess right, the whole investigation would amount to nothing; for I suppose no one will contend that conviction under impeach

[DEC. 15, 1836.

ment, or public condemnation, would be the result, where the prosecutors had wholly mistaken the nature and character of the offence, and had exhibited charges totally variant from those sustained by the proof. Sir, I am not disposed to commence the investigation by guessing; but I am truly anxious to have an inspection of all the records of the several departments, for the purpose of ascertaining whether there has been any mis. feasance or malfeasance committed. If any can be found, then it is time to bring forward the accusation. If none exist, then an honest committee should proclaim to the nation that all is well; and those who, from illfounded suspicions, have insisted upon the investigation, would feel the blush of shame for having done injustice, in their thoughts, to the virtuous patriots who, uninfu enced by selfish and corrupt motives, have only labored to promote the great interests of the country.

The true question is, whether we have a right to make the examination before charging any offence; or must we specify offences at random, and then call for a committee to ascertain their truth? If it was a mere copartnership between the heads of the departments and the representatives of the people, we should have the right to inspect their books and papers; and a refusal on their part to let us do it would be just cause for dissolving the concern. But, sir, it is not a copartnership in political trade, where each member of the firm shares the profits according to the capital of intrigue and management he contributes. Such a doctrine is only current with those whose motto is, "to the victors belong the spoils." The people of this nation, in whose place we stand, do not admit the existence of any partnership with their rulers. It is no joint-stock company. Those who rule in the executive departments are the mere agents of the people, the trustees for their use; and we, temporarily clo thed with the power of the people, as their representa tives, have the same right to call upon those agents and trustees to exhibit all their books, records, and accounts, touching the affairs of the Government, that the mer chant has to call upon his factor, or the landlord upon his steward. Sir, this right is the true basis of Ameri can liberty; it is the essence of responsibility; and if it be not practically exercised, the people can never settle their accounts, or know how they stand with their ru lers; and when the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Rip. LEY] seemed to deny the very existence of such a right, I felt that he was uttering sentiments and opinions more congenial to the monarchical atmosphere of Europe than the republican expanse which encircles the States of this Union. If there is no such right, liberty is dead, and despotism reigns.

But, sir, the abstract right has not been positively de nied, although it has been treated as if it did not exist; and the manner proposed for its exercise, by the amend ment of the gentleman from Rhode Island, rather im· plies a want of right or authority to send out a committee to make a general examination. The gentleman from Rhode Island is an astute lawyer; and, if he will reflect a moment, he must be sensible that the course indicated by his amendment is a departure from the settled paactice in courts of justice, designed to bring the violators of the penal code to punishment. By their practice, the grand jury is first empannelled and sworn to inquire; and, sir, the grand jury is unrestricted in its inquiries. It has no limits, but may take a range of inves tigation coextensive with the penal laws of the land. The grand jury indicts and presents, and gives shape and form to the charge. After the grand jury has specified the time, place, circumstances, and manner of the crime, then comes the venire, and the ac cused is put upon bis trial. The gentleman's amend ment reverses the order of things. He would have the prosecutor to state the charge by guessing, and without

the examination of any witness before the grand jury, or a court of inquiry, and then he would forthwith enter upon the trial. Only indulge the gentleman in such a course-a course which subverts the settled wisdom of the country, growing out of the experience of agesand I will venture to say that no culprit ever could be convicted, with the gentleman's talents employed in the defence. This House is the grand inquest of this nation, and I, for one, Mr. Speaker, will never consent to trammel its investigations by adopting a limited rule, such as the amendment proposes.

The gentleman from Louisiana, [Mr. RIPLEY] seems to consider the original resolution, which contemplates an examination of the departments in all their ramifications, as an insinuation against the integrity of the President. He [Mr. R.] will not look into the condition of the departments, because the President has certified that all is well; and to look for himself and his constituents after that would be to suspect the truth and honesty of the President.

I was astonished to hear such sentiments avowed on this floor. They are, in my opinion, exotic, plants which should never be permitted to take root in American soil. It is the doctrine of passive obedience, of quiet acquiescence in the will of a master. Sir, the gentleman forgets that eternal vigilance is the condition upon which public liberty depends. We should receive nothing without examination, without sifting it thoroughly, and ascertaining for ourselves and our constituents all its properties and qualities.. If we are to take things on trust, our presence here might as well be dispensed with, and we had better surrender at once all the powers of government into the hands of a truthful and honest President. Sir, I have nothing to do with the truth or honesty of the President. shall neither concede nor deny him these qualities upon this occasion. By his "fruits" I know him. But as he is soon to retire from his station, and as it does not affect the principles for which I am contending, whether he is truthful and honest or otherwise, shall not stop to inquire into such personal qualities. But suppose it were conceded that his character for truth and honesty stands as high as his warmest admirers would place it, are we to abstain from an examination into the conduct of our public functionaries, and the situation of their offices, merely because the President is of opinion they have done their duty? The President's certificate in their behalf is nothing more than his opinion; he does not inform us that he has made a minute and personal examination into the condition of the departments, and that his opinion is the result of such examination. We know that the President's official duties have required a great deal of his time. His absence last summer, and his recent illness, connected with his official engagements, have allowed him very little time to devote to the examination of the departments; and hence, sir, this House and this nation may form a very different opinion in regard to the heads of the departments and their conduct, from that expressed by the President; and all this may be done without assaulting his personal character.

The gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. PEARCE] Seemed to oppose the proposed investigation, because he apprehended there was a lurking purpose to depreciate, if not slander, the characters of those who are at the head of the executive departments. I am equally sensible, with that gentleman, of the value to this nation of the reputation of our public men, and I have had cause to regret the unmerited reproaches and vile calumnies which are often cast upon them by a corrupt partisan press; but I cannot perceive any good reason for opposing the original resolution, lest the characters of those bigh in office might suffer by its adoption. We must take it for granted that the committee will report VOL. XIII.-70

[H. OF R.

nothing but facts. If the facts are of such a nature as to produce censure, degradation of character, and expulsion from office, it will be much more creditable to the nation and its institutions to expose the base motives and bad acts of exalted functionaries, than to leave them unmolested in their high places, presenting a fair exterior to dupe the world, while all is disgusting filth and rottenness within. I admit there is a diminution of national character whenever any of our high officers are shown to be unworthy of their stations; but we had better lose in this respect than to wink at corruption for the sake of appearances. By detecting, exposing, and punishing political criminals, those who offend against the statutes and principles of liberty, there is a national gain of reputation, which more than counterbalances the loss I have mentioned. The gain consists in the manifestation of a sound state of moral and political sentiment, which will not allow offenders to escape with impunity; and the assurance we find in the stern political virtue which condemns the official knave, that our free institutions are destined to last forever. Now, sir, let us test those principles of loss and gain, by instituting the fullest and most unlimited inquiry; and if the result is, as some predict, that the characters of our cabinet ministers will shine the brighter from having passed the ordeal, the nation will gain much by the conviction that existing suspicions are not well founded, and by the increase of the reputations of those high functionaries.

It has been said that the original resolution proposes a new thing, for which there is no precedent in the history of this Government. Grant it, and what of that? Is not the President's laudatory certificate in behalf of all the executive departments and their officers a new thing in the history of this Government? What former President ever did the like? If the President introduces a new practice, may we not meet it by an appropriate novelty? If the original resolution is amended, it should be done by providing for the appointment of a separate committee to examine each department. One committee, I fear, cannot go through the whole. If such a practice had prevailed, as I think it ought to have done, from the commencement of the Government, I have no doubt that many things which have been improperly done would not have taken place. Early impressions, Mr. Speaker, are never forgotten. The first lesson taught me, as a member of the Kentucky Legislature, many years since, was the propriety of appointing annually a committee to examine each department of the Government of that State, and to report upon its condition. The offices of our State-Auditor, Treasurer, Register, &c., are annually examined by a sep. arate committee, and reported on. We do not take the Governor's word that all things are going on well; but the representatives of the people investigate for themselves and their constituents; and the same practice should prevail in this Government, henceforth and forever.

If, Mr. Speaker, I have satisfied the House that we possess the power to make a general examination into the condition of the departments, without stating beforehand any specific abuse or malfeasance as the object of inquiry; if such power necessarily results from the legislative powers vested in us by the constitution, and from the power of impeachment, then there is nothing left to be considered but the propriety of exercising the power at this time. It is nothing more nor less than an exercise of the right to examine a department when this House calls for a report. We have as much right to appoint a committee to ascertain a fact by inspecting the records of a department, as to require the bead of the same department, or the chief of any bureau, to report as to the particular fact, upon his inspection. Suppose a question should arise whether the fact is truly reported,

DEC. 16, 1836.]

might be developed in a report, pregnant with useful facts, and leading to important consequences in our legislation.

I shall say nothing more, believing, as I do, that if the suggestions made are not sufficient to satisfy this House of the propriety of raising a committee, and vesting it with unrestricted powers to examine the departments, all else will fail to have the desired effect.

Mr. LANE rose and moved an adjournment, but gave way to

Mr. BRIGGS, who, on leave, submitted a resolution, giving the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads power to send for persons and papers, in investigating into the causes of the burning of the Post Office building. Mr. B. explained that the resolution was offered to supply a defect in the one adopted on the same subject that morning. The resolution was concurred in nem. dis.; and then

The House adjourned.

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16.

PROPERTY LOST IN MILITARY SERVICE. Mr. E. WHITTLESEY, by consent, submitted a motion that the House proceed to the consideration of bills on the private calendar.

Mr. W. said he did not wish to multiply words, but that the calendar was very long, and he was anxious to send the bills to the other House as fast as possible.

The motion was agreed to, and the House, on motion of Mr. W., resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, (Mr. HAYNES in the chair,) on the bills on the private calendar; and, on motion of Mr. W., the bill to provide for the payment for horses and other property lost or destroyed in the military service of the United States was referred to the same committee. And the committee having taken up the said bill,

Mr. HARDIN moved to amend the first section of the same by striking out the words "4th May, 1822," and inserting the words "8 h June, 1812," (extending its provisions to that period;) which amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HOLSEY further moved to amend the bill by extending its provisions to property impressed "in any State or Territory, in the existing war in Florida, or the late war with the Creek Indians."

After some debate, in which Messrs. E. WHITTLESEY, HOLSEY, HARDIN, and WHITE, participated, the amendment was rejected. And, no further amendment having been offered, the bill was laid aside, but was subsequently taken up again, the amendments concurred in, and the bill ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

Several other bills were then taken up in committee; among the rest, a bill for the relief of the representatives of

COLONEL ANTHONY W. white.

A long debate took place on this bill, principally on a motion of Mr. H. ALLEN to strike out the provision allowing interest from July 4, 1780, to the present time, on a claim for advances alleged to have been made to troops during the revolutionary war.

Mr. SMITH said it could not be otherwise than highly disagreeable to the mind of any gentleman upon this floor to feel himself under the necessity of opposing any claim that has its origin in, or that has grown out of, services rendered to the country during the revolutionary struggle for its independence. A claim of that denomination commends itself at once to our patriotic feelings; and we all are predisposed, and should be predisposed, to regard it with favor. But, Mr. Chairman, in the payment of public money to satisfy the demands of pri

[H. OF R.

vate individuals upon the Government, it is absolutely indispensable that some general principle be adopted and adhered to, and that all claimants be treated in the same manner. It would be great injustice not to do this, and would, moreover, leave our legislation very much at loose ends. Sir, there must be something strikingly peculiar in the character of that claim which can be regarded by Government or by Congress as elevated above that high merit of being just and equitable in itself. And, sir, there must be something no less singularly striking and peculiar in the character of that claim which shall be understandingly paid by the Government, or allowed by Congress, without its being just and equitable in itself. For one, sir, I am disposed to have the Government pay promptly every claim that shall come up to the character of being just or equitable in itself, and I am unwilling to have any paid that fall below this standard; and all that are paid, I would have paid upon one and the same principle, and by one and the same general rule, be that as it may, unless a positive agreement between the claimant and the Government shall constitute any particular claim an exception from the generality of private claims. That different degrees of hardship and misfortune, as well as of benefits and advantages, to individual claimants, will enter into the constitution of their different claims, is to be expected from the very nature of human affairs. But that the Government should undertake to deal out justice more nicely or equally among claimants, by an attempt to pursue their claims through all the incidental shades of merit that may be thought to distinguish some that are allowed from others that are also allowed, and to favor some over others, appears to my mind entirely impolitic, and impracticable to be accomplished, and would be more productive of inequality and complaint than of equality and satisfaction, in the distribution of the Government's allowances. Sir, I am constrained to oppose such a system, and to know but one rule of payment; and that is, to pay all demands alike that are found to be just against the Government, and to reject all alike that are not found

to be of this character.

In relation to the principal or substantive part of the claim now pending before the committee, I have nothing to say. I have not myself had an opportunity of investi gating its merits in this particular; but it seems to be conceded on all sides as just in itself; at least, from no quarter have I heard it objected to upon this floor. But, sir, it is to the allowance of interest for some forty or fifty years back that I do make a question, and am constrained to oppose my vote; and I ask the committee to look well to the effect of such allowance upon both the past, present, and future operations of this Government. Are gentlemen prepared to adopt a principle so momentous in its extent, retrospective and prospective, which has never yet been adopted by Congress, unless in some very few cases where it was unobserved, probably; and a principle which has been repeatedly, and I may say uniformly, repudiated by Congress, in the adjustment of claims? Where will it lead us, or where will it end? If, because this claim is just, interest is to be allowed upon that claim from its origin, then, to be just and consistent in our practice, interest should be allowed on every other claim found to be just; for justice can know no medium at which to stop in this particular. And, sir, it is not only all present claims, but all future claims, which shall be adjudged just against the Government, that should and must be so settled with interest; and this claim will be an undeniable precedent and authority for it. Nor shall we be permitted to stop here, if we would be consistent, and alike just to all. But all claims that have at any time heretofore been recognised and paid by the Govern ment, without the allowance of interest upon them, will be as fairly and equitably entitled respectively to this same