before entering into the consumption of the country, the duties were refunded.

And here again I beg the attention of the honorable gentleman from Tennessee, and of the House generally, to the fact that this case of the French citizens is not one where the facts could have escaped the notice of Congress, while the law in its favor was on its passage. It is not a precedent that was established through the negligence of Congress. So well did Congress understand what the measure and the case was, and so careful were they in the recognition of the principle it in. volved, that the facts of the case were especially set forth in the preamble of the bill, as I have read it from the statute book.

Congress herein recognised the principle, that inasmuch as the property destroyed had not actually entered into the consumption of the country, and had not gone into the market, but was held "on account of the same importers"-in other words, had never changed hands and owners-it was but just, and honest, and politic, to refund the duties paid upon it, though it had been several months in the country.

Sir, I do not press the principle in this broad extent now. I do not say I would recognise it to such an extent now. I cite the case only to show how much broad. er is the principle upon which Congress has beretofore acted in the remission of duties, than in the one now involved by the case before us. Surely, sir, if the case of the French citizens be admissible in half its extent, the case of Messrs. Dana & Co., now before us, is beyond question.

The case of Jabez Rogers is another case founded on the same policy of the Government. It is entitled "An act for the remission of the duties on certain distilled spirits destroyed by fire." It was approved June 7, 1794, and reads as follows-(see United States Laws, vol. 2, page 485:)

"Whereas Jabez Rogers, junior, who had erected large works at Middlebury, in the State of Vermont, for distilling spirits from the produce of the country, has bad the same twice destroyed by fire, with a quantity of spirits therein, on which by law duties had become payable to the United States:

"And whereas, considering the equity of the case, said duties ought to be remitted; therefore,

"Be it enacted, &c., That the duties payable to the United States on all such distilled spirits as shall be proved, to the satisfaction of the supervisor of the district of Vermont, to have been destroyed by fire in the distil. leries lately burnt at Middlebury, in the State of Ver. mont, be and are hereby remitted."

Here, again, the principle adopted is altogether more broad and liberal than is asked or contemplated in the case of Dana & Co., now before the House. It not only adopts the principle of refunding the duties that had accrued to the Government, because the dutiable article was destroyed before entering into the ordinary consumption of the country, but, also, in a case where the loss incurred was from a risk against which ordinary prudence would have protected the owner; where an insurance of the property, against the very loss incurred, was possible. The case before the committee imbodies all the merit of the first principle, without being exposed to the derogation of the last-mentioned circumstance. The principle of refunding duties imposed by Govern ment, in cases where the purpose of both the Government in imposing such duties, and of the individual in paying them, has been defeated by inevitable and unforeseen accident, which is precisely the principle of the case of the Danas, was fully recognised and adopted by Government in the act of June 1, 1796, entitled "An act providing relief to the owners of stills within the United States, for a limited time, in certain cases." That act

VOL. XIII.-88

[H. OF R.

provided (see 2d vol. United States Laws, p. 571) that where a distiller had been "really and truly prevented from employing or working his still or stills, during any part of the term for which he had rendered it liable to pay a duty upon its or their capacity, by the destruction or failure of fruit and grain, or any other unavoidable cause, within the district in which he resides," &c., he might pay upon its capacity a pro rala duty for the time his still or stills were actually employed.

The same principle was adopted by the act of March 3, 1797, relating to duties laid upon mills employed in the manufacture of snuff. The second section of that act provides as follows, (see 2d vol. United States Laws, p. 590:) "That in all cases of licenses granted under the said act, where, by failure of water or other casualty, occurring to the mill or mills, or to the implements, or to the proprietor or other person licensed, the use and benefit of such license has been lost, or considerably interrupted, and the duties thereon required, or paid, may be considered peculiarly unequal and injurious, the Secretary of the Treasury, upon due representation and proof of such case, shall be, and hereby is, authorized to cause to be refunded or remitted such part of duties paid or secured on such license as shall appear just and reasonable under the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the loss, injury, or peculiar hardship, sustained as aforesaid."

I may cite the case of the Providence merchants, found in vol. 3, p. 433, of the Laws of the United States. The collector of the district of Providence, in the State of Rhode Island, was authorized and directed, by the law of their case, to remit the duties on such parts of two certain cargoes of teas as were imported on the 29th of July, 1800, by Thomas Lloyd & Co., and on the 22d of August, 1800, by John J. Clark, "as remained deposited to secure the payment of duties, under the care of the officers of the customs, on the 21st day of January last, in the aforesaid town of Providence, and shall be proved, to the satisfaction of the said collector, to have been burned and destroyed." This was approved March 3, 1801.

The committee who reported this last case for relief say: Your committee are of opinion that, as the goods were under the care of the officers of the customs at the time they were consumed by fire, and not subject to the control of the owners; and that, as granting relief in this case cannot establish a precedent dangerous to the revenue, the prayer of the petition ought to be granted." American State Papers, vol. 1, on Finance, p. 698.

Here the principle of not exacting duties on goods destroyed before entering into the ordinary consumption of the country is distinctly and undeniably recognised, and is the great leading principle of the case. Here, also, the principle of remission is extended far beyond the nature of the case presented by the Messrs. Danas & Co., because it is made to cover a loss arising from a risk against which an ordinary insurance and ordinary vigilance would have protected the owners. The fact that the property was still in possession of the Govern ment does not alter the case, only so far as it may presume to shut out the possibility of fraud on the part of the importers, because this fact did not take the case out of the principle of ordinary insurances, nor release the owners from exercising ordinary vigilance to secure themselves against loss from such a risk.

Mr. Speaker, I might go on and cite, in detail, each of the several cases that have come before Congress for remission, but for consuming too much of the time of the House. Suffice it to say that, after careful and vigilant search, I find no case conflicting with the principle of the case now presented, and when the fact that the property destroyed was so situated as not to be insura

ble was taken into consideration. Cases may be found where there was a want of proof of vigilance and ordinary care, or where the property was insurable in the ordinary way, or where it has been exposed to new risks, against which the Government could not properly be made a partner with the importers or owners. Such cases have been, and very properly, too, rejected. The last case of this kind, I believe, which was acted on by Congress, was that of George and William Bangs, in January, 1830. It was a case of goods destroyed by fire. But, sir, on turning to the proceedings of the House upon this case, I find it to have been one clearly excluded by the principles of the report of the Committee of Ways and Means in the case before us. The case of Bangs was one of neglect and want of ordinary care. The gentleman who is now the oldest Representative of Rhode Island upon this floor [Mr. PEARCE] was among the number who opposed the bill, and he opposed it on the ground that the argument urged in its support "would establish a bad precedent""would lead to the conclusion that Government would guaranty all goods imported, which, through neglect, might be destroyed in the store, or which might be exported by coastwise navigation from the North to the South." He denied that there was any analogy between this case and that of the goods destroyed by fire at Savannah, and upon which the duties were remitted.

The honorable chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means of the present House was also among the number who opposed the bill in favor of the Bangs. He did it expressly on the ground that "the effect of the passage of the bill would be to encourage the importing merchants to neglect their business. He attributed the fact of this claim being made to the remissness of the importer, who ought, as every merchant who knows his business does, to have insured his property. This was a case, he contended, of gross and palpable negligence; and if the House should adopt the principle of the bill, we would have our tables crowded with memorials whenever a fire takes place in the United States. merchants in the interior of the country had as good right to claim a remission of duties on goods destroyed by fire as the importers."

The

Sir, I accord most fully with these views, and the principles upon which they are founded. But, sir, a broad, marked, and manifest principle distinguishes the case now before the House from the Bangs case, as thus represented. In a case not only deficient in proof of ordinary vigilance on the part of the importer, but thus marked by proof of "gross and palpable negligence," I should feel it my duty, as every other member of this body would feel it to be his duty, to reject the claim. Sir, the argument of such a case does not touch or affect the merits of the present one.

Thus much, Mr. Speaker, have I felt it my duty to say in relation to precedents. I will venture to affirm, that while numerous precedents of remission can be adduced, covering all of the principles of the present case, and stretching even far beyond it, not one case will be found rejected, wherein the facts set forth are not distinguishable in point of strength and merit from this case, and therefore not deserving of weight as authority against it, even with those gentlemen who wish to be governed by precedent.

But, sir, I appeal now to those naked principles of justice and policy, which this House and Congress ought and may safely adopt, as decisive of all cases. 1 ask not to have this Dana case regarded as an exception to all general principles of legislation, but as coming fairly and rightfully within those general principles which

* See Gales & Seaton's Register of Debates, vol. 6, part 1, p. 622.

[JAN. 16, 1837.

ought to be recognised in all legislation towards the mercantile community. These are the principles laid down in this report of the Committee of Ways and Means. And let it be established that, in those cases, and in those cases only, will Congress remit duties on goods destroyed, where

1st. The goods were, when destroyed, in their ori ginal state as imported, and had not entered into the mass of commodities destined for the immediate consumption of the country.

2d. Where the circumstances of the loss are such as not only to excite no suspicion of fraud, but as expressly and directly to exclude the possibility of it. Sd. Where the loss could not have been covered by ordinary insurance, or guarded against by the caution and diligence of a vigilant and prudent man of business; and where the evidence to all these points is full, direct, unquestionable, and of the highest nature the case will permit.

Sir, I ask the allowance of this Dana case only upon those principles, as a case justified in every requirement of those principles beyond any controversy or question. I can conceive of no danger or possible injustice to the Treasury of the Government by adopting these fundamen tal rules of remission. I can conceive of no sound argument that can be adduced on the opposite side, that will not do injustice to the commercial interests of the country. Surely Government cannot desire to pursue a policy that shall work injustice to the vigilant importing merchant, nor to speculate upon his inevitable misfortunes. If the merchant, under any case that can be conceived of as coming within the principles I have adverted to as the just ones to control this case, can stand up against the loss incurred, without any fault on his part, of the ori ginal cost and expenses of importation of the goods so destroyed, surely the Government may well abstain from exacting of him the payment of duties upon the prop erty; and surely, moreover, the Government that is unwilling to relax its demands upon the unfortunate mer chants in a case of such extreme hardship must be regarded as slow indeed in the encouragement of honest enterprise. I trust such is not the character of our Government. Be that as it may, I have discharged my duty towards the claimants in this, and every similar

case.

After further debate, and before any question was taken upon the bill, The House adjourned.

MONDAY, JANUARY 16.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

The unfinished business of the morning hour was the petition presented on Monday last by Mr. ADAMS, from forty inhabitants of the town of Dover, in the county of Norfolk, in the State of Massachusetts, praying for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia; the pending question being on the motion of Mr. LAWLER that the petition be not received.

Mr. BYNUM was entitled to the floor. Mr. HOWARD requested the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. BYNUM] to yield the floor, with a view to enable him (Mr. H.) to make another effort to give the States a chance of getting in their petitions. There were more than half the States in the Union that could not have the opportunity. He proposed to suspend the rule, to enable him to offer a resolution that the States be called for petitions in reverse order.

Mr. BYNUM said he would have great pleasure in yielding the floor for that purpose, if it should be under stood that he would be entitled to the floor when this petition should next come up. He thought the House

JAN. 17, 1837.]

So the rule was suspended.

Mr. HOWARD then offered the following resolution: Resolved, That in calling the States for petitions on this day, the Speaker do call in the reverse order, beginning with the youngest Territory.

Mr. ADAMS called for the yeas and nays on the adoption of the resolution; which the House refused to order.

And the question was then taken, and decided in the affirmative: Yeas 125, nays 33.

So the resolution was adopted. Petitions and memorials were then called for in the reverse order of States and Territories.

Mr. E. WHITTLESEY said, it having been the sense of the House that petitions relating to the abolition of slavery should not be discussed to-day, he begged to state that he had several such in his possession, but that he refrained from offering them, under the hope that, when he did offer them, he might be heard for a few moments in relation to the direction which he thought should be given to them by the House.

MEMORIAL FROM DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

The SPEAKER presented a memorial from the grand jurors of the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia, soliciting that hereafter no petitions may be received or entertained by Congress, from societies or inhabitants of the non-slaveholding States, for the abo lition of slavery in the District of Columbia.

Mr. PINCKNEY moved to lay the momorial on the table.

Mr. WASHINGTON called for the reading; and it was read accordingly.

Mr. GRAHAM called for the yeas and nays on the motion of Mr. PINCKNEY; but the House refused to order them.

And the question was then taken, and decided in the affirmative.

So the memorial was ordered to lie on the table. Mr. JENIFER moved that the same be printed. The SPEAKER said the motion was not now in order.

Mr. HIESTER presented the petition of 240 females of his congressional district, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and moved that the same be referred to the Committee on the said District.

Mr. W. B. SHEPARD objected to its reception. Mr. S. said that, whenever a proper opportunity presented itself, it was his intention to offer a few remarks on this subject. He did not feel disposed now to violate the agreement which had been made with his colleague, [Mr. BYNUM,] that this discussion should lie over; and he moved, therefore, that the further consideration of the petition be postponed until Monday next.

Mr. DAVIS moved to lay the preliminary motion of reception on the table.

Mr. STORER inquired if the effect of the motion to lay on the table, should it prevail, would not be to reject the petition for the time being.

[H. OF R.

The SPEAKER said the effect of the motion would be to suspend all action, and to leave the petition exactly where it was.

And the question was taken, and decided in the affirmative: Yeas 89, nays 37.

So the preliminary question was laid on the table.
PROTECTION TO COMMERCE.

Mr. LAWRENCE presented the memorial of George Hallett, and four hundred merchants of the city of Boston, praying Congress to establish steam and other vessels for the protection of the navigation of ships of the United States coming on our coast in the winter.

Mr. L. adverted briefly to the fearful loss of life and property which had taken place on our coast during the last year, to an extent unprecedented in our history.

This loss was to be attributed in part to the want of a good system of pilotage, but mainly to the fact that vessels coming, after very long voyages, on a bleak and wintry coast, and short of provisions, required some protection and assistance which their own crews were not able to render. He moved that the petition be refer red to the Committee on Commerce, and expressed a hope that some action would be speedily had upon the subject.

The petition was referred accordingly.

During the day, a number of petitions, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, were presented; which were, in every instance, met by the motion to lay the preliminary motion of reception on the table, and which motion prevailed.

After the reception and disposal of several resolutions of inquiry,

The House adjourned.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 17.

KEEPING THE JOURNALS.

Mr. UNDERWOOD asked the consent of the House to submit a resolution, which he desired might be read for the information of the House.

Mr. JARVIS objected to the reception of the resolution and to its reading.

Mr. UNDERWOOD said, if the Clerk would return the resolution, he (Mr. U.) would state briefly its substance to the House.

Mr. ADAMS said, if the gentleman from Kentucky was permitted to read the resolution, he (Mr. A.) hoped no more objection would be made to members reading papers in their places.

The SPEAKER said the question could not be debated.

Mr. UNDERWOOD inquired if it was in order to make a brief statement of the contents of the resolution.

The SPEAKER said it was in order so to do, but it was not in order to read the resolution itself.

Mr. UNDERWOOD said his object was to submit a series of resolutions, declaring the sense of this House that it was not competent, under the constitution of the United States, to change, alter, expunge, mutilate, or destroy, the journals of either House of Congress; that the preservation of the journals of either House of Congress was a subject of national importance, and a fit subject of national legislation; that, after these journals had been faithfully kept and preserved-

Mr. CUSHMAN called the gentleman from Kentucky

to order.

M. UNDERWOOD declared that he had not yet completed the brief statement of the contents of the resolution, though he had nearly done so.

The CHAIR said he must request the gentleman from Kentucky to submit his motion to the House.

H. OF R.]

Mr. UNDERWOOD said his motion was to suspend the rule to enable him to offer this resolution. Could be not read what was the purport of that resolution?

The CHAIR said he thought not, the reading of the resolution having been specially objected to. A mem. ber could not himself read what the Clerk was not permitted to read.

After a few further remarks on the point of order, Mr. JARVIS, with a view to save the time of the House, withdrew his objection to the reading of the resolution. The same was accordingly read, and is as follows: Resolved by the House of Representatives, That the 3d clause of the 5th section of the 1st article of the constitution, in the following words, to wit: "Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and, from time to time, publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in their judgment, require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal," confers no power whatever on either House of Congress, at a subsequent session, to change, alter, de face, expunge, or destroy, its journal, or any part thereof, when the same has been regularly and faithfully kept during a previous session, and duly published.

Resolved, further, That the journals of both Houses of Congress, kept and published as aforesaid, after the adjournment sine die, become national archives; and that all attempts and acts of either House separately, or of both by joint resolution, to change, alter, deface, expunge, or destroy, either journal, or any part thereof, are violations of the constitution.

Resolved, That the preservation of the national archives from mutilation, disfiguration, and destruction, is a fit subject of legislation. Wherefore,

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be directed to report a bill providing for the deposite of the original journals of each House, after their adjournment sine die, in the office of the Secretary of State; and for the punishment of every and all persons, their aiders and abettors, who shall alter, change, deface, expunge, or destroy, any part of either journal after such adjourn

ment.

Mr. MORGAN called for the yeas and nays on the motion to suspend; which were ordered, and were: Yeas 77, nays 118.

So the rule was not suspended.

THE PUBLIC LANDS.

The unfinished business of the morning hour was the resolution of Mr. C. ALLAN, providing that certain grants of the public domain be made to such States as have not yet received them, together with the several amendments thereto proposed.

The pending question was on the motion heretofore submitted by Mr. Born, to lay the resolution and amendments on the table.

On which motion the yeas and nays had been heretofore ordered; and having been now taken, were: Yeas 114, nays 82.

So the resolution and amendments were laid on the table.

EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATION.

The House proceeded to the consideration of the following resolution, beretofore offered by Mr. WISE: "Resolved, That so much of the President's message as relates to the condition of the various executive departments, the ability and integrity with which they have been conducted, the vigilant and faithful discharge of the public business in all of them, and the causes of complaint, from any quarter, at the manner in which they have fulfilled the objects of their creation,' be re

[JAN. 17, 1837.

ferred to a select committee, to consist of nine members, with power to send for persons and papers, and with instructions to inquire into the condition of the various executive departments, the ability and integrity with which they have been conducted, into the manner in which the public business has been discharged in all of them, and into all causes of complaint, from any quar ter, at the manner in which said departments, or their bureaus or offices, or any of their officers or agents, of every description whatever, directly or indirectly connected with them in any manner, officially or unofficial ly, in duties pertaining to the public interest, have fulfilled or failed to accomplish the objects of their creation, or have violated their duties, or have injured and impaired the public service and interest; and that said committee, in its inquiries, may refer to such periods of time as to them may seem expedient and proper."

To which resolution Mr. D. J. PEARCE bad offered an amendment, for which Mr. FRENCH had offered a substitute.

Mr. McKEON said the reading of the resolution must bring to the attention of the House the fact that a large portion of its time had been expended upon the discus sion of the various topics which had been introduced in. to the debate. He was deeply impressed with the ne cessity of confining any remarks he might offer within a narrow compass. He assured the House that nothing would have induced him to prolong a debate already too much extended, except that justice to those with whom he acted, and to himself, required him to notice some of the observations made in the course of the debate.

in

When the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. WISE] was introduced, I viewed it (said Mr. McK.) as a measure novel in its character, and one calculated to establish a precedent which might hereafter be perverted. In the phraseology of the resolution I saw a power of unlimited extent intrusted to a committee of this House. I am not of that school which insists upon a search warrant to authorize you to examine your public offices, but I cannot but believe that, if you intend to examine any matter beyond the manner in which your public agents discharge the duties of their appointment, you will require something more than a resolution of this House. What does the original resolution propose To examine into the official and unofficial conduct of those who are directly or indirectly connected with the public departments. This is the task which is to be al lotted to a committee of this House. This is the inquisi torial tribunal you propose to create. If we appoint the committee, how can it proceed in the discharge of its duty? The power of this House can go no further than to examine into the official conduct of those who are office, who receive their compensation at your hands, and who are liable to censure and removal for any breach of duty. In every point connected with your public of fices, in every matter of an official character, you have the right and the power to exact a rigid, strict examina tion; but when you will attempt to inquire into the unof ficial conduct of a public officer, or to make the wide spread investigation proposed by the resolution, the suc cess of your investigation will depend more upon the dis position of those who may be called before the commit tee than on any power of this House to compel them to satisfy your inquiries. You will search in vain for a precedent for this movement in parliamentary history; but you may find one elsewhere. There can be found one direction to which it bears a strict resemblance. The command of this House to the committee may be found in that of Dogberry to the watch, a sweeping resolution to "comprehend all vagrom men," and to let all go who will not stand according to order. Let it be considered that we have several standing committees, whose duty it is to investigate the affairs of your departments. Let it

be considered, also, that, but a few days since, we appoint ed a committee, at the head of which is the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. GARLAND,] which committee is daily engaged in the examination of one of the subjects referred to in this resolution. Yes, sir, the very point which, I believe, according to the mover of this proposition, gave rise to this proposed investigation. But in addition to these means which are within our power, the andment of the gentleman from Rhode Island is offered. That amendment is, in my opinion, not open to the objections which may be made to the original proposition. It is in accordance with parliamentry practice. It is no part of the duty of a Legislature to undertake an exploring expedition in search of abuses; but if abuses are charged, it becomes a solemn duty to investigate them. The amendment proposes to create a tribunal before which charges can be made, and to examine into the truth of those charges. Suppose a petition was presented to this House, and referred to one of the appropriate committees, praying an examination into the manner in which your public officers discharge their duties, and setting forth that abuses existed. Your committee would ask the petitioners for specific charges, and if they were produced the examination would be made. I doubt very much whether they would inquire of your different departments and bureaus for something to sustain the allegation of the petitioners.

But, sir, it appears that your standing committees, your select committee, the amendment, will not be satisfactory. Nothing will give sufficient latitude but the original resolution. I prefer sustaining the amendment, believing it cannot be perverted hereafter into a dangerous precedent; but if that cannot be adopted, I shall not be found denying investigation. I am willing to give every facility, and to afford ample means, to pursue the desired examination; to have the official transactions and correspondence of your public offices laid open. As the representatives of the people, we are bound to guard every department. We are bound to pour light into every portion of this Government. It is due not only to the country, but to the incumbents, to those on this floor who wish the examination, that some decision should be had on this subject, and that without delay. The debate which has arisen upon this resolution has resusci tated the denunciations and charges which we had reason to believe were long since buried. I have been surprised to observe the course of the present discussion. The same accusations of corruption, of proscription, and of abuses of every nature, which were made at the last session, with a view of operating on the then approaching political contest, are reiterated upon the present occasion. We ought to suspect that our fate has been that of Rip Van Winkle; that we have been sleeping quietly while the thunders of the opposition, louder far than any which reverberated through the Catskill, have been pealing over us, and we have been unconscious of the presidential contest which has just closed. If there is to be a repetition of those charges, it is full time we should be aroused. I have sought for new statements, but none are offered. Let it be remembered that the same representations which are made now were made before the struggle commenced; that the same evidence, sustained by the aid of the same distinguished gentlemen, was laid before the people of this country, and that the people supported him against whom these charges were intended to operate. Why do gentlemen stop even now? Why do they halt? Why not cross the Rubicon? There is still remedy left. If outrages upon the constitution, if violations of the liberties of the people, have been committed, why, instead of making the accusation, is not the individual who is the author of these evils made liable to the consequences of impeachment? If he bas violated the rights of any of your citizens, any of the

[H. OF R.

rights of any branch of the Government, why is he not placed in a situation where he will be required to defend his public character from these accusations? If we have watchful sentinels on the ramparts of constitutional liberty, let them not only sound the alarm, but let them seize upon him whom they represent to be an enemy of the country. That country has a right to demand this movement at the hands of those who are so desirous of preserving its interests from violation. Nothing is easier than to denounce. We ask for the evidences to support the charges they make-we ask for action. The Executive has been represented as a violator of his plighted faith, as one who had broken every pledge. Let us look to his inaugural address, which ought to be considered as an exposition of the policy which would characterize his administration. In regard to your foreign policy, he had stated that he would endeavor to preserve peace and cultivate friendship with all nations on honorable terms, and to adjust our differences in the forbearing spirit becoming a powerful nation, rather than the sensibility belonging to a gallant people. Has this been fulfilled? Do you find the violation of this pledge in the elevated position which our country sustains amongst the nations of the earth? He pledged himself to a spirit of compromise, equity, and caution, in regard to your tariff, by the promotion of agriculture, commerce, and manufac tures; and if any encouragement should be given, it was only to those articles which might be found essential to our national independence. Let his messages to Congress show how far he has labored to discharge this pledge. He avowed his determination to reform abuses, by depending for the promotion of the public service not on the number, but on the efficiency, the integrity, the zeal, of public officers. Let the consequences of the toils of those agents, visible in the negotiation of foreign treaties, and in the happy results of the faithful discharge of duties within our country, be his defence on this point. He promised to facilitate the extinguishment of the public debt. Has that been discharged? Does not the contest here for the division of an immense surplus in your Treasury speak for him on this subject? Has not, during this administration, the novel spectacle been presented to the world of an immense republic, unshackled with a national debt? When the violence of political feeling shall have subsided, but one opinion, sir, will be given of the present administration; and if, as some gen. tlemen insist, the coming administration will be but a continuation of the policy of the present, the country may be congratulated on the prospect of a career of brilliancy and prosperity. It will be a continuation of a policy which seeks to enlarge the liberties of every citizen, and to promote the welfare of the Union.

The corruption which exists in the Government is a fruitful theme. The dictation of the Executive, and his interference with the elective franchise, have been blazoned forth to the world. Sir, if we have had a dictator, be bears but little resemblance to the Sylla of other days. The Roman retired when the aristocracy had been armed with the sceptre, but our dictator is about to surrender his trust when the democracy is triumphant. Do gentlemen suppose that the intelligence of this country is to be deceived with this outcry? May we ask when and where this dictation took place? Who were the individuals who yielded, or the States that submitted to his commands? We hear of Tennessee! That State did not vote for the individual who is said to have obtained his election by the dictation of the Executive. If the dictation of the President was of any avail, it must have been united not only with omnipotence but omnipresence. Its results are seen in Maine, and at the same time in Louisiana-in the Atlantic States and in your far West. This charge (let gentlemen consider) of dictation and of corruption, reaches not only the Executive,