increase the sales to a great degree, and operate as an encouragement to speculation. Mr. EWING, of Ohio, after a few remarks, moved to postpone the bill until Monday. Mr. WALKER objected to the postponement to so late a day as Monday, on the ground that, this being a short session, it would endanger the passage of the bill. He wished the bill to be taken up to-morrow, and for the discussion to go on while gentlemen were preparing their amendments. He knew that it could not be passed without considerable discussion; and, therefore, the sooner that discussion commenced, the better the chance the bill would have of being brought to a final decision before the close of the session. If a postponement should be ordered, he hoped that it would not be to a later day than Friday next. Mr. KING, of Alabama, did not wish to prevent any gentleman from having a fair opportunity of expressing his opinions on the subject, and was willing to allow a reasonable time to make the bill as perfect in its details as possible. With regard to what had fallen from the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY,] he presumed that it was not his intention to throw any unnecessary impediment in the way of passing this bill. It was not to its details, but to the great principle of it, that the Sen. ator objected; and he would take the occasion to say that it would puzzle that gentleman's ingenuity to show (as he had said he could do) that there were provisions in the bill that would lead to more speculation than was practised under the present system of conducting land sales. No matter what measure should be devised, it was more than any man could do to prevent speculation altogether. But the friends of the bill believed that much could be done towards limiting its extent, and therefore were anxious to give their plan a fair trial. Now, as to disposing of the bill, he would prefer that the Senate should go on with it to-morrow, and gentlemen could, in the mean time, prepare such amendments as they might wish to offer. He would now repeat, what he had said when he arose, that he was willing to give a reasonable time for the discussion; but beyond the time he had mentioned he was not disposed to go. He hoped the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. WALKER] would consider it his duty to the Senate and to the country to take up the bill as early as possible, and then gentlemen would have an opportunity of discussing the subject. The question was then taken, and the further consideration of the bill was postponed till Friday next. FRENCH AND NEAPOLITAN INDEMNITIES. Mr. WRIGHT, chairman of the Committee on Finance, moved that the Senate proceed to consider the bill to anticipate the payment of the indemnities stipulated in the treaties with France and the Two Sicilies. After some opposition, the motion was agreed to, and the bill taken up. Mr. WRIGHT proceeded to explain the grounds of the bill. Under our trea'y with France, there rem ined due to this Government two of the instalments of the indemnities stipulated by that treaty to be paid to our citizens for spoliations on their commerce during the reign of Napoleon. One of these would fall due on the 21 of February, 1837, and would be realized in the May following. A second would fall due on the 2d of February, 1838, and would be realized in May of that year. Assuming the whole indemnity at five millions, the amount of these two instalments would be one million and two thirds. The indemnity stipulated in our treaty with the Two Sicilies was payable in nine instalments; three of which have been already paid, and six remain still due. They were payable annually on the 8th of June, and would, in regular course, be realized by this VOL. XIII.-33 [SENATE. Government some months after. The amount of these six instalments was $1,123,000. All these indemnities, both the French and the Neapolitan, stood at four per cent. The result, therefore, of the present bill would be the payment to our own citizens of about $2,800,000, and placing that sum at an interest of four per cent. un. til, by the gradual payment of the instalments, the whole should return into the Treasury. One half of that paid under the French treaty would be reimbursed in May next; and one sixth of that payable under the Neapolitan treaty would come back into the Treasury in the fall of the present year. The provisions of the bill were simple, and needed, as he presumed, no farther explanation. Mr. CLAY. I am opposed to this bill, and I should be glad if I could engage the attention of the Senate to the reasons on which that opposition is founded. I am against the bill partly on financial and partly on constitutional grounds. As a measure of finance, what is it? It proposes to take the public money, and lend it to the claimants under the French and Neapolitan treaties at an interest of four per cent., and to guaranty the ulti mate payment of the whole amount stipulated by both treaties. Now, as a question of finance, is the Government of the United States justifiable in loaning out the public money to individuals at four per cent. at a moinent when the Legislatures of several of the States have augmented the rate of interest to six and seven per cent., and the rate of money in the market is, in fact, not less than from ten to twenty per cent.? Such an arrangement seems to me extremely injudicious. When we look at the state of the Treasury, I ask, can we do it? The Secretary of the Treasury says that there will be a deficit on the 1st of next January, so great as to render it necessary to recall a part of the sums deposited with the respective States under the act of the last session. Suppose that necessity should arise, and, in consequence of the expenditures of the Government, and of this advance of nearly two millions of dollars, it should become indispensable to recall a part of the money deposited with the States, in what condition should we find our selves? These States are now using the money at an advantage of from six to ten per cent., and you will recall it out of their hands, to lend it to private citizens at an interest of four per cent. Would this be wise? But I have other and higher objections to this measure. What is it, in point of fact? Is it not a loan by the Gov. ernment of the United States to certain claimants, or their assigns, of the amount of two instalments under the treaty with France, and of six instalments under the treaty with the Neapolitan Government? Is not that the substance of the bill? Now, I ask, have we a right to make such a loan? If we have, I should like to see that part of the constitution under which the right is claimed. I understand that the action of this Government in regard to claims of her citizens on a foreign Government is a mere agency. We get for A, B, and C, the amount of their individual claims on a foreign Government, so far as we can do it consistently with the general interest of the whole country, first to be secured in our negotiations with that Government. But here, in order to secure these private claims, we are to guaranty the fulfilment of treaties by two independent foreign Governments. I say that we have no right to advance the public money on the face of these treaties, more than we have to loan it in any other case. Suppose the Barings or the Rothschilds had created a debt to our citizens to the amount of these two millions, might you advance the money? On what principle are you to guaranty these treaties? What security is there provided in this bill for the repayment of this money by the claimants who receive it, in the event of revolutions subverting the Governments of France or Naples, and thereby causing the treaties SENATE.] French and Neapolitan Indemnities. [JAN. 18, 1837. per cent. is better than two. It remains for the body to say whether this will not be a discreet use of the money which is in our hands, and which is not so much wanted for any public use as that this application of it will dis turb the community. On the first day of this month there were five millions in the Treasury. I had suppo sed that there could be no question, whatever our l-gis enough to answer the appropriations we shall make, and to enable us to make this advance also. Half the amount of the French balance comes back in May, and one sixth of that under the Neapolitan treaty will be reimbursed in the fall. We have often been told that this is a time of peculiar pressure in our commercial cities; and to whom is this money due? To merchants; every dollar of it, so far as it goes, will tend directly to relieve the embarrassments of the money market. If, then, the ef to remain unfulfilled? What right have we to grant to individuals this large premium? Is it not a positive grant of the whole difference between four per cent. and the value of that money in their hands, be that ten or be it twenty per cent.? Some part of these indemnities are not to be paid for five years to come; even that from France is not to be received till two years hence. Do you not then, in substance, grant to particular individualslation might ordinarily be, that there would be money for five years to come this difference between four per cent. and the interest the money may command in market, or for purposes of speculation, on the whole amount of their respective claims? On what ground, either of the constitution or of expediency, will you make these gratuitous donations? I hope that when the Senate shall consider the bearings of this bill, either as a financial measure, or in its aspect toward the constitution, or even as a mere question of expediency, they will not concur with the chairman of the Finance Comfect of this bill will be thus beneficial, and if it conflicts mittee in the measure he has proposed. True, it will bring some relief to the claimants, and, through them, to the commercial community. But we have no right to pass any such law. A grant, out and ou', of five mi!. lions of dollars to the merchants of New York, or of Philadelphia, would no doubt be of great assistance to them, and to the whole communities of those cities. But what right have we to make such a grant? The princi. ple is now to be established that the Government of the United States, being an agent for claimants who have demands on foreign Governments, as soon as a treaty shall be established, is to advance the amount of the claims therein provided for out of the public Treasury, and the people of the United States are to lose the difference of interest which may accrue, and this Government is to endorse the engagements entered into by all those with whom we make treaties. I hope no such These claimants had all precedent will be established. justice done them in the efforts of this Government for thirty years to get these treaties ratified. All justice was done them in the treaties themselves, as well in that with France as in that with Naples. Their claims have been secured, and now they should be content to wait, and receive their money as other creditors do. The Government of the United States should not be required to interpose in advance the public money at four per cent. to a few favored individuals, to whom it is worth six, ten, and fifteen per cent. The Mr. WRIGHT. This bill has been placed before the Senate for consideration, and I am entirely unaware of any thing like personal or party feeling on the part of any of those who have had an agency in preparing it. committee believed that this money was in the Treasury, and that it would remain there at least during all the time which would be requisite to complete the indemnities under the French treaty, (which constitute the heav. iest amount,) and it certainly never did occur to me that any constitutional question was involved touching the power of Congress to make this advance to our own citizens. It did and it does now appear to me a simple, proper, and advantageous mode of investing the money, if it is in the Treasury. The investment will be made on the credit of these two Governments. If it is not made, the money will remain in those banks where it is placed by law. If you invest it as proposed by this bill, it will draw an interest of four per cent; if it remains in the deposite banks, it will produce but two per cent. So much for the financial view of the matter. And I would, very respectfully, suggest whether it will not come to precisely the same thing, as to the constitution, whether the money is disposed of in the one way or in the other. If it is not constitutional to place it in the hands of claimants at four per cent. it is not constitutional to place it in the hands of the banks at two per cent. If the one is a loan, so is the other; and, financially, four with no principle, and if relief a' those points most pressed is relief to the whole country, it does seem to me that the bill ought to pass, and it shall have my support. Mr. CALHOUN. I have been forcibly struck with the remarkable contrasts daily exhibited before us, in the language of gentlemen of the majority. How long is it since a member [Mr. BENTON] rose, and, after doling out to us a long list about standing appropriations, informed the Senate that by the distribution bill of last session the Treasury had been deprived of the means of providing for them, and that his brain was laboring daily and nightly to discover other means to meet these neces sary expenditures of the Government. Now, the chairman of that very committee (both Senators being with the administration) rises in his place and tells us there will be a surplus of means. I am glad to hear it. If the one opinion had any weight with us, I hope the other will have at least as much. But how are we to explain these things? One day we are told we have an overflowing Treasury, and something must be done to reduce the surplus; the second day we hear from a member of the same Finance Committee that there is no money to meet the public appropriations; a third day arrives, and behold the Treasury is full again. The honorable member says he never heard there was any constitutional difficulty in a measure like that now proposed. I certainly have heard constitutional objections to loans, again and again. The question involves a right to give away the public money. This very loan would be a positive gratuity, in the existing state of the money market. Money is worth two and three per cent. a month, and here you are going to pass a bill loaning it to certain individuals at four per cent. a year. The difference is a pure gift. Have we a right to make such a gift? If we have, let the Senator show it. But, he says, if we do not make this disposition of the money, we shall place it in bank, and get but two per cent. for it; but then, I ask, what right have we to put it in bank? We have none to put it there as a loan, but for safe keeping only. I object to this bill in tolo. It is a new extension of power, and Heaven knows pow er has been carried far enough already. We are now to commence the loaning of money at low interest. Estab lish the practice, and will not Government have the pow er of selecting A and B, to whom these loans are to be made? Can a more tremendous power be thought of? Iun derstand the motive of the Senator from New York very well. He is opposed to the distribution bill, and he is ready to resort to every shift to avoid returning the sur plus in the Treasury to the pockets of the people. That is his object; but I appeal to that overwh Iming majority who last year voted for the distribution bill, whether they will sustain him in it. The Senator is unwilling that the money shall go back to the people, and be resorts to this as a means of effecting his object. I am glad the Senator from Kentucky made a constitutional point, and I hope the Senate will pause before it gives its sanction to a measure of this character. Mr. BENTON said he rose to give the Senate some information; and it should be drawn from a source to which Senators in the opposition would not object. Mr. B. then proceeded to quote at length the official returns of loans made by the Bank of the United States, amounting to $20,337,236, in one year, distributed into classes according to the length of time for which the money was loaned, and then observed that the four per cent. which would be paid by these claimants to the Government was as much as the Bank of the United States charged to its great borrowers, whilst small borrowers were left to deal with middle men, to whom they had to pay two and three per cent. a month. Mr. CLAY. I concur with the Senator from New York in believing that there are no party considerations involved in this measure, but that it will be examined upon its own merits alone. It cannot be forgotten that, at the last session, the measure contained in this bill formed a part of the scheme of the Senator from New York. All surpluses, instead of being placed in the deposite banks, were to be invested in stocks and domestic securities, but the plan was put down by a large and decisive vote; now it is revived; and under what circumstances? Has the gentleman shown that the revenue will be suf ficient to meet the wants of the year, and to cover this advance also? The Secretary of the Treasury tells us the very reverse. He tells us that there is a high probability that it will be necessary to recall a portion of the deposites made with the respective States. Under these circumstances, so entirely different from those of last session, he proposes to us to make this gratuitous advance of two millions of dollars. I have said that it is in substance a loan; and how did the Senator from New York answer me? By saying, that if you loan now, you have done the same heretofore. I call for the constitutional provision which authorizes such an act. But, even in a financial view, I deny his position. He says that you now loan at two per cent., and that this loan will bring you four. But, in the first place, it is no loan to the deposite banks. We place the public money in those banks for safe keeping only--they get the benefit of the use of the money-and you ask of them an allow ance of two per cent. But granting it to be a loan, still it is better than that now proposed. Is it not better to loan your money at two per cent., when you have power to recall it at pleasure, than to make an investment of it at four per cent. for five and six years, where it is beyond your control? While it is in the deposite banks it is ours we can employ it instantaneously; but if we pass this bill, the money is tied up-we shall not get it for five or six years-and, in the mean time, we lie under a guarantee for the whole amount. If the honorable chairman I beg his pardon, I had almost called him the Chancellor of the Exchequer--I mean the chairman of the Committee on Finance, knows that he has got a surplus in the Treasury, I can suggest to him other modes of employing it, much better than in anticipating the indemnities under these treaties. There are stocks in the States, and bonds bearing five per cent,, which are to be purchased at par. If his object is financial, why not invest in these? These are objects which lie within our own country; and should the Government lose the money, it would not be lost to the country. But here, if a foreign Government shall fail to reimburse the amount we advanced to our own citizens, the loss falls on the country at large. But it is impossible to get over the objection that it is a loan or purchase of securities, and in either view there is nothing in the constitution which will justify it. As to the relief of the community, if they want to reieve the community, let them repeal the Treasury or [SENATE. der. I am glad to learn that there is a bill reported by the Committee on Public Lands, which has that object in view. Let the administration cease to make these ruthless attacks upon the currency, and the country will get a little quiet. But as to the relief by this bill, what is it? There are two or three hundred claimants in the city of New York, Boston, and our other commercial cities; and your relief is to advance them what they claim, and take an assignment of these two treaties to secure the reimbursement of your money. But, I repeat it, if you want to relieve the pressure of the community, without any regard to the constitution, open your Treasury, give to Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Baltimore, two millions apiece. That would relieve them. Supposing we had certain claimants, A, B, and C, having demands upon a foreign Government, and they should prefer a memorial here, asking for a loan of the public money equal to the amount of their claim, would you grant it? Would you lend the money on any security, even the best security of a domestic kind? If not, then I ask, how are you going to anticipate these payments? Ithink the bill involves a most important principle. If the precedent shall once be established of thus loaning the public money to individuals, no human being can foresee where it will go to. I hope this bill will meet the fate now which it did at the last session. Mr. WRIGHT. I will explain as far as I am able the grounds of this bill, and then, having discharged my duty, I shall be content to wait the result. But now let me correct a few of what I conceive to be erroneous impressions on the part of both the Senators who have opposed the bill. I understood the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] to throw out in the haste of debate an argument which implied that this bill proposed an advance of two millions of dollars to two foreign Governments, and that if the money should be lost, the benefit would accrue to those Governments alone. I had no such purpose, nor does the bill contain any such provision. It proposes to advance this money, not to foreign Governments, but to our own citizens; and if the money should be eventually lost, it is our own citizens who will get it; so, if the public money should be invested in State stocks, and through any contingency should be lost to the Government, still the money would not go out of the country, but would remain in the hands of our own citizens. I cannot consent for one moment that an impression should go abroad that this bill proposes to advance money to a foreign Government. The advance is to be made to our own merchants; to American citizens; to as worthy members of the community as are any where to be found; and to men whose enterprises are as beneficial to the Treasury as those of any other class in the country. I know of no description of citizens who are to be prefer red to them. As to the constitutional question, I only repeat what I before said, that if any constitutional objection lies against advancing this money to the claimants, it lies equally against putting it in the hands of the deposite banks. It is as much a loan in the one case as in the other; and unless gentlemen shall attempt to distinguish the cases, I rest content in that position, and think that the consider. ations of expediency are decidedly in favor of the law. The Senator says that the public money is placed in the deposite banks only for the purpose of safe keeping. Admit it; and will any gentleman get up in his place and say that the credit of the French Government is not as good a security as the credit of the deposite banks? If he thinks so, I do not. I believe that the security is as perfect as any that we can have. But it is said that the operation of this measure will be bad. Sir, with certain gentlemen it is utterly impossible for me but in one way to devise any measures whose operation will be good. Last session I proposed to invest the public money in SENATE.] French and Neapolitan Indemnities. these very securities which have been referred to by the Senator from Kentucky, and he strenuously opposed it. [Mr. CLAY here rose to explain. He had said that it would be a better investment of this money to place it in State securities, than to loan it to these claimants, but he had not said that either disposition of it would be a good one.] I understood the Senator; he was only amusing himself by proposing another measure which he did not approve, that he might with the more severity denounce that proposed in the bill. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] says that I am consistent at least. I certainly have endeavored to be so at all times; in this particular case I return the compliment. The object of that Senator is clear and manifest, and he is consistent in pursuing it by every means in his power. But, surely, if it had been my object to accumulate a surplus in the deposite banks, I should have endeavored to keep the money there, and not let it go out for any purpose; but such is not my desire. My course in respect to the deposite bill of last session has been repeatedly stated on this floor, and let me say that on that subject I acted as I thought right. I have complained of no one who dif. fered from me in opinion, and most of my friends, as well as those who are usually in opposition to me, did think differently on that point. I regretted it then, and still do regret it. Yet, far be it from me to say that the wisest course has not been adopted. Sure, however, I am, that many then voted for the distribution of the surplus, who would never desire to see such a measure repeated, and who would gladly avoid accumulating a surplus for the gratification of distributing it among the States. Such are decidedly my own feelings, and such will be my course on that subject. [JAN. 18, 183 7 fairs of the Government; that the money will be as safe on the security of these treatics, as if in the hands of the deposite banks; that it will bring us double the interest, and that it will go so far toward relieving the country from the existing pecuniary pressure, and that the relief will be applied precisely at the points where it is most needed. Mr. CALHOUN addressed the Senate in reply. The Senator says that this advance of money will be no more a loan than if the money is retained in the deposite banks; and that, if there is any constitutional objection against the one, it applies equally to the other. If that argument is good, it only shows that the entire scheme of keeping the public money in the deposite banks is it. self unconstitutional. The Senator professes, I believe, to be a strict constructionist, and the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. STRANGE] has told us that there is no spirit in the constitution, but that its words themselves, and they alone, must declare its meaning. Now, I call upon the Senator from New York to show, in the words of the constitution, any authority for making such an ap plication of the public money; and I again submit whether it is a fair argument in favor of such a measure to plead the remote analogy of the deposite banks. No, sir. The constitutional argument remains unanswered; it is not, and it cannot be, answered. The Senator from New York says that, as I have complimented him on being consistent, he will return the compliment; and admit that, in this case, I am equally so; and I understood him to go farther, and to intimate that I am in favor of accumulating a surplus in the Treasury. Sir, the Senator dare not assert such a posi tion. I have indeed seen an assertion of that character in a dirty sheet published in the city from which the Senator comes; but I never yet heard such a palpable falsehood uttered on this floor. If the Senator attributes that design to me, he asserts that which is not, and nev. er was, true. From the very beginning I have been opposed to the policy. The Chief Magistrate, who is the object of adoration to that Senator, in the draught of an inaugural address, had a paragraph recommending the permanent investment of surpluses as they might ac cumulate in the Treasury; but the paragraph was (in part, through my exertions) subs: quently stricken out, The Senator knows, and the Senate will all recollect, that, in introducing the deposite bill at the commencement of this session, I distinctly stated that I proposed it only as an alternative measure; that I greatly preferred a reduction of the revenue; but was very apprehensive that no such reduction could be effected. Such has been my constant course. I hope to have an occasion before long of entering on this whole subject, when I shall have an opportunity to show who have, and who have not, been consistent. I shall then show the part which has been played by some prominent individuals, and shall be able to demonstrate my own consistency as clear ly as the noonday sun. I claim to be consistent through my whole political course. The Senator from South Carolina thought proper to remark, on a statement made here in reference to outstanding appropriations, in a manner which would lead a stranger to suppose that the statement had been inine. It was not mine, but was made by the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. BENTON.] I did not understand that Senator to contend that if no further appropriations should now be made, there would be a deficit in the Treasury. His argument was this: that in reducing the revenue we must refer to appropriations already outstanding, and which, on the 1st of January of the present year, the Treasury had not the means to meet; and that, therefore, we could not reduce the revenue so far nor so rapidly as might otherwise be done, and as it was proposed by some to do. I am told that I have made a choice admission, and the Senator hopes that it may have great weight with the Senate. Let us see what this important admission amounts to, and what it is that the Secretary of the Treasury said. He said that, as far as he had the means to calculate, if the appropriations should be made in the manner he expected, the revenue of the current year would be consumed, and, in addition to it, two millions out of the five which ought to be left in the Treasury; and that, consequently, there would be left there but three millions. I have not undertaken to impeach this statement, nor have I pronounced any opinion in confirmation of it. These are the opinions of the fiscal officers of the Government; and if they are correct they show that there would be more money in the banks than it is proposed by this bill to advance; then it must be remembered that near half the money will return into the Treasury this year, so that at the end of the year you will have but half this advance outstanding. If that be the admission of a dangerous surplus, the Senator is wel.ly a country of precedents; that our legislation is to a come to the entire benefit of it. I knew that gentlemen would differ about this bill, and that some might differ about its principles, but I have heard nothing to create any difficulty with me. I say that this advance could be made without any injury or interruption to the fiscal af But the Senator from New York undertakes to explain for the Senator from Missouri. I rather think, howev er, that the latter will not accept, or thank him for, the explanation. Who does not remember his declaration, that there were fourteen millions of appropriations still unprovided, and that his head was occupied day and night in trying to find out the means of meeting them? Sir, I again call upon Senators on all sides of the House to stop and pause; to remember that this is pre-eminent great extent influenced and guided by the legislation of those who have preceded us. We are now to commence the practice of loaning the public money to individuals. There will be a large surplus in the Treasury, and anple means will be afforded to carry out such a system to any extent. Who does not see the immense power which this will place in the hands of the administration? Who does not perceive the control which may thus be exerted over elections, when the favorites of the Government can obtain, at the rate of four per cent. a year, large sums of money which they can instantly loan at two per cent. a month? It will enable the Government thus to bestow a perfect gratuity on those who serve it; and this, forsooth, is a measure advocated and brought forward by gentlemen who profess to be strict constructionists, and who tell us that there is no spirit in the constitution. Mr. WRIGHT rejoined. I had no idea, in the few remarks I made, of exciting the feeling which has now been manifested; nor had I any conception how my own feelings could possibly be disturbed in a discussion on this bill. As to what I said in reference to the gentleman from South Carolina, I am not answerable for any supposed case which that gentleman may be pleased to put. And I here say to him, in the best temper, that, when standing in my place, and performing my public duty on this floor, I do not think of what I dare," or what I "dare not," assert; it is not my habit to indulge in feelings of that kind. I endeavor to treat all subjects of legislation cooly, fairly, and dispassionately; such has been my course, and such I intend it shall be. [SENATE. B. was opposed at the last session to the investment of As to the danger of such a precedent, it amounted only to this: that if ever the Government of the United States should again be in such a situation as not to know what to do with its means, and such treaties should again exist as the present between us and other Governments, we might again advance such amounts to the claimants. This was the whole force of the precedent; and he did not believe that a similar case would be liketo make this investment, without touching the deposite act, Mr. B. had no doubt whatever. Mr. CALHOUN explained. He had understood the Senator, when complimenting his consistency, as laying emphasis on the words "in this particular case;" and he had understood the Senator as almost asserting, in terms, that Mr. C. was in favor of accumulating a surplus for distribution, for which assertion there was not the slightly to occur in our day. On the question of our ability est shadow of ground. Mr. BUCHANAN said he had presented a petition from several of his constituents in favor of this measure, and, approving the object of it, be should make some remarks in its support." He found it the easiest thing in the world to raise a storm in this body. He had supposed when this bill was taken up it would be almost impossible that it should excite feelings in any quarter. He thought the less they talked about consistency here the better. He did not think it any credit to a man to prove himself consistent in the manner which seems to be required; for then, if he had begun wrong, he must remain so all his life, in order to reach the proper standard. If gentlemen would recur to past measures, they could perhaps all prove each other to be inconsistent; but, at the same time, it was disagreeable to notice it, and of no benefit whatever to the argument. We ought to grow wise by experience; and if our opinions should differ now upon any subject from what they were twenty years ago, no one had a right therefore to charge us injuricusly with inconsistency. Mr. B. said he should not vote for this bill, if he thought it would interfere in the least with the deposite bill of the last session. He had voted for that bill as a choice of evils; he was entirely satisfied with that vote, though his case had been very singular, for he had been denounced at home as an enemy of the deposite bill, and censured as its friend on the other side. He had undertaken to support it as a choice of evils; and he had ever continued to support it, both on this floor and elst where. He would never vote for this bill, if he felt any doubt of its being constitutional; and if the contrary should be proved to him, he would vote against it. The constitution authorized Congress to impose and collect taxes. If, from any cause, there should be ten or fifteen milhons in the Treasury beyond the demand for purposes of the Government, what would you do with it? Must it remain locked up there useless, or rather destructive to the community? Could there be a doubt of the constitutional power of the Government to act like any oth er proprietor, and make this money productive? Mr. The Mr. DAVIS. This bill was up in substance last year. I do not know by what argument gentlemen will justify their vote in its favor, for, I believe, they voted last year the other way. I do not, however, bring this as any reproach; for provided a man votes right, it is better to be inconsistent than still to remain in the wrong. I only intend to justify the vote 1 shall give now. I am at a loss to see how the question as to the surplus in the Treasury has much to do with the matter. The Government of France confiscates American property-the property, not of this Government, but of private citizens. The Government of the United States (because there is no other mode of calling a foreign nation to account for its actions) made a demand on France for indemnity. Government, in such a case, makes the application merely because private citizens cannot make it-it ac s for them. Well, we made a treaty, and by that treaty France agreed to pay the indemnity we demanded; and it has in part been paid. Whose is this money? It has been spoken of in this debate as if it was money of the United States; but it is no such thing; it is received indeed at the United States Treasury, but not a dollar of it belongs to the Government. The Government holds it only as an agent, as a trustee for the claimants, who are very many. The same remarks apply to the claimants against the Neapolitan Government. That Govern. ment has in like manner admitted our demand, and entered into a treaty to pay it by instalments. The Gov. ernment receives the money, and it is their business to see that it is duly paid to the claimants. That is the whole history of the matter; and what does it prove? It proves that the United States have no interest in this money or control over it, and have no right to dispose of it. We are not acting on this money, for we have no right to touch it; but the question is whether you will, before these instalments fall due, advance the amount of them, distribute it among the claimants, and trust to the Governments of France and Naples to reimburse the money. Now, I ask, what difference is there in assuming |