three weeks from the close of the session, and it was impossible that within this period we could transact all the necessary public business; yet it was at such a moment that this measure was urged upon our consideration. It was an apple of discord thrown into this body, which must cause the waste of much precious time, and give birth to protracted and angry discussion, unless we should promptly resolve to relieve ourselves from it. One effect which it would most probably produce was the defeat of the land bill in the other House--a consideration which ought to have its weight, especially in the minds of Western Senators. Mr. B. asked, what did this bill propose? Why, sir, an absolute gift to the new States of two thirds of all the proceeds of our public lands within their limits, whilst we retained but one third for ourselves. No such request had ever been made to Congress by any of these States, within his knowledge; certainly not during the past or present sessions of Congress. They had never asked for any thing so unreasonable and so unjust. The applications from Mississippi and Arkansas, which had been referred to in this debate, were altogether of a different character. He would venture to say that there was no new State in this Union which, if the question had been submitted to its own intrinsic sense of equity and justice, would have ever thought of making such a proposition to Congress as that contained in this bill. When these States shall come forward with any reasonable and well-digested plan of their own, asking for the cession of the public lands within their limits, upon fair terms, he should then be prepared to hear them most respectfully. There was no occasion to stimulate them to pursue this or any other course in which they felt their own interests were involved. We had abundant evidence that their Senators on this floor were both able and willing to enforce any just proposition proceeding from their constituents. [SENATE. equally groundless throughout the old States. It would have a tendency to exasperate the feelings of both parties, and might, and probably would, greatly retard, if not forever prevent, the adoption of any fair compromise on the subject. This report, we had a right to presume, would be altogether on one side, whilst the other would not be heard. It might prevent the new States from offering such terms as we of the old States could think of accepting. He should wait until the new States themselves thought proper to move in this business. They were not slow to act in any manner which they thought might promote their own welfare. Mr. B. said he was now determined to ascertain whether the Senate would, at this session, spend any more of their precious time upon this subject. He should, therefore, renew the motion which had been made by the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. HUBBARD,] to lay the bill upon the table; and he gave notice, in advance, that he would not withdraw it on the request of any Senator whatsoever. Mr. NORVELL trusted that the bill would be allowed to be read a second time, for reference. He believed that no bill of any kind, with perhaps one exception, had, for a long time, been refused a second reading and reference. That now before the Senate was of such deep importance, and involved interests of such magnitude, especially to the new States, that he thought its rejection at this stage of the proceeding would not only be unusual, but very extraordinary. He therefore expressed the hope that Senators would suffer the bill to be again read, and referred, either to the Land Committee or to a select committee, that it might be maturely considered and reported upon. The question was then taken, and the bill was laid on the table: Yeas 26, nays 20, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Crittenden, Dana, Ewing of Ohio, Hubbard, Kent, Knight, Niles, Page, Parker, Prentiss, Rives, Robbins, Ruggles, Southard, Spence, Strange, Swift, Tallmadge, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright-26. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Calhoun, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, King of Alabama, Linn, Lyon, Moore, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Preston, Robinson, Sevier, Tipton, Walker, White--20. FORTIFICATION BILL. The Senate then proceeded to take up a bill making provision for the collection of materials and the purchase of sites for certain fortifications therein designated. [It appropriates about a million and a half of dollars to these objects.] Senators ought to recollect that there would be two parties to any such arrangement. The people of the old States had and felt as deep an interest in this question as those of the new. If reasonable terms should be proposed, it was probable that the old States might consent to the adjustment of this difficult and embarrassing question, in such a manner as would give satisfaction to their brethren in the West. But, said Mr. B., let me tell gentlemen that I would almost as soon think of putting my hand into the pocket of one of my constituents, and taking from him two thirds of the money it contained, for the purpose of giving it away to a stranger, as I should agree to vote for this bill, in opposition to the wishes of those who sent me here. if any equitable | arrangement of this question could be made between the Mr. CRITTENDEN demanded further information in parties interested, he should rejoice at such a result. reference to the necessity of these works, the estimates For his own part, he felt disposed to grant liberal terms upon which the appropriations were founded, and the to the new States; but he should never consent to aban- total expense of completing the works for which this bill, don the rights of his own constituents, in order to pro-appropriating a million and a half of dollars, proposed pitiate the people of the West, however much he might regard their good opinion. He would not, if he could, to use the language of the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. ROBINSON,] become their Magnus Apollo upon any such terms. What, then, did the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] ask us to do? To send this bill to a select committee. And for what purpose? Not that there shall be any final action upon it during the present session, because that was manifestly impossible, but to obtain a report in favor of its provisions. This report, containing a long, ingenious, and able argument, in favor of giving all the public lands to the new States, with the exception of one third of their gross proceeds, would be circulated far and wide throughout the whole Union. Whilst it would excite unfounded hopes in the minds of the people of the new States, it would produce an alarm only to make preparation. Mr. BENTON, chairman of the Military Committee, who had reported the bill, stated, in reply, that it was identically the same bill which had passed the Senate at the last session. The Senator was, therefore, in possession of full information in regard to it. Mr. SOUTHARD opposed the bill in most of its fratures. It was a carrying out of the plan which had been laid down by General Bernard. And though the scheme of defence by fortifications proposed by that celebrated engineer might have been wisely adapted to the state of the country at that period, its condition had since been so greatly changed, by the increase of its population and the augmentation of its power, that many of the features of the plan were no longer necessary, and might advantageously be dispensed with. The improvements which had been made in the means for transportation of SENATE.] Military Appropriation Bill-Patent Office. the munitions of war rendered it now a comparatively casy thing to concentrate large bodies of the militia at any point that might be threatened by a foc. And thus the necessity of many forts otherwise requisite was superseded. And forts, if not judiciously located, were not only of no valuable service, but, owing to the train of consequences they drew after them, were a positive evil. Mr. S. had carefully examined the report of the Secretary of War on this subject, made to Congress at a preceding session, and he had then become satisfied that many of the proposed works were of this description. He wished to have further time to examine the bill; and therefore moved to lay it upon the table till Monday; but withdrew the motion at the request of Mr. BENTON, who briefly replied, stating that the estimates upon which the bill was founded bad all been submitted and explained at the last session, after which the bill had passed the Senate. He admitted the facility with which large bodies of troops might be thrown into any city or town that was threatened by an enemy. But when they were there, though there should be half a million of them, of what avail would they be against a bombardment? A bomb charged with bushels of pow der and balls could be discharged at the distance of 4,000 yards, and if it exploded in the midst of a squadron of horse or a column of troops, it would scatter or destroy them. A man-of-war would desire no better amusement, while its crew would remain in perfect safety from the force on shore. Forts were also necessary for the protection of merchant vessels, and even of our ships of war, when pursued by a greatly unequal force. Mr. SOUTHARD now renewed his motion to lay the bill on the table. Mr. BUCHANAN demanded the yeas and nays; which, being taken, were: Yeas 12, nays 26. So the Senate refused to lay the bill on the table. The bill being at its third reading, and the question being on its passage, Mr. BENTON demanded the yeas and nays; which were taken, and stood as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Buchanan, Dana, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, Knight, Linn, Lyon, Mouton, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Robbins, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Walker, Wall, Wright-26. NAYS-Messrs. Black, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Moore, Prentiss, Robinson, Southard, Spence, Swift, Webster, White-12. So the bill was passed. MILITARY APPROPRIATION BILL. On motion of Mr. WRIGHT, the Senate then took up the military appropriation bill, in which he proposed a slight amendment, to include an appropriation for the Tennessee volunteers, who were ordered into service, and then discharged. As the bill was at its third reading, this motion could only be made by unanimous consent. Mr. SOUTHARD said that he felt favorably disposed towards the amendment, but, wishing a little further time to look at it, suggested that the bill be laid on the table until Monday; to which Mr. WRIGHT assenting, the bill was laid on the table accordingly. The Senate then adjourned. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13. PATENT OFFICE. On motion of Mr. RUGGLES, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the bill supplementary to the act for the improvement of the useful arts. A variety of amendments, offered by Mr. RUGGLES, [FEB. 13, 1837. were all adopted, with the exception of the salary of the two examining clerks, which was made $1,500 instead of $1,700, as Mr. R. proposed. Mr. KNIGHT moved to strike out the 4th section of the bill, which provides for restoring the most impor tant models, which were all destroyed by the burning of the Post Office building. Mr. RUGGLES remarked that it was only proposed to restore the most important models, and that the ex pense of doing so would be paid from the contributions of patentees. Mr. NILES spoke at some length in favor of the mo tion. Mr. WEBSTER remarked on the impossibility of the examining clerks, for whose appointment and support provision had just been made, performing properly the duties assigned them, of deciding on the justness of claims to patents, unless the most important portion of the models, all of which had been destroyed, should be restored. He regarded the appropriation as absolutely necessary. Mr. KNIGHT suggested that all improvements of much importance were generally known, and that the fourth section, if not stricken out, ought therefore to be limited to the last fourteen years. Mr. SEVIER moved to lay the bill on the table. Neg. atived. Mr. RUGGLES further explained the bearing and importance of this section of the bill. It was designed, he said, to restore only 3,000 out of 7,000 or 8,000 models that were destroyed. Mr. NILES suggested $20,000 instead of $100,000, which he considered as altogether too large a sum for the object proposed. He also insisted that the money would be paid out of the public Treasury. Mr. BAYARD read portions of the report of the Commissioner of the Patent Office, stating that the restoration of about 3,000 of the models was due both to inventors and to science. A few minutes' inspection of them would often save years of reflection to an inventor, and would suggest what would in many cases be never originally suggested. As an example of this, Fulton's improvement in steamboats, immensely important as it is known to be, was based on inventions which had been abandoned, and were utterly useless. Such models were also absolutely necessary, to enable the examiners prop erly to perform the duties assigned them. Inventors were exceedingly tenacious in regard to the orginality of their inventions, and would not yield without the most Conclusive testimony. Mr. B. said such were the opinions of the Commissioner at the head of the bureau, which Mr. B. enforced by arguments, especially regarding the Patent Office as a school of science, and a regular history of the improvements in the useful arts in this country. Mr. NILES remarked that many models, practically useless, might be useful as affording a history of the progress of inventions. But if an expenditure of this kind should be begun, it would have no end. Mr. N. moved to strike out $100,000, and insert $20,000. Mr. STRANGE, as a member of the committee, said the committee understood it to be the desire of the Senate that the Patent Office should be restored, as far as possible, to its original state. They had found on hand $300,000, derived from the sale of patents, and available for the great object contemplated by the establishment of the Patent Office. The $100,000 was not necessarily all to be expended, but was the extreme limit of the expenditures, though Mr. S. was satisfied that nearly so much would be required; and $20,000 he regarded as worse than nothing. Mr. KNIGHT now rose to withdraw his motion to strike out the 4th section, but, as the yeas and nays had been ordered, the Chair decided that it could not be done. The motion to strike out was then negatived, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Black, Buchanan, Ewing of Illinois, King of Alabama, Knight, Moore, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Robinson, Sevier, Walker, White-13. NAIS-Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Brown, Clayton, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Hendricks, Hubbard, Kent, King of Georgia, Linn, Lyon, Mouton, Norvell, Parker, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Ruggles, Strange, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright-29. Mr. PRENTISS, after some explanatory remarks, moved to strike out the word "assignees," in the 7th section. Negatived. The bill, as amended, was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, without a division. RECOGNITION OF TEXAS. Mr. WALKER moved to take up the resolution offered by him some time since, recognising the independence of Texas; on which motion he demanded the yeas and nays. [SENATE. The army appropriation bill was read a third time and passed. ARMORY BILL. The Senate having taken up the bill to establish a foundry, an armory in the West or Southwest, arsenals in the States in which none have yet been established, and depots for arms in certain States and Territories Mr. BENTON, chairman of the Military Committee, who had reported the bill, briefly explained its design, and the grounds on which it had been reported. The Mr. CRITTENDEN suggested doubts as to the propriety of establishing arsenals in all the States, though he admitted that they might be requisite in some. States, however, were very competent to erect arsenals for themselves, and would not thank the General Government for any charitable establishment of this kind. Mr. C. reprobated such an unnecessary expenditure of the public money, and was against the extension of federal power, to which a measure of this kind must necessarily lead. Mr. BENTON contended that it was a part of the theory of our Government that the nation should be Mr. WRIGHT urged the taking up of the army ap-armed; and, in order to this end, it was necessary both propriation bill. Mr. WALKER pleaded for his Texas resolution, and insisted that the honor of the country demanded that it should be acted upon without delay. Mr. BENTON objected, with some warmth, to Senators jumping up in this manner and interrupting the regu lar business of the House, as reported from standing committees, by interposing the consideration of resolutions of their own. The army bills were of great importance, and if this resolution should be taken up before them, the prolonged debate to which it would lead must effectually defeat all hope of having them considered in time to go to the other House. Mr. PRESTON admitted the importance of the army bills, and should not object to their being considered; but this resolution on the subject of Texas had been offered a month ago, and, if longer postponed, must in all probability be lost. that the manufacture of arms should be extended, and that depots should be established for keeping them in all the States. He then read returns from the ordnance department, showing in what States arsenals had been erected, and in what States there were none; on which he remarked that those States which most needed arsenals were entirely destitute of them, while States far less exposed were well supplied. No amendment being proposed to the bill, it was reported to the Senate; and the question being on its engrossment for a third reading Mr. CALHOUN observed that he had looked at the provisions of the bill, and that nothing in this world could be more useless than the expenditure it proposed. The country had already on hand about 800,000 stands of arms--an amount almost equal to that provided by Great Britain for her immense military establishment. The mere interest on such an investment was itself a heavy charge upon the Treasury; besides which, there was the liability to have the whole superseded by the invention of a better species of arms. The Government had already two large armories, capable of furnishing arms much faster than they were needed; and there was a necessity rather for retrenching than extending the means of supply. These arguments had all been urged at the last session; but he supposed it was vain to repeat them. They had not been answered, and could not be. But the money was to be expended on something, and perhaps it might as well be on this as on any thing else. The Government must get clear of it in some way; it must not go back to the States; and ways and means must be devised to expend it. The bill had no other object on the face of the earth. Mr. C. appealed to the majority of the Senate, entreating them to economize the public expenditure. He reminded them of the strong denunciations which had been poured on a previous administration for its alleged extravagance, and that it was on the plea and promise of economy that the present party had come into power. Yet no sooner had they got control of the Treasury, than they went on to expend beyond all previous example. The moral effect of this state of things had been most pernicious. It had Mr. BENTON, chairman of the Military Committee, led the nation to conclude that the professions of no took up the bill by sections, briefly explaining the pur-party could be believed. They were not believed; and pose of each, together with the amendments reported from that committee. The question was then taken on considering Mr. WALKER'S resolution, and decided in the negative, by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Black, Calhoun, Clay, Fulton, Hendricks, King of Georgia, Moore, Mouton, Parker, Preston, Walker, White-12. NAYS--Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Clayton, Cuthbert, Dana, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Grundy, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, Knight, Linn, Lyon, Morris, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Prentiss, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Strange, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Wright-32. The Senate then proceeded to the consideration of a bill" to increase the present military establishment of the United States, and for other purposes." No opposition was made to them, and they were all agreed to; when the bill was reported to the Senate, and ordered to its third reading. the result of this incredulity in the public mind would always tend to place in the hands of an existing administration a vast amount of power. Mr. BENTON, in reply, read from the returns of the Treasury Department the sums paid for the manufac ture of arms at private establishments, amounting to nearly a quarter of a million of dollars; and argued, from the fact of the Government applying to private manufactories for so large an amount of its arms, the necessity for another public armory. These private establishments existed at six different points, extending from the District of Columbia to the North and East, while on the frontier, to the South and West, where arms were most needed, there was not a single factory. All that portion of the Union had to look to the Northeast for their supplies; and when the guns were made, it cost half their value to transport them. As to having a full supply, and all we needed, it was what he could not understand. There was a continual consumption, and there was a constant increase of population, and therefore there was necessity for constant manufacture. The European Powers were continually manufacturing arms, nor would they ever cease to manufacture them. If the United States had to-day all they needed, and could keep every gun without rust or decay, twenty five years hence we should have only half a supply; for the population then increased to that proportion. But instead of keeping every gun, one half of them would by that time be gone. It would not do to quote the example of Great Britain, because her policy was the reverse of ours. She only wanted enough arms in the hands of her standing army to shoot down her unarmed population the moment they resisted any measure of Government. She read the riot act, and then, if the people did not run, ten or twelve thousand of them were cut down. But the theory of our Government was that the nation was to be armed. We wanted no standing army to cut down our unarmed population. The efficiency of the Western militia was to be traced to the habit of handling arms in their youth. They did not run away from an enemy, because they felt the consciousness that they could shoot as well and better than any enemy that could be brought against them. They had not been trained with cornstalks, and set to handle a gun for the first time when they went into battle; and he would say, in behalf of Missouri, that the most acceptable form in which they could bestow on that State her portion of these accursed frogs which came up as from the river of Egypt, and spread themselves every where and over every thing, from the nuptial couch to the kneading trough, (he referred to the surplus balances in the Treasury,) was to establish amongst them an ample depot of arms. Mr. CALHOUN was very happy to hear so frank an avowal from the Senator from Missouri of the truth of what he had observed when last up, that the object of the bill was to get rid of a part of the surplus revenue in the Treasury. As to the argument derived from the fact that the Government obtained a portion of its supply from private factories, all that was easily explained. These factories were old establishments, which had been gotten up by their proprietors expressly on the faith of the Government; and they were in practice as really public establishments as the armories of the Government. The Government had been obliged to take enough from these individuals to keep their establishments from ruin, and that was the sole reason for the item quoted by the Senator from the returns. The two armories we already possessed were capable of turning out 20,000 stands of arms a year; and now it was proposed to erect a third, while the actual consumption was but between one and two thousand stands annually. There was one source of consumption which could not be avoided; but, instead of being an argument for the manufacture, it was a strong argument against the unnecessary multiplication of arms; and that was, their decay while lying in boxes. The larger the amount on hand, the greater was this source of decay. The country had [FEB. 13, 1837. already between 700,000 and 800,000, which had cost it ten millions of dollars, besides a large amount of capital invested in magazines; so that the total annual interest was little, if any thing, short of a million of dollars. As to the arming of our people, this bill did not propose to put a single gun into the hands of a single man. But for what purpose was so large an amount needed? It must be either to arm the Government against the people, or to fight some foreign enemy. He trusted our people did not want them to cut each other's throats. He repeated that the expenditure was useless; that it went to produce an accumulation of what was already accumulated, and was merely a contrivance to keep the money from the States. The debate was further continued by Messrs. BENTON and CALHOUN, each of them insisting on the ground already taken, and endeavoring further to strengthen their respective positions. Mr. KNIGHT then addressed the Senate as follows: I shall vote against the bill; perhaps it may be necessary to suggest some of the reasons that govern me. I know the bill contains a proposition to build an arsenal in the State from whence I come; and, so far as that goes, I have no objection to that part of the bill, for the money it will cost it would be very acceptable to have expended there. But the question is, are the arsenals and armo. ries contained in the bill necessary? If more arms are needed, is it necessary to build more armories? We can readily contract for the manufacture, without incurring the expense of all the outlays necessary for carrying on the making of arms; the private manufacturers will make them cheaper than the United States can. We get them now, it is believed, at a less price by contract from the private armories than they cost at our ar mories, without taking into consideration the immense outlays of the establishments, and the interest and cost of keeping them in repair. Sir, who are we to arm? The militia of the States, your own citizens. Then, let the arms be within their reach and under their own The practice now is to deliver to the several States the arms when made, and the States take care of them without further cost or trouble on the part of the United States; and, whenever needed, they are at the command of the Governor and Legislature of the State, to be used at their discretion. But if we build arsenals, we must have officers to take charge and care of them; and when the arms are required by any exigencies of the State, the Governor or commander must go to your corporal or sergeant, who may have charge of your arsenal, and beg him to loan those arms for the purposes needed. Now, sir, I am opposed to that; I will not place the States in such a predicament; I will give the States the arms, and if they will not take care of them, why, then I would not give them any more; therefore, I am for letting things remain as they now are, without further legislation. care. The question being at length taken on the engrossment of the bill, it was decided, by yeas and nays, as fol lows: YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Linn, Lyon, Morris, Mouton, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, Wall, White, Wright-26. NAYS-Messrs. Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, King of Georgia, Knight, Moore, Parker, Prentiss, Preston, Swift-11. So the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. TBADE WITH BELGIUM. Mr. BUCHANAN, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, moved that the Senate consider a bill from the FEB. 14, 1837.] Burning of Public Buildings--Cumberland Road. House, respecting the duties on Belgian vessels and their cargoes. The bill having been taken up, This [SENATE. It capital punishment; but he thought the evil would, on the YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Crittenden, Moore, Niles, Prentiss, Robinson, Swift, Walker-9. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Clayton, Cuthbert, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Linn, Nicholas, Page, Parker, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, White, Wright-21. Mr. BUCHANAN suggested a similar objection to punishing with death an accessary before the fact. Mr. GRUNDY thought that, in a case like that of burning one of the Departments, the man who was the most deeply involved in guilt was not the individual who for hire actually set fire to the building, but those who employed him; and if the punishment of death should be commuted at all, it ought rather to be in favor of the actual incendiary, who might be an ignorant black, or a man tempted by poverty. Mr. BUCHANAN briefly explained its object. By the act of 1824, this Government had offered to all nations to receive their products in their own vessels on Mr. SWIFT suggested to his colleague [Mr. PRENthe same terms as they should receive our products in TISS] to modify the amendment, so as to extend the punour vessels. Holland had refused these terms, and im-ishment to confinement for life; but Mr. P. declined. posed a discriminating duty of ten per cent. in favor of When the question being put, the amendment was retheir own vessels. We might, according to the princi-jected, by yeas and nays, as follows: ples of that act, have done the same, as a countervailing measure, in favor of our own navigation; but as, notwithstanding the duty of ten per cent., our own navigagation continued to enjoy almost the whole of the trade between Holland and the United States, nothing further was done, and the vessels of Holland were allowed to enter our ports on the same terms with our own. was before the separation of Belgium from Holland; but after that separation, on the vessels of Belgium presenting themselves for the first time in our ports, a discriminating duty was demanded of them, although none was demanded from Dutch ships. As this seemed a hardship, the present bill had been introduced, in order to put Belgian vessels on the same footing with those of Holland. A proviso, bowever, was inserted in the bill, empowering the President, whenever circumstances should, in his opinion, render it expedient, to enforce the act of 1824 against both Dutch and Belgian vessels. Mr. CLAY further explained the case, confirming the statements made by Mr. BUCHANAN, of whom, however, he inquired whether information had been obtained by him as to the present proportion between Dutch and American navigation employed in the trade with Holland, as, in 1835, it appeared that the Dutch were rather gaining upon us. Mr. BUCHANAN replied that he had not, but would make the inquiry at the Department, and have the facts ready by to-morrow. The bill was then reported to the Senate, and ordered to its third reading. BURNING OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS. The Senate, on motion of Mr. GRUNDY, then took up the bill to alter and amend the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States. The bill having been read, Mr. BUCHANAN said it might be owing, perhaps, in part to his Pennsylvania principles, or prejudices, if gen. tlemen would have it so, but he could not consent to the infliction of the punishment of death for any crime but murder in the first degree; in which case, the Divine precept ordained that "whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." The insertion of a capital punishment often operated, practically, to produce the acquittal of offenders. Mr. PARKER had voted to retain death in the bill, ag a punishment to the incendiary; but he could not agree to extend it to accessaries. The criminal law in all countries made a distinction in the grade of punishment. The principle was laid down by the best writers, and was founded both in justice and policy. Mr. GRUNDY referred to the common law, as in many cases knowing no such distinction; nor was it recognised by the laws of most of the States of this Union, Mr. BUCHANAN deprecated all reference to the common law of England, which was literally a code of blood. As many as four hundred different offences were punishable with death in England. He hoped never to see such a system taken as a precedent by this country. The amendment was rejected, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Crittenden, Knight, Moore, Niles, Page, Parker, Prentiss, Robinson, Walker-11. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Clayton, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Nicholas, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, White, Wright-17. The bill was reported to the Senate, and the question being on its engrossment, Mr. CLAYTON objected to the insertion of any limitation of time in reference to a crime of this magnitude, As murder, and treason, and arson, were exempted from the operation of the statute of limitations, the burning of public buildings of the United States ought to take the same course. He moved to amend the bill by inserting a clause to that effect; but it was rejected, as was also a motion of Mr. RUGGLES to strike out the second section, containing the limitation clauses; and the bill was ordered to be engrossed, as follows: Mr. GRUNDY was aware that such opinions were entertained by many; but he could not subscribe to them. We punished treason capitally, which was a departure from this rule. He thought that the burning of the Cap. itol or of one of the Departments was an enormity so great that nothing short of death was a suitable punish- YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Clayton, Fulton, Grunment. It was calculated to strike a terror which noth-dy, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, ing else would. A mere penitentiary punishment would have but little effect upon that class of miscreants who would be likely to commit such a crime. Mr. PRENTISS suggested, as an amendment, the substitution of confinement at hard labor for a term not more than twenty nor less than five years. Mr. BUCHANAN denied that the infliction of death for treason was a departure from the principle he had quoted; on the contrary, treason involved murder on a most extensive scale. Nicholas, Page, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, NAYS-Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Crittenden, Moore, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14. On motion of Mr. HENDRICKS, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the bill for the continuation of the Cumberland road in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. |