Imagens das páginas
PDF

SENATE.]

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 Fast, 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 cypressly 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 ****, *o argument against the unnecessary multio of *ons; and that was, their decay while lying o, .." larger the amount on hand, the - 's source of decay. The country had

Trade with Belgium.

[merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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 inter. est 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 peo. ple, 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. BEN. TON 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 1 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 armories 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 armories, without taking into consideration the immense outlays of the establishments, and the interest and cost of keeping the m 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 care. 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 arsena!, and bog 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 surther legislation. The question being at length taken on the engrossment of the bill, it was decided, by yeas and nays, as sollows: 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, I’reston, Swift–11. So the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

TBA DE WIT II BELGIUM.

Mr. BUCHANAN, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, moved that the Senate consider a bill from the

Feb. 14, 1837..] –

House, respecting the duties on Belgian vessels and their cargoes. The bill having been taken up, 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 the same terms as they should receive our products in our vessels. Holland had refused these terms, and imposed a discriminating duty of ten per cent. in favor of their own vessels. We might, according to the principles 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. This 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. Buch ANAN, 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 gentlemen 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 lood, by man shall his blood be shed.” The insertion of a capital punishment often operated, practically, to produce the acquittal of offenders. 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 Capitol or of one of the Departments was an enormity so great that nothing short of death was a suitable punishment. It was calculated to strike a terror which nothing 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 Inost extensive scale. Mr. TIPTON opposed the amendment. It was pos. sible some juries might acquit, from reluctance to inflict Vol. XIII.-51

Burning of Public Buildings--Cumberland Road.

[SENATE.

capital punishment; but he thought the evil would, on the whole, be greater if it should be omitted in the law. It was merited by the crime, and would terrify where lesser punishment would have little impression. Mr. SWIFT suggested to his colleague [Mr. PresTiss] to modify the amendment, so as to extend the punishment to confinement for life; but Mr. P. declined. When the question being put, the amendment was rejected, by yeas and nays, as follows: 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. PARKER had voted to retain death in the bill, as 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. BüCHANAN 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. NArs–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. Rugg LEs to strike out the second section, containing the limitation clauses; and the bill was ordered to be engrossed, as follows: YEAs—Messrs. Benton, Black, Clayton, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgio, Linn, Nicholas, Page, Roggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, White, Wright—18. NAys—Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Crittenden, Moore, Niles, Parker, Prentiss, Robinson, Southard, Walker-10. The Senate then adjourned.

Turs DAY, FEBRUARY 14. CUMBF.RLAND ROAD. On motion of Mr. HEND RICKS, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the bill for the continuation of the Cumberland road in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois.

SENATE.]

a provision for the construction of certain roads in Michia n. After debate, by Messrs. TIPTON, NORVELL, YON, HEND RICRs, PRESTON, and EWING of ')hio, the amendment was lost: Yeas 9, nays 27. Mr. CLAY, after a few remarks in favor of only grading the road, and against hastening its progress by the appointment of an extra number of agents and officers, moved to strike out the second and third sections of the bill, which provide for such appointments. After debate, by Messrs. HENDRICKS, CLAY, and TIP TON, Mr. TIPTON moved to amend the second section by requiring that the appointment of agents and officers by the President should be made by and with the consent of the Senate; which amendment prevailed. Mr. EWING, of Ohio, moved to amend the second section by allowing each superintendent only two assistants, at a fixed compensation of three dollars per day for their services, instead of a salary in the discretion of the President or the Department. The amendments were adopted. The question recurring on striking out the second and third sections of the bill, it was discussed by Messrs. PRESTON, HENDRICKS, and CLAY, and carried in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAs—Messrs. Bayard, Black, Brown, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Cuthbert, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Lyon, McKean, Moore, Norvell, Par. ker, Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Southard, Spence, Strange, Swift, Tomlinson, Walker, White—26. NAYs—Messrs. Benton, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Hendricks, Hubbard, Linn, Morris, Nicholas, Niles, Robbins, Robinson, Sevier, Tallmadge, Tip. ton, Wall, Wright--17. Mr. CLAY moved to amend the bill by requiring that the road in Illinois should not be stoned or gravelled, unless at a cost not exceeding the average expense of doing it in Ohio and Indiana; which amendment, aster debate by Messrs. EWING, of Illinois, and CLAY, was adopted. Mr. PRESTON moved to amend the first section of the bill by reducing the appropriation for Indiana from $100,000 to $50,000, on the ground that $80,000 remained unexpended. After debate, by Messrs. HENDRICKS, PRESTON, TIPTON, BENTON, WALKER, and ci.AY, Mr. NORVELL moved to lay the bill on the table; which motion was negatived, as follows: Yeas--Messrs. Black, Brown, Calhoun, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Lyon, Norvell, Par. ker, Prentiss, Preston, Ruggles, Strange, Walker, White--15. Nays–Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Clay, Clayton, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Linn, Morris, Nicholas, Niles, Robbins, Robinson, Sevier, Southard, Spence, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Wall, Wright—26. The question on Mr. PREston’s amendment was then tried, and decided in the affirmative, as follows: Yeas-Messrs. Bayard, Black, Brown, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Lyon Niles, Norvell, Parker, Prentiss, preston, Rives, foug! §les, Southard, Spence, Strange, swift, walker, W.; White–23. 2 Naxs-Messrs. Benton, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois #.o.o.o. Fulton, Grundy, tio, Hubbard, ini !e Ti S, icholas, Robbins, Robinson, Sevier, Tallmadg p Roon, Wright—17. i. oros moved further to amend the bill b o ... op.o.o.ohio, from $390,000% 99", the balance on hand being $100,000; which mo.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. NORVELL moved to amend the bill by annexing tion, after deba'e by Messrs. EWING of Ohio, PRES| Ton WALKER, ROBINSON, LINN, and NORVELL, FER. 15, 1837.] Burning of Public Buildings--Trade with Belgium, &c. [SENATE. Pay of Volunteers--Increase of the Army.

was carried in the affirmative, as follows: YEAs—Messrs. Bayard, Black, Brown, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Lyon, Moore, Niles, Norvell, Parker, Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Ruggles, Southard, Spence, Strange, Swift, Walker, Wall, White—26. Nars-Messrs. Benton, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, Knight, Linp, Morris, Mouton, Nicholas, Robbins, Rob. inson, Sevier, Tallmadge, Tipton, Wright—19. Mr. PRESTON also moved to amend the bill by reducing the appropriation for Illinois, so that the whole amount to be expended would be $130,000; which motion prevailed, as follows: YEAs—Messrs. Bayard, Black, Brown, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Lyon, Moore, Niles, Norvell, Parker, Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Ruggles, Southard, Spence, Strange, Swift, Walker, Wall, White—25. Nays–Messrs. Benton, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Hendricks, Hubbard, Knight, Linn, Morris, Mouton, Nicholas, Robbins, Robinson, Sevier, Tallmadge, Tipton, Wright—18. Mr. WALKER moved to amend the bill by adding, as a proviso to the first section, that no part of the money appropriated by the bill should be paid out of the Treas. ury of the United States, but out of the fund heretofore granted to Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, for the purpose of the bill. After debate, by Mess's: WALKER, NILES, and CLAY, the amendment was lost, by the following vote: YEAs—Messrs. Black, Brown, Calhoun, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Lyon, Moore, Norvell, Parker, Preston, Rives, Ruggles, Strange, Walker, Wall, Whitc.—16. Nars—Messrs. Rayard, Benton, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Linn, Morris, Mouton, Nicholas, Niles, Robbins, Robinson, Sevier, Southard, Spence, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wright—27. Mr. NORVELL moved to amend the bill by striking out that portion of it which required the money to be repaid into the Treasury of the United States, from the fund granted to Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, by the United States. After a few remarks from Mr. CLAY, disapproving the provision proposed to be stricken out, as deceptive, the motion to strike out was carried in the affirmative, as follows: YEAs—Messrs. Bayard, Black, Brown, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Lyon, Moore, Mouton, Norvell, Parker, Preston, Rives, Ruggles, Southard, Strange, Walker, White––22. Nays--Messrs. Benton, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Linn, Morris, Nicholas, Niles, Robinson, Sevier, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Wright——16. On motion of Mr. HEND RICKS, the provision in a former act, requiring a continuous construction of the road, was by this bill repealed. The bill, with the amendments, was reported to the Senate. Mr. EWING moved to amend the bill so as to appro: priate $150,000 for ohio, $125,000 for Indiana, and $100,000 for Illinois. On motion of Mr. CALHOUN, and by consent, the message of the President received to-day, in relation to the seizure of slaves by the authorities of Bermuda, was, with the documents, ordered to be printed.

After a few remarks on Mr. Ewing's amendment, by Messrs. BAYARD and PRESTON, The Senate adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15. BURNING OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS. The bill to alter and amend the act of 1790, for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, being taken up-Mr. PRENTISS said he was so much opposed, in principle, to the provisions of the bill, the punishment imposed by it appeared to him to be of so sanguinary a character, so much behind the spirit of the age, that he felt constrained to resist it, and record his name against it in every stage of its progress. The bill not only inflicts the punishment of death upon any person who shall maliciously burn, or procure, command, counsel, or advise any one to burn, any public building, but it contains no limitation upon the prosecution of the offence; so that a person may be arraigned and tried at any distance of time, however remote, when he may be wholly unable, by lapse of time, to avail himself of the testimony necessary for his defence. It was to be surther observed that the bill was not confined to the burning of the public offices, containing the public records, but cztended to the burning of any public building, such as an engine-house, a wood-house, or even a watch-house. The punishment, under the existing laws, was confinement to hard labor, and but one instance of the commission of the offence had occurred in half a century. We were now about to change the law, and substitute the punishment of death for confinement at hard labor; and we were doing this at a time when England and many other Governments in Europe were engaged in reforming and ameliorating their criminal code: The bill put the offence on the same grade with murder and treason, the highest crimes known to law. The object of punishment was the prevention of crime; and all experience showed that the certainty of punishment was much more effectual than the severity of punishment in the prevention of crime. The burning of a public building was undoubtedly a very high offence, but it was well known that the difficulty of conviction was always increased in proportion, as the punishment was aggravated. If there was absolute certainty in human testimony, the objection to the bill might not be so strong; but the reverse was true, for the history of criminal trials showed that many innocent persons had been convicted and executed. Mr. P. was opposed to the bill on the great principles of justice and humanity; he was opposed to it as destroying all just distinctions between crimes, as inflicting a punishment vastly disproportionate to the offence, and altogether inconsistent with the general spirit of our criminal code; and he felt compelled to ask for the yeas and nays. The bill was then passed, by the following vote: YEAs--Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Clay, Clayton, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Lyon, Morris, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Page, Preston, Robbins, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, White, Wright--29. NAxs--Messrs. Buchanan, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Hendricks, Kent, McKean, Moore, Niles, Parker, Prentiss, Rives, Robinson, Southard, Swift, Walker, Wall, Webster--17.

TRADE WITH BELGIUM.

The bill respecting the discriminating duties on Dutch and Belgian vessels and their cargoes coming up on its passage-

Mr. BUCHANAN said that, when this bill was before

the Senate yesterday, he had promised to ascertain srom the Department the comparative state of the Dutch and American tonnage, as employed in the Holland trade during the past year. He had done so; and it appeared from the result that the amount of Dutch tonnage was increasing rapidly on the American. He did not know whether this was owing to the discriminating duty imposed by the Dutch Government in favor of their own vessels in Dutch ports, or not; but if such was the fact, then the provisions of the act of 1824 should be promptly applied by the Executive. Mr. B. then read the following statement: In the year 1834, the amount of American tonnage in this trade was (in round numbers) 17,000 tons. In 1835, - - - 15,000 In 1836, - - - 8,500 while the amounts of Dutch tonnage, on the contrary, had proportionably diminished. In 1834, the Dutch tonnage was In 1835, - - - 3,058 In 1836, - - - 5,401 Mr. CLAY said that, when we saw, for three successive years, a regular diminution of American tonnage, and a regular increase of the competing foreign tonnage, there could be no doubt that both results proceeded from a common cause. The act of 1824 proceeded on the principle of entire and perfect reciprocity. That principle had been departed from by the Government of Holland, while Belgium was in union with Holland. There was much reason to believe that the present relative condition of the navigation of America and of Holland was the result of that departure. Under those circumstances, it seemed that, though the Senate could not well refuse to pass the present bill, which did nothing but put Holland and Belgium on the same footing, the Executive was bound to enforce the provisions of the act of 1824 to both Governments. He trusted this would be done. Mr. DAVIS, who had not been present when the bill was introduced, was desirous that the bill should lie over for one day, in order that he might have an opportunity to look a little into the returns stating the existing condition of the trade, with a view of judging of the true cause of the present state of things. Possibly this act might be construed as an evidence that this Government was prepared to extend the relaxation of the provisions of the act of 1824, though he was very sure the Senator who introduced the bill had no such intention. Mr. BUCHANAN concurred in the views expressed by the Senator from Kentucky, and explained that the proviso in this bill had been introduced with an express view to enable the President to apply the provisions of the act of 1824 to both Holland and Belgium. Mr. CUTHBERT contended that the true standard by which to judge of the existing indulgence to Holland was not the immediate effect of it on the comparative navigation of the two countries, but its effect as an example and a precedent, which was likely to induce other nations to pursue the same course which had been adopted by the Dutch Government. The question was then taken, and the bill was passed.

CUMBERLAND ROAD.

The Senate proceeded to the further consideration of the bill to continue the Cumberland road in the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. *On motion of Mr. CLAY, the appropriations were so amended as to allow Ohio $190,000 in addition to the unexpended balance, Indiana $100,000, and Illinois $100,000; making an aggregate of $390,000, besides unexpended balances.

The remaining amendments, made as in Committee of the Whole, were severally considered, and, aster a re

[ocr errors]

SENATE.]

(FEB. 16, 1837.

newal of the former discussions, were adopted in Senate. On motion of Mr. CLAY, the bill was further amended by adding a proviso to the end of the first section, requiring that the construction of the road should be let out, in suitable sections, after due notice, to the lowest bidders. Mr. WALKER moved to amend the third section of the bill by inserting a disclaimer of the faith of Government being pledged by this bill to do anything further in the construction or repair of the Cumberland road. After debate, the amendment was lost, as follows: YEAs—Messrs. Black, Brown, Calhoun, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Lyon, Moore, Norwell, Page, Parker, Preston, Rives, Strange, Walker, Wall, White--17, NAxs–Messrs. Benton, Buchanan, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Linn, Morris, Robbins, Robinson, Sevier, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wright-–23. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, by yeas and nays, on the call of Mr. NORVELL, as follows: YEAs--Messrs. Benton, Buchanan, Clay, Crittenden, Cuthbert, F. wing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Linn, Morris, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Robbins, Ruggles, Sevier, Southard, Spence, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Wright——25.

NArs—Messrs. Black, Brown, Calhoun, Clayton, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Lyon, Moore, Norvell, Parker, Prentiss, Preston, Rives,

Strange, Walker, Wall, White--18.

PAY OF VOLUNTEERS.

On motion of Mr. CRITTENDEN, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill to make compensation to the Kentucky and Tennessee volunteers, who were discharged without being called into service. Mr. BENTON moved to amend the bill by allowing the above volunteers one month’s pay. Mr. WHITE moved to amend this amendment by striking out one month, and inserting three months. After debate, by Messrs. PRESTON, CRITT ENDEN, GRUNDY, WHITE, and WRIGHT, Mr. White's amendment was tried and lost. The amendment of Mr. BeNtox, allowing one month's pay, was then carried, without a division. On motions of Messrs. MOORE and WALKER, the names of Alabama and Mississippi were annexed to those of Kentucky and Tennessee in the bill. Mr. CRITTFNDEN moved surther to amend the bill by confining the compensation to those volunteers whose services were accepted. Carried: Ayes 18, noes 10. The bill, with the amendments, was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. The Senate adjourned.

Thuns DAY, FE snu Ahr 16. INCREASE OF THE ARMY.

The bill to increase the military establishment of the United States being at its third reading, and the question being on its passage—

Mr. SouTHARD demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered by the senate.

* CALHOUN addressed the senate at length in op. Pool "o the bill, not, however, as he said, with the least hope of Preventing its passage; there was money in the Treasury, *nd it must be spent; and this he knew would Poe, with many gentlemen, a reason why the bill ... Yet, bearing a certain relation to this branch of our **blishment, he felt called upon to say a

few words, and they should be very few. He could not assent to the bill. The object it proposed was useless, and a good deal more than useless. The bill proposed to increase our existing military establishment, as a peace establishment, too, by the addition of 5,500 men, making the aggregate amount of the army over 12,000 men, and augmenting the expense of its maintenance by a million and a balf or two millions of dollars. Was this necessary? He contended that it was not, and that there never was a time when there was so little necessity for a measure of this character. Abroad we were at peace with all the world; and as to Mexico, he believed nogentleman seriously contemplated that we were to go to war with her. Never had there been a time when so little force was necessary to put our Indian relations upon the safest footing. Our Indian frontier had, within a few years, been contracted to one half its former dimensions. It had formerly reached from Detroit all the way round to the mouth of the St. Mary’s, in Georgia; whereas, at present, its utmost extent was from St. Peter's to the Red river. To guard this frontier, the Government had nine regi. ments of artillery, seven of infantry, and two of dragoons. He would submit to every one to say whether such a line could not be amply defended by such a force. Supposing one regiment to be stationed at St. Louis, and another at Baton Rouge, there still remained seven regiments to be extended from St. Peter's to Red river. Supposing one of them to be stationed at St. Peter’s, one upon the Missouri, one in Arkansas, and one upon the Red river, there were still three left at the disposal of the Government. He contended that this force was not only sufficient, but ample. He should be told that there was a very large Indian force upon this frontier. That was very true. But the larger that force was, the more secure did it render our position; provided the Government appointed among them faithful Indian agents, who enjoyed their confidence, and who would be sustained by the Government in measures for their benefit. Of what did this vast Indian force consist? In the first place, there were the Choctaws, who had removed beyond the Mississippi with their own consent; a people always friendly to this Gov ernment, and whose beast it was that they had never shed, in a hostile manner, one drop of the white man's blood. Their friendship was moreover secuted by heavy annuities, which must at once be forfeited by any hostile movement. Whenever this was the case, the Government possessed complete control, by the strong consideration of interest. Next came the friendly Creeks, who had all gone voluntarily to the west bank of the river. Then came the friendly Cherokees, who had done the same things and next the Chickasaws, whom we also held by heavy annuities. All this vast body of Indians were friendly toward the United States, save a little branch of the Creeks; and it would be easy for any prudent, administration, by selecting proper agents, and sustaining them in wise measures, to keep the whole of these people peaceable and in friendship with this Government, and they would prove an ef. fectual barrier against the incursions of the wild Indians in the prairies beyond. But to increase largely our military force would be the most certain means of provoking a war, especially if improper agents were sent among them—political partisans and selfish land speculators. Men of this cast would be the more bold in their measures, the more troops were ready to sustain them; every body knew that Indian force, when fairly opposed to white in the field, was as nothing. Where there were no swamps and fastnesses, but they had to contend in the open field, they were not more formidable than buffalo. Now, they were congregated in a high, dry, prairie country, and in a country of that description, opposed to horse or artillery, they could do nothing. Mr. C. then proceeded to denounce the bill as a measure

« AnteriorContinuar »