Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

our Government in regard to the occupation of the Mexican territory near the Sabine, and which had occasioned so much unpleasantness. While up, Mr. C. would take the opportunity of saying that he did not concur in all the reasonings of the committee as to the publication of a pamphlet by Mr. Gorostiza, the Mexican envoy extraordinary. He, (Mr. C.,) however, would say that it was a great diplomatic irregularity; but he did not think it made out a case for war, or for any serious disturbance. It was not an unusual case. He recollected an instance which occurred while the American commissioners were at Ghent, in 1814, at a most critical state of the negotiation when it hung, as it were, on a balance, and when it was extremely doubtful whether there would not be a rupture. Mr. C. here related that while he was at Ghent, treating with Lord Gambier and the other British commissioners, a publication from the United States, containing the correspondence between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain, found its way there. Lord Gambier, having seen it, expressed his surprise to Mr. C. that his Government should have given publicity to this correspondence, and said he could not see how they could justify the act. The other commissioners were equally displeased at the occurrence. Mr. C. then explained to them that the course which had been adopted was one growing out of the peculiar structure of this Government, and which the people here demanded of their servants. He (Mr. C.) mentioned this to show that what Mr. Gorostiza had done was a thing not unexampled. It would be recollected that but the other day, Mr. Pageot, just before embarking for France from New York, published the letter of the Duc de Broglie. Mr. Pageot had since returned to this country, and been received frankly, and without any intimation of dissatisfaction on the part of our Government. And he (Mr. C.) had no more doubt of the fact than of his standing on that floor at that moment, that there had been information conveyed through some channel, offcial or unofficial, to France, that Mr. Pageot's return to the United States would be welcomed, without any displeasure being shown towards him in regard to his having published the letter of the Duc de Broglie; otherwise, the French Government would not have sent him to this country. Had Mr. Gorostiza not known the fact of this publication, he probably would not have pursued the example set him.

Mr. C. admitted that Mr. Gorostiza's conduct, in publishing the pamphlet he did, was decidedly wrong, and highly reprehensible; but, as he had before said, it was not, in his opinion, an offence justifying war. The pamphlet had produced no impression, and had done no mischief; and he thought the Secretary of State had acted highly wrong to make it a subject of communication to the Mexican Government. Whilst, however, Mr. C. disagreed with the committee as to some parts of the report, he concurred entirely with them in regard to the resolution, and Loped it would obtain the unanimous consent of the Senate.

Mr. BUCHANAN said he had but a few remarks to make upon this subject, in addition to those contained in the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations. He felt gratified that the Senator from Kentucky had concurred with the other members of the committee in a large portion of their report, and that he would sustain the resolution with which it concluded. The justice of the Senator's remarks in regard to the withdrawal of Mr. Ellis from Mexico would be palpable, if no demand had ever been made upon the Mexican Government for the redress of our grievances previous to his letter of September, 1836, to Mr. Monasterio. But the case was far different. This demand was not then made for the first time. On the contrary, year after year, time after time, whenever we sustained injuries, we had asked

[FEB. 27, 1837.

for redress; but our reclamations, in almost every instance, had been evaded, and redress had been withheld. Mr. Ellis's letter of the 26th September was, therefore, but a mere summing up of our causes of complaint-an enumeration of demands which had been previously made against the Mexican Government. That Government ought to have been prepared to yield us prompt redress, or at least to have expressed their willingness to do so, as soon as they possibly could. He thought Mr. Ellis, in withdrawing from Mexico, had obeyed his instructions, both in the spirit and in the letter. His opinion upon this point was very decided. He should not have said another word upon the subject, but for a commentary on the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, which had appeared in a morning paper. This article proceeded from a source which seemed to render a passing notice of it necessary.

The President, in his message, after expressing his opinion of the aggravated wrongs which we had suffered from Mexico, in which the committee entirely concurred, recommended that an act should be passed authorizing reprisals, if, after making another demand, the Mexican Government should refuse to come to an amicable adjustment of the matters in controversy. He expressed his entire willingness, however, to co-operate with Congress in any other course which should be deemed honorable and proper. Under any circumstances, it was a matter of extreme delicacy for Congress to confer upon the Execu tive the power of making reprisals, upon a future contingency. He would not say that cases might not occur which would justify such a proceeding. These, if they should ever happen, would establish a rule for themselves. Unless an immediate and overruling necessity existed, which could brook no delay, it was always safer and more constitutional to take the opinion of Congress upon events after they had happened, than to intrust & power so important to the President alone.

The committee, under all the circumstances, did not believe that our existing relations with Mexico presented such a case. They knew that General Santa Anna, whose life had been justly forfeited, but which had been restored to him by the magnanimity of the Government of Texas, had recently arrived at Washington; that he had been sent home in a Government vessel of the United States; and that there was every reason to believe b's ar rival would be hailed by the Mexicans with joy, and that he would shortly be restored to the presidency of the Republic. Under such circumstances, it was but reasonable to hope that he would feel disposed to render to this country the justice which was our due; and that, therefore, it was neither expedient nor necessary, at the present moment, to authorize any decisive measure of a hostile character.

Again: The committee were unanimously of opinion that the 34th article of our treaty with Mexico required that a demand should be made, under its provisions, before resorting either to war or to reprisals. This arti cle was one of a peculiar nature. It might have been impolitic to agree to it at first; but it was now a part of our treaty, and its requisitions must be held sacred. Here Mr. B. read from the article, as follows: "Thirdly's If (what indeed cannot be expected) any of the ar ticles contained in the present treaty shall be violated or infracted in any manner whatever, it is stipulated that neither of the contracting parties will order or authorize any acts of reprisal, nor declare war against the other, on complaints of injuries or damages, until the said party considering itself offended shall first have presented to the other a statement of such injuries or damages, verified by competent proofs, and demanded justice and satisfaction, and the same shall have been either refused or unreasonably delayed."

This language was too plain to be misunderstood. It

FEB. 27, 1837.]

Texas--Alabama two per cent. Fund, &c.

But

was true that it did not extend to direct insults to the national honor--such as violations of our flag, or opprobrious and injurious conduct towards our consuls. the committee were very clear and unanimous in their opinion, that when pecuniary damages were sought by our citizens, for pecuniary injuries sustained, in violation of any article of the treaty, before we could redress those injuries by reprisals, a previous demand must be made, in pursuance of its provisions. On this point, there could scarcely be two opinions.

The treaty required something more than a mere presentation of the complaints of individuals to the Mexican Government, through the agency of our minister to Mexico. Our Government must be the judge, in the first insfance, of the injuries requiring redress. We must decide this question ourselves. We are then bound to present a statement of such injuries and damages to the Mexican Government, verified by competent proofs. That such a demand under the treaty had never been made hitherto, must be apparent to all those who have read the correspondence. Throughout the whole of it, this article does not seem to have attracted any attention. That it was not within the contemplation of Mr. Forsyth, when he addressed the letter of instructions to Mr. Ellis of the 20th of July last, will appear conclusively from that letter itself. After enumerating our causes of complaint against the Mexican Government, he says: "Though the Department is not in possession of proof of all the circumstances of the wrongs done in the above cases, as represented by the aggrieved parties, yet the complaints are such as to entitle them to be listened to, and to justify a demand on the Mexican Government that they shall be promptly and properly examined, and that suitable redress shall be afforded."

The committee believed that it would require several months to enable the Department of State to collect the necessary proofs for the purpose of verifying each of the private claims of our citizens, and to make the demand according to the treaty. All the necessary forms can probably not be complied with until within two or three months of the meeting of the next Congress. They therefore thought it much better to wait this brief space, and refer the whole question to Congress, than to authorize the President immediately to issue letters of marque and reprisal, in case the answer of the Mexican Government should not prove satisfactory. Af ter this demand shall have been made, and the answer of the Mexican Government received, the whole case will then be before Congress in a clear and distinct form. If that Government should refuse to do us justice, he could not doubt but that Congress would adopt prompt measures for vindicating the honor of the American flag and asserting the just rights of our injured fellow-citizens.

of menace.

He should have been willing to use stonger language in the resolution appended to the report, but he believed it was now presented in the best form. Whilst negotiation continued, it was not politic to use the language Still he thought, from the report and the resolution, taken together, the Mexican Government could not fail to perceive the determination of that of the United States to enforce, in the most prompt and energetic manner, the redress of all our grievances.

When Mr. BUCHANAN concluded, the question was taken on agreeing to the resolution reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations, and decided as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Lian, Lyon, Morris, Mouton, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Parker, Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Spence, Strange, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Walker, Wall, Webster, White, Wright--46.

So it was

[SENATE.

Resolved, unanimously, That the Senate concur in opinion with the President of the United States, that another demand ought to be made for the redress of our grievances from the Mexican Government, the mode and manner of which, under the 34th article of the treaty, so far as it may be applicable, are properly confided to his discretion. They cannot doubt, from the justice of our claims, that this demand will result in speedy redress; but should they be disappointed in this reasonable expectation, a state of things will then have occurred which will make it the imperative duty of Congress promptly to consider what further measures may be required by the bonor of the nation and the rights of our injured fellow-citizens.

TEXAS.

Mr. WALKER moved the consideration of his reso. lution for the recognition of the independence of Texas, Mr. HUBBARD moved to postpone its consideration to Friday; and a desultory conversation took place upon the motion, which was finally modified by inserting Wednesday next, and carried, by yeas and nays, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Brown, Bachanan, Clayton, Davis. Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Lyon, Morris, Niles, Page, Prentiss, Rob. bins, Ruggles, Sevier, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright--25.

NAXS--Messrs. Benton, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Hendricks, Linn, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Parker, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Spence, Strange, Walker, White-21.

ALABAMA TWO PER CENT. FUND.

The bill to advance $1,000,000, on the two per cent. land fund, to the States of Alabama and Mississippi, respectively, being under consideration

Mr. MOORE said he had presented a memorial from the Legislature of Alabama, in relation to a great work now in contemplation, to unite Mobile with the waters of the Tennessee. He regretted extremely that the Committee on Public Lands, to whom this memorial was referred, had overlooked the views of that Legislature entirely, and had reported the bill now before the Senale, without a due regard to their views. He had no objections that Mississippi should dispose of her two per cent. fund in any manner that she and her representatives might think proper; but he had objections to the refusal of the same privilege to the State of Alabama. He therefore moved to lay the bill on the table for the present, preferting to run the risk of being misrepresented as illiberal, to that of being unfaithful to the interests of his constituents.

On this motion Mr. WALKER asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and were taken, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Brown, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Hubbard, Knight,、 Linn, Moore, Mouton, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Webster, White-27.

NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Buchanan, Crittenden, Fulton, Kent, King of Alabama, Lyon, Norvell, Parker, Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Spence, Strange, Walker--16, So the bill was ordered to lie on the table.

JOHN MCCARTNEY.

The bill for the relief of John McCartney coming up on its third reading,

Mr. MOORE, of Alabama, addressed the Chair as fullows:

Mr. President: The history of this claim may be gathered by attention to the memorial and reports that bave been made by committees in both branches of the National Legislature. A sketch of the meritorious char.

SENATE.]

Hall's Rifle.

acter of the claimant may also be obtained from some of the accompanying vouchers. And, sir, I would not feel that I had discharged my entire duty to this worthy old gentleman, were I to omit to add my testimony in favor of his entire honesty, integrity, and correct deportment, for about twenty-seven years, during which time I have known him intimately.

Mr. McCartney tells you in his memorial that he is one of that gallant band, of which but few now remain, who perilled every thing in the war of the Revolution for the liberty we now enjoy; and I can testify to one fact in support of this position also, for it is known to me that he is now enjoying the small pittance given for his valor and suffering, by a grateful country, in the way of a pension.

This claim was first presented in the House of Representatives, by me, in 1822 or 1823; it was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, at the head of which the distinguished member from Tennessee, General Cook, then presided as chairman, who, at that time, was a very influential member of the party called the radicals or reformers; and to those who are acquainted with the history of the times I need not say that that gentleman had acquired a reputation for thorough investigation into all claims, and a rigid watchfulness over the public treasure, which none except the Third Auditor, (Mr. Hagner,) who, I believe, is one among the best officers in the cmploy of the Government, ever enjoyed. It was proverbial then with that gentleman, as it is now with Mr. Hagner, that whenever any claim has passed the ordeal of his investigation, and was approved, no one dared to doubt its propriety and justice. That gentleman, at that time, when a large public debt was hanging over the Government, and economy the order of the day, made a favorable report in McCartney's case, accompanied by a bill for his relief, which passed the House of Represent atives. I have felt it my duty to present the claim here every session since I have had the honor of a seat here. It has passed and repassed here, but has halted and been lost in the House for want of time or other considerations.

Well, sir, having said thus much as regards the history of the claim, what are the grounds upon which it is attempted to be resisted?

Sir, according to the views given by the honorable Senator from Vermont, [Mr. SWIFT,] and the views of others in opposition heretofore, it does appear to me that this opposition rests more upon mere legal technicalities than upon any broad principle of propriety, supported by equity and justice. It is alleged that the officer who took and carried away McCartney's property, although he acted in obedience to an order issued from the commanding general, was a trespasser, the order illegal, therefore void, and the officer liable. Now, sir, to say nothing as to the impracticability and impossibility of McCartney's obtaining redress in this way, when the officer was stationed at a garrison, out of the jurisdiction of the court, let us take for granted all this to be so, and suppose, for argument sake, that Mr. McCartney, instead of presenting his claim to Congress, had brought suit against Lieutenant Houston for this trespass, committed in obedience to the order issued by General Jackson, and suppose he had recovered damages against Houston, would not Houston have made an immediate application to Congress for indemnity? And would any Senator have hesitated for a moment as to the propriety of granting the indemnity? No, sir; no. If, then, we would have indemnified Houston, as I am fully persuaded every Senator would have done, where, then, is the impropriety of giving McCartney relief in the first instance? Indemnity has been given for trespasses committed under somewhat similar circumstances in the Northwestern army. The statute book will prove this to be so. But, Mr. President, this officer acted merely as a ministerial

[FEB. 27, 1837.

agent. He had no discretionary powers; he did nothing more than he was commanded to do; and the Govern ment is surely liable for the acts of its agent. It does not follow, that because the agent is liable the Govern ment is not also liable. And, sir, in this case, the great principle of civil liberty requires that the agent and Government both should be liable. The rights of the citizen cannot be secure without this joint liability of both the Government and its agent. Let the principle be but once established that this Government may at will, by its agents, violate the property of the citizen, without being responsible for such violation, and there can be no security for private property. All that will be necessary to enforce a perfect despotism will be for the Government to employ agents destitute of property, and therefore irresponsible, and make any wanted attack upon the property of the citizen, the agent protecting himself behind his bankruptcy, which will be a complete shield, as far as he is concerned, and the citi zen without redress. This joint responsibility, therefore, of both the agent and the Government, is the safe guard of the liberty of the American citizen, and I hope will not be lightly abandoned by an American Senate. The question was then taken on the engrossment of the bill, and carried in the affirmative.

After going through several other bills, On motion of Mr. EWING, of Ohio, it was Resolved, That the Senate, during the remainder of the session, take a recess from three o'clock to half past four.

The Senate then broke up, to meet again at half past four.

EVENING SESSION.

The Senate met, pursuant to adjournment; and, after consider the bill to remunerate Captain Francis Allyn taking up and considering several bills, proceeded to for conveying General Lafayette to the United States, in

1824.

This bill proposed to allow $4,000 to the captain and Lafayette to this country. The captain relinquished his owners of the ship Cadmus, for bringing over General place in the Havre line, and procured a ship on his own responsibility, and was at expenses in going to Paris, &c. character; it was making a commodity of the honor of The bill was warmly opposed, as opprobrious in its having tendered to the General his passage. The own. ers had had loud praises at the time for their liberality, yet now came to Congress for pay.

It was contended, on the other hand, that this captain had been at large private expenses, for which he ought It did not appear that the owners had ever requested any thing of the kind. After a desultory debate,

to be remunerated.

Mr. BUCHANAN moved to lay the bill on the table, and called for the yeas and nays; which were taken, and stood: Yeas 22, nays 18.

So the bill was laid on the table, but afterwards reconsidered, and, after amendment, was agreed to, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

HALL'S RIFLE.

The bill to remunerate Captain John H. Hall, for improvements in firearms, being under consideration, Mr. DAVIS desired to know the merits of the bill.

Mr. TIPTON said that he would state, in a few words, the reason which had influenced the Committee on Mili tary Affairs to report this bill in favor of J. H. Hall. That individual was the inventor of the rifle commonly called Hall's rifl, which had been introduced and extensively used in the army of the United States. Before this description of arms had been put into the hands of our soldiers, they had undergone a rigid examination, and were proved by boards of officers at Fortress Mon.

[blocks in formation]

roc, Greenleaf's Point, and Harper's Ferry, and were approved by the able and experienced officer at the head of the ordnance department, (Colonel Bomford.) Reports had been made by these boards of officers, among whom were General Eustis, Colonel Crane, and Major Hickman; all of whom, as well as Colonel Bomford, concur in bearing testimony in favor of the rifle.

The board convened at Fortress Monroe stated that, in long ranges of -, although the rifles were fired with the usual charge of powder, viz: two eighths the weight of their bullet, and the muskets with the increased proportion of two fifths the weight of the ball, the relative execution was found to be in favor of Hall's rifle; that, after having undergone 8,710 discharges, the rifle appeared to be in a fit condition for service, considering the severe proof to which it had been subjected; that it was equal to the service of sixteen active campaigns; and that further proof was considered unnecessary, and was consequently discontinued.

Captain Hall was also the inventor of machinery for the identical construction of the different parts of firearms. He had accomplished what no other mechanic had been able to accomplish in this or any other country-the identical construction of firearms. This name had been given to the parts of firearms which were all perfectly equal, and made with such uniformity that, after dis. mounting any number of these guns, and mixing their different parts promiscuously together, we were able, from the confused mass of materials, to form a perfectly fitted arm with the utmost facility, and without regard to the particular stocks from which the mountings had been stripped. As evidence that Captain Hall had accomplished this most desirable object, he referred to a portion of the report of a board of practical armorers, appointed in 1827, to examine the rifle and machinery invented by him. They say:

"In making this examination, our attention was directed, in the first place, for several days, to viewing the operations of the numerous machines which were exhibited to us by the inventor, John H. Hall. Captain Hall has formed and adopted a system in the manufacture of small arms entirely novel, and which, no doubt, may be attended with the most beneficial results to the country, especially if carried into effect on a large scale.

"His machines for this purpose are of several distinct classes, and are used for cutting iron and steel, and for executing wood work, all of which are essentially dif ferent from each other, and differ materially from any other machines we have ever seen in any other establish

ment.

"Their general merits and demerits, when contrasted with the several machines hitherto in general use for the manufacture of small arms, will, perhaps, be better understood by pointing out the difference of the results produced by them, than by any very accurate description of the machines themselves.

[SENATE.

ed, and scattered them promiscuously over a long joiners' workbench. One hundred stocks were then brought from Hall's armory, which had been just finished, and on which no work or mounting had ever been put. The workmen then commenced putting the work taken from off the stocks brought from the United States arsenal on the 100 new stocks, the work having been repeatedly mixed and changed by us and the workmen also; all this was done in our presence, and the arms, as fast as they were put together, were handed to us and minutely examined. We were unable to discover any inaccuracy in any of their parts fitting each other, and we are fully persuaded that the parts fitted, after all the changes they must have undergone by the workmen, as well as those made designedly by us in the course of two or three days, with as much accuracy and correctness as they did when on the stocks to which they originally belonged.

"If the uniformity, therefore, in the component parts of small arms is an important desideratum, which, we presume, will not be doubted by any one the least conversant with the subject, it is, in our opinion, completely accomplished by the plan which Captain Hall has carried into effect. By no other process known to us (and we have seen most, if not all, that are in use in the United States) could arms be made so exactly alike as to interchange and require no marks on the different parts; and we very much doubt whether the best workmen that may be selected from any armory, with the aid of the best machines in use elsewhere, could, in a whole life, make a hundred rifles or muskets that would, after being promiscuously mixed together, fit each other with the exact nicety that is to be found in those manufactured by Captain Hall."

An attempt had been made by the Government of France, as early as 1722, to accomplish the identical construction of firearms; but it was abandoned, after expending a large amount in the experiment. The attempt was renewed in 1785; some hundreds of sets were made, but, on being subjected to proof, it was found that the arms were only similar, not identical, and the effort was again abandoned.

Mr. T. said that Captain Hall had spent the best part of a long life in the fabrication of arms, and machinery connected with their manufacture. He had obtained patents for his invention, according to law; and both his rifles and carbines, as well as the machinery for their identical construction, had been introduced and were extensively used in our armory. The bill which had been reported made an appropriation of $20,000, to be paid to Mr. Hall for the right of using his arms and machinery by the United States. A sum equal to this had been paid by an act of the last session to Captain Bell, of the ordnance, for his patent right to his new mode of pointing cannon; and he considered the improvements of Captain Hall as a much more important invention. There had not been a full meeting of the Military Committee when he was instructed to report the bill. The sum fixed on was the lowest proposed by any member present. He had no doubt that, if all the facts were understood by the Senate, a larger sum would be voted to Mr. Hall. The statements now on our table sustained this opinion. They could be read, if any Senator wished it. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. BLACK] said there "To determine this point, and test their uniformity was some prejudice against Hall's rifle. Mr. T. said beyond all controversy, we requested Colonel Lee, act- that was true. He had himself entertained strong pre ing superintendent of the United States armory at this judices until the arm had been distributed, and had come place, to send to Hall's armory five boxes, containing 100 into actual service. He was convinced of its durability rifles manufactured by bim in 1824, and which had been and usefulness. He had been, as it were, raised with a in the arsenal [United States arsenal] since that period. rifle in his hand; and, after a careful examination of the We then directed two of his workmen to strip off the one now referred to, he was glad to state his confidence work from the stocks of the whole hundred, and also to in its importance. The reports of the different boards take to pieces the several parts of the receivers, so call-of skilful officers would, he hoped, convince the Senate.

"It is well known, we believe, that arms have never yet been made so exactly similar to each other, by any other process, as to require no marking of their several parts, and so that those parts, on being changed, would suit equally well when applied to every other arm, (of the same kind;) but the machines we have examined effect this with a certainty and precision we should not have believed till we witnessed their operation.

SENATE.]

Colonel Arbuckle-Inauguration of President of the United States, &c.

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. PRESTON] objected to the second section of the bill, on account of the provision it contained for the employment of Mr. Hall in our armory at Harper's Ferry. Mr. H. was now employed, he believed, under a regulation of the Department. His services had been found indispensable; he had been continually making improvements in the machinery used there. If the bill passed, the Executive was authorized to employ Mr. H. at a salary not exceed ing $2,500, and his services could be dispensed with whenever the President or Congress thought proper. Mr. Hall had been offered double the amount proposed to be given him by the bill, by an agent of a foreign Government, for leave to use in that Government his patent right for his invention; but he had rejected the proposition, and chose to depend on the justice and liberality of his own Government.

Mr. T. said that it had been his duty, as a member of the Committee on Military Affairs, to bring this subject before the Senate. He had done so in a manner that would, he believed, give the members a proper understanding of the case. If, however, further information was called for, the rest of the report could be read. He felt, personally, no solicitude on the subject. He knew that other arms, more recently invented, had been presented at the War Department, and that a board had been directed to examine and prove them. But that board was unable to prosecute that duty satisfactorily during the cold weather of last month. A report need not be expected before we adjourn; and he would be content should the Senate postpone the decision of this case until the next session, or determine upon it at this time. He could not doubt that the inventor of this valuable and useful improvement would one day be amply compensated by our Government.

[FEB. 28, 1837.

After the consideration of several other bills,
The Senate adjourned.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28.

INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNI

TED STATES.

The PRESIDENT pro. tem. presented a letter from the President elect of the United States, informing the Senate that he would be ready to take the usual oath of office on Saturday, March 4, at 12 o'clock, noon, at such place and in such manner as the Senate might designate.

Mr. GRUNDY offered a resolution for the appointment of a committee of arrangements, to make the requisite preparations for administering the oath to the President elect of the United States.

Mr. CLAY said he would like to inquire whether precedents had been examined on this subject. He was aware that the Senate had always had a peculiar agency in this business; but he was not aware why the Senate should act upon it any more than the House, or why it was not a joint concern. He remembered that, on the first election of Mr. Monroe, the committee of the Sen. ate applied to him, as Speaker of the House, for the use of the chamber of the House; and he had told them that he would put the chamber in order for the use of the Senate, but the control of it he did not feel authorized to surrender. They wished also to bring in the fine red chairs of the Senate, but he told them it could not be done; the plain democratic chairs of the House were more becoming. The consequence was, that Mr. Mon. roe, instead of taking the oath within doors, took it outside, in the open air, in front of the Capitol. Mr. C. mentioned this for the purpose of making the inquiry, what was the practice, and on what it was founded, and why the Senate had the exclusive care of administering the oath.

Mr. PRESTON also explained; but observed that various discoveries had been made since the rifle of Captain Hall, which might possibly supersede it. To settle this point, a series of experiments had been instituted, and Mr. GRUNDY said the committee had found no auwere proceeding at this time. He doubted the propriety thority but several precedents, which were in strict ac of passing the bill in the mean time. He admitted the merit cordance with the proposition now proposed to be made. of that part of Captain Hall's invention by which the vari-He did not recollect any instance in which the House had ous parts of a musket were made so uniformly that they might promiscuously be taken, and at once be put together, and would fit perfectly.

Mr. TIPTON further explained, and vin licated the provisions of the bill. It was not imperative, but only permitted the Executive to employ his services as long as they might be needed, at a salary not exceeding $2,500 a year.

Mr. LINN testified, from the result of experience on the Western frontier, to the merits of this rifle, of which he spoke in high terms.

Mr. BLACK moved to lay the bill on the table; which motion prevailed, and the bill was laid on the table accordingly.

COLONEL ARBUCKLE.

The bill for the relief of Colonel Matthew Arbuckle, of the United States army, having reference to certain land claims in Louisiana, was considered as in Committee of the Whole, and explanations of it, involving various legal considerations, were given by Mr. SEVIER in its favor, and by Messrs. PRESTON, BLACK, BUCHANAN, and FULTON, in opposition.

On motion of Mr. BUCHANAN, the bill was amended by requiring Colonel Arbuckle to pay $1 25 per acre to the United States for the lands in question, on his acceptance of the bill: Ayes 16, noes 11.

A motion to lay the bill on the table was negatived, by yeas 16, nays 17. And having been further amended, it was lost, on the question of its engrossment, by year 16, nays 16,

participated in it; and, in fact, the House, as such, had no existence, their term having expired on the preceding day. The committee had examined three cases of more modern date, and had found nothing in opposition to the practice proposed. If the committee could not get into the House, they could go out of doors.

The resolution was adopted, and the Chair was allthorized to appoint the above-named committee of three members.

THE DISTRIBUTION QUESTION.

The Senate, proceeded to the consideration of the fortification bill; and the question being on the amend ment reported by the Committee on Finance, viz: to strike out the second section of the bill, which contains the provision for the distribution among the States of any surplus which may remain in the Treasury on the 1st of January, 1838

Mr. CALHOUN regretted that the committee had not made a written report on so important a recommend.

ation.

Mr. WRIGHT explained that the second section of the bill being neither more nor less than the bill formerly introduced by the Senator from South Carolina himself, the case was fully understood by all the Senate, and needed no consumption of time to explain it. As to a written report, there had been no time to prepare one, even had the committee deemed it necessary.

Mr. CALHOUN reminded the Senate of the triumph. ant majority by which the deposite bill had been adopted at the last session; and as there had occurred nothing

« AnteriorContinuar »