their notions, and finally, to vote against them. It was perfectly natural, parliamentary, and just, for the gentleman from Virginia, holding the opinions he did, to call for the same bounty: for he [Mr. TAZEWELL] considered it bounty, for his constituents, that was given to other people.

He thought the importance of the measure proposed by the gentleman from Virginia such as entitled it to separate consideration, and therefore should vote against inIcluding it in this bill. He should act upon this bill as if it had come up in the regular order. The Corporation had applied to the Government for its assistance; their memorial had been received, referred to a committee of the Senate, and a bill introduced; and the proposition was, to suspend this bill, until another public work, in another part of the country, could be included in it. The work was to be considered of equal public importance, but there was no connection between them in the nature of things. There was a general resemblance, but the facts upon which an opinion was to be exercised, might be very different. The inclusion of another subject, which had not been introduced into either branch of the Legislature, did not appear to him a sufficient reason for postponing this bill. It was of high importance that, if passed at all, it should pass at the present session; it was now near the commencement of the working season, and if it was not passed now, the work would be delayed another year. In his judgement, the Government would be able, in a few years, to dispose of their property in that work, and he hoped, without much sacrifice, and apply the proceeds to some other work. He hoped they would keep the two measures separate, and dispose of this bill now, upon its own merits.

Mr. TAZEWELL rose to a point of order. He inquired whether, if he offered an amendment with a blank in it, the blank could be filled hereafter?

and

shares in

Sec. 4th, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to vote for officers of the Corporation."

Mr. BENTON called for the yeas and nays on agreeing to the amendment; which were ordered.

Mr. WEBSTER said, he could not vote for this amendment, and he would state his reasons in a few words. One of these measures had been brought regularly before the Senate, and the other had not; of one they knew something, and of the other nothing. The present proposition was, in fact, introducing a new bill, which, by a standing rule of the Senate, must lie one day; on that ground he was opposed to it, and on no other. If the measure proposed as an amendment had been delayed through inadvertence, or any other reason, it should have

his vote.

[FEB. 24, 1829.

ternal Improvement, and stating that he should, to-morrow, move for the printing of ten thousand copies.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, remarked upon this document with considerable severity. He said it was a document entirely deceptive in its nature. It was a document which, if he had it in his hands in the Western country, would inflame the passions of every man who would listen to him. He also remarked upon the use the gentleman from Missouri proposed to make of it. It was to inflame the passions of one State against the people of another. Would a stump speaker in the Western country state the reason of this inequality of which the gentleman complained-that they had no occasion for forts? Had Ohio applied for any appropriation for the improvement of her harbors on the Lake, which had been refused? No. Had Illinois been refused land for her canals? No. And when the State of Missouri asked for a road to Mexico, had it not been granted? Unquestionably it had. He disliked this thing; he disliked anything calculated to inflame the passions of one part of the community against another. He instanced the case of Louisiana,which required some protection, inquiring if that would be charged to the Western country: it certainly would not; it would be charged to Louisiana, whereas the whole Western country would be interested. The State of North Carolina had an ironbound coast; but they had petitioned for a work which he should vote for, if it cost ten millions of dollars. He concluded his remarks (of which this is a very imperfect sketch) by saying, that he never felt so much incensed by any declaration in the Senate.

Mr. BENTON made a very brief reply; when

Mr SMITH, of South Carolina, moved to lay the whole subject on the table.

Upon this question, Mr. NOBLE called for the yeas and nays, which were as follows: Yeas 14, nays 27.

So the motion to lay upon the table was lost, and the question recurred again upon ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading; and upon this question the yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. MARKS said, he wished it to be understood that not one foot of this canal was within the territory of Pennsylvania. That State had voted a sum of money for ested in the work; but it was ungenerous to throw out inthe completion of the canal. As a State, she was inter

sinuations that these works were all for the benefit of Pennsylvania.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said, the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania showed that these works were considered for the good of the whole Union.

Mr. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, made a few remarks to show that it would be extremely unfair to take the report in question into the Western country, to show that the Western country had not been benefited, inasmuch as the appropriations had been for national objects, and for the benefit of the whole Union.

Mr. BENTON replied, endeavoring to establish that there was no deception in the document, but that twelve States had received less than two hundred thousand dollars. It would not deceive the Western country, but it would open the eyes of the people, and show them that they had played the part of the ass in the fable, in relation to this system of Internal Improvement. He then adverted to the Public Lands, as the payment for the Cumberland road, and other objects.

Mr. WEBSTER did not think anything was more to be deprecated than these local comparisons. The gentleman had said he meant to open the eyes of the people of the West. If he intended to show that the money had been improperly or unfairly applied, it would be to some purpose to open the eyes of the people. But, granting that it had been so, did that alter the power of Congress to appropriate money? By no means. This was a system that must be taken distributively, or not at all.

He

Feb. 25, 26, 1829.]

then briefly adverted to the argument that the works were not for the benefit of individual States, but for the whole, and gave it his support. He did not wish false impressions and false alarms to go abroad. The country was to be considered as if there were no State lines-as if the legislation was for a unit. If the sea-board had advantages, the sea-board was maintained and defended by the sea-board. It was a matter of common advantage, and it should be borne as a common burthen. Any improvements in the West should receive his support, so long as it was within reasonable bounds. The question now was, concerning the continuation of this canal, which was commenced under the auspices of this Government. He adverted to the Cumberland road, and to the Ohio river, as objects interesting, not only to the Western country, but to the whole country. He hoped the present measure would be allowed to take its proper course, upon its

own merits.

Mr. BENTON explained the course he had taken, and should take, upon the bill.

After an explanatory remark by Mr. KANE, The question was taken, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs Barnard, Barton, Benton, Bouligny, Burnet, Chambers, Chase, Dudley, Eaton, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnson, of Kentucky, Johnston, of Louisiana, Kane, McKinley, McLane, Marks, Noble, Ridgely, Robbins, Rowan, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, of Maryland, Thomas, Webster, Willey.-28.

NAYS-Messrs. Bell, Berrien, Branch, Chandler, Foot, Hayne, Iredell, Knight, Prince, Sanford, Smith, of South Carolina, Tazewell, White, Williams, Woodbury.-15.

WEDNESDAY, FEB. 25, 1829.

There was nothing of sufficient interest before the Senate this day to occasion debate.

THURSDAY, FEB. 26, 1829.

REVOLUTIONARY PENSIONERS. The bill from the House of Representatives, " to amend an act, entitled 'An act to provide for certain persons engaged in the land and naval service of the United States, during the Revolutionary war,' and the several acts made in amendment thereof, and for other purposes," was read the first time; and the yeas and nays were called for on ordering it to a second reading.

Mr. CHANDLER stated his reasons for the vote he should give on this question. The session was near its close; the bill was of an important nature, and required due consideration; there was not sufficient time to give it that attention which its importance demanded.

Mr. MARKS thought that a proper courtesy to the other House required the Senate to have the bill read a second time and referred. It was true, there was already much business before the Committee on Pensions; nevertheless, if the bill was referred to them, they would give it a careful examination, though he was fearful it could not be acted upon during the present session.

Mr. NOBLE was of opinion that there would be no want of courtesy to the other House in laying the bill on the table, if there was not sufficient time for the Senate to act upon it. If such was the fact, it might as well be laid upon the table at once, and he therefore made that

motion.

Mr. HOLMES called for the yeas and nays on this motion; they were ordered accordingly, and stood as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Berrien, Bouligny, Branch, Chandler, Dickerson, Dudley, Eaton, Foot, Hayne, Hendricks, Iredell, Johnson, of Kentucky, Johnston, of Louisiana, Kane, King, McKinley, McLane, Noble, Prince, Ridgely, Rowan, Smith, of Maryland, Smith, of South Carolina, White, Williams.-26.

[SENATE.

NAYS-Messrs. Barnard, Barton, Bell, Burnet, Chambers, Chase, Holmes, Knight, Marks, Robbins, Ruggles, Sanford, Seymour, Silsbee, Webster, Willey, Woodbury.--17 So the bill was virtually rejected.

OFFICERS OF THE REVOLUTION, &c. The bill for the relief of sundry Revolutionary and other officers and soldiers, and for other purposes, was then taken up, and the amendments of the committee were considered. Sundry alterations and amendments were also proposed by the Senate.

Mr. MARKS, in explanation of the bill, said he supposed it was unnecessary to go into a detailed statement in relation to all the cases contained. The sum which would be required, he had ascertained, would be about fifteen thousand six hundred dollars; but a great number of the persons named, probably two-thirds of them, might be placed upon the pension roll without the necessity of a separate bill. There were some names upon the list of individuals who did not belong to the regular army of the United States. The reason why they were placed there was, that several States hal troops, called the troops of the State, which were at times called into the general service, some of whom served three or four years. None of these State troops, however, had been admitted, unless they had served at least nine months under the orders of the Continental officers. There was one question upon which the Committee were divided. It would be seen that the pensions all commenced on the first of January, 1828. The Committee, not being able to agree, had concluded to leave it for the decision of the Senate.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, said, that he considered the admission of the cases mentioned by the gentleman from Pennsylvania as an innovation upon the regular pension system of the United States. The law of 1818 admitted none upon the rolls who were not in the Continental service at the end of the war. It had been an established principle to admit none who were not regular Continental soldiers. He could not see why, at this late day, when the laws provided for all who were in need of assistance, they should be called upon to legislate for particular and individual cases every year.

Mr. MARKS replied, that the Committee had been very particular as to the kind of service; and, whenever it had been in the militia service, they had stricken the name off. He introduced a letter from the head of the Pension Bureau, in the War Department, stating what individuals came in for pensions, and under what rules. There were but few in the bill of the State troops, but the Committee were satisfied that they had rendered very important services to the United States; and, although they had not heretofore been admitted, yet their claim was such as could not, in equity, be resisted. He was not certain about the number, but he believed not more than eight or ten.

Mr. FOOT explained, that, of all the cases he examined, there were not more then five or six admitted of these State troops, and the Committee required that they should prove service of nine months. The House of Representatives had admitted such, and passed the bill, and the Senate had acted upon the same rule. They struck off all the names where the evidence was not satisfactory, and admitted none where the services were not under the orders of the United States.

Mr. HAYNE inquired the amount which would probably be called for annually by this bill.

Mr. MARKS replied, that, since the adoption of the several names by the Senate, it would probably amount to 15,800 dollars.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, said, there was no instance upon record of any such cases being admitted. He had applied frequently for the admission of names upon

the pension roll, where the most unquestionable evidence of important services was produced, and the answer invariably had been, that it was an established rule to admit none who were not upon the Continental list, and proof to that effect must be produced. They must also take the oath that they were in want of assistance, and accompany their application by a schedule of their property. They had made several laws since this one was enacted, but they had never repealed this one. Now, the Senate were told, that important services had been performed, that individuals deserve reward, and that the Committee felt sympathy for those who suffered in the service, and they were violating their own law, by placing names upon the roll which had no right there. He commiserated the sufferings of the whole army of the United States. [Mr. S. here read an extract from the law of 1818, showing that, to entitle individuals to the benefit of that act, they must have been" on the Continental Establishment."]

[FEB. 27, 28, 1829

No reason was given why this child should have a pension, and he could only conclude that all the children of all the soldiers of the last war were to have pensions for five years. By another section, a pension was granted to the widow of a soldier. It was not stated why; and, therefore, all the widows of soldiers, will have an equal claim, and all receive pensions. Still, by another section, a pension was granted to the legal representatives of a soldier deceased. Were all representatives and descendants of deceased soldiers to have pensions? There was nothing said about it; here was a law stating certain individuals by name who were to have pensions, and for no apparent reasons, except that they were the children, widows, and representatives of soldiers. There was one case stated of a man who had performed certain services, and who was a lunatic, and his representatives were to have a pension for his use. There he knew something about it; the case was stated.

Mr. FOOT said he supposed he had sufficiently explained the grounds on which the cases in question has been admitted. As respected feeling in the matter, he did not legislate upon the dictation of his feelings at all. This bill only provided for such as were most unquestionably intended to be provided for by the original pension law, but who, owing to the rules practised upon, and some defect upon their testimony, had not heretofore been admitted. It was for the Senate to decide whether they would pass the bill or not.

After some discussion between Messrs. HENDRICKS and PRINCE, relative to the admission of another name, Mr. KING moved to lay the bill upon the table; which was negatived. Mr. HAYNE then moved to adjourn, which was negatived-ayes 13, noes 22.

Mr. HAYNE then said he had moved an adjournment in order that he might look into the bill; but as the Senate had refused him the opportunity, he must state some of the reasons which induced him to oppose the bill. It appeared to him one of the most extraordinary bills which had ever been before Congress. They were asked to grant pensions to an hundred individuals mentioned by name. Was it usual to put names upon the pension roll without any reference to the grounds upon which they were admitted, or others rejected? The Senate knew nothing about these individuals. He believed this very bill had been before the Senate at the last session, and he did not know but the session before; and he well remembered that the Chairman of the Committee on Pensions last year stated that the principles of this bill were new and unknown to the Pension Law. What had been the practice of the Senate? If there was any new principle, he wished to have it placed before them; he wished some report upon it, and he wished to have it placed upon record, why A, B, C, down to Z, and to the end of the chapter, were placed upon the roll, when, as the Chairman of the Committee said, it was not according to the rule. True, the Committee said they had examined the cases, and thought such and such persons ought to have pensions, and that such and such should be exempted from the general operation of the rule. Now, he wished to form his own opinion upon that subject.

Upon an examination of the bill, it appeared, by one section, that a pension was to be given to the child of an individual who was a soldier in the last war for five years.

Mr. BENTON here called for an adjournment; which was carried.

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1829. which gave rise to debate of any public interest. Considerable business was transacted this day, but none

SATURDAY, FEB. 28, 1829.

INSTRUCTIONS TO PANAMA MINISTERS. The following resolution, offered last evening by Mr. WEBSTER, was taken up for consideration:

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to communicate to the Senate, confidentially, and in its Executive character, copies of the instructions given to the Ministers of the United States to the Congress of Panama; and of the communications of the other Governments represented at that Congress, to the Government of the United States; or so much thereof as may be communicated without detriment to the public interest."

[The words first italicised were inserted during the debate, and those last in italics, or words to that effect, were of course stricken out.]

Mr. TAZEWELL said he should like to hear some reason why, at this late period of the session, this subject, formerly productive of so much excitement and discussion, was again brought forward.

Mr. WEBSTER said it was for the very reason indicated in the remark of the Senator from Virginia, that he had offered the resolution. The subject of the Panama mission, while it lasted, was highly interesting. It would be very interesting to know the results of that mission, so far as it had any results. His object was simply, as stated in the resolution, to make public all the proceedings of the Executive on this matter, if they could be published without prejudice to the public interest. was a transaction that had passed by, and become a part of the diplomatic history of the country. He had nothing in view except information, and there would be no expense except that of the publication.

It

Mr. TAZEWELL replied, that it was of little consequence what the object was; the course pursued was incorHere was a President who had only three days to

rect.

serve, and the Senate were required to make a call upon him for important public documents, relating to the foreign intercourse of the country, and which had never been published. He thought it better to wait a few days, and then make the call upon the then Executive. These instructions might contain matter which it was improper to have go before the public: they related to the policy of the country, which it would not, perhaps, be prudent to expose to the eyes of other nations. He objected to the call being made at this time, because, if important secrets should be brought to light, the responsibility of the course would not light upon the present Executive, and might embarrass the next. He objected to the manner in which the resolution was expressed. It was left to the judgment of the President to say how much of the instructions should be made public, after all the responsibility had been removed from him, and he could publish just as much or just as little as he pleased. He thought it more proper for the next administration to make the selection, when they would bear the responsibility of their own acts. He considered it incorrect, and dangerous.

Mr. WEBSTER said, he saw no good reason why the motion should not be made now, as well as three days hence. The Senator from Virginia seemed to go upon the ground that the same discretion would not be exercised by the present Executive, as would be exercised, three days hence, by the next. This he did not believe: for the Executive was as much bound to answer the call of the Senate for information at the present time as at any other, and to exercise its discretion. The object was, as he had stated, simply that the Executive might have an opportunity to publish these instructions, as a vindication of its own conduct, in a measure upon which its policy had not only been doubted, but its motives had been very much censured, and very much assailed. The injunction of secrecy having been removed from the proceedings of the Senate, the views of the Senators who opposed it, and the messages of the Executive upon the subject, had long since been made public. Now, he wished the instructions given to the ministers should be revealed, and then the whole facts would be placed before the people, for them to judge. He could see no objection to this. The resolution, as a means of getting the information, was a common course, it was proposed in the common manner, and it seemed to be but an act of common justice that the administration should be allowed the opportunity of setting themselves right in the estimation of the public. He called for the yeas and nays upon the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. HAYNE objected to the resolution on account of its terms, and also because it properly belonged to the Executive business of the Senate, and ought to be submitted to the Senate when acting in its Executive capacity. The resolution did not call for all the information connected with the subject, but only for so much as, in the opinion of the President, might be communicated without injury to the public service. It was true that this was a discretion necessary to be exerted by the President in all cases where a public call was made for documents connected with the diplomatic relations of the country, but this only demonstrates the necessity of making the call under circumstances which will entitle the Senate to receive all the information connected with the subject, thus enabling us to determine, according to our discretion, whether the whole may not be made public without detriment to the interests of the country. He would not be satisfied, in this case, with being told that it was not to be presumed, that in making this communication to Congress, the President would not exercise his discretion discreetly, prudently, and honestly. It was sufficient that, as the resolution now stood, the public might be presented with an imperfect and partial view of the subject. It may be that a portion of the instructions and communications canVOL. V.-9

[SENATE.

not be prudently published; and it may also happen that the suppression of these parts may present an imperfect or a garbled view of the subject, one calculated to make a false impression on the public mind. In matters of opinion, man, with the best intentions and entirely free from party feelings, may be led into errors. The President may think on this subject very differently from the Senate. He may deem communications unimportant which the Senate may suppose to be very material, or he may believe that matters cannot be safely disclosed, which we may consider altogether harmless, and, perhaps, indispensable to the clear understanding of the whole subject. What is the result of our own experience in the very case before us? When the Panama mission was first brought before the Senate, the President communicated certain documents and information, which, he considered all that was necessary to give a full view of the character and objects of the mission. Now, it so happened, that that portion of the Senate with which it was his pride to have acted on that occasion, did believe that very material information was withheld-information which was drawn out by the calls subsequently made on the Executive, and which, in his opinion, entirely changed the aspect of the affair. The truth is, that the Panama mission, as presented to the Senate by the first message of the President, was a measure of a very different character from that which was, at a later period, presented to this House, and which differed still more from the same measure when it got into the House of Representatives. And who could tell what may be its character as disclosed by the communications which may now be made in answer to this call. The object of every gentleman ought to be to disclose the whole truth. He, therefore, protested against any call on the Executive which should fall short of a full disclosure of every fact, and a communication of every document connected with the subject. When these should be communicated, the Senate would be able to form an opinion whether the whole could be made public without injury to the public service, and, if not, whether the publication of any part could take place without conveying an erroneous impression of the facts. He had no objec tion to the publication of every thing connected with the Panama mission, feeling, as he did, the perfect assurance that the more the subject was discussed and examined, the more clearly it would appear that it was a wild, visionary, or dangerous project. But it was obvious that the resolution now before the Senate, restricted as it is, puts every thing in the power of the President, and leaves it to his discretion to bring the subject before the world in any way he may think proper. To this, from the experience of the Senate on this subject, he for one was not willing to give his assent. For the purpose, therefore, of enabling the Senator from Massachusetts to bring this motion before the Senate when acting in its Executive character, thereby to enable us to receive all the documents connected with the subject, in order that we may exercise our own discretion in making the whole or any part of it public, he would now move to lay the resolution on the table.

This motion was withdrawn at the request of Mr. WEBSTER. He said it was unnecessary to repeat the object he had in view in introducing this resolution; he had already stated his motives, and he had not anticipated the least objection to its passage. While the subject of the Panama mission was before Congress, great alarm had been spread through the country in relation to it. Great fears were either felt or feigned, both in and out of Congress, that the objects of the Executive were not correct, that the measure was unconstitutional, and the ministers appointed might compromit the honor of the country. He wished to ascertain how far those fears were justified; he cared not in what form the information was obtained: this was a common and a convenient one. Gentlemen