To could be possibly a proper question on such an occasion, [SENATE. Did gentle through his instructions, was to be refused. For his own part, he felt confident that this parade of opposition would not answer its end. The people will naturally desire to see the instructions given to our ministers. It will be esteemed but just to publish them, now that the occasion is past, and the mission itself has become matter of history. After all that had been said of majorities and minorities, he trusted that the Senate would feel it due to its own character, to its own sense of justice and propriety, and to the country, to accede to the resolution; since, sooner or later, the country would require the publication of what is now requested. Mr. BENTON would vote differently on this occasion from what he would if the present administration were to continue in power. If they were to continue, he would struggle to the uttermost to have all the instructions communicated confidentially to the Senate: those who had opposed the mission to Panama might also have an opportunity of endeavoring to get all they conceived material before the public. But this administration was not to continue. It went out of power in three days, and could gain nothing by making an imperfect communication; for the new administration would immediately have it in its power to show any thing that might be left behind. If it should turn out to be the fact, that the President had dropped or modified, when he came to give his instructions, any of the objects originally communicated to the Senator, it would be a high compliment to the nineteen Senators who opposed the mission, and, for that reason, were so often denounced for a factious and unprincipled opposition. To authorize the publication (if the authority was necessary) seemed to be an act of courtesy, perhaps of justice, to a retiring administration; if a partial publication was made. it would be corrected in a few days, and no advantage would be gained on one side, or injury done to the other, where the correction would be so prompt. Mr. TAZEWELL again rose. I have been supposed, [said he] by the Senator from Massachusetts, to have resisted an application made here, in a way unbecoming and indecorous. It is probable that I do not see this in the same light in which it is viewed by the Senator from Massachusetts. I have not been taught decorum in the same school with him; and, probably, I shall never go there to learn it. He had already said, his original object had been to request the President to send all the instructions, or so much thereof as he thought might, with propriety, be made public. This being opposed, because it left the matter in the President's discretion, he had altered his motion so as to ask for the whole, and to request it to be sent confidentially. This was the present shape of the question. If the instructions come here, they will be under our control. We shall be able to judge what may safely be published. Are gentlemen afraid of this course? Dare they not trust the Senate? Dare they not trust themselves? If the Senate should refuse to publish any part, still the motion will have been proper, because it was proper that the Senate itself should see the instructions. It had been asked, why does not the President himself publish them? He did not know that the President wished them published. Whether he did or not was wholly immaterial. This motion was not made for the President, but for the country. It was to enable the people to see the real character of a mission, about which so much had been said. And it was somewhat singular, he thought, that gentlemen should refuse all opportunity to make the President's instructions public, who had taken care to make their own speeches (delivered in closed The Senator from Massachusetts had exhibited his prodoors) against the mission, public. The member from position in two or three different lights, and supported it Virginia himself, had favored not only the Senate, but the in two or three different ways. He yesterday laid before country, with his objections to the mission. After long us a resolution. To-day, being called upon for some readebate in the Senate, the injunction of secrecy had been son for its adoption, he stated that its object was to enable removed, and the debate published. These speeches the President to vindicate his administration from the had long been before the country, and was it not fair charges brought against it, on the score of this mission. now to have a sight of the conduct of the Executive it- Yet now he does not know that the President even wishes self? Gentlemen said the Executive was instructed by the publication to be made. His proposition is varied, and their discussion; and that the instructions will not show so shall be my answer. He wishes the information now the original objects of the mission. But how could this for the gratification of his own curiosity. If the Senator be known till the instructions were seen? All that was contemplates any public action on the information, I matter of argument. Gentlemen seem to wish the pub- would go with him in calling for it; but I would not lic judgment to be formed, with their own views made call for it, merely for the purpose of gratifying priknown, while those of the Executive should be kept se- vate curiosity. That can be satisfied in a readier way. The people were to form an opinion of the Presi- If I am guilty of indecorum in having used the words dent's objects and intentions, not from the instructions" minority and majority," how shall the Senator from given by himself to the ministers, but from the conjectures, the surmises, the imputations, of his opponents! All these last were to be spread abroad, while so plain an act of justice as to let the President speak for himself, cret. Massachusetts be acquitted, for attributing the opposition to the Panama mission to fears "either felt or feigned?" It is certain, that those who felt these fears did not feign them, and that those who feigned them did not feel them. If the Senator will use words like these, he must not wonder that we use the words "majority and minority." He was rather inclined to think that the Senator belonged to the majority of that day when the Panama project was proposed. [FEB. 28, 1829. sary result. By the then majority of the Senate, the existence of the alleged danger was denied; they saw nothing to excite alarm, in the objects of the proposed assemblage of ministers, under the limited agency which the Executive had avowed it to be its policy to have in its The Senator from Massachusetts had now varied his operations; and they denied that the objects of the Exemotion, calling for all the papers confidentially, and asks cutive, or the effects of the mission, would be detrimental us whether we can distrust the Senate. He distrusted to the true interests of the nation. After the discussion every body when applications departing from precedence ended here, the injunction of secrecy was removed; and were made. He saw no motive for the application long and labored arguments of the adversaries of the now. Why was this time selected? Why could not the measure were published to the American public, containSenator have waited for two or three days? You call on ing the assertions of gentlemen on one side, and all the an Executive, who has not sixty hours to live, for docu- arguments by which those assertions could be sustained. ments in relation to very important subjects. He had as The question then became matter of general interest much confidence in the Senate as in any other body of through the nation, and divided public opinion. Whether men. It was impossible to conceive the true character of the advocates of the measure were right, in asserting the the mission as first proposed. It was contemplated to hold policy of the Executive to be wise, and its objects benefia congress for the purpose of settling American law, in cial, it must be obvious, depends on what were the objects contradistinction to public law. This was a substantial and views of the Executive, and these can but be explaindistinction. It was not an abstract principle, nor is it at ed by knowing the precise instructions committed to our all times convenient for our ambassadors to carry their in- ministers. Without them the American people can never structions on their foreheads. Bad as our policy had been, decide, with intelligence or accuracy, upon the very issue in some negotiations, we had not made every body ac- between us; because, from them alone can be distinctly quainted with the instructions given to our ministers. A known the true character and purposes of our connection code of law was to be settled by the Northern and Sou- with the proposed Congress of Ministers. When these thern States of America. It was not fit that the instructions come to be fully and accurately disclosed, we affirm that relative to pending or finished negotiations on that sub- they will demonstrate the correctness of our proceedings; ject should be published. This was an answer to the ques- and, as they are necessary to a right judgment on the tion, what harm there was in the call. There was much subject, and their production can prejudice no existing harm in showing to the world what was or is the policy interest or relation of the country, we say we have a right of the United States, in relation to South America. He to demand this proof of the judicious policy we recom would be happy to converse with the Senator from Mas- mended. Every public man has, and ought to have, a sachusetts, in private, on these subjects, to satisfy his proud and anxious wish to stand fair and straight in the curiosity on this or any other subject, so far as it might estimation of the public; and duty and justice to ourselves be in his power, and to have his opinion on the question afford motive sufficient to warrant our demand for this of public law involved in these subjects. But he was un-proof, without reference to the purpose suggested by Sewilling that the curiosity of the Senator should be gratified in the manner proposed. Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said the discussion would be interminable. There was much business to be transacted, and this resolution might as well be taken up next week, when we should have nothing to do, as now. He moved to lay the resolution on the table, and gave notice that he should not withdraw his motion. The yeas and nays, on the motion, being ordered, at the request of Mr. CHAMBERS, The question was taken to lay the resolution on the table, and decided in the negative, as follows: YEAS Messrs. Barnard, Berrien, Bouligny, Chandler, Dickerson, Dudley, Eaton, Hayne, Iredell, Johnson, of Kentucky, Kane, King, McKinley, Prince, Rowan Smith, of Maryland, Smith, of South Carolina, Tazewell, Tyler, White, Williams, Woodbury.-22. nators on the other side, that this is to justify the Executive, and that the Executive has the power to publish what it pleases on the subject, and does not require a resolution of this body. If the Executive thinks proper to publish, for its own purposes, be it so; but we have to take care of ourselves; we want the nation to determine between us and those who differ with us, and we want the facts disclosed on which that judgment must be formed. Let the facts, and all the facts, go to the world, and we are willing to abide the result. In asking this, do we propose to rekindle old controversies, and awaken party animosities that are slumbering? No such thing. The Panama Congress, and all its operations, are at an end; the Senator from Virginia says the whole thing is dead. Our connection with it is matter of political history, and there is no longer a division of sentiment upon any subject now in progress which has relation to it. But the political history of the country ought to be impartials; it ought not to be composed from ex-parte materials; and the agents NAYS-Messrs. Barton, Bell, Benton, Branch, Burnet, Chambers, Chase, Foot, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnston, of Louisiana, Knight, Marks, Noble, Ridgely, Robbins, Rug-in the transactions it records have a plain interest in havgles, Sanford, Seymour, Silsbee, Thomas, Webster, Willey.-23. Mr. CHAMBERS said, that, having been one of those who had participated in sanctioning the mission, he might be allowed, according to the terms of the Senator from Virginia, to claim the notice of the Senate to this resolution. The Senator had said that a disclosure of the instructions might be proper to vindicate the course of those who had been engaged in the adoption of the measure, but not to gratify individual curiosity. He claimed, under this concession, the aid of those instructions to prove the correctness of the measures of those with whom he then acted. When the Panama mission was advised by the Executive, it became the subject of long and animated discussion in this body. By those who opposed it, now called "the 19" by the Senator from Missouri (Mr. BENTON), many and great evils were predicted, as its neces ing it founded on fact, and on the whole fact. We are told there may be danger in these disclosures; they may develope the views of this Government, to too great an extent, to the observation of foreign Powers. Sir, there can be no possible danger in pursuing the course proposed by this resolution. Whether mischief would arise from a publication of the documents called for by the resolution, is a matter about which we certainly cannot form an accurate opinion, until we know what they contain. He had never read a line of the instructions, and did not profess to know what they were, more than any other Senator on the floor. He certainly could not, therefore, assume upon himself to say their publication would be injurious, and he could not conjecture why they should be so. But the resolution has suggested the means the most appropriate to guard against such difficulties. It proposes to have them sent to this body, that the members of the Senate, the constitutional counsellors of the President, charged emphatically with the co-ordinate direction and control of the foreign relations of the Government, who have not the privilege but the obligation to become acquainted with its diplomatic concerns, may determine how far it will be safe to give them publicity, and what portion of them must still remain in the secret archives of the American Government. What more can gentlemen ask? They have told us, more than once, we are in the minority; they know and feel their strength, and surely they are not unwilling to trust themselves. We ask for justice; and we submit it to themselves to mete to us a proper measure of it, and can they fear they will mete it too largely? But we are told, and have it repeated to us, that the present Executive is in the very act of retiring from office, and that this application ought to be deferred until a new administration is installed. This, to me, is a singularly strange notion. A system of policy recommended and adopted by this administration is the subject on which opinion is divided; whether it merits approbation or censure will much depend on the peculiar views, motives, and objects, which influenced this administration to propose it. We ask to have these very individuals disclose their motives and objects, and to furnish all the data from which we can collect them, and we are answered that we must wait till they have left office, and then apply ourselves to their successors, who were strangers to the whole matter. The mere statement of this position sufficiently shows it to be unreasonable, and that it cannot justify the "majority," of which gentlemen remind us, in refusing us the demand for information, where alone it ought to be sought. But another, and, if possible, a yet more strange idea has been suggested and repeated, by the honorable Senator from Virginia, that, because in a few days, "in sixty hours," to use the Senator's language, the term of the present Executive will expire, therefore there is no responsibility with the present incumbents on which we can rely for a full and fair disclosure of all the documents. Why, sir, is it possible that the doctrine is publicly and deliberately avowed on this floor, that for the last sixty hours of his term, a President of the United States has not the same responsibility, both to the law and to public opinion, which existed during the first or any other sixty hours of his term? [Mr. TAZEWELL explained. He had not argued that the President would not answer the call truly; but that he was not responsible for the injurious effects produced by the disclosures on our foreign concerns.] Mr. CHAMBERS resumed. The Senator leaves his position precisely as it was. His explanation asserts the same principle in different language. It says, "the President is not to feel the effect and weight of what is to occur." I say he does bear this weight. The weight consists in the load of infamy which would attach to any officer who could so far forget himself as to furnish, in answer to a call like this, garbled and mutilated papers; the weight is in the odium which would pursue such a man into retirement and during life; and it is precisely this which constitutes the real responsibility of all your officers. But here again, the fears of the Senator ought to be removed, by the consideration, that, if any thing in reference to this matter be left undone by the present Executive, his "sixty hours" will bring into power a new Executive, with dispositions to detect such attempt, and to correct its influence, and to do all the justice to the "majority," which, it is to be hoped, that majority will not, by an exercise of its numerical force, deny to the "minority." Mr. BERRIEN said: I had not the slightest intention to participate in this debate. I have, however, been required to record my vote in favor of the motion to lay this resolution on the table. On the question of its adoption, I will again register that vote against the resolution itself, [SENATE. and I desire to state for myself the reasons which will influence my conduct. I do not mean to question, in the smallest degree, the force or conclusiveness of the arguments which have been urged by those with whom I act on this occasion, when I say that my refusal to acquiesce in the proposal of the Senator from Massachusetts, will result from considerations which have not yet been distinctly stated to the Senate. To sustain that refusal, I do not feel that it is necessary for me to discuss the propriety of calling upon the President, at the moment when he is retiring from office, to furnish the evidence on which the American people are to decide upon his own political conduct; to express an apprehension that, in answering that call, any portion of the evidence which is contained in the Department of State would be withheld; or to suggest, what it rather behooves the friends of the present Executive to consider, how much more fit it would be to demand that evidence from his successor. With the most entire respect for those who act with me on this occasion, and without the slightest disposition to conceal from them with whom it is my fortune to differ, the reasons which influence my conduct, I will state, frankly and briefly, the grounds on which I rest my objections to this measure. Sir, I do not see, either in the terms of this resolution, in the avowed motives for its introduction, or in the history of the transaction to which it refers, any sufficient reason for giving the sanction of my vote to the merely gratuitous act which the Senate is called upon to perform. What is it which this resolution proposes to call from the recesses of the Department of State-to spread before the American people-and to expose to the view of the other nations of the world? The instructions of the President of the United States to the ministers who were to have represented us in the Congress of Panama, if they could have found it; to revive the discussion of a transaction, which was a political experiment in its origin-a political abortion in its result; which agitated the public mind in its progress; and of which the consummation may be sought in the decisive judgment pronounced by the American people on the project and its projectors. And what, sir, are the motives urged, by the Senator from Massachusetts, to induce us to sustain this call? For a moment let us consider them. Gentlemen are shocked by the terms majority and minority in the con. nection in which they are used by the Senator from Virginia. They deprecate the array of parties on this floor. And yet, in the very act of presenting this resolution, and even still more distinctly, in the motives which are avowed to sustain it, they themselves have traced, with a precision not to be mistaken, those very party lines which they shudder to contemplate. They tell us that, in the progress of this measure, certain apprehensions were "felt or feigned" that the instructions which would be given by the President to our ministers who were to go in quest of the Congress of Panama, would be injurious to the public interests. They wish to have these instructions made public, for the purpose of determining whether these apprehensions were realized by the event; it may be to enable them to arraign their sincerity; to discuss, with the advantage of the evidence which the President shall furnish, the question whether, in point of fact, they were "felt or feigned." We ask, what beneficial purpose is to be effected by this inquiry? The transaction to which it refers has gone by. Happily for us, the mission was merely abortive; and, in the course of events, and by common consent, this experiment in diplomacy has been consigned to the oblivion which it merited. It is connected with no measure on which we are called to act. The question whether these fears were felt, or feigned, or fancied, cannot influence our conduct in the discharge of any duty which now devolves upon us. To what purpose, then, shall SENATE.] Revolutionary Officers, &c. [MARCH 2, 1829. we revive this discussion? It was one of the evils of this but he should waive reply, as he was unwilling that the ill-fated measure, that it served in its day to agitate the subject should consume any more time. He disclaimed public mind-to distract the councils of the nation. Is it any personal application of the phrase which he had used desirable for gentlemen again to light up the torch of dis- in his remarks. Nor had he said that any fears were cord? Do they seek, by means of this resolution, to fur-feigned in the Senate upon the question. He said, " in nish themselves with a weapon of attack? Be it so, sir: Congress and out of it." for myself, I do not invite the controversy, and I will not Mr. McKINLEY said, the proposition seemed to him shrink from it. They will find that weapon as power- to be perfectly fair. But he was not here when the subject less, for the purpose of assault, as it was feeble for that of was discussed by the Senate, and could not, therefore, be defence. But why are we called to their assistance? aware of the difficulty said to exist in the consideration of Does any man venture to question the sincerity of the ap- the proposition with open doors. It seemed to him prehensions which were expressed on this floor? No sir. that the proposition had better be made in secret session, What then? Does he require us to furnish him with the and he would move that the resolution be laid on the means by which that sincerity is to be arraigned, irre- table. sponsibly arraigned, before the tribunal of the public? Such a call imposes upon me no duty as a Senator, and, addressed to me as an individual, it is indignantly repelled. Do gentlemen desire to prove the correctness of their own course, and that of the projectors of this measure, by exposing these instructions to the public view? What then? Is the action of the Senate necessary to the accomplishment of their object? Shall we perform a merely gratuitous act to enable them to attain it? What is there, in the history of this transaction, which invites us to assume the responsibility which belongs to those who propose to themselves benefit from this measure? If the publication of these instructions be necessary, and would be available to the justification of the Executive Government, what hinders them from assuming the responsibility which will attach to their publication? Does any one deny their power to do so? Will any one assert that they will not find, in their own brief administration of the Government, a precedent for the act? Why, then, appeal to us? The Department of State is yet under their control-let them avail themselves of their power, and take the responsibility which belongs to its exercise. The opponents of this measure are to be arraigned, its projectors are to be vindicated, by a reference to these instructions. Recur, for a moment, to its his history-to the Panama project, as it was originally and confidentially presented to the Senate; and to that other scheme, which was subsequently and publicly communicated to Congress. Who could fail to note their dissimilarity? The subdued and moderated tone of the latter; its nice adaptation to the removal, as far as it was practicable, of those very apprehensions, which were "felt or feigned," and expressed on this floor? Does any man doubt that the instructions, prepared with like advantage, are framed with equal skill? And is the sincerity of the apprehensions expressed in relation to the original project to be tested by the standard which was subsequently graduated to meet the occasion? For myself, I protest against such proof. Gentlemen have it in their power to invoke it. The President, on his own high responsibility, may present it to the public. I protest against it here as delusive, and I will renew and enforce that protest, if the occasion shall require it; but I will not aid in the revival of this unprofitable controversy, nor sanction, by my vote, the presentment of a mere illusion to the American people. Mr. CHANDLER said the case alluded to, of a call for papers relative to pending negotiations made by him, was a case widely different from this. In that case there was no objection made; in this, it was objected that injurious consequences would flow from the proposed publication; and that the Senate should not take the responsibility of the call upon themselves. As to himself, he was going out with Mr. Adams, and had no responsibility, for the effect of the publication, to meet. But he was opposed to the call, as coming, at this time, from the Senate. Mr. WEBSTER said, he would be very glad to reply to some of the remarks which had fallen from gentlemen, The yeas and nays having been ordered, at the call of Mr. CHAMBERS, The question was taken on the motion to lay the resolution on the table, and decided in the affirmative as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Barnard, Benton, Berrien, Chandler, Dickerson, Dudley, Eaton, Hayne, Iredell, Johnson, of Ky., Kane, King, McKinley, Prince, Ridgely, Rowan, Smith, of Md., Smith of S. C., Tazewell, Tyler, White, Williams, Woodbury.-23. NAYS.-Messrs. Barton, Bell, Bouligny, Branch, Burnet, Chambers, Chase, Foot, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnston, of Louisiana, Knight, Marks, Noble, Robbins, Ruggles, Sanford, Seymour, Silsbee, Thomas, Webster, Willey.-22. MONDAY, MARCH 2, 1829. OFFICERS OF THE REVOLUTION, &c. Mr. FOOT called up the bill "providing for the relief of sundry Revolutionary and other officers and soldiers," and for other purposes. Mr. FOOT said, the remarks of the gentleman from South Carolina, on a former day, had made it necessary for some explanation from the Chairman of the Committee. That gentleman had said, individuals were placed upon the list by name, and that it was unusual. He had examined the records of Congress, and found that such had always been the case, that it was the usual course, and that hundreds had been admitted in this manner. If this was not a sufficient excuse for the course pursued by this Committee, it would be found in the fact, that the bill, under precisely the same circumstances, had passed the House of Representatives, and had been sent here. The gentleman from South Carolina had said there should be a detailed report in each individual case. He conceived it to be unnecessary; if the gentleman wished to have information in relation to any particular case, they would give it. The papers were voluminous, and the only manner in which the committee could get through the business, was to divide the papers among them, and for each member of the committee to report to the whole, from which they had decided upon the bill. Mr. CHANDLER said, he wished for information in relation to every name, before he could vote for the whole bill. Mr. FOOT replied, that even a synopsis of the evidence in each particular case would require a week. The committee had done their duty in the best manner possible; it was a laborious committee, and if the gentlemen, either from South Carolina or from Maine, wished a situation upon the committee, he presumed there was not a member who would not resign to give them an opportunity. Mr. CHANDLER rejoined, that he could not vote for this bill without some farther information. If the other members of the Senate were willing to vote, he was willing to go with them according to his knowledge. Mr. HAYNE said, his previous objection was not precisely as stated by the gentleman from Connecticut, that they were merely inserted by name. His objection was, that they were called upon to vote a pension to all these individuals by name, without knowledge, without classification, without report, without any principle laid down, or any other rule, by which the Senate could vote understandingly. If the reasons did not appear upon the face of the bill, and there was no report in the case, two things followed, either they must vote in the dark, or vote for these men by the name, because they are named there. You must act upon faith. You must vote for these men because the committee say it is right, and because the committee are satisfied that it is proper. Now this is a transfer of all your legislative power, it is a transfer of your judgment, to a committee: I cannot consent to this: I cannot consent to vote for a pension bill, unless I see the principles upon which I am to vote. If it rests upon this footing, that I am to act without information, I cannot consent, for one, to vote for this bill. Mr. MARKS said he could assure gentlemen of the Senate, that if they could examine all the testimony, there was not a single name upon the bill for which they would not vote. If the gentlemen called for information in each particular case, they would not get through this single bill for a week to come. As to there being a new principle in the present bill, he presumed that argument would not hold good, because the principle and rule now adopted by the War Department was different from the one formerly acted upon. Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, said he had as much confidence in this committee as in any committee of the Senate; but it was a new doctrine that the Senate was to legislate upon the report of a committee. The gentleman from Pennsylvania had said, that if all the information was called for, they would not get through it for a week. The gentleman might as well say a bill was entitled to its first reading because a committee had reported in favor of it. They merely took the opinion of the committee that it was right, and placed one hundred and sixty names on the pension roll. The principle heretofore laid down, had been under a law that no man should be admitted without going through certain prescribed forms, and taking certain oaths. Now it was said that it was inconvenient for old men to go to the Judge to take the oaths. It was provided in the old law, that where pensioners were unable to go to the Judge, the Judge should go to the pensioner; and therefore it was only said that A had taken the oath, but that it was inconvenient for B to do it, and therefore the law should be altered. He was never disposed to receive the report of a committee, except as the honest opinion of that committee. The bill came here under suspicious circumstances. It came from the House. It had been here two or three sessions before, or a similar bill, and, after mature deliberation, had been negatived. Now it was resuscitated. It might be altered-it might be amended-but still it was the skeleton of a bill which had been negatived. If gentlemen would have a law upon the subject let them lay down some principle upon which to act, and every one entitled to it will receive relief. Mr. BENTON then offered as an amendment to the bill the name of Mountjoy Bailey, to be inserted. Mr. McKINLEY then moved to lay the bill upon the table, which was negatived. The yeas and nays being called for by Mr. MARKS, were as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Berrien, Branch, Chandler, Eaton, Hayne, Iredell, McKinley, Noble, Ridgely, Rowan, Smith, of Maryland, Smith, of South Carolina, Tazewell, Tyler, White, Williams.-16. [SENATE. Mr. BENTON then explained the case he had offered. Mr. CHANDLER said he should vote for the amendment; but, unless some further information was given, he should vote against it in the whole bill, Mr. BERRIEN said he was in the same situation as the gentleman from Maine. He was in favor of this amendment, but he could not vote for the bill. If he could have the same information about each case in the whole bill, he was ready to vote for that. Mr. NOBLE explained, that, although he was Chairman of the Committee, he had not met with them during the session, because letters from the other House had been addressed to his constituents, telling them, that, if he would press their claims in the Senate, they could be placed on the pension list-merely for the purpose of injuring him. He then went into an examination of the bill, in comparison with other pension laws, detailing the manner in which people abused the confidence of the Government, for the purpose of getting upon the pension list. He concluded by moving to lay the bill upon the table; which motion was again rejected, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Berrien, Branch, Chandler, Eaton, Hayne, Iredell, Johnston, of Louisiana, McKinley, Noble, Ridgely, Rowan, Smith, of Maryland, Smith, of South Carolina, Tazewell, Tyler, White, Williams.-17. NAYS-Messrs. Barnard, Barton, Bell, Benton, Bouligny, Burnet, Chambers, Chase, Dickerson, Dudley, Foot, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnson, of Kentucky, Kane, Knight, Marks, Prince, Robbins, Ruggles, Sanford, Seymour, Silsbee, Webster, Willey, Woodbury.-26. Mr. BENTON'S amendment was then agreed to. Mr. PRICE then offered the name of Major John Cunningham; which was inserted. Mr. TAZEWELL offered the name of George Blackmore; which was agreed to. Mr. HAYNE said he had a case, which, as lawyers said, ran on all fours with that of the gentleman from Virginia. He had received the memorial of James Johnson, and sent it to the Committee, but it was too late fo be acted upon. Mr. MARKS said he could not vote for any names offered in this manner. If cases had been presented to the committee, and the names were not included in the bill, it was because the committee were averse to it. Mr. HAYNE insisted upon the admission of this name as an act of common justice. The Senate had just admitted a name from Virginia, and upon the same principle, the same rule, he claimed this benefit for James Johnson. Mr. MARKS called for some evidence of the poverty and claim of this man. Mr. HAYNE said he should reply by calling upon the gentleman from Pennsylvania for the evidence of the poverty of the first name on the bill. Mr. CHANDLER called for some information in relation to the name of John Polerezsky, the first name on the bill. The question was called for by several members. Mr. BERRIEN then took the floor. He said, information in relation to a particular case had been asked for by the gentleman from South Carolina; this call had been met by calls for the question! Information was asked for in the usual manner; the Senate had a right to it, and were bound to call for it, and, for himself, he was determined to have it. The Senate could not be called upon to vote upon any bill, without all the information they desired. He called for that information. He called for the reading of the report and the documents in the first case on the bill, so that, if the committee would not give the information, they could get it for themselves. NAYS-Messrs. Barnard, Barton, Bell, Benton, Burnet, Chambers, Chase, Dickerson, Dudley, Foot, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnson, of Kentucky, Johnston, of Lou- Mr. CHASE said, the Senate had been informed of isiana, Kane, Knight, Marks, Prince, Robbins, Ruggles, the principles laid down, and of the course pursued by Sanford, Seymour, Silsbee, Thomas, Webster, Willey, the committee. They had been informed that names Woodbury.-27. |