MAY 26, 1836.] Fortification Bill. [SENATE. with his friend from Georgia, [Mr. KING,] in the princi- opposition, they have pictured our whole coast as ples advanced by them in regard to a general system of frowning with ramparts and blackened with cannon. fortifications; but he differed from them as to the appli- They have told us of the mischiefs and dangerous imcation of those principles to the measure under consider-policy of extravagant appropriations for such objects. ation. He believed that the idea of defending a seacoast In all this (said Mr. R.) I heartily concur. But is this of more than three thousand miles in extent, by fortifi- bill such a measure? It does not provide for a general cations, was wholly visionary and impracticable; and that system of fortifications upon our seaboard. It selects a the attempt to do so would involve the country in end- dozen points only, of peculiar importance, or peculiar less expense, and saddle the nation with burdens, in one exposure, and proposes to furnish them with suitable form or another, which they would never be content to defences. It has not been alleged by any gentleman, in bear. But, while this was so, there were particular po- the progress of the debate, that the appropriations made sitions which, from their peculiar importance, as com- by the bill for these fortifications are beyond their promercial towns, or as naval stations and depots, all admit-bable and necessary cost. What ground is there, then, ted, stood in need of special defences, and ought to be for the imputation of extravagance? Gentlemen seem fortified. The question upon the present occasion, then, to have forgotten the important changes which this bill is not whether a general system of fortifications along has undergone since its presentation to the Senate. our extended line of seacoast is judicious and proper; the nineteen fortifications originally embraced in the but whether the particular points provided for in this bill, seven have been stricken out. From the aggregate bill ought to be fortified. He understood his friend from of its original appropriations, more than a million of Georgia distinctly to admit that the places proposed to dollars have been subducted; leaving the measure, in be fortified by the present bill, are such as ought to be its present shape, conformed to those maxims of necesprovided with adequate defences; but his objection to sary and practical defence, and of wise and economical the measure was one of time-that these places were expenditure, which, I trust, will ever be observed in exposed to no immediate danger, and that we should the operations of this Government. proceed with more deliberation. But surely, sir, (said Mr. R.,) a period of peace is the only time in which we can suitably prepare for the exigencies of war. We ought not to wait until war has actually burst upon us, before we put ourselves in a posture to meet it. We have now an overflowing Treasury, and every day brings forth some project for the distribution or absorption of our surplus. The dangers, too, which we have recently escaped, (for all admit if war had unhappily been the issue of our late difficulties with a foreign Power, we should have found ourselves in a very unprepared condition for it, both as to our land and naval defences,) admonish us impressively to repair, with as little delay as possible, the error of our past improvi dence. If, then, the fortifications provided for by this bill ought ever to be made, no time can be more appropriate or more convenient for the commencement of the work than the present. As to the propriety of these fortifications, they are justified even by the principles of the honorable Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CRITTENDEN] for, strongly opposed as he is to a general system of fortifications, he yet admitted that places rendered important by their commerce, or as stations or building yards for our navy, ought to be fortified. Now, sir, bring this bill to the test of these principles. Is not Portsmouth the seat of one of our most important naval depots at the North? Is not New York a place of sufficient commercial importance to merit the care of the Government in providing for the defence of the immense interests, private and public, collected there? Would not the honorable gentleman also, in the liberal patriotism with which I know he is animated, comprehend Baltimore, standing among the first commercial towns of the Atlantic; New Orleans, the emporium of the West; and Pensacola, our great-naval station on the Gulf of Mexico, within the scope of that degree of commercial and naval importance which entitles them to the protection of fortifications? I mention these places (said Mr. R.) as a specimen of those provided for in the bill. The others, if not sustained in their claims by precisely the same considerations, have yet in their favor special military reasons, which have secured to them the full sanction of the Secretary of War in that able and judicious report which has been appealed to on all sides as the standard of a sound and rational policy on this subject. Gentlemen have indulged in general denunciations against a system of fortifications. In the zeal of their of Mr. R. declared his utter opposition to those visionary and extravagant schemes of fortifications which had been concocted by the engineer bureau. He had great respect for the patriotism as well as the talent of that corps; but they had been deluded by their professional enthusiasm, and an exclusive devotion to a favorite science. When they gravely talked of "shutting out war, and all its more serious evils, from our territory," by a chain of fortresses of more than three thousand miles in extent, and thus rendering our coast impervi ous to an enemy, he must look upon their plans as the offspring of theoretic enthusiasm, however patriotic, rather than the result of safe calculation and of sound practical judgment. Happily for the country, the enthusiasm of professional science had found a check in the vigorous common sense and the cool and sagacious intellect which preside over the War Department. The Secretary, in his admirable report of the 7th of April last, had established the landmarks of a sound and rational policy on this subject. That report, he trusted, would be the chart by which our legislation would be governed. It was a recurrence to the principles of Washington and Jefferson; and eminently seasonable at the present moment for arresting schemes of plausible though unprofitable expenditure, which, by an invariable law of nature, spring up in the hotbed of a redundant Treasury. It was a monument of the wisdom and patriotism of the Secretary, and entitled him to the thanks of the country. Mr. R. said his friend from Georgia, [Mr. KING,] conscious of the weight of this high authority, had sought to bring it to his aid by reading a passage of the report, in which the Secretary speaks of the propriety of previous surveys to determine the plan and the extent of the proposed fortifications, in every case, before the commencement of the work. But the Senate will remark that the survey is spoken of there as a condition precedent to the expenditure, not to the appropriation, of the money. On the contrary, the Secretary expressly recommends that the appropriations be made now for all the fortifications embraced in this bill, as a season will be thereby saved in the prosecution of the work; but adds that, "before any expenditure be incurred, an examination should be made" by a board of officers, in order to adapt the plan of the work to the principles laid down in his report. Now, sir, (said Mr. R.,) this is precisely what I think ought to be done. He attach. ed, he said, great importance to these surveys, and to precise and definite plans founded on them. They SENATE.] Fortification Bill. served as checks on wasteful or injudicious expenditure, and to fix responsibility. He relied on the declaration of the Secretary, that they would in every case be made; and we had by this very bill, in pursuance of the recommendation of the Secretary, appropriated thirty thousand dollars for the expense of a special board of engineers, to enable him to have these surveys satisfactorily executed. He relied, moreover, that the plans of the engineers would, in every case, be subjected to the careful revision of the Secretary; that they would be brought to the arbitrament of a stern, practical common sense, proportioning the magnitude of the works to such probable contingencies of sudden attack or surprise as they might be exposed to in the event of war, but without any reference to the extremely improbable hypothesis of a regular and protracted siege, which had already caused several fortifications (of which there was a striking example in his own State) to be projected on a scale of vastly disproportionate magnitude and expense. It was with this understanding of the measure, that he would cheerfully give his vote for the bill under consideration. He believed it, in its present shape, entirely consistent with the maxims of a wise economy, appropriate to the abundant means now afforded by the national Treasury, demanded by a provident and patriotic regard to the public safety, and especially due, in some of its provisions, to a portion of the country (alluding to the ports of Maine and New Hampshire) which is peculiarly exposed by its position, and has been heretofore destitute of protection. At the same time, he hoped he would not be considered by any one as relaxing in his determined adherence to those principles of democratic policy alluded to by his friend from Georgia, which inculcate frugality and simplicity in the administration of the Government, and a paramount reliance on the body of its citizens for the defence of the country--principles, on the rational observance of which, he firmly believed, with that gentleman, the success of our institutions vitally depended. Mr. WEBSTER observed that no charge could be more unjust than that which ascribed to the Senate any delay in the fortification bills. He must say that, whatever had been recommended for the defences of the country, had received the utmost degree of the attention of the Senate. With respect to this bill, the question was not one of strict principle, but of expediency. Every man must see that the project of fortifications might be carried out to an unreasonable extent; but this bill could not be considered in that light. They came to its consideration, not as it was when first presented to them, but as the Senate had now made it; and the question was, was it liable to the strong objections that had been urged against it by the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Georgia. He was inclined to think that the great objections expressed to-day had been imbibed against it in its general form. What were the provisions of the bill, as it now stood? It was said that it created no fortifications at points not heretofore fortified. This was not a true state of the case. It proposed some new works, it was true; but in more than one half of the instances, it proposed to fortify points at which fortifications had heretofore existed. Before considering this bill further, he wished to notice the grounds on which the policy of fortifications rested. For what purpose should fortifications be made? To keep an invading army out of the country? Certainly not. He looked for no other defences against an invading army than those contemplated by the Senators from Georgia and Kentucky-the armed freemen of the country, and the navy of the United States. He did not look upon fortifications as defences against an invading army or navy. If these, then, were not the objects of fortifications, for what purpose should they be construct [MAY 26, 1836. ed? The object was to secure such fortified places One word more in reply to the gentleman who had spoken with such propriety against the increase of the standing army for the purpose of manning these fortifications. He thought that it by no means followed that the commencement of this system of fortifications drew after it an increase of the army to man them; because if the fortifications be there, and their armaments there also, they might be defended by the militia. It was but a question of expediency, after all, that they then had to consider. They had fortified New York, Boston, Charleston, and other commercial cities; and the question was, whether it was not proper, in the present fi nancial condition of the country, to extend the system still farther. He agreed that there was no immediate necessity for making the appropriations at this time; but, as it was to be done some time or other, the situa tion of the Treasury well justified its being done now. The question was then taken on the final passage of NAYS-Messrs. Calhoun, Crittenden, Ewing of Ohio, ALABAMA. The amendment of the House to the joint resolution authorizing the President of the United States to cause to be issued rations from the public stores to those des titute sufferers who have been driven from their homes by the hostilities of the Creek Indians, was taken up, and considered. Mr. KING, of Alabama, moved that the Senate concur in the amendment. Mr. EWING, of Ohio, moved to amend the amendment by adding the words, "provided that those homes were not on the unceded Indian lands." Mr. E. said he had understood, from what had been said in the other House, that there were many of the refugees who had been intruders on Indian lands, and had been partly instrumental in creating the present disturbances. Mr. KING, of Alabama, said that there were no such class of persons in that country. He would not, however, object to the amendment, believing that it would not apply to any of those to be relieved by the resolu tion. This amendment was lost without a division; and 1593 MAY 27, 1836.] OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS. Expunging Resolution. after some remarks from Mr. PRESTON and Mr. KING, of Georgia, in opposition to the resolution, and from Mr. KING, of Alabama, and Mr. PORTER, in its support, Mr. KING, of Georgia, moved to lay the whole sub. ject on the table; which motion was agreed to: Ayes 18, noes 15. The Senate then adjourned. FRIDAY, MAY 27. EXPUNGING RESOLUTION. Mr. BENTON rose and said that there was a Senator who would leave the body to-morrow, in consequence of having been called to fill a high station in one of the States; and that this Senator wished to have an oppor tunity, before his departure, of addressing the Senate on a subject in which he took a great interest, and respecting which he had been instructed by his Legisla ture. The subject to which he alluded was the expunging resolution, and he asked the Senate to take it up. It would be laid down again, Mr. B. said, as soon as the Senator should finish his address. The resolution was accordingly taken up for consideration; when Mr. HILL rose and addressed the Chair, as follows: Mr. President, the preamble and resolution of the Senator from Tennessee, [Mr. WHITE,] which have been introduced as a substitute, are of that hermaphrodite character that pleases neither side, and, being abandoned on all hands, must fall to the ground. They are only important so far as they countenance the principal argument that has been urged against expunging the record; and it is remarkable that the burden of the song has been, not that the condemnatory resolution was right, but that it was a violation of the constitution to expunge what was clearly wrong from the journal. "Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to Here is a positive act to be time publish the same." performed; and, when the act is done, the injunction is fully complied with. If it were intended to apply to all journals, as relating to this or that particular session of the Senate, the language would have been so definite as not to be mistaken. If it had been intended to keep and preserve the original manuscript journal, language conveying that idea would have been used. The mandate of the constitution has been fully complied with, when the journal has been kept a sufficient time to "publish the same." Copies are then multiplied; so there can be no mistake as to what the journal contained; and any subsequent vote of either House to expunge any particular part of any single copy of the journal, is no more a violation of the injunction to keep a journal, than it is of that part of the constitution which authorizes the people to elect members of the House of Representatives. The Senator from Virginia, [Mr. LEIGH,] probably as an offset to the resolutions recently passed by the Legislature of his State, directing the Senators from that State to present and vote for expunging the condemnatory resolution from the journal, a few days ago presented a memorial from John Timberlake and others, of that State, against expunging. These memorialists consider the proposition to expunge to be "a plain and palpable violation of the constitution;" and it is remarkable that they offer the following as the only reason against its constitutionality: "Suffice it to say, that to their humble understandings, 'to keep,' as here used by the constitution, means to preserve; and that the latter clause of the constitutional provision, as previously quoted, furnishes a key to the interpretation of that which precedes it; since it would be obviously impossible to publish the journal, [SENATE. from time to time, if such journal had not been kept and Here is an admission that the journal is to be preserv- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES U. S. For your further information, I enclose you a copy of a } OFFICE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES U. S. 2 SIR: I entered this office a youth, under John Beckley, 66 During the recess of Congress, he put me at what was termed recording the journal" of the preceding session, which was to write it off from the printed copy into a large bound volume. I inquired of him why it was that it was copied, when there were so many printed copies? He answered that the printed copies would probably, in time, disappear from use, &c.; the large manuscript volume would not. The rough journal," as it was then termed, and is still termed, being the original rough draught read in the House on the morning after the day of which it narrates the proceedings, was not, and had not, from the beginning, been preserved. I inquired the reason, and was as it was printed under the official order of the House; answered, that the printed copy was the official copy, and, as errors, which were sometimes discovered in the rough journal, were corrected in the proofs of the and that, therefore, there was no use in lumbering printed copy, the printed copy was the most correct, the office with the "rough journal," after it had been printed. Two of Mr. Beckley's immediate successors in office, With great respect, I am, sir, your obedient servant, Col. WALTER S. FRANKLIN, Clerk House of Representatives U. S. By these letters it appears that the original manuscript journal, the journal which is read on the morning of every day succeeding that of the proceedings, was kept and preserved precisely long enough to answer the purpose designated by the memorial from Virginia. It was kept long enough to be published, when the original journal was destroyed or laid aside, and a new manuscript copy was taken from the printed published journal. Here are facts in relation to the journal that can not be gainsaid; facts which prove that even the destruction of the original manuscript journal, after that journal has been printed and published, was never dreamed to be a violation of that clause of the constitution which requires each House of Congress to keep a journal of its proceedings. For the first thirty-five years, in construing the constitution, plain common sense had not been driven from our legislative halls by the refinement of sophistry; the world of argument had not then been turned upside down; ingenuity had not then contrived to turn a plain duty of the representative to obey his constituents into a violation of his oath and his conscience. In the year 1823, the Senate of Massachusetts passed a resolution to expunge another resolution from their journal, passed in 1813, which the public sentiment had condemned. A member of the Legislature of that State for the present year informed me that he recently examined the manuscript journal, containing both the expunged and expunging resolutions. Both of them were psssed by an exact vote of the two political parties. The old federal party had the ascendancy in the Massachusetts Senate in 1813, and the resolution, that it was unbecoming a moral and religious people to rejoice in the success of our army and navy, was passed by the votes of that party alone; and in ten years afterwards, the first time the democratic party had the full ascendancy, that party voted to expunge the resolution from the journal. The constitution of Massachusetts requires the keeping of a journal, and directs that the ayes and noes of each branch of the Legislature shall be entered on that journal; but it does not require that this journal | shall be published. In this it differs from the constitution of the United States, in relation to the journals of Congress; but the distinction makes altogether in favor of the doctrine of expunging. In the case of Massachusetts, the resolution was expunged, but the manuscript journal (the only official copy in existence) was not touched. In our case, the condemnatory resolution may be expunged; and either the manuscript record may remain unmolested, or it may be ring-marked and crossed, or it may be entirely obliterated; and in neither case can it be considered a violation of the constitution, because, from the time the journal has been kept long enough to be published, every printed copy of that jour nal is an official copy; so that no vote to expunge, nor even any act of defacing the manuscript journal, can militate with the mandate of the constitution, which requires each House of Congress "to keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same," after the journal shall have been kept a sufficient length of time to be published. Some thirteen years ago, I first visited the city of Washington, during the sitting of Congress. The Supreme Court of the United States was at the same time in session. A gentleman of the bar, now of the Senate, from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY,] was engaged before the court on one side of a case; and another gentleman from the same State, (Kentucky,) then, and now, a member of the House of Representatives, of somewhat rougher aspect, (Mr. Hardin,) argued the case on the other side. I listened attentively to both. The rougher gentleman, in the course of his argument, talked of the practice in Kentucky, and with great nonchalance informed the [MAY 27, 1836. court how he gained an important land cause in that State. He created, he said, a false or feigned issue before the sitting of the court, and led the antagonist party to confine his attention exclusively to the taking of testimony in relation to that feigned issue. Keeping the real point a secret from the adverse party, he carried his case at the trial by surprise. Marshall and Bushrod Washington, then on the bench, smiled at the frank expression of the blunt attorney, who told the story as if he really thought he deserved credit for the trick. There are many feigned issues, Mr. President; but few who practise them are as candid as was this Kentucky lawyer before the Supreme Court. When the idea was first broached, that a resolution having no necessary reference to any existing laws could not be expunged from the legislative journal of the Senate, because the constitution requires the Senate to keep a journal of its proceedings, I would not have believed that such a feigned issue could be entertained so long as really to have assumed the appearance of settled seriousness. Surely, in all the expunging that heretofore has taken place, it never before entered into the heart of man to conceive such an objection as this. It is said the constitution requires a journal to be kept; and therefore no part of this journal can be mutilated, struck out, or destroyed. If it be an imperative constitutional injunction to preserve, there must be some object to be gained by the preservation. The journal can be useful for no other purpose than the preservation of evidence of proceedings. All those parts of the journal relating to laws that have become obsolete, or to proceedings that are of no consequence, are valuable only as objects of curiosity, or as matters of history: the public interest could not suffer, if such parts were utterly destroyed. The journal of the Senate is kept and preserved for no other purpose than to show when and how laws are passed, and it is of as much consequence to preserve the engrossed bill or resolution in that branch of the Legislature in which such engrossed bill or resolution originated, as it is to preserve the journal of proceeding, to show the progress and history of the same bill or resolution. If both the engrossed bill and the journal were destroyed, the enrolled bill on parchment would remain, which would be evidence of the existence of the law; and even if that enrolled bill were destroyed, the law would still be in existence, if there remained anywhere published copies, which had been certified as from the original. The object of possessing an official copy of the journal of legislative proceedings, is simply to preserve collateral evidence that existing laws passed in due course of legislation: other evidence than these journals, such as petitions on which laws are predicated, reports of committees on those petitions, minutes of reference, original draughts of bills or resolutions or amendments, may be equally important; and yet it will not be urged that the destruction or obstruction of these either weakens the force of the law, or violates the constitution. There are various ways in which the manuscript journal of the Senate may be obliterated or destroyed. The building may take fire; and that, with the journal, may be accidentally burnt: a thief may steal it, and carry it off, or bury it in the water or in the earth: the minutes may take fire during an evening session, and thus prevent the Secretary from copying the proceedings at length. The constitution requires a journal to be kept: would all these casualties or acts by which the journal shall be destroyed, be so many violations of the constitution? Even if the resolution now under consideration, without reciting it, went so far as entirely to obliterate a former resolution that should be deemed improper to be retained on the journal, I cannot concede that the act of 1597 MAY 27, 1836.] OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS. Public Deposites. obliteration would be unconstitutional. If that resolution were an existing law, still intended to be kept in force, the act of obliteration would not nullify the law: applied to a simple declaratory resolution that was never intended to have the force of a law, the obliteration cannot harm the people for whose benefit all laws are made; and if it does not harm them, it can be no infringement of the constitution, such as is worthy of reprobation. I marvel much at the pertinacity with which this question is attempted to be discussed as an infringement of It seems to me that, by taking the the constitution. ground they do, the opponents of the expunging resolution blink the real question: it has all the appearance of a mere subterfuge. The horns of this altar will not protect them-the cry of "a violated constitution," as it is a virtual confession that the people are right in demanding the obliteration of an infamous record, so it furnishes strong presumptive evidence of consciousness that the resolution to be expunged was wrong in itself. My object is not, Mr. President, so much to argue the question of power in the Senate to expunge, as to show that the sentence of condemnation passed on the President of the United States was not only extra-judicial, but unjust; for I conceive it to be a most inglorious evasion that Senators now say this sentence of condemnation imputed to the President no crime. If the Senators from Louisiana [Mr. PORTER] and Virginia [Mr. LEIGH] will look back to the criminal charges of "high crimes and misdemeanors" which were almost daily made in this body two years ago, they may well conclude that the people of the United States will repose little faith in the assertion now, that the resolution of April, 1834, imputed to the President of the United States no criminal intention. To show that it was the intention to impute the highest criminality to the President, in the passage of that resolution, the speeches of more than one Senator who voted for it might be quoted. One single extract from the speech of the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY,] after the resolution had passed, will serve my purpose: IN SENATE, April 30, 1834.-Mr. CLAY rose: "Never," said he, "Mr. President, have I known or read of an administration which expires with so much agony, and so little composure and resignation, as that which now, unfortunately, has the control of public affairs in this country. It exhibits a state of mind feverish, fretful, and fidgetty; [a beautiful alliteration!] bounding ruthlessly from one expedient to another, without any sober or settled purpose. * * "But I would ask in what tone, temper, and spirit does the President come to the Senate? As a great state culprit, who has been arraigned at the bar of justice, or sentenced as guilty? Does he manifest any of those compunctious visitings of conscience which a guilty violator of the constitution and laws of the land ought to feel? Does he address himself to a high court with the respect, to say nothing of humility, which a person accused or convicted would naturally feel? No, no. He comes as if the Senate were guilty; and as if he were in the judgment-seat, and the Senate stood accused before him. He arraigns the Senate; puts it upon trial; condemns it. He comes as if he felt himself elevated far above the Senate, and beyond all reach of the law, surrounded by unapproachable impunity. He who professes to be an innocent and injured man, gravely accuses the Senate, and modestly asks it to put upon its own record his sentence of condemnation! When before did the arraigned or convicted party demand of the court which was to try, or had condemned him, to enter upon their records a severe denunciation of their own conduct? The President presents himself before the Senate, not in the garb of suffering innocence, but in imperial and royal costume, as a dictator to rebuke a [SENATE. refractory Senate; to command it to record his solemn "The Senator [Mr. GRUNDY, of Tennessee] thinks there is one of sufficiently capacious dimensions, recently wove at a Jackson loom, called a protest, on which is marked a violation of the constitution, and an assumption of enormous executive power; and the honorable Senator had better hasten to place himself under the banners of those who are contending against power and prerogative for free institutions and civil liberty. And he had better lose no time, for the protest is the last stroke upon the last nail driven into the coffin (not of Jackson--may he live a thousand years! but) of Jacksonism!" Mr. HILL here closed his remarks in regard to the expunging resolution, and proceeded to a detailed exposition of various alleged transactions of the Bank of the United States; embracing the private accounts of numerous individuals, a history of the management of the branch of the bank at Portsmouth, &c., which occupied between two and three hours in the delivery. After he had finished, The resolution was laid on the table. PUBLIC DEPOSITES. On motion of Mr. CALHOUN, the Senate then proceeded to consider the bill to regulate the deposites of the public money. The question being on the amendment of Mr. WRIGHT, Mr. WRIGHT modified his amendment in that part which requires that seven millions shall be always kept in the Treasury, by striking out the word "seven," so as to leave the blank to be filled by the Senate. Mr. WRIGHT, in offering his amendment, said he rejoiced that this interesting subject had at last come to its discussion before the Senate; and he rejoiced still more to see, as he thought he did see, a disposition upon all sides of the House to consider the bill with a sincere desire to agree upon a law which should hereafter regulate the deposites of the public moneys in the State banks. He would assure the Senate that he entered upon the discussion with the most earnest hope and intention that their deliberations might be brought to a successful termination, and that provisions might be agreed upon which would not only meet the assent of a large proportion of the Senators, but be satisfactory to the country, and quiet the complaints and remove the apprehensions which now surround the subject. Mr. W. said he ought further to inform the Senate, before he proceeded with the remarks he had to make, that no pride of authorship could attach to him in the amendment he had offered. The sections which related to the regulation of deposites, were the bill digested by the Committee of Ways and Means of the last House of Representatives, as he had been informed, and supposed to be true, with the advice of the head of the Treasury Department, and was reported to that He did not himself proHouse, but not acted upon. fess a sufficient acquaintance with the subject to be able to frame a safe and proper bill to regulate these deposites, which would accommodate the Treasury, and at the same time be so far consistent with the interests of the banks, as to induce their assent to its provisions. He had not so minutely examined the provisions of these sections as to be able to pronounce the opinion that they were, in all respects, right in themselves, or preferable to others which might be suggested. The last two sections of the proposed amendment related to a subject distinct from the regulation of the deposites |