The instructions went on to say that if the commissioner deemed it proper to have counsel, the fees paid for such purpose would be allowed him. Mr. WALL inquired who these instructions were signed by? Mr. BENTON answered that they were signed by George Poindexter, chairman of the Committee on Public Lands. He apprehended that these proceedings were a novelty in the history of this country, or in that of Great Britain, and he trusted that they never would occur again. Mr. Gwin, having become acquainted with the manner in which these investigations had been carried on-depositions to be taken in the dark without giving him an opportunity of being heard in his defence-counsel to be feed against him, &c., had collected a mass of testimony for the purpose of defending himself, and rebutting the charges made against him; and all that was now asked was, that this defence might be printed, and sent abroad in the same manner as the accusations against him had been. Mr. WALL said he would be glad to know if these instructions were the act of a committee of the Senate, or of the man whose name was signed to them. They seemed to him to be at war with every thing like justice. Mr. BENTON, in answer, read the resolution of the Senate under which the Committee on Public Lands were directed to make examinations in relation to alleged frauds with respect to the public lands, and the resolution authorizing the chairman of the committee to continue the examinations in the recess of the Senate. It seemed, therefore, that the instructions emanated from the Land Committee, and were signed by their chairman, George Poindexter. [JUEE 1, 1836. of the time and place of taking depositions against him, or to permit any person to interfere with the performance of his duty, though he might, at his option, give copies of such depositions to any officer implicated, who might reside within a convenient distance. Sir, (said Mr. B.,) the whole thing is wrong from beginning to end, and they had better have done with it at once. All that was asked by Mr. Gwin was, that as these charges against him had been printed, and made a part of the public documents, his answer should also be printed and put upon the record. Mr. EWING, of Ohio, was not disposed to answer in behalf of the gentleman who was chairman of the Committee on Public Lands at the time these investigations were ordered. If that gentleman were here he could answer for himself. With respect to frauds on the public lands, it was right that each branch of Congress should enter into investigations to ascertain them, and apply the proper remedy; it was right that they should not be permitted to pass without investigation. He should not undertake to say whether these investigations were conducted properly or otherwise. The gentleman who conducted them was not here to explain that matter; but he thought the Senate ought not to exhibit any great anxiety to get out of this matter, because the investigation was a very proper one, and, under the circumstances then existing, the Senate could not have done otherwise than order it. It was not his purpose now to inquire whether those investigations were conducted properly or not; all he rose for was to object to the reference to the committee of a matter long ago passed over. It could not now be referred for the correction of a present evil, but to pass judgment on what Mr. KING, of Alabama, observed that the matter had now gone by, and he could not but express his regret that such unsuccessful efforts should have been made to resist a course of procedure calculated to do the greatest injustice to individuals who held office under this Government. He said then, what he thought now, that Mr. CALHOUN said that he knew nothing at all rel-had heretofore been done. ative to the charges made against Mr. Gwin; but it appeared to him that the regular course would be to refer the whole subject to the Committee on Public Lands. If Mr. Gwin had satisfactorily refuted the charges made against him, or had not succeeded in doing so, the fact would appear by the report of the committee. The best way of doing justice to all parties would be to sub-it was an act of great injustice and oppression, to give ject the whole matter to the investigation of a com mittee. Mr, EWING, of Ohio, hoped that the reference to the Committee on the Public Lands would not be made. The charges against Mr. Gwin had been made two years ago. He (Mr. E.) was not a member of the Committee on the Public Lands at that time, and there were very few of that committee who were now in the Senate. If the reference proposed were not perfectly idle, the effect would be to renew the investigation into the charges against Mr. Gwin, together with his defence. power to the committee to enter into investigations touching the moral and official conduct of an individual, that individual being absent, and unable to defend himself, without giving him an opportunity of knowing what was charged against him, and of refuting the testimony that might be offered. The Senate, however, passed the resolution giving this power to the committee, with power to send for persons and papers; and they went on with their examinations till towards the end of the session, when they represented that they were una ble to bring matters to a close, and requested that the examinations might be continued by their chairman. The chairman himself laid a resolution to this purport on the table, and, to his astonishment, as well as of others, the Mr. BENTON was also opposed to the reference. He did not want to see any committee of that body sit as inquisitors on a citizen of the United States. It seemed to be carrying the business of extra judicial impeach-resolution was sustained by the Senate. ments beyond any thing yet sanctioned by the people of this country, or warranted by the constitution. They had seen enough of these inquisitorial proceedings in that body. The whole thing was wrong from its inception; it began wrong, it went on wrong, and it ended wrong. The Senate had got itself into a false position, and could not get forwards or backwards without another false step. The most becoming thing they could now do, was to drop the whole affair, and print the paper, in order to allow the defence to take the same direction that had been given to the accusation. It would sound strange to the ears of the people of the United States, that the Senate of eighteen hundred and thirty-four, which set itself up to rectify all the abuses in the coun try, should issue a commission to investigate the charac ter and conduct of an individual, and expressly forbid the commissioner to give any information to the accused [Mr. K. here read the resolution.] The resolution was laid on the table and taken up for consideration on a subsequent day, when the Senator from New York [Mr. WRIGHT] proposed to amend it by doing that which ought always to be done, to guard the right of individuals, and enable them to come forward and defend themselves, when testimony was offered impeaching their characters as honest men and public officers. [Mr. K. here read Mr. WRIGHT'S amendment.] This, as he said, was the amendment proposed to the resolution, giving unlimited power to the chairman of the committee to enter into examinations, without giving notice to the party whose conduct was to be inquired into, and whose morals were to be impeached; and, astonishing as it was, this amendment was negatived by a vote taken by yeas and nays. 1661 JUNE 1, 1836.] OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS. B. F. Curry and Samuel Gwin. [Mr. K. then quoted the yeas and nays from the jour-sitions that were to be taken. nal of the Senate.] Thus then was this immense power given to a single individual, to go through the country to make any inquiries he thought necessary, and to incur any expense he might think proper, (and they had had evidence this session of the extent to which this expense had beed carried,) refusing any limitation or restriction whatever. This having been done, it was but an act of justice, on the part of the Senate, to give to the individual thus implicated, an opportunity of having his defence placed by Let the testimony in favor the side of the accusation. of Mr. Gwin circulate as widely as did that against him, and then only can any thing like justice be done him. As to any action by the committee, he agreed with the Senator from Ohio [Mr. EwING] that it was out of the question, and therefore a reference was not necessary. Mr. PORTER was one of those who voted for these resolutions, and the responsibility that he took, on that occasion, he was perfectly willing to justify. He averred that the Senate formed no incorrect conclusions on that occasion, and that its conduct was not oppressive and unjust, as alleged. It could have taken no other course than the one it did, without defeating the object in view. Many believed that the greatest frauds were carried on in the sales of the public lands, and an inquiBut what was ry was, therefore, absolutely necessary. the nature of the inquiry? It was not into the conduct of any particular officer of the Government, but the inquiry was directed to be general as to all the land offices. If representations were made now that frauds were committed in any one branch of the Government, would the Senator from Alabama refuse to institute an inquiry because a particular officer of the Government might be implicated, and the Senate be called on to impeach him? Was it not common in the Governments of all other countries as well as this to institute inquiries into the conduct of their officers, to ascertain whether frauds had been committed; and was it ever heard of before that such investigations should not go on because frauds were alleged against individuals? It was said that the resolution was extraordinary, because no opportunity was allowed the individuals who might be implicated to defend themselves by a cross-examination of the witnesses. But was there a charge against any individual? The inquiry was to be a general one; and would it, therefore, be right to give notice to every individual, who might be supposed to be implicated, to come forward to disprove what might be alleged against him? It would be very extraordinary, indeed, if it should have been thought necessary to all who might by possibility be involved in the inquiry. Mr. P. here read the resolutions and instructions of the committee, commenting on them at some length, and justifying them as proper and necessary for the occasion. The motion of the Senator from New York to amend, that had been referred to by the Senator from Alabama, was resisted on the ground that the resolution was a mere matter of inquiry, no person believing that any judgment was to follow it; that it was purely intended as a foundation for legislative proceedings. It was to proceed like a grand jury; and he recollected that it was averred at the time that this investigation would tend to the injury of no person whatever, because no judicial proceedings would be gone into without giving time to any person implicated to offer If any person was to be tried, evidence in his defence. it was on all hands determined to give him an opportunity to come forward and exculpate himself before any Mr. P. thought, therefurther action would be had. fore, that there were no grounds for finding fault with the proceedings of the Senate. The investigation was a general one; and, while it was going on, it would have defeated its objects to give notice relative to the depo [SENATE. Mr. P. had no objection to placing these papers on the files of the Senate. If Mr. CALHOUN very much regretted that the chair- not. Now they were called on to vote in the dark for the printing of these papers, of which they knew nothing, for the purpose of implicating Mr. Poindexter and the Senate itself. He took it for granted that the inquiry into alleged frauds, relative to the public lands, was a proper one; and if Mr. Poindexter abused the power with ate; and the fact whether this was so or not, could be which he was intrusted, it was not the fault of the Senbest ascertained by the examination of a committee. They had been told that there was nothing for the action of a committee. Now he thought otherwise. The character of an officer of the Government had been imand his defence was before them. Now, if Mr. Gwin plicated; he had been charged with an abuse of office, was innocent, he ought to be called so. When he voted Gwin and to the public; and in voting now for the reffor the inquiry, his object was to do justice to Mr. erence, he had the same object in view. Justice, both towards Mr. Gwin, and one who had formerly been a condemned Mr. Poindexter, it ought to be with their member of that body, required the reference. If they eyes open. They all knew what an arduous task a Senator in high party times had to perform, and how liable the strict execution of his duty was to subject him to No member of that body would be willing that his conduct should be censured after he left here what was due to themselves, as well as to justice, to without an examination; and he called upon gentlemen by vote for the reference. censure. Mr. SHEPLEY said, if the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. PORTER] Understands that the investigations of the Committee upon the Public Lands were extended only to inquiries of a general character into alleged frauds in the sales of the public lands, that they were designed for legislative purposes only, and that they did not relate to individual character, as his remarks would lead us to suppose, he is greatly in error. The language of the resolution of the Senate giving the chairman of the committee the power to make an ex parte inquiry during the recess of Congress is, in some respects, expressed in general terms. But the resolution directs the chairman to proceed in the investigation which had been prosecuted during the session, and thus refers to the original resolutions by virtue of which the investigation had been commenced. I find, said Mr. S., those resolutions in the Journal, and to enable the Senate to come to a correct understanding of the character of the investigation, I will read an extract from one or two of them. In the third resolution is found this language: "That the committee be instructed to inquire whether the registers of the land offices and the receivers of public moneys at any of the land offices of the United States, or either of them, have, in violation of law and of their official duties, demanded or accepted a bonus or premium from any purchaser or purchasers of the public lands, at public or private sale, for the benefit of such officer or officers," &c. And the following language is found in the fourth resolution: "And whether any register or receiver has, at any time, taken in payment the promissory note of any purchaser or purchasers, bearing an interest, to accrue to the benefit of such register or receiver." Sir, said Mr. S., it is very difficult for me to understand how such language can be said not to authorize investigations into the conduct and characters of individual men. If the object was only to enlighten us in regard to our legislative duties, it would not seem to be necessary to inquire whether a register or receiver had violated the law and his official duties. What were the facts, it might be proper to inquire, to enable us to legislate; but whether the man had been guilty of a violation of law and of official duty, was an inquiry directly involving individual character; and it does not seem to be necessary for mere purposes of legislation. It was well understood, at the time the resolutions passed, to involve individual character; and as the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] has remarked, Mr. Gwin was openly charged by the chairman of the Committee on Public Lands with a gross violation of official duty. Such was the language of the resolutions, and such were the circumstances in which it was proposed to enter upon the investigation. I then thought, as I now think, that it was due to the officer implicated; due to the character of the Senate itself; and due to truth and justice, that the investigation should not proceed in secret, so that the accused could know nothing of the attempt to destroy his character; could have no opportunity even to know the persons who would appear against him, much less to cross-examine them, or to introduce any explanatory or rebutting testimony. Feeling that the first principles of justice were to be violated in such a proceeding, I offered an amendment to the fifth resolution. It is thus stated on the Journal: "On motion of Mr. Shepley, to amend the fifth, by striking out all after the word committee, and inserting, have power to cause testimony to be taken on oath, where any misconduct is supposed to have taken place touching the matters aforesaid; and in case any person is implicated, such person to be notified, and be entitled to introduce testimony in exculpation of himself; and to cross-examine all witnesses introduced against him."" This proposed amendment was rejected upon a division, by yeas and nays, a party vote And thus did the Senate deliberately enter upon an investigation directly [JUNE 1, 1836. impeaching individual character, and at the same time refuse to the individual all opportunity of being heard. A proceeding thus commenced in wrong, could be expected to end only as it has done--in wrong. Commencing thus before a committee of the Senate, the investigation was continued during the recess of Congress by the resolution before referred to, when another attempt was made by the then minority to obtain for the persons implicated, an opportunity to be heard, and without success. It is now after two years have elapsed, that testimony is offered, said to disprove the charges made against the officer; and we now are asked to refuse to print this testimony, that it may be placed upon our records with that which was thus secretly obtained and placed on record against him. I trust that we may no longer continue to act a part so unjust. This testimony should be printed with our documents, that an opportunity may be afforded to judge of the truth of the whole matter. Mr. MANGUM said he voted for the resolutions, and against the amendments; and in doing so, he thought that he did what was not only proper, but absolutely necessary, under the circumstances then presented to him. It must be remembered that, in 1834, the entire southern country was rife with reports of frauds that had been committed with respect to the sales of the public lands in the southwest. He recollected, that when he first came into the Senate, he brought with him such impressions. There was a general impression, that such frauds had been practised, and under such circumstances the investigation was ordered. What, then, did this investigation propose? It was not to inquire whether A B or C were guilty, but to inquire whether abuses existed in the land offices, for the purpose of applying a legislative remedy. They were informed on that floor, that in the State of Mississippi it was worth a man's life to breathe a whisper in relation to these frauds, and that men would not give their depositions, if the parties implicated were to be present. It was under these impressions that he was willing, at this incipient stage, to give this power to the committee. How could such investigations affect an individual? The President would not remove him from office on ex parte testimony. But it was said that the character of an individual would be affected. Was it believed at the time that the Senate would adopt a report without giving every individual an opportunity of defending himself? He did not concur in the doctrine that the Senate had no right to enter into inquiries into the official conduct of officers of the Government. He held it to be their duty to ferret out corruption wherever it was supposed to exist. He was free to say, that he did not approve of the instructions of the chairman to the commissioners, as to the manner of their taking depositions, and he was for that reason willing to vote for the printing of the answer of Mr. Gwin. Although without having seen this paper, he believed that it assailed the chairman of the committee and the Senate with virulence; yet as he deemed the instructions under which the depositions were taken, to be wholly irregular, he was willing to give to Mr. Gwin an opportunity of being heard, by voting for the printing of his defence. Mr. BENTON observed that it would conduce to a right view of the matter to take a brief view of the whole subject. They all recollected the charges that had been made against Mr. Gwin; and although his name was not put in the resolution, yet all knew that the inquiry was commenced against him, and directed against him. He had said that the Senate had put itself in a false position with regard to this whole affair, and he would take upon himself to prove it. He would take what Senators now said, to the right and left, and compare it with what they had done. They now stated that this movement was incipient; that it was like a JUNE 1, 1836.] B. F. Curry and Samuel Gwin. plying the proper remedy. Why, then, did not the gentleman go on? Here was impeachable matter sworn to, and let the gentleman proceed with it. He would tell the gentleman that the Senate would be ruined if it went on much further with these extra-judicial proceedings. The matter had gone far enough already; and, if they went further without the House of Representatives, they would violate the constitution. Mr. EWING, of Ohio, replied to Mr. BENTON at length, and contended that the resolutions of the Senate, and the manner of conducting the inquiry, were propernecessary to attain the object in view. He did not believe that information could have been obtained if notice had been given of the time and place of taking the depositions; and instanced the investigations that were made by the Post Office Committee, calling upon the chairman to inform the Senate how these were conducted, and whether, in his opinion, correct information could have been obtained if they had notified the parties implicated, of the time and place of taking deposi tions. Mr. GRUNDY, being thus called on, replied that, when the Post Office Committee were about to enter on their examinations, they came to the determination, unanimously, that their best course would be to take depositions without giving the parties implicated notice of the time and place of so doing. This was done in every case; but, when the testimony in each case was concluded, he, as the chairman of the committee, notified each individual implicated of the matter brought against him, and called upon him to defend himself. He did not believe that correct information, with regard to matters before the Post Office Committee, could have been obtained by any other mode of inquiry. grand jury proceeding. Here, then, was an inquiry instituted against an officer of the Government; and it was said that the committee, being a grand jury, was not bound to give notice to the party whose conduct was to be inquired into. Every gentleman, who justified the course of the Senate, must put it on this ground. The examinations being thus conducted, the commissioners, who were charged with taking testimony, were informed that it was not expected that they should give notice to any person of the time and place of their taAnd here he would observe that king depositions, &c. the three commissioners, appointed to take testimony againt Mr. Gwin, were in a state of violent enmity with him; and that one of them had since fallen by his hand. Then, what was the testimony that had been returned to the Senate? Why, it was impeachable matter, charging him with malversations in office, and filled with the strongest epithets. What, then, did the Senate do when their grand jury returned to them this impeachable matter sworn against Mr. Gwin? Why, the very next step of the Senate was to admit that it was in a false position, and that they could go no farther. They directed that five thousand copies of the testimony, taken ex parte, against this officer of the Government, should be published. What was the next step? Was it to take measures for an impeachment? Why did they not do this? It was the next regular step. There was nothing that they could do, following from the documents before them, but impeach; and he now declared, as a Senator, that, upon such testimony, with nothing to counteract it, he should, on an impeachment, vote the officer guilty, and eject him from office. Why did they not proceed? They had impeachable matter enough on hand. Why did they stop? It was because they found that they could go no further, without implicating themselves. What did they do? Did they frame a law? No. Did they frame an ex parte impeachment like the one they did against the President of the United States? No. Imprimis, they ordered five thousand copies to be printed, and in the next place referred the whole affair to the President, in order that he might dismiss the accused from office. Why did they send this impeachable matter to the President? What did the President do? He sent a copy of the report to every officer implicated. This, he presumed, was the President's course, for it was the just one. One of these implicated officers had returned an answer to the charges against him, and this What a strange answer was now sent to the Senate. condition the Senate was placed in. They commenced an impeachment, collected an abundance of impeacha-vidual. ble matter, and then sent it to the President, who sends a copy of it to the officer impeached, who was not allowed a hearing while his trial was going on; and the answer of that officer was now sent back to them. Since the movement now was to refer these criminal charges that had been made two years ago, and then shuffled off, and which were now brought home to them, he had no objection to that course; because he wished to see how the committee would act on them-to see whether they would bring in a resolution to send the papers to the House of Representatives, for the purpose of having an impeachment framed. Sir, (said Mr. B.,) the Senate has got itself into a false position. It is in the same position it was in when it shoved off the It could not go on with the affair upon the President. business. Could they try the impeachment? He apprehended not. No member, he thought, would lay a resolution on the table, declaring that Samuel Gwin was guilty, and ought to impeached. Mr. SOUTHARD proceeded to take a view of the reasons which induced the Senate to institute the inquiries referred to. Early in the session of 1834, complaints, in a great variety of forms, were made in regard to frauds in relation to the lands ceded by the Choctaws, and in regard to the conduct of the commissioners under that cession. Subsequent charges were made as to extensive frauds that had been committed, not only in Mississippi, but in other States; it was not against one man, but against the general administration of the land officers. The question then before the Senate was, will it do any thing to arrest these frauds, and make the necessary inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining how they can be arrested? This was his inquiry. He had no reference to Samuel Gwin, or to any other single indi His only object was to ascertain whether such frauds had been committed, and how they could be prevented by the legislation of Congress. The votes he gave were governed by these considerations, and no other. If any thing improper had been done in conducting the inquiry, it did not prove that it ought not to have been instituted. Every step in that inquiry was directed by its legislative action, and every other step was accidental. Mr. S. read the different proceedings on the subject from the journals of 1834. The inquiries were general, in order to ascertain what legislation was necessary, and the Senate would find, by reference to the journals, that an act was reported, a fact omitted in the discussion of this morning. Suppose, in the course of the investigation, they should find that an officer had received a bonus for the sale of a tract of land, would it not be proper for them to introduce a resolution providing for the introduction of a law to prevent such acts for the future? not to go back to punish the officer who was guilty, for that would be too late, but for the purpose of framing a law that would guard against suck The Senate would find, on looking at The debate on the expunging resolution had circulafrauds in future. ted too widely for gentlemen to venture on that. the whole proceedings, that legislative, and not judicial, gentleman from Ohio had said that he would never refrain from inquiring into frauds for the purpose of ap-action was contemplated from beginning to end. VOL. XII.-105 The By a resolution introduced by Mr. Poindexter, the inquiry was pursued through the Treasury and War Departments, and the answers from these Departments did not come in until the 13th of June. On the 22d of June, Mr. Poindexter offered a resolution authorizing the chairman to proceed in the investigations already commenced. Now, what then was the duty of the Senate? The Secretaries of War and Treasury had made their communications, and the committee had reported that they could not conclude their investigations that session. The inquiry was, should they stop there? Every body believed that stupendous frauds had been committed; it was too late to deny the fact now; and he for one thought that these investigations should proceed. And as it would have been impossible for the committee to go to the different States where these examinations were to be made, Mississippi, Alabama, Ohio, Michigan, &c., he had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion, that it would be proper to trust the further prosecution of the business to their chairman. They could have continued the inquiry in no other mode. He was not here the apologist of the chairman, but he thought that justice should be done to him as well as to others. Well, then, it was proper to make these investigations by depositions. If it was not so, it was wrong for the Post Office Committee to do So. The testimony could not be justly taken in another way. If there had been error in the chairman of the committee, the Senate was not to answer for it. If blood had been shed, in consequence of the manner of conducting these inquiries, the Senate was not chargeable; they did not direct that the inquiries should be made in an improper manner. They only directed that the inquiries should be made by depositions. Mr. S. said he would not defend the instructions to the commissioners; but he would say that if instructions had been given to them to give notices to the parties implicated, and to take their counter testimony, such proceeding would constitute the commissioners into a criminal court for the trial of individuals, and to make the inquiry a criminal process, instead of a foundation for legislative proceedings. These were the views on which he voted. The result was, that, at the succeeding session, the chairman (Mr. Poindexter) made a report, accompanied by a resolution, that the charges be referred to the President of the United States. Where then was the voice that is now raised against the judicial proceedings of the Senate? No man pretended to say then that the Senate had placed itself in a false position. Mr. S. proceeded at length to defend the propriety of this course on the part of the Senate. It was said that the whole affair was ended by printing the report, and its reference to the President; but this was a very incorrect view of the subject; the reference to the President was merely incidental. But on the very day the chairman reported a bill, with the very view of fulfilling the purpose for which this inquiry was made, being a bill of six pages, to provide against the commission of these frauds. Was it true, then, that the inquiry was fruitless, and that it ended in a reference of this subject to the President? No, the result of that investigation would be found in the bill that had been reported, and would be found in the labors of the Committee on Public Lands, who had made use of this very information, and would very soon place before them a bill which would show how useful that inquiry had been. Where, then, was the evidence that the Senate had placed itself in a false position? Mr. CALHOUN agreed partly with his friend from North Carolina, but was clearly of opinion that the printing ought to be after the report of the committee. Not a single Senator had read the whole of this evidence; not a Senator knew whether it exculpated the officer implicated, or whether it implicated the conduct of the chairman; and in the dark they were asked to print the [JUNE 2, 1836. If the testimony. Now, he thought that to do justice to all partics, to Mr. Gwinn himself, as well as others, the proper course was to refer it to a committee. object in sending this document here was to implicate a former member of that body, who had, in the discharge of arduous duties, been implicated, every principle of honor and justice required that they should be referred and examined before sending them abroad to the world. As to the dangerous doctrine, that this body is not to look into malfeasances in office, it had been avowed here for the first time. Never had it been avowed in the British Parliament, from which we took our practice, nor had it been advanced in any of the State Legis latures. Such a doctrine would surrender entirely the Legislative power of the Senate. Mr. C. continued his remarks to some considerable length; after which, Mr. WHITE and Mr. WALKER expressed themselves briefly in favor of printing. The debate was further continued by Messrs. PRENTISS, MANGUM, PRESTON, PORTER, WALL, NILES and BROWN; when, On motion by Mr. PORTER to lay the whole subject on the table, it was decided in the negative, by the following vote: YEAS--Messrs. Black, Calhoun, Crittenden, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Kent, King, Leigh, Mangum, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Southard, Tomlinson, White--15. NAYS--Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Georgia, Morris, Nicholas, Niles, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, Walker, Wall, Wright--20. On motion of Mr. BLACK, The Senate then adjourned. THURSDAY, JUNE 2. LOUISVILLE AND PORTLAND CANAL. On motion of Mr. EWING, of Ohio,” The bill authorizing the purchase of the private stock in the Louisville and Portland canal, was taken up, and the pending amendment having been withdrawn, Mr. EWING said he was satisfied that the importance of this measure had not been fully weighed, and its nature duly appreciated by the Senate before the vote was taken upon it the other day. I have (said Mr. E.) since that time ascertained more fully the objections of gentlemen to this measure, and the opinions upon which those objections rest, and I am further satisfied that there is the most friendly disposition towards the bill if those difficulties can be removed. Some gentlemen object to the extension of these improvements by the United States beyond those waters in which the tide ebbs and flows, with an exception, perhaps, in favor of the very margin of our great lakes. This is a notion which we have derived from England; it is a part of the common law applicable to that coun try, but not to this. In England there are no rivers navi gable, in fact, above the flowing of the tide. It is very reasonable, therefore, that they should not be considered navigable in law. But that rule is perfectly absurd when applied to the mighty rivers of our continent, which sustain a commerce in vessels large as East Indiamen, for three thousand miles of their course, and compared with which the royal rivers of England, the Thames, the Humber, and the Severn, are but rills. We constantly forget that we are not still inhabitants of an island; it is our habitual tendency to apply insular law to our broad continent. But the constitution considers these great western rivers as belonging to the Union. The ordinance of 1787, in that part of it which is an irrepealable compact |