On motion of Mr. GRUNDY, the bill from the House, to change the organization of the Post Office Department, was taken up; and sundry verbal amendments reported by the Post Office Committee having been agreed to, Mr. GRUNDY called the attention of the Senate to the amendments proposed to the 43d and 44th sections of the bill, relative to the boxes put up in the post offices, and rented to merchants and others, for the reception of their letters. From the commencement of the Government to the present time, Mr. G. said, it had been the practice to put up these boxes in the post offices of the large cities, and rent them to merchants and others, who found a great convenience in having their letters kept for them in this convenient way. The sums received for the rent of these boxes went to the private emolument of the postmasters; but the bill of the House proposed to take this away altogether, and put it in the Treasury, while the amendment of the committee proposed to fix the rent of each box at one dollar, and allow one half to the postmasters; providing that when this rent exceeded fifteen hundred dollars, the excess should go into the Treasury. Mr. G. said that this practice had been found to be so universally convenient, that not a single individual who paid this rent was ever known to complain of it. Mr. G. stated the number of boxes put up in the post offices of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, and stated the emoluments derived from them by the postmasters. He did not know what was the number of boxes put up by the postmaster of New Orleans, or the rent he charged for them, and would be glad to be informed on that point by the Senators from Louisiana. Certain it was that the postmaster at New Orleans could not live on his salary of two thousand dollars, and this addition to his income was therefore necessary. Mr. G. said that, as no inconvenience had resulted from the present practice, but, on the contrary, that it was productive of great benefits, it would be better to leave the matter as it now stood, and direct the Postmaster General to report to Congress on the subject at the next session. In the mean time, as he differed with a majority of the committee, he would move to strike out every thing relating to the subject in the bill. Mr. PORTER said that in New Orleans the price of a box was five dollars a year, which was cheerfully paid, considering their great convenience to those who rented them. He did not know the number of the boxes in the New Orleans post office-probably four or five hundred-but he was confident that if the price were reduced to a dollar, every man in the city who received a dozen letters a year would take one. Mr. NILES spoke of the great convenience of these boxes, in the large cities, to those who were in the habit of receiving a great many letters. The price paid was entirely voluntary, and there was no ground of objection in regard to the general operation of this practice. He thought, too, that the taking away of this source of emolument to the postmasters would create less care in [SENATE. the general management of their business. Some good, he supposed, would be produced by the modification, but he thought that much injury would ensue from breaking up the practice altogether. Mr. BUCHANAN observed that there were always difficulties attending the regulation of a subject of this kind, because what might be convenient in one part of the Union might be very inconvenient in another. He had at one time thought that the best way would be to fix certain salaries for the postmasters; but, when he came to reflect, he feared that there would be a continual pressure on them to raise the salaries of all the $2,000 postmasters to a higher sum. With regard to these boxes, they were legislating without having heard a complaint from a single individual. In the city of Philadelphia, he knew that Congress could not do a more unpopular act than to reduce the rent of these boxes to one dollar, because it would occasion the post office to be covered with them, and produce inconvenience and expense, instead of reducing expenses. The postmaster of Philadelphia relinquished a lucrative profession when he took this office, and he had never received from it as much as $3,500 per annum. What would be the effect of this amendment, as respected him? It would reduce his salary to $2,000, on which he could not possibly live. Mr. B., after stating the importance of the duties of this office, the number of persons whose labors he has to superintend, and the large sum annually disbursed by him, remarked that he was the ensurer of the greater part of the postage received at his office, because, by giving credit to those who rent the boxes, he has, in making his returns to the General Post Office, to pay cash for the amounts due by them. Mr. B. said he had been informed that if the number of these boxes was increased, it would occasion a great deal of additional labor, and that the number of clerks must be increased also. The only evil complained of was as to the city of New York, where the emoluments of the postmaster were deemed too high, in consequence of the number of boxes in his office; but it appeared to him that it would be highly inexpedient to derange the whole system to correct an evil in one or two post of fices. The best way would be to let every thing remain as it was until the Postmaster General reported to them at the next session of Congress. He would, however, offer an amendment, which accorded with his views, and he thought would be acceptable to the Senate. Mr. B. then submitted an amendment, providing that "each postmaster shall make quarterly returns to the General Post Office of the amounts received for rents of boxes in his office, and that when the sum amounts to more than $2,000 he shall account for the same to the General Post Office." By this amendment, Mr. B. said, no postmaster would receive more than $4,000 per annum; and in New York, Philadelphia, and New Orleans, this sum would not be too much. Mr. PORTER said that he had had occasion to remark before, that nothing could be more unequal and unjust than to attempt to regulate the salaries in different parts of the Union by one standard. Thirty-five hundred dollars might be a very good salary in some places, but in New Orleans it was a very small sum, where house rent alone would take up $1,200 of it. With regard to these boxes, the number of them would be greatly increased if the rent was reduced; and in New Orleans, instead of there being four or five hundred, as at present, their number would probably be as many thousand, and the great object of having them, the speedy and convenient delivery of letters, would be destroyed. He thought, with the Senator from Pennsylvania, that it would be best to leave this matter where it was, between the individuals and the postmasters, and then fix the maximum of salary at those places where it was supposed to be too large. The amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania contemplated that object; but with regard to the salary of the postmaster of New Orleans, it would be too small. He should think that $5,000 would not be too much for the salary of this officer. Mr WRIGHT said that he had been assured that the postmaster of New York, residing where he was compeiled to reside, could not get house rent for less than $1,500 per annum. Now, it was out of the question to suppose that any competent person would take so arduous an office for a salary of $2,000, when he was compelled to pay three fourths of it for house rent. Mr. W., after speaking of the arduous and responsible duties of the New York postmaster, and the high expenses of living in that city, contended that there would be great injustice in reducing his income so considerably, by the adoption of the amendment of the committee. There was another way in which it would be productive of injury: in most of the small towns there was a limited number of boxes put up in the post offices, some of which were rented at a low price, and some let out without rent. Now, he thought that they should make no provision which might have the effect to break up these boxes, and to compel individuals to dispense with the convenience they had derived from them. Mr. W. said he approved of the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, but would vote for $5,000, instead of $4,000, as the maximum of a postmaster's salary. It [JUNE 14, 1836. vide enough. He had endeavored to adjust the boxes upon equitable principles, which would save the rights of the small offices as well as the large, and he would state in what way: 1st. In all places containing under ten thousand inhabitants, the postmasters might charge not exceeding a dollar for each box. 2d. In all places containing over ten and not exceed. ing twenty thousand inhabitants, they might charge not over a dollar and fifty cents for each box. 3d. In all places containing over twenty thousand inhabitants, they might not charge over two dollars a box. 4th. The postmasters, in all cases, are allowed to retain the revenue from the boxes until from that and their fees they receive $3,500, and in New York and New Orleans until they receive $4,000. These were the provisions of his amendment; and the chairman, [Mr. GRUNDY,] and the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BUCHANAN,] had declared the provision inadequate. Sir, (said Mr. D.,) I protest against this extravagance, this lavish expenditure of the public money. Its influences are in all respects pernicious. It tends in the first place to create uneasiness and discontent among all our public officers, for they all claim a right to be thus favored. It is always an argument for increased compensation, that others who do no harder service receive higher pay. The What is a deputy postmaster, that he should repel thir ty-five hundred dollars as inadequate for his services? You pay his rent, his clerks-in a word, defray the expenses of his office-and he gravely tells you that $3,500 is insufficient for him. Sir, it is more than the mem. bers of this body would receive, if they were to sit here the year round. It is more than the Governors of the States, the judges of the State courts, or any other public officers, except a few in the United States service, receive. It is said that great pay should be allowed, because they live in cities. So do other officers. chancellor of New York receives but $2,000; and the judges, who have most arduous services to perform, but $2,500. In Massachusetts, the chief justice receives but $3,500; the associates, $3,000. In Pennsylvania, the judges receive $2,000. And these are among the most liberal salaries paid by the States. In most of them, the Governors receive from ten to fifteen hundred dollars, and the judges about the same sum. He said he held in his hand a document in which all these salaries were accurately stated, and gentlemen would be surprised if they would compare them with the salaries now established, and every day declared to be inadequate by the officers of the Federal Government. Sir, you give to Mr. DAVIS said, if he had supposed the debate would have been extended as it had before his amendment came fairly before the Senate, he would have explained it when he first sent it to the Chair, as he feared gentlemen did not fully understand it. If he could gain the attention of the Senate, he would do it now. It had been called a small matter. In principle it was quite otherwise, as he would prove; for it was no less than an attempt to maintain extravagant emoluments to deputy postmasters, under the guise of perquisites, without any authority, while the law really intended that the maximum of income should be only $2,000. It was a levy without authority of law, and without limits, upon those who could not well do without the accommodation. was now admitted that some of these deputies had been in the annual receipt of from three to ten thousand dol Jars a year, which, he thought, if true, demanded the attention of Congress. The House of Representatives thought so, and had, in the bill sent to the Senate, required that all the box money, as it is termed, from which this exorbitant income is derived, should be accounted for as other revenue, and the postmasters, of be left to the provision made by law for their compensation. Their compensation, therefore, if this provision should be retained in the bill, will be more or less, according to the business of each office, but will never exceed $2,000. This they have considered enough. The House also limited the price of boxes to a dollar a year. The committee of the Senate, to whom They are literally bought out of State service, for very the bill was referred, thought that some further provi- subordinate stations, by the salaries given. A more sion ought to be made for the postmasters, and have pernicious policy could not be adopted. Here you find Governors and judges holding clerkships, or, what is no reported that one half of the box money should be rebetter, offices of that character under some other name. tained by them until their entire emoluments should amount to $3,500 a year, if the income should arise to There is, sir, a gentleman, on whom I have heard much that sum, the balance to be accounted for to the Post- commendation pronounced on this floor, as a faithful master General. It has been urgently represented that public officer, now serving in a subordinate station in the custom-house at New York, for $3,000 a year. This this, even this, is inadequate; and fearing, from all that is said, it might be so, he had, with the approbation of office he sought as a political favor, and contrives to live a majority of the committee, offered the amendment upon it, even in that city, where it is said forty hundred which he had sent to the Chair, and which he hoped dollars is wholly insufficient for a postmaster. That would prevail, though he was sorry to say he saw symp- gentleman lately filled the executive chair in your State; toms of determined opposition, because it did not pro-and we find it almost customary for Governors and course, an auditor, a comptroller, ay, a chief clerk, not only more, but nearly double what is paid to the highest offi cers in most of the States; yes, even more than is allowed to members of Congress, if they were to sit the whole year. The consequence is, that the attention of citizens is drawn from the States to the Federal Government. judges to descend from their stations, and abandon the service of the States, from such pecuniary reasons. The offices of the United States never go begging. Instead of their being left vacant, as has been suggested, there is always a rush to fill them when an opening occurs; and such is the strife, that men of but one political complexion can attain to any of them. More, sir; men are thrust out of petty places to make room for partisans. When he saw men refusing to take office, when he saw the Government embarrassed hef as much for the want of applicants as it is with them, he would begin to listen to the argument that the salaries are inadequate. The influence of high salaries upon the whole public was pernicious. It tended to increase the expenses of the States, for their men were bought up. It created a scramble for the offices, and rendered the patronage of the Federal Government irresistibly inAuential. It was a lavish, unnecessary waste of money, and could not be justified because the Treasury is full. The committee are for adhering to the old republican doctrine of economy in the expenditure of the public money. They are for preserving something like an equality between the State and Federal Governments, and the doubt is whether they have not been too liberal in their propositions. He would now notice some of the objections which had been urged against the amendment. It was said that the Postmaster General was collecting information, and would eventually propose a plan for a tariff on boxes. It was also said that we had no information, that we did not understand the subject, and that there was no complaint, and, therefore, things had better remain as they are. If the Postmaster General is collecting information, and maturing a tariff, what is that but proof, to those who value his judgment, that something ought to be donethat regulation is necessary? And how does this consort with the argument urged by the Senator from Pennsyl vania, [Mr. BUCHANAN,] that there is no complaint, and it is better to keep matters as they are? But the subject is complex, and we are not prepared to act! And what is there about boxes that is not comprehended at a glance? What that the feeblest mind cannot at once comprehend? Is there any mystery in charging five or ten dollars for the use of a pigeon-hole a year? Is this a matter that requires explanation? If a postmaster receives annually three or four thousand dollars in this way, what is there mysterious about it? Cannot this Senate comprehend and understand that it is more than he deserves? That it is raising a large revenue out of the public for his benefit, when it is the bounden duty of Congress to make the access to the mail easy-to furnish every facility in the reception and delivery of it, without constraining people to pay exorbitant prices for them? The Senate can understand, if such a revenue is to be raised, it ought to be regulated by law, and the Government to have the benefit of it. He could not feel any difficulty in understanding the matter, or in applying the remedy. It required no extraordinary skill to comprehend either. Again: it was said by the Senator from Pennsylvania, in one sentence, that the office of the postmaster at Philadelphia would be deranged by the great increase of boxes, if the price was lowered from $4 to $2; and in the next, that it would so reduce his annual emoluments, that the public would lose his valuable services. The boxes in Boston are said by the honorable Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GRUNDY] to be rented at $2, and that the whole number is about 1,200. Suppose, then, Philadelphia should demand twice or thrice as many, who does not see that they can be easily furnished? Let the postmaster see a profit in doing it, and the inconve [SENATE nience will vanish. But if the boxes are to be thus increased, what becomes of the other position of the honorable Senator, that the emoluments will be reduced? If this vast number of boxes is demanded, the officer will be certain of his $3,500, for it will take but 750 boxes to secure that, and he now rents 450. Again: the honorable member says it will interfere with the credit system now in operation, and make cash payments necessary, which will be vexatious to the merchant. And how does this follow? It is now optional with the postmaster to give credit or not. He will be left still to his own free will on the point; and how the erection of additional boxes, or the reduction of the price, will make cash payment indispensable, is not apparent. Again: the honorable Senator says the present system is a good one, acceptable to the merchants, and, therefore, ought not to be disturbed, for no one complains of it. He would tell the honorable gentleman that he was mistaken, when he declared so emphatically that no complaints were made. Proof could be adduced, if necessary, to show that, in some of the city offices, there was so much delay and uncertainty in procuring letters for those who had no boxes, that even transient persons, though resident in other places, were obliged to hire boxes, to secure the delivery of letters with promptness, when their business led them to such places. No doubt that many merchants are content to pay a large rent for boxes, for the less the number the more prompt the attention. It is the monopoly of the privilege which secures the good will. Four hundred and fifty persons are let into the privilege in Philadelphia, at four dollars each, while in Boston more than twelve hundred enjoy it at two dollars. Is this right? Was not the Post Office instituted for general accommodation? Ought not its privileges to be laid open as wide as possible to the public? And will any one dare to justify a high charge, on the ground that it narrows the accommodation to only a few persons? Have not the great public-the people-an interest in this public institution? Sir, the reason why the number of boxes in Philadelphia is so small is plain enough. The public are taxed beyond what they are willing to bear, and thus the privilege is wrested from them, and limited to a few. In my judgment, this state of things demands correction. The privilege may be enlarged; the public have a right to demand it; and, for one, he would ac knowledge that right, and extend the convenience. Men, sir, are selfish, and those who are anxious to continue the present state of things must be anxious to perpetuate the monopoly in their own hands. But he would not encourage the idea that the Post Office is for the benefit of the few, or that its important accommodations were to be placed out of the reach of most people by high charges. His object in offering the amendment was to bring what now was in the discretion of men, who were anxious to benefit themselves, under the control of law; to fix a limit. beyond which they cannot go; to fix it, too, where the real public may have the benefit of the privilege. If there is, as has been supposed by some, such a desire for boxes as to multiply them to an extravagant number, it only proves that the people are now restrained by the burdens imposed on them, or, rather, by the obstacles placed in their way, and that a remedy ought to be applied. Indeed, every argument which has been put forward against the measure seems only to show the propriety of adopting it. We have heard much of the inconvenience to the postmasters; and what have we to do with their convenience? Who ought to be incommoded, the public or the postmasters? And what right has a public officer to complain that his office is disfigured with boxes, or that he is obliged to distribute his papers into five hun-. dred instead of two hundred places? This Government pays his clerks and other expenses. One would really think that the public was to stand back in this matter, and beg accommodation as a favor--as if the establishment belonged to the postmasters. He did not believe the mass of the postmasters had any such feelings or objections. They were willing to accommodate the public at the expense of their own convenience; and he believed the proposed arrangement would be very acceptable to them, as it placed them on a much more favorable basis than the bill of the House, and took care of the small offices as well as the large. Nor could he doubt that, upon this reasonable scale of allowance for boxes, most postmasters would realize more revenue than they now received, while the public would be much better accommodated. Mr. CALHOUN here moved, as the hour of one had arrived, to lay the bill on the table, and proceed to the special order; which was agreed to. PUBLIC DEPOSITES. [JUNE 14, 1836. the Senate to the fact that this amendment was in accordance with the uniform practice of the Government. Such was the practice of the sinking fund act of 1817, declaring that the sum of two millions should be retained in the Treasury before applying the balance to the reduction of the public debt. That was a salutary practice, preventing the Treasury from being reduced to want, and should be rigidly adhered to on this as well as on all other occasions. It was not his purpose, Mr. W. sal, to amend this bill further than to make it what it was intended to be. Mr. WEBSTER observed that this amendment was very material. It went to diminish the sum which should be distributed, and, so far, to defeat the object of the bill. The amount of unexpended appropriations might be twelve or fourteen millions. We all know (said Mr. W.) that a balance remains every year, and is provided for by the income of the following year; and this always happened, because the Government never expended within the year all the moneys appropriated. The only question was, whether, as the bill then stood, it endan The Senate then took up the bill to regulate the de-gered the means of the Treasury for the demands of the posites of the public moneys. Mr. WRIGHT moved to amend the bill in the thirteenth section, by providing that the outstanding appropriations shall be deducted prior to making the distribution of the surplus to the States. Mr. CALHOUN opposed this amendment as unnecessary, and as contrary to the objects of the bill. Considering the very heavy and unusual appropriations of this year, he estimated the amount of the outstanding balances at eight or nine millions; and he submitted to Senators whether it was wise and consistent with the objects of the bill to leave so large a sum where it now Was it for the convenience of the deposite banks? He could not suppose that gentlemen had that object in view. He thought that the appropriations of this year were so large that the balances to be carried over would be sufficient for the whole of the appropriations for the next year. was. next year. This was the question. He thought there was no danger. Although he could not say what might be the income of the next year, still he did not see any probability of so great a falling off as would bring down the income of the next year so low as had been supposed. Of the unappropriated balances of this year, not more than nine or ten millions could probably be called for next year; and he thought that not more than ten or twelve millions of the appropriations of the next year could be called for within that year. In this view, the actual wants of the next year would amount to twenty-two millions or thereabouts, and he thought there was no doubt of there being sufficient means in the Treasury to meet this amount. It was to be remarked that of the eight millions which would be coming from the stocks in the late Bank of the United States, it was not known that all would be received within this year. He hoped much of it would; but it was not certain that all of it would; and, if not, the residue remained to swell the general amount in the Treasury the next year. He saw no plausible estimates either of the probable income or the probable expenditure of next year, which rendered it necessary for them to adopt the amend ment. Mr. WALKER said that, if the amendment of the Senator from New York did not prevail, it appeared to him that the Senate would be making a triple appropriation. First, an appropriation under the bill to distribute the proceeds of the sales of the public lands; secondly, the appropriation under this bill, by way of loans to the States, without interest, of the surplus in the Treasury; and lastly, for the purpose of swelling out that surplus, an appropriation under the same bill of the unexpended balances. He was opposed to these triple Mr. WRIGHT said that he had himself anticipated, with the Senator from South Carolina, that the balances of the outstanding appropriations for this year would be unusually heavy, and his object was that the Treasury might be able to meet the appropriations that they now made, and the appropriations for the next year. He would assuredly vote for no appropriation of the surplus that would leave the Treasury destitute of the means of meeting the appropriations they had made. Though only one fourth of the contemplated distribution was to be paid on the 1st of January, yet the amount was fixed and certain, and the other three payments would be made in April, July, and October. The sum to be disposed of was settled on the 1st of January; and it was no matter how much of it remained in bank after that day, because the fiscal officer could not touch it. If they intended that the appropriations should be used, could they pass this bill without the amendment he pro-appropriations of the same money. He was opposed to posed? What was the object they had in view? If he understood the measure before them, it was to adopt some method for relieving the Treasury from its surplus, and for disposing of the amount of money not needed for the purposes of the Government. Hle understood this to be the sole and exclusive object of the bill. This being the case, were they ready to say that they had appropriated money which they did not design should be expended. He did not suppose that gentlemen meant this. He therefore desired to arrange this bill so that, while they were acting as if the Treasury was in danger from a surplus, they were not to bring it to want. How could he better do this than by the amendment he proposed? In confirmation of his own views on this subject, he called the attention of the progression of these three experiments at the same time, and he thought that it would be better to ascertain the result of the first experiment before they tried an other. Gentlemen defended this bill on the ground of a new conjuncture in our affairs, having an immense surplus that it was absolutely necessary to dispose of. Now, he should think that if there was this immense surplus in the Treasury, of thirty millions, as it was said, it was sufficiently large to distribute to the States, without breaking in upon the appropriations for the necessary purposes of the Government. The refusal to adopt this amendment would, in his opinion, sweep away with it every apology for the passage of this bill, for the bill had been mainly advocated on the ground that there was an immense surplus that it was absolutely necessary for them to dispose of. Mr. W. continued his remarks to some considerable length in support of the amendment. [SENATE. would be a balance in the Treasury of fourteen millions of outstanding appropriations, and the Senator from Ohio estimated them at from seventeen to eighteen millions. We deprive ourselves then of all this money which is to be in the Treasury on the first of January; and what was to be in the Treasury next year? Why, eighteen millions. Now, was there any Senator there who would say that it was safe for them to rely on the income of the next year for the payment of this unexpended balance of appropriations, and also for the payment of the current expenses of the year? Was this acting with suitable caution? As to the income from the public lands, nothing could be more unsafe than to rely on it. From causes which Mr. B. assigned, there was, he said, every probability that there would be a considerable falling off in the sales, and, indeed, that a great reflux would take place; and whether this reflux would take place this year or the next was impossible for them to decide. as Be But let that reflux take place, and seventeen or eighteen millions of dollars, and have to provide for the expenses of the Government, contingent or certain. That would be their situation. Now, let the sum to be distributed under this bill be much or little, for one, he thought they ought to follow out the salutary policy of the Congress of 1817, and he should therefore vote for the amendment. Mr. EWING, of Ohio, supported the amendment in an argument of great length, taking a view of what would probably be the amount of the unexpended balances at the end of the year, with an estimate of the probable amount of the receipts and expenditures for the three or four coming years. The ancient practice, he said, had never been to consider the unexpended balances in the Treasury as pledged money; but, in paying off the national debt, the Secretary of the Treasury always brought the balance down to two millions, which was as large a sum as he ever permitted to remain in the Treasury, without having any reference at all to unexpended balances. To talk of appropriating the same money twice was a thing that he did not expect to hear from the Senator from New York, though he was not surprised at hearing it from other quarters. They never appropriated any particular money in the Treasury. It was sufficient that the money was in the Treasury at the mo ment that the draft called for it; and, in appropriating money, they always appropriated what would be in the Treasury when the draft should be made. He did not concur with the Senator from Massachusetts in the belief that there would be but little value in the bill if the amendment prevailed; for he thought that there would still be a considerable surplus of the receipts from the customs, and the land sales did not disappoint his expectations. They would be in debt The debate was further continued by Messrs. CALHOUN, MORRIS, WEBSTER, and WRIGHT; after which, Mr. TALLMADGE offered an amendment, the effect of which is that the Secretary of the Treasury shall be authorized to sell the certificates to be given by the States, in the event of there not being money in the Treasury to meet the appropriations made by Congress. This amendment being agreed to, Mr. EWING, of Ohio, rose to correct the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He did not say that the unappro Mr. BUCHANAN observed that, so far as he was con-priated balance would be seventeen or eighteen millions, cerned, he should continue this debate in the same tem- but that he would take the largest sum stated. per in which it had commenced; and should not stop to inquire whether there had been any true or false prophets there. No subject had ever presented itself to his mind more involved in difficulty than this proposition. How far he should vote for it would be known when they came to take the question. The amendment, however, of the Senator from Massachusetts had obviated many of his objections. It was now a single division, and they would not be continuing the system until the year 1842, as was at first proposed. He did hold that the idea of distributing the surplus revenue from the Treasury, derived from taxes, must, if persisted in, lead to the destruction of this Government, because the time might come when members of Congress opposed to the Government might argue that, by so much as they embarrassed it, so much would they benefit the States they represented. This would place the country in a most embarrassing situation. Now, as to the amendment of the Senator from New York. Whatever sum was to be distributed under this bill, he looked upon the amendment as a wise proviso. It was in conformity with the act of 1817, introduced by as pure and upright a man as ever existed in this country, and who was acknowledged by all, even his political opponents, to have no other object in view than bis country's good. Mr. B. then described the sinking fund act of 1817, and compared it with the amendment. Was not this, he said, a wise and just provision? Could human foresight pretend to penetrate the future; and was it not wise and just for them to avoid the being left to the mercy of contingencies? He confessed that when this amendment was first proposed by the Senator from New York, it struck him that no reasonable objection could be made to it. Let the distribution be what it might, they must, to be consistent, except from it what had already been appropriated for the wants of the Government. He confessed that he looked at the opposition to this amendment with some degree of alarm. We have appropriated, said he, so much money, and that we ought in policy to retain, to prevent embarrassment to the Treasury. The Senator from Massachusetts estimated that on the first day of January ensuing, there VOL. XII.-112 Mr. CALHOUN then moved to fill the blank in the third section, for the sum to be retained in the Treasury, with five millions. Mr. WEBSTER proposed three millions; which, he said, was sufficiently large, after the amendment of the Senator from New York, [Mr. TALLMADGE.] The question was first taken on five millions, being the first in order, as the largest sum, and carried: Yeas 22, nays 18. Mr. WRIGHT then moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions to bring in two separate bills: one to regulate the deposites of the public moneys in the banks, and the other for the distribution of the surplus to the States. This motion was decided in the affirmative: Yeas 23, nays 20, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, White, Wright-23. NAYS-Messrs. Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, McKean, Mangum, Moore, Naudain, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Swift, Tomlinson, Webster-20. ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS. A message was received from the House of Representatives, by Mr. FRANKLIN, their Clerk, stating that the House had passed the joint resolution of the Senate for the adjournment of the present session of Congress, with an amendment, in which they asked the concurrence of the Senate. |