SENATE.]

[The amendment assigns the 4th day of July next for the day of adjournment.]

On motion of Mr. WEBSTER, the message was laid on the table.

Mr. WHITE, who voted with the majority, moved to reconsider the vote taken on committing the deposite bill to the Committee on Finance; but before taking this question,

On motion of Mr. WRIGHT,
The Senate adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15.

NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY.

A message was received from the President of the United States, communicating a correspondence with the British Government on the subject of the Northeastern boundary. The message referred it to the Senate to decide as to the propriety of publishing the correspond

ence.

The message having been read,

Mr. CLAY stated that he had not been able to look into the correspondence, and was not at present able to say whether it ought to be published or not. The President had left it to the judgment of the Senate. This was not according to his usual course, as he had in this instance refused to take responsibility upon himself. It would be improper to order the printing without some examination, as it might afterwards turn out that, by the publication of something which it might be improper to lay before the world, the Senate might have committed themselves. The Senators from Maine and Massachusetts ought to be consulted on this matter. course, as it appeared to him, would be to refer the message to the Committee on Foreign Relations, where the documents would be accessible to those Senators, and he for one would be happy to avail himself of their advice. He moved to refer the message and documents to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

The proper

Mr. SHEPLEY said that if there was any thing unusual in the message, there was something also unusual in the resolution calling for this information. He did not object to the motion of reference.

Mr. CLAY explained that he had only said that the President had departed from his usual course of taking responsibility, when he transferred to the Senate the responsibility of deciding on the publication of these documents.

Mr. WEBSTER said he was quite satisfied with the direction proposed to be given to the documents. The resolution calling for this information was offered by him, and the terms suggested the alternative of a confidential reply, if deemed necessary. The information had not been communicated confidentially, but it was left to the Senate to determine whether the correspondence shall be published or not. This was all right and proper, he was bound to presume, and that there are good reasons for it. He was perfectly willing to refer the message to the Committee on Foreign Relations, in order that if there be any doubtful matter in reference to its publication, the doubt may be settled on the safe side.

The message was then referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

MARINE HOSPITALS.

Mr. WEBSTER offered a resolution calling on the Secretary of the Treasury, early next session, to inform the Senate as to the most suitable places and plans where and how hospitals for sick and disabled seamen may be erected.

Mr. W., on moving the consideration of this resolution, stated that this subject had recently been before

[JUNE 15, 16, 1856

Congress, when there appeared to be a want of informa tion. He was disposed that, as regarded the West, these hospitals should start from the Treasury, in order to set them going. They were usually erected out of the hospital fund, but the commerce of the West had increased to such an extent as to render it desirable that it should have the aid of the Treasury. He did not know that any hospitals, in addition to those in existence, are required in the Atlantic States. He had received some suggestions as to points where hospitals might be erected with advantage; but he would not go further, at this time, than to ask of the Senate the adoption of the resolution.

The resolution was then agreed to.

MICHIGAN SENATORS.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill to regulate the deposites of the public money.

The pending question, being on the motion of Mr. WHITE to reconsider the vote by which the bill had been recommited with instructions to report separate bills, a discussion ensued between Mr. WHITE, Mr. WRIGHT, (who asked for the yeas and nays, which were ordered,) Mr. WEBSTER, Mr. BENTON, Mr. CALHOUN, Mr. BLACK, and Mr. MORRIS; when the question was taken on the motion to reconsider, and decided as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Black, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Leigh, Mangum, Moore, Naudain, Porter, Pren. tiss, Preston, Robbins, Swift, Tomlinson, Webster,

White-22.

Mr. CRITTENDEN moved to reverse the decision of the Committee.

Mr. TOMLINSON ably, and at length, defended the decision of the committee, and illustrated the principles on which it was founded.

The discussion was further continued by Mr. CLAY, Mr. CRITTENDEN, and Mr. WHITE, against the decision of the committee; and by Mr. LINN, Mr. NILES, and Mr. TOMLINSON, on the other side.

Mr. WHITE moved a modification of the report. On motion of Mr. KING, of Alabama, the subject was then laid on the table.

MICHIGAN.

A message was received from the House of Representatives, by Mr. FRANKLIN, their Clerk, stating that the House had passed the bills from the Senate "supplementary to the act to establish the northern boundary line of Ohio, and for the admission of Michigan into the Union;""the bill supplementary to the act for the admission of Arkansas into the Union, and to provide for the execution of the laws of the United States in the same;" and "the act to provide for the execution of the laws of the United States in the State of Michigan," with amendments, in which they asked the concurrence of the Senate.

On motion of Mr. BUCHANAN, the Senate concurred in the amendments to the two first-mentioned bills; when

Mr. BUCHANAN moved that the Senate disagree to the amendment to the last. This amendment reduces the salary of the district judge of Michigan, from $2,000, as established by the Senate, to $1,500.

On motion of Mr. CALHOUN, the amendment was laid on the table.

PUBLIC DEPOSITES.

On motion of Mr. WEBSTER, the Senate took up the bill to regulate the deposites of the public moneys; the question being on Mr. WRIGHT's motion to recommit the original bill, with the substitutes reported by the select committee, and the amendments adopted by the Senate, to the Committee on Finance, with instructions to divide them into two separate bills, so that one shall contain all that relates to the regulation of the deposite banks, and the other shall contain all that relates to the disposition of the surplus.

Mr. CALHOUN had no desire to embarrass this motion by any indirection or technicality; but he was exceedingly desirous that the parliamentary rule should be observed within a reasonable degree. The first question was on striking out the original bill, introduced by himself, and inserting the substitute; and in that state of the question the gentleman from New York moved to refer it, with the substitute and amendments, to the Committee on Finance, with instructions. He held that they could not refer amendments under any parliamentary rule; and that, in recommitting the bill, all the amendments not concurred in in the House fell to the ground. Now, these instructions referred to the amendments made to the bill in Committee of the Whole; and therefore they referred to a matter which, under the parliamentary rule, could not go before the Committee on Finance. He contended that when a bill was referred to a committee, all that it could do was to recommend amendments to it.

[Mr. C. here read the rule relating to the subject.] The only parliamentary way in which the gentleman could get at his object would be to move to strike out the thirteenth section, and bring it in as another bill.

Mr. WRIGHT said that he was perfectly unable to debate points of order, and was quite unwilling to engage in such discussions. His object was to avoid all technicalities, and to get at the sense of the Senate in the

[SENATE

shortest possible way; and he therefore begged the presiding officer to decide the point of order. He would, however, observe that he was unable to discriminate between the committing a bill to a committee, with instructions to separate it into two parts, and the motion to strike out one part of a bill, and bring it in as a whole bill.

The CHAIR (Mr. KING, of Alabama) stated that he had no doubts on the subject, as to the power of the Senate. It could not only recommit the whole bill, but any portion of a bill, leaving the residue of it precisely as it stood either in committee or in the House. The parliamentary rule was precise. They could commit any portion of a bill to one committee, and the other portion to another committee, with instructions; and if they could thus commit two parts of the same bill to two different committees, it followed, of course, that they could instruct one committee to separate a bill into two parts. When it came, thus separated, before the Senate, it was in their power to take either proposition, or both, as the majority might decide.

[The CHAIR here read the rule, as follows:

"A particular clause of a bill may be committed without the whole bill, or so much of a paper to one and so much to another committee."-Jefferson's Manual, page 148.]

With respect to any amendments that had been made, it was the opinion of the CHAIR that they would fall when such commitment was ordered, unless they had been agreed to in the Senate; but this result can always be prevented by giving instructions.

Mr. MORRIS observed that it would be recollected that he stated to the Senate yesterday, that, in his opinion, it would be better to keep the two principles contained in this bill together. He yesterday voted to divide them, and he did so for the accommodation of those gentlemen with whom he usually acted. Since that time he had conversed with several of his friends on the subject, and they had come to the conclusion that it would be best, under all circumstances, to keep all the parts of the bill together. He should now, therefore, reverse his vote, in order that the whole subject might be considered in all its parts at the same time.

The question was here taken on Mr. WRIGHT's motion to recommit the bill, and it was rejected: Yeas 21, nays 25, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, Wall, Wright-21.

NAYS-Messrs. Black, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Leigh, McKean, Mangum, Moore, Morris, Naudain, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Webster, White-25.

Mr. WALKER offered an amendment, the effect of which was to strike out the ratio of the distribution of the surplus as provided for in the bill, and make it in proportion to the respective representation of the States in the Senate and House of Representatives.

On this subject, Mr. W. said he desired to call the attention of the Senate to a table, made out by a very accurate young gentleman, demonstrating what would be made in the portions of eighteen of the States, if his amendment should be adopted.

Mr. W. then read a table, showing that eighteen of the States will be the losers to a considerable amount by the distribution under the census of 1830. Now, it was admitted on all hands that there could be no constitutional objections to the proposition embraced in this amendment. When the land bill was under discussion, he offered an amendment on this principle, and it was

resisted on the ground that it was in violation of the ordinance of the State of Virginia. If there was to be any apportionment among the States, he appealed to every Senator if it ought not to be in accordance with equality and justice-that is, on the principle of popula tion-not at the time the census of 1830 was taken, but at the time the distribution is to take place. This he considered the only just principle of distribution.

Mr. W. then read another table, showing what would be the ratio of distribution according to the representation in the Senate and House of Representatives, and went on to show that this would be more equal and more just. If the distribution was made according to the census of 1830, twenty-two States would be losers; but if they distributed according to the electoral college ratio, as he proposed, only two States would be the losers, and these two of the larger States, who would lose to a very small amount. The distribution, as at present proposed, he looked upon as doing the greatest injustice to those new States whose population had increased since the last census.

Mr. WEBSTER was very willing to make any provision in this bill for the inequalities produced by the increase of population in the new States, but he was of opinion that there were insuperable difficulties in the way, and that the only plan of distribution that could be adopted was the one in the bill.

Mr. CALHOUN had been in favor of the plan of distribution proposed by the Senator from Mississippi, but had yielded his wishes in the committee, on the ground that it could not be carried through. It was in vain to contend against the opposition of six of the large States; and under these impressions he was constrained, though reluctantly, to vote against the amendment.

Mr. BENTON was glad that the Senator from Mississippi had taken the trouble to make out a table which showed the unequal working of this bill. He was glad that the Senator had made his motion, if no other good should result from it than to demonstrate the progress of this desire for dividing money. Up to the present time there had been a disposition to lean towards the weaker States, and to allow something for the rapid increase of their population. But as the disposition to get hold of the public money became stronger, this disposition to do justice to the new States decreased in proportion. And here he would remark that there was another consequence of this disposition to get hold of the public money, which was, that finding the surplus not enough, they must take the unexpended balances. If he could be willing to derive any good out of a great evil, he would let this bill pass-it would soon work its own cure. It had been predicted in the beginning of the session that the country would be utterly ruined, that the Government must stop, if the land bill was not passed; and now that the bill had passed the Senate, every man of common sense must be convinced that an end would be put to the Government if it ever went into operation, and it now seemed to be given up by all its friends.

He would repeat it on every occasion, that it was now nearly the close of the session, and that in the progress of dividing the public money they had wholly neglected the defences of the country. Not a dollar had, as yet, been expended for fortifications; for those fortifications about which there was so much crimination and recrimination at the commencement of the session; and the bill to fill up the ranks of the army was not yet acted on, though one portion of the country was suffering under the horrors of an Indian war. He stated these things for the purpose of marking the progress of this desire to get hold of the public money. The next thing would be the imposition of a high tariff, supported by the strong States, for the purpose of supplying a new fund for distribution.

[JUNE 16, 1836.

Mr. WALKER's amendment was then adopted: Yeas 23, nays 22, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Moore, Nicholas, Page, Porter, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Tipton, Walker, Wall, White--23.

NAYS--Messrs. Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Kent, Knight, Leigh, McKean, Mangum, Morris, Naudain, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tomlinson, Webster, Wright-22.

Mr. HENDRICKS said that he felt it his duty to offer an amendment to this bill before it was reported to the Senate, which he had occasion to refer to before. It was in reference to the interest provided for in the eleventh section. Some of the banks could not, under this section, become depositories of the public money and pay interest on it, because they were expressly prohibited by their charters from loaning it or deriving any advan tage from it. Mr. H. then moved to add the following, as an amendment to the clause providing for the pay. ment of interest:

"Except in cases where the charters of said banks prohibit them from doing business on such deposites."

Now he would state (Mr. H. said) that the Bank of Indiana was prohibited by her charter from discounting on her deposites; and, therefore, not being able to derive any profit from these deposites, they would not be willing to receive them on the condition of paying interest for them. If this amendment of his should not prevail, the interest clause ought to be entirely stricken out, for it could not be expected that banks would pay interest on deposites that they could not make any profit from.

Mr. WRIGHT said that he understood the restriction on the Indiana banks was, that they were prohibited from having more than twice the amount of their capi tal due to them at any one time; and the Senator from Indiana was not sure, therefore, that his amendment would reach the object. The same restriction (Mr. W. said) applied to all the banks in New York.

Mr. HENDRICKS read the provision in the charter of the Bank of Indiana, and explained that, under it, the banks never made any use of these deposites at all. After some remarks from Mr. EWING and Mr. PORTER,

The amendment of Mr., HENDRICKS was rejected, without a division.

Mr. CLAY, after some remarks, moved to strike out, in the 11th section, the word "two," and insert "four," so as to make the banks pay an interest of four per cent. on the deposites, instead of two.

This motion was opposed by Messrs. WRIGHT, KNIGHT, and EWING of Ohio.

Mr. HUBBARD, after some remarks, requested Mr. CLAY to withdraw his amendment, stating that, as the bill now stood, he could vote for it; but if the amendment prevailed, he should be compelled to vote against it.

Mr. CLAY then, by unanimous consent, the yeas and nays having been ordered, withdrew his motion.

On motion of Mr. WALL, the bill was further amended, by providing that the Secretary of the Treasury shall, as far as the public interest will permit, employ at least one deposite bank in each of the States and Territories.

Mr. WRIGHT then moved to strike out the 13th and 14th sections of the bill providing for the deposite of the surplus, after the 1st of January, with the States, and to insert a provision authorizing the commissioners of the sinking fund to invest it in stocks of such of the States as have stocks, bearing an annual interest of per cent.

After some remarks from Mr. WRIGHT, this motion was rejected: Yeas 4, nays 39, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Cuthbert, Rives, Tallmadge, Wright-4. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, Linn, McKean, Mangum, Moore, Naudain, Nicholas, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Southard, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Walker, Wall, Webster, White-39.

Mr. BENTON moved to strike out the words "deposited with," in the 13th section, and to insert "loaned to," so as to read that the [surplus] shall be loaned to the respective States, &c.

Mr. BENTON accompanied this motion with some remarks in its favor.

Mr. MORRIS opposed the amendment. The constitution, he said, prohibited Congress from loaning money. Now, he should be glad to know from the Senator from Missouri in what provision of the constitution he found the authority for making a loan to the States, or to any body else.

He voted for this bill expressly on the ground that it was a deposite of the public money with the States for safe-keeping, and not a loan, to which he was constitutionally opposed. The change that this bill had undergone since it was first introduced, making it a deposite bill instead of a loan bill, had enabled him to give his support to it.

Mr. BENTON said it was not for him to settle the gentleman's constitutional scruples. All he wanted was to call things by their right names; and this being to all intents and purposes a loan to the States, he wished to call it so in the bill.

On taking the question, Mr. BENTON's motion was rejected: Yeas 5, nays 37, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Grundy, Niles, Tipton, Wright-5. NAYS-Messrs. Black, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, Knight, Leigh, McKean, Mangum, Morris, Naudain, Nicholas, Page, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tomlinson, Walker, Wall, Webster, White-37.

Mr. WALKER moved to amend the bill by providing that the portion intended to be deposited with the State of Mississippi shall be deposited for three years, without interest, in the Planters' Bank of Mississippi, and to allow the Legislature of said State an opportunity of passing a law to authorize its receipt.

This motion was rejected: Yeas 15, nays 26.

Mr. WALL then moved to amend the bill in the first section by inserting, after the words "conform thereto,' the words "always having a regard as to the amount deposited, as far, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury, as is consistent with the public interest and the fiscal operations of the Government, and the relative representation of each State and Territory in both Houses of Congress."

This motion was lost without a division.

The bill was then reported to the Senate as amended; when

Mr. WEBSTER moved to strike out the amendment made on motion of Mr. WALKER, as to the ratio of distribution, and to insert again the part stricken out; and supported his motion in an argument of some length; but,

On taking the question, Mr. WEBSTER'S motion was lost: Yeas 22, nays 23, as follows:

YEAS--Messrs. Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Kent, Knight, Leigh, McKean, Mangum, Morris, Naudain, Prentiss, Preston,

[SENATE.

Robbins, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tomlinson, Webster, Wright--22.

NAYS--Messrs. Benton, Black, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Moore, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Porter, Rives, Robinson, Shepley, Tipton, Walker, Wall, White-23.

Mr. TIPTON moved to strike out the eleventh section, which charges interest on the deposites in the banks.

Mr. T. said that he desired very much to vote for that part of the bill, now before the Senate, that provided for the distribution of the surplus revenue of the United States among the several States; and he regretted to find that part of the bill in such bad company as the eleventh section, compelling the deposite banks, in which the public moneys were deposited, to pay interest of two per cent. on them. It might be fair to charge interest on deposites in banks that discounted on them; but this was not the case with the State Bank of Indiana. The charter of that bank prohibited issues on their deposites; and, as the business was now transacted, the deposites were of mutual benefit to the United States and the bank, as the money of the bank was receivable in the United States land offices. That bank would reject the public deposites, if interest was charged on them; as they would not be willing to pay even one per cent. to retain them, and the United States would have to transport their money beyond the limits of Indiana, and deposite it in a bank perhaps not so safe as he knew the Bank of Indiana to be.

On taking the question, Mr. TIPTON's motion was rejected: Yeas 7, nays 39, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Ewing of Illinois, Hendricks, Morris, Nicholas, Tallmadge, Tipton, Wright-7.

NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, Linn, McKean, Mangum, Moore, Naudain, Niles, Page, Porter, Prentis, Preston, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, South. ard, Swift, Tomlinson, Walker, Wall, Webster, White -39.

Mr. WALKER moved to amend the reported amendment, by inserting, at the end of the fourteenth section, these words: "Provided, also, that the amount directed by this act to be deposited with the State of Mississippi be and remain deposited, without interest, in the Planters' Bank of the State of Mississippi, until time be af forded for passing an act by the Legislature of the State of Mississippi, authorizing the receipt of the portion of that State under the provisions of this act."

The question on this amendment was decided in the negative: Yeas 21, nays 24, as follows:

YEAS--Messrs. Benton, Black, Buchanan, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Moore, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Preston, Rives, Robinson, Shepley, Walker, White--21.

NAYS--Messrs. Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Leigh, McKean, Mangum, Morris, Naudain, Porter, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster-24.

Mr. BLACK moved to strike out the thirteenth and fourteenth sections of the bill, which provide for the deposite of the surplus with the States. Rejected: Yeas 7, nays 39, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Cuthbert, Grundy, Niles, Walker, Wright-7.

NAYS-Messrs. Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Ewing of Illinois, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of

Georgia, Knight, Leigh, Linn, McKean, Mangum, Moore, Morris, Naudain, Nicholas, Page, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, White--39.

The amendments were then concurred in, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, Linn, McKean, Mangum, Moore, Morris, Naudain, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, White--40.

NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Cuthbert, Grundy, Walker, Wright-6.

The Senate then adjourned.

FRIDAY, JUNE 17.

The CHAIR communicated the following letter:

SENATE CHAMBER, June 16, 1836.

SIR: I beg leave to inform the Senate, through you, that I have resigned my seat, as a Senator from the State of Delaware, in the Senate of the United States, from and after this day.

In thus taking leave of the Senate, permit me, sir, to tender to you, and, through you, to the body over which you preside, the assurance of my high regard. I am, sir, most respectfully, your obedient servant, ARNOLD NAUDAIN.

To the Hon. MARTIN VAN BUREN,
President of the Senate.

DEFENCE OF NARRAGANSETT BAY.

[JUNE 17, 1836.

I am glad of the opportunity afforded by these resolutions to speak upon a subject on which very erroneous ideas, or rather very imperfect conceptions, have obtained, I mean the importance of those waters, the subject of these resolutions, as connected with the naval defences of the country, and of the unwise, not to say culpable, neglect they have met with from the Government.

For securing maritime power and defence to this country, the waters of Narragansett bay present the most important point for a naval station and depot; by far the most important of any on the whole line of our seacoast, from the northeastern extremity of Maine, on the bay of Passamaquoddy, to the mouth of the Sabine, on the Gulf of Mexico. I say this on the authority of the ablest naval engineers of the world, especially of those of France and England, as well as of our own country; not only of the present time, but of all time back to our revolutionary struggle; all concurring in this opinion, an opinion founded upon a detail of the comparative advantages of these waters, with the waters of all other ports on our coast; a detail bottomed on actual and accurate and scientific inspection and examination and survey, and tested too by experience. France and England have possessed themselves, and long since, of the most accurate and minute surveys of those Rhode Island waters, with all their soundings and bearings, and with all their naval facilities of every description. Their knowledge on this subject has been, till recently, much more complete than our own; and it is a fact that our surveys have been perfected by means of theirs. Their appreciation of the decisive and pre-eminent importance of those waters, in case of a war, has gone far before our own. As one proof of this, let me remind the Senate of one historical fact. At the treaty of peace in 1783, France had an idea of effecting a transfer of our dependance on Great Britain to a dependance on herself; and discountenanced our

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS,

In General Assembly, May Session, A. D. 1836. Resolved, That, in the opinion of this General Assembly, it is highly expedient that all such fortifications as may be adequate to the best defence and protection of the waters of the Narragansett bay and its adjoining coasts and country be completed by the United States, in such manner and at as early a period as is consistent with the convenience of the Government, and a proper regard to the effective construction and durability of said works, as well as to the importance of its waters for purposes of navigation.

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this General Assembly, supported by the united opinions of the most eminent engineers, the Narragansett bay is susceptible of a complete defence; that, being accessible at all seasons of the year, and with nearly every wind, to the largest fleets which this country can ever maintain, it offers them within its bosom the only safe station, comprising such advantages, north of the Chesapeake bay; that it is invaluable as a port of expedition and naval rendezvous; and that thus not only the State, but the whole Union, is interested in its effective defence.

Resolved, That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be requested to lay these resolutions before the respective bodies of which they are members, and to use their best exertions to obtain the necessary appropriations to carry into effect the views of this General Assembly, as before expressed. Witness:

True copy.

HENRY BOWEN, Secretary. After these resolutions were read, Mr. ROBBINS addressed the Senate as follows:

by Great Britain as a preliminary to the treaty, and would independence, and herself its guardian; and, to strengthhave made the treaty the sole basis and guarantee of our en her in this character of guardian, manifested a desire to have ceded to her a foothold in this country--suggesting that the island of Rhode Island should be that foothold, where and whence she could most effectively wield her power for our protection. But our ministers convinced the British minister that it was their interest as well as our own that their acknowledgment of our independence should be a preliminary to any treaty; and France was thus baffled in her sinister scheme.

I recollect in a conversation I once had with General Hamilton, many years ago, he spoke to me of the paramount importance of the waters of Rhode Island, in a view to our maritime power and defence; and then remarked to me that he had had occasion to know that they were viewed in the same light by the Governments both of France and England. Indeed, when the case is understood in all its merits, it decides itself; for then every one must see that, as to maritime power and defence, these waters present a point, formed by nature herself, to be, as those nations consider it, the Gibraltar of this country. And as it would be in our hands for power and defence, so it would be in the bands of the enemy for power and offence. With a firm foothold there, the enemy would hold the reins in his own hands, to control the war, and direct its storm at will both by sea and land.

I have said that those waters possess advantages in the aggregate beyond comparison before those of any other port on our whole maritime frontier; and, I now add, beyond those of any other port in the whole world. I say this, too, on the authority of those who have seen all our ports; who have visited the most celebrated ports in other parts of the world; who have made the subject a