Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

June 28, 1836.)

Rescinding Resolution.

[SENATE.

two cases.

gress were not left to statutory enactments, but are re received by the body, and disposed of. During the quired to be kept by the constitution itself.

same day a member moyed to return the petitions, and Those who insist that we bave the power to expunge, to expunge the order for their reception from the jourseek support from precedents; and it has been said that nal; which was done accordingly. in the sixth year of the reign of Henry VIII. it was The first observation I make is, that we are to keep enacted that a record should be kept of the leaves of a journal of our proceedings. In other words, at the absence granted to different members of the Parliament. | end of each day our record ought to show the result of And from this it is argued that Parliament was bound our judgment upon each subject before us. The jourby law after that time to keep a journal; and if they nal of that day does not show this precisely. After the expunged any of their proceedings, so may we. To entry was expunged, the subject of those memorials was this I answer, that the expunging of an entry made on placed precisely where, in the judgment of that body, the journal after that time, on any other subject than it ought to rest; and that was, that Congress should have of giving leave of absence to a member, is of no more nothing to do with it. I will illustrate my meaning by a weight than if such a statute had never been enacted; familiar case. A merchant, in the forenoon, sells a bale and gentlemen had not produced, and I do not believe of cloth to a customer, who pays him one hundred dolthey can produce, a case in which either House ex- lars for it. He enters the transaction on his journal. In punged any such entry. The statute did not require a the afternoon of the same day the customer returns, and record to be made of any thing except leave of absence; asks the merchant to take back the cloth, and return and if any other proceeding was recorded in the same him his money; with which request he complies; and, book, it was by some order of the House; and the same instead of encumbering his journal with another useless power could, at any time, order it to be expunged, just entry, he scratches out, or, in other words, expunges, as well as if it had been recorded in any other book, the entry he made when he sold the cloth. After this Our constitution requires that we shall keep a journal expunging, his journal will show the exact truth relative of all our proceedings; and we ought to preserve the to this bale of cloth; that is, it will give no account whatwhole with as much care as the Parliament did their ever of the transaction, because the cloth was his in the leaves of absence.

morning, and it is still his the next morning. If we exBy the articles of confederation, Congress was required punge the resolution of 28th March, 1834, by an order to publish every month the journal of their proceedings; now made, our journal of that day will be so altered as and from this it is inferred they were bound to keep a not to show the result of the Senate's judgment on that journal of all their proceedings. In the first place, I day upon that subject; therefore, there is no likeness in think this inference very far from imposing the same obligation upon the old Congress that is imposed on us Again: if they were similar, the precedent ought to by the present constitution. In the next place, if it did, have no weight whatever. There was no time for either what cases have gentlemen shown of any matter being discussion or deliberation. Besides, this was done in expunged from their journals? None.

high party times; related to an exciting topic-Burr's It were a useless consumption of time in me to notice conspiracy--and the expunging was ordered by a strict. in detail the different cases cited, to show that the jour. | ly party vote. nals have been expunged by both Houses in Great Bri The second case is that which occurred in the House tain, under the Colonial Government in Virginia, and in of Representatives in 1822. the State of Massachusetts; because the same general an- ! MrRandolph announced the death of Mr. Pinckney, swer may be given to all. The Legislature was not requi- who was not dead; and, for that reason, moved an adred, by either a constitution or a law, to keep a journal. journment. The adjournment took place; and the next The journal was only kept by virtue of the order or day he moved that the reason assigned for the adjourn. usage of each House, and could be changed at any time, ment should be expunged, because it was not true; and it to any extent either House might think right. But a was accordingly expunged. In this case, what the House precedent has been referred to in my own State, and did was not expunged. It had, in fact, adjourned, and there the constitution does require that each House shall so the journal still shows; but the reason why they came keep a journal. Gentlemen who rely upon this precedent | to a decision to adjourn, being founded in mistake, was have been misinformed. They have not named the case, expunged. but I can be at no loss as to what the reference is made. Now, sir, the journal at this moment shows, as well It must be the case of Judge Williams, who was im | as it did when the entry was made, the proceedings of peached and tried; and to convict, the constitution re. | the House on that day; and all the alteration produced quired two thirds of the members. When opinions were is, that the reason for one of their acts cannot be known, expressed, there were two thirds for conviction, if absent as it is expunged. But in the case under consideration, members were not counted; if they were, there were not to expunge would be to destroy all evidence of a deci. two thirds. Upon this point there was a great variety of sion itself; for which I insist we have no precedent in opinion, and ultimately the presiding member discharge the case relied on. The truth must be, the members of ed the Judge as acquitted. On the next morning, when the convention were well aware of all the precedents in the journal was read, a member moved to correct it, be Great Britain, and in our own country, which existed cause the court had authorized no such order. This when they framed the constitution, and intended to leave motion, it will be perceived, was in a court; therefore, nothing to the discretion of either House. They intendno precedent for us. Next, it was not to expunge any ed effectually to secure a just accountability from the thing which the Senate had done, but to strike from the representative to the constituent; therefore, they used journal that which had been put there by mistake, and in the constitution itself the imperative language, “Each which the body never had ordered. Now, sir, if a man House shall keep a journal," &c. Let us not, then, be were set to search a case unlike the one before us, he misled by precedents which we fancy may bear us out. could not do better than take the Tennessee case. At best they are nothing but crutches on which weak

Two precedents have been referred to in the pro minds sustain themselves;" and if we are sustained by ceedings of Congress, upon which I will make one or these precedents in expunging the resolution of 1834, two remarks.

the precedent which we will now make may sustain On the last day of the session of 1806, two petitions those who come after us in expunging important princiwere presented by a member of the Senate, complain ples from the constitution itself. ing of the conduct of one of our courts. They were l' It is urged that the mere act of expunging the journal

VOL. XII.-119

SENATE.]

Rescinding Resolution.

(JUNE 28, 1836.

is not a matter of any importance; it is the effect or and expunge from the journal every thing which had moral of the resolution which it is desired to remove been done by political opponents, from the adoption of Why not adopt my resolution, then! No man can doubt the constitution, which we chose to say was unconstituour power to rescind, repeal, and reverse, the resolu- tional; all entries relative to the alien and sedition laws, tion. The bad moral taught by the resolution will be chartering of banks, &c. These entries, which we removed by the subsequent decision pronouncing the deem violations of the constitution, of all others, are the former one to be erroneous. But it is thought best to ones we ought to desire should stand. By them the use the word “expunge," as, by the use of that word disgrace of political opponents' would be perpetuated. in parliamentary proceedings, the principles of civil Were I one of a majority who voted for such unconstiliberty have been maintained in other countries. If | tutional proceedings, I would feel very grateful to opit has been always used for wise and good purposes else. ponents who would wipe out, or expunge, the evidence where, let us be cautious that we do not so use it as of my disgrace so soon as they obtained the power. eventually to produce mischief in this the most free and But again: we find in the constitution, first article, favored country in the world.

third section, these words: It appears to me, however, that this word, like every "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend thing else over which we have no control, has been further than to removal from office, and disqualification sometimes used when correct principles were asserted, to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit, and, in other instances, when the reverse was the case. under the United States; but the party convicted shall, When King James entered one of the Houses of the nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment, trial, British Parliament, and with his own hand expunged judgment, and punishment, according to law." the journal; when the House of Lords expunged the And, in article two, section four, the language followrecognisance entered into before the Lord Mayor of ing: London; and when the journals of the Virginia Legisla- The President, Vice President, and all civil officers ture were expunged, or attempted to be expunged, of the United States, shall be removed from office on during the Colonial Government, it was not the watch impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, word of the friends of liberty. I am not aware that it or other high crimes and misdemeanors." ever has been used, and I fear it never will be used, in To my mind it is very clear that neither the President aid of civil liberty, or the rights of man, when the pro- nor any other civil officer can be impeached, unless he cess is resorted to to gratify the feelings of those in is charged with some crime. The question then is, power, who are generally too prone to believe liberty is does the resolution of the 28th of March, 1834, charge attacked whenever any portion of their conduct is disap- the President with the commission of a crime! It is in proved, or there is any attempt to impose restraints on these words: their liberty to do as they imagine is most for the public "Resolved, that the President, in the late executive good.

proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has asMr. President, I propose in the next place to exam- sumed upon himself authority and powers not conferred ine the soundness of the reason assigned why we may by the constitution and laws, but in derogation of both." and ought to expunge,

It is with this resolution, and this only, we have to It is briefly this: that, as the Senate is the tribunal es. deal. As to what the bank or its agents had said or tablished by the constitution to try the President when done, or as to the arguments or speeches of gentlemen, impeached, it is unconstitutional to pass a resolution the Senate has given no opinion; and, upon the question which charges him with a crime for which he might be now pending, we have nothing to do with them. I impeached; and that this resolution not only charges, affirm that this resolution does not impute to the Presi. but convicts him of a crime. I do not concur in this dent any crime or misdemeanor whatever. There can opinion, and beg leave to assign my reasons for dissent be no such thing as a crime, without a bad motive. The ing from it.

resolution is entirely silent as to the motives by which Under the constitution, the powers of the Senate are the Chief Magistrate was governed. It therefore charges judicial, executive, or legislative; judicial, when trying nothing but mere error of judgment. It alleges he impeachments, executive, when advising the President assumed powers not conferred by the constitution or in relation to treaties, or as to the persons to be appoint- laws; but whether the motives which induced him to ed to office; legislative, in making laws, and in every assume these powers were virtuous, or the reverse, is thing connected with making, amending, or repealing not stated. If they were to promote the public good, them. [Constitution U. S., art. 1, sec. 1.)

and he honestly believed the powers he assumed bad The power of the Senate in all legislative matters is been conferred, although he might be mistaken, yet he equal to that of the House of Representatives in all re- ought to be applauded as a patriot, instead of being censpects, with the single exception, that bills to raise rey sured as a criminal. enue must originate in the House. In the discharge of Intention to do wrong--bad motives--are the essence any legislative or executive duty, any individual mem- of crime, and without them there can be no such thing. ber may say in his place that the President, or any other in this very case, if, in every act the President did, he civil officer, has assumed powers not conferred upon mistook his powers, but still acted from high and pure him by the constitution or laws. What any one may motives, no honest tribunal upon earth could convict him lawfully say, every other may say with equal propriety. of crime. This new doctrine of crime without evil inWhat any one or all may say, individually, all, or a ma | tent has no sanction in morals, in reason, or in any adjority, may, with propriety, express by way of resolu- judged case. The only cases referred to for its support tion, which is nothing but an expression of the opinion are the impeachments against Judges Chase and Pickerof a majority on a given subject.

| ing. In the first of these, it is true, some of the articles The objection to this resolution is, that it charges the of impeachment did not charge bad motives, but upon President with, and convicts him of, a crime, for which those he was acquitted without a dissenting voice. be may be impeached by the House; and, in that case, In Pickering's case, the question was whetber he was it would be the duty of the Senate to try him; therefore, sane or not. He had been a highly respectable man, it was unconstitutional to adopt the resolution.

but acted badly on the bench; and it was alleged he was To this I answer, first, if it were an unconstitutional deranged. It was answered, if he was deranged, it was act to pass the resolution, it furnishes no reason why from intemperance, and therefore an aggravation of the it should be expunged. If it did, we might go back I offence; and on that ground he was convicted. God

JUNE 28, 1836.)

Rescinding Resolution.

(SENATE.

forbid that a doctrine so unreasonable, so inconsistent I have charged him with no crime; and, having given with our imperfect condition, as that of crime without an opinion that his conduct was unlawful does not evil design, should ever be sanctioned anywhere, espe- disqualify me. If this were so, we must reverse the cially here. You and I are obliged to act in this very whole order of things; and whenever a judge is called question; it is our public duty to form opinions, and act on to decide a cause similar to one he had before deupon them; we disagree; must one of us be guilty of a cided, we must exclude him, and appoint some other; crime? Look at the situation of courts. A cause is tried whereas the common impression has ever been, that the before two judges in an inferior court, and they disagree; judge is the better qualified for having examined and must one be a criminal? A writ of error is taken from previously decided the same or a similar question. an inferior to a higher tribunal, and the judgment re- In England a peer cannot be challenged because he versed; are the judges of the court to be viewed and has previously given an opinion; nor can a Senator here. treated as criminals? If they are, suppose there to be a They are judges, having a right to decide the law as still bigher tribunal, to which the same cause is carried, well as the facts of the case. and the last decision reversed, and the first established: / But the Senate heretofore attempted to exercise this what are you to do then-punish the second set of very power in the case of the Panama nominations. Mr. judges?

| Adams, (I beg pardon, the late President,) in his mesIn the federal circuit courts, a judge of the Supreme sage, told us he had the power to have sent ministers Court and the district judge decide a cause; a writ of without consulting the Senate, but, as they were soon to error is taken to the Supreme Court, where the same be in session, he thought it best to delay the appointjudge forms one of the court, and he concurs with his ments, and consult them. A resplution was submitted, brethren in reversing his own decision. What is to be denying this claimed power, and a long discussion endone with him? According to this strange doctrine, he is sued. If we contested this claimed but unexerted obliged to be guilty of a crime, because he has decided power, can any one doubt but, if it had been exercised, against himself. Away with such doctrine; it is absurd. / we would have denied it by a resolution if we could? Error and crime are as distinct as the motives by which For one, I never doubted but the President honestly angels and devils are governed.

entertained the opinion expressed. The great error in the argument on the other side is The subject of removing the deposites had been reguoccasioned by not attending to the distinction between larly brought before the Senate by the report of the the acts of private citizens and public officers. A private Secretary of the Treasury. It was one on which we had individual does an unlawful act; the law presumes he did a right to legislate. We had a right to know why it was it from bad motives; because, so far from being com- done, and how it was done; to either approve or disappelled to act, it was his duty not to act. In the case of prove; to legislate upon it; to direct the money to be a public officer, he is compelled to act; he is sworn to returned, or to be kept any where else; in short, to apdo so; and whenever he does an official act, the pre-prove or disapprove what had been done. We could sumption is that his motives were good, although the have thanked the Executive for his prompt attention to act may have been contrary to law. If the law were not the public interest; for his efficiency in displacing one so, no honest man, conscious of his defects, would ever Secretary, who would not remove the money, and apfill an office. He is bound to act--sworn to do so; and pointing another who would. Why, then, had the Senwhen he uses all the means within his reach to inform ate no power to say that, in doing these things, he transhimself, and exercises his best judgment, he is innocent, cended his powers? To me it appears they had constiwhether his acts are lawful or the reverse. This dis- tutionally the power to pass the resolution. But it then tinction between the acts of individuals and of public was, and yet is, my opinion that, in exercising this pow. officers runs through all the cases which can be found in er, the Senate themselves erred when they resolved that our books. The acts spoken of in the resolution as he had assumed powers not conferred. I believed he assumptions of power, in derogation of the constitution had the power to remove the Secretary, and to do every and law, were acts done by the President in his official other act then attributed to him, if he believed a proper capacity; therefore, the resolution imputes to him no case was made out for its exercise. Am I to be told by criminality whatever.

Senators who voted for the resolution that I committed The Senate unanimously adopted a resolution against a crime when I voted against them! I hope not. Nor the late Postmaster General, condemning some of his am I at liberty to say they committed a crime when they acts as unlawful; but it charges him with no crime. If disagreed in opinion with me. This is every thing the error is hereafter to constitute crime in our public offi. resolution charges the President with. He thought he cers, I should like to know who is to be judge. Who feels had the power which he exercised; a majority of the that he has the infallible standard? If any one will say | Senate thought he had not, and so expressed themselves “I have it," my word for it, if you will cultivate his in the resolution, not questioning the purity of the mo. acquaintance, you will soon find he wants the common tives from which he acted. By doing so, they did not requisites--integrity and talents--essential to constitute a assume any power not conferred on them by the constitolerable judge. "

tution. If we expunge the journal, then we will have estab. In Great Britain the House of Lords acts as a court. lished the doctrine that, in every case, a President, or A writ of error lies there to remove a cause from the any other civil officer, may assume authority and powers Court of King's Bench. Suppose a cause thus removed, not conferred by the constitution and laws, but in dero- and the judgment reversed, because the judges had asgation of both, and we dare not say that is our opinion. samed powers they did not possess; if they were afterAgainst such a doctrine I enter my protest. We not wards impeached for so deciding, because they were only have the power, but it is our duty to exercise it bribed, could not the Peers try the impeachment? Unwhenever such a case occurs. Suppose the President doubtedly they could. I cannot vote to expunge or deto nominate for some office a man who already holds the face our journal, because I think the constitution forbids office of governor or judge; I surely would have a right it. I cannot assign as a reason for either expunging or to say I will not vote for him, because I think he has, in rescinding the resolution that the Senate had no power the office he now holds, assumed powers he did not pos- to adopt it, because I do not think so; and because I sess, and therefore I will not trust him farther. After think it of the last importance we should retain with the having said so, if he is impeached, I cannot be chal-Senate those powers vested in it for high and important lenged and excluded from sitting as one of his triers. I purposes, and which are, or may be, essential to preSENATE.)

Rescinding Resolution.

(JUNE 28, 1836.

serve the liberty of the people: but most willingly can I his letter to be applied to a purpose not intended by the vote to rescind, reverse, and repeal, the resolution: be- writer. Cause I think that the Senate erred in adopting it. To These few facts, independent of many others which say the least, there are doubts of our power to expunge; might be stated, satisfy me that he did interfere, and use and no one, I think, ought to be certain the Senate had his influence with the people to regulate their opinions no power to adopt the resolution. Why, then, shall we in the elections. cling to the word “expunge," and to this reason, when Secondly. He interfered with the Legislature. there is a plain course to pursue, in wbich what is due 1. On the next day after they assembled, under his to the Chief Magistrate and to ourselves can be accom-frank, each member received three numbers of the ex. plished? To me the reason is obvious. To expunge tra Globe, amounting to three hundred. Here is one of has become an executive measure. It is now the watch them, frank and all. Some of these Globes contain word of a party; and, by its use, those are to be hunted matter of the lowest kind, intended, no doubt, to disdown who will not conform to the will of the party. Ingust the members with their former Senator, and to pres March, 1834, when the resolution was adopted, a ma-vent his re-election. jority of the Senate was opposed to the Chief Magistrate. 2. He wrote a letter to Mr. Nicholson, one of the His long and valuable services have endeared him to the members, which we bave seen published in the newspaAmerican people. They are sensitive as to every thing per, in which he complains of the former Senator for which can affect his reputation as a man or as an officer. not defending bim on the expunging resolution at the

At the last session, the member from Missouri (I doubt last session, and justifying the use made of his franking not, from a conviction of the correctness of the proce- privilege. dure) submitted his proposition to expunge. The Chief 3. He wrote a similar letter to Mr. Brown, another Magistrate bad made up his mind who should be his suc- l member, a copy of which I now hold in my hand. . cessor, and bad determined to use all his personal influ- 4. He wrote to Mr. Guild, one of the leading mem. ence and official patronage to secure his election. Whilst bers, a letter containing an argument to prove the proprithere was a majority of the Senate opposed to him, this ety of instructing the Senators to vote for expunging the patronage could not be brought to operate with full ef- resolution of March, 1834, and urging the propriety of fect. Upon discussing the expunging resolution, the giving such instructions, and authorized Mr. Guild to opinions of every Senator were expressed. The times submit it to the perusal of other members, which he of some were then expiring-the very day of voting. did; and The venerable Chief Magistrate at once saw the use 5. From this place was sent to this same Mr. Guild which could be made of this instrument, and he has given a copy of the form of expunging, which the Senators it his full influence ever since, under the hope that, were to be instructed to use; and this form corresponds, through its use, the Senate could be expurgated; mem- as I have understood, with that used in the resolution bers whom he deemed unworthy of the station excluded; proposed at this session by the Senator from Missouri. and their places supplied by others, in his opinion, more 'All these facts prove that the first object was to deworthy. He seized the weapon, and has wielded it with feat the re-election of a Senator who, at the last sesall the effect he could. The cry "expunge” was raised, 1 sion, bad shown he would not conform his conduct to and has been continued. I shall speak of what I know, the will of the Chief Magistrate; and, when that failed, and what I believe to be true. The time of one of the to cause such instructions to be given as it was known Senators in my own State bad expired. Members of the that that Senator could not obey, and thereby force him Legislature and of the House of Representatives were to to resign. Both these objects failed. The Senator was be elected in August. The Chief Magistrate interfered, I re-elected, and the Legislature would not give any inthrough the agency of others, in the elections to be structions. made by the people, and in the election to be made by Mr. President, I have not stated these facts by way of the Legislature. Does any one who hears me doubt / complaint against the Executive. I perhaps am, least this statement? He need not. The following facts will of all others, competent to judge whether such a course show, incontestably, that he interfered in the elections was in conformity with his station or bis peculiar situato be made by the people:

tion; but I state them that justice may be done to the in1st. His two letters addressed to the Rev. Mr. Gwin, dependence of the Legislature, and to their determinawhich all who look into newspapers must have read. tion not to be persuaded or forced from what they They were intended for publication, and were actually thought to be the path of duty. Their course is the published.

more commendable, when it is remembered they sat 2d. Besides the number of copies of the Globe within a few miles of his residence; were surrounded by itself, hundreds of which he has sent to Tennessee un his personal friends; and that they themselves can fur. der his frank, he franked many copies of the pros-nish from their own body many of his earliest, firmest, pectus for the extra Globe, which contains very little and most undeviating political and personal friends. Let except misrepresentations and insinuations utterly un- / it be remembered, also, that they then were, and now founded and untrue. There can be no pretence that are, the firm and unflinching supporters of his administhis was sent because it contained any speech, or any tration, upon every point where his measures conform public document. There is no such thing in it. I hold to the principles avowed to bring him into power. Yet one that he sent to Tennessee, frank and all, in my hand, they would not, and did not, give their Senators any injust as received by the gentleman to whom it was ad-structions upon this question. They were willing to dressed; and many others were scattered through the trust them without instructions upon this as well as country under his frank.

other points; and on this account it is that I feel myself 3d. He wrote a letter to Mr. Curry, which was used under higher obligations to endeavor to carry out the in Colonel Standefer's district, with a view to influence will of my State upon this subject, than I should have public opinion.

been if formally instructed. 4th. He wrote a letter to my colleague, a copy of My opinion had been expressed, and was well known; which was furnished to Mr. Johnson, who used it in his I believe it conforms to the opinion of my State and its canvass upon the stump, with a view to aid his election; Legislature; and I hold myself especially bound to enand it must have been intended for such use when writ: deavor to have it effected by the adoption of the resoluten, otherwise we must suppose my colleague abused tion which I have submitted. Those wbo believe that the confidence of the Chief Magistrate, in permitting I either I or the people of my State are opponents of the JUNE 28, 1836.]

Joseph Grant-John Brahan.

(SENATE.

administration, mistake our character.
mistake our character. Our politics are

Our politics are

The ayes and noes were then demanded by Mr. as they have been; we now stand on the same ground, WRIGHT, and ordered, on the motion to strike out. advocate the same principles we did in 1828, when sus. The question was then about to be taken, when taining General Jackson to bring him into power. But Mr. HUBBARD moved to lay the bill on the table; we are the slaves of no man; and when it is attempted which was decided in the negative: Yeas 18, pays 20. to ingraft on our principles a system which does not be The question was then taken on the motion to reconlong to them, I will not yield my assent, be the conse- sider the vote amending the bill by inserting the proviso, quences what they may. My wish is to rescind, reverse, and decided in the negative: Yeas 18, nays 19.and repeal, the resolution of 1834, because, in my judg. The question was then taken on the engrossment of ment, it is erroneous, and because I believe such is the the bill, and decided in the affirmative: Yeas 19, judgment of my State. To vote to expunge it, I can. | nays 17. not; because, in my opinion, the constitution forbids it; (This bill was to renew a patent, expired perhaps two and, anxious as my constituents are to vindicate the years ago, for a machine for making hat bodies. Since character of the Chief Magistrate, they will never re- the expiration of the patent, the invention had fallen quire me to do so at the expense of that sacred instru into the public hands, and was now in common use. ment, which we are all under the most high and most Mr. RUGGLES introduced an amendment to secure to solemn obligations to maintain inviolate.

those who have the machines the right of using them, Mr. WALKER expressed the grounds on which he notwithstanding the renewal of the patent. The bill should vote against the resolution.

had been originally ordered to be engrossed, with The yeas and nays being ordered, the question was ta this amendment ingrafted upon it; but as it was comken on the rescinding resolution, and decided as follows:

plained that this prevented the patentee from making YEAS-Messrs. King of Georgia, White-2.

any advantage of his invention, the motion to reconsider Nays--Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Brown, Bu. was made.) chanan, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis,

PATENT OFFICE. Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Hubbard, Kent, King

On motion of Mr. RUGGLES, the Senate took up of Alabama, Knight, Leigh, Linn, Nicholas, Page, Rives, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Swift, Tomlinson,

the bill providing for a building for the accommoWalker, Wright-28.

dation of the Patent Office, the bill being on its third So the resolution was negatived.

reading: Mr. WRIGHT presented certain resolutions of the

Mr. CLAY called for the reading of the communica. Legislature of New York, instructing their Senators to

tion made by William Brent and others, offering to sell

the old brick capitol to the Government, for the use of support Mr. Benton's expunging resolutions. Mr. W.

the Patent Office; which being read, said that he had had these resolutions in his possession

Mr. RUGGLES laid before the Senate a communicafor some time, and had only delayed presenting them till the subject was called up in the Senate.

tion from the chairman of the committee of the other Mr. CLAY observed that, as the resolution of the

House on the subject; which was read; and after some Senator from Tennessee was disposed of, he thought it

remarks from Mr. RUGGLES in support of the bill, and would be proper to take up the other resolution on the

from Messrs. CRITTENDEN and CLAYTON in opposame subject and dispose of it also. He had not the

sition to it, charge of these resolutions, and would therefore make

Mr. CLAYTON moved to recommit the bill to the no motion.

Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to report a • Mr. CLAYTON said that he would move to take it up.

bill providing for the purchase of the building formerly He did not wish to make a speech on it, but having been

| used for the temporary accommodation of Congress; and instructed by his Legislature to vote against these ex

after some remarks from Messrs. RUGGLES, CLAY. punging resolutions, he wished to record his vote in obe

TON, and CALHOUN, the motion was rejected by the dience to his instructions.

following vote: Mr. WRIGHT observed that there were only thirty

Yeas-Messrs. Bayard, Black, Clay, Clayton, CritSenators present, and he hardly thought Igentlemen

tenden, Davis, Goldsborough, Kent, Leigh, Moore, would take a question of such importance when the

Nicholas, Page, Porter, White-14. Senate was so thinly attended.

Nays-Messrs. Benton, Buchanan, Calhoun, Ewing Mr. BENTON said that he had intended to ask for the

of Ohio, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King vote on his resolution after the resolution of the Senator

of Georgia, Linn, Morris, Niles, Preston, Rives, Robinfrom Tennessee was disposed of, or rather to give no

son, Ruggles, Swift, Tomlinson, Walker, Wall--19. tice of the hour when he would call it up, in order that

Mr. RUGGLES moved to amend the bill by adding there might be a full attendance of Senators when they

the following proviso: “providing a contract can be came to the vote. If 12 o'clock to-morrow was agree

made for the erection and completion of the same in & able to the Senate, he would call up the resolution at

workmanlike and faithful manner, for a sum not exceedthat hour..

ing $108,000, to include all expenses whatever;" which Mr. CLAYTON expressed his concurrence in Mr.

amendment was agreed to; and on the question, Shall Bentor's notice, and withdrew his motion.

this bill pass as amended? it was decided in the affirma.

tive: Yeas 20, nays 11, as follows: JOSEPH GRANT.

YEAs--Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Buchanan, Calhoun, On motion of Mr. KNIGHT, the vote by which the Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Hubbard, Kent, King of bill for the relief of Joseph Grant had been ordered to a

Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Nicholas, Niles, third reading was reconsidered.

Page, Robinson, Ruggles, Swift, Tomlinson, Walker, It was then moved by Mr. KNIGHT to strike out the Wall--20. amendment which secured from harm those who had | Nays-Messrs. Black, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Da. used the invention (for hat bodies) since the patent bad vis, Goldsborough, Leigh, Moore, Porter, Southexpired, which this bill was intended to renew.

ard-11. Some discussion took place, in which Mr. RUGGLES,

JOHN BRAHAN.
Mr. WRIGHT, Mr. PORTER, Mr. CLAYTON, Mr.
CLAY, Mr. PRESTON, Mr. KNIGHT, and Mr. NILES,

| On motion of Mr. MOORE, the Senate proceeded to took part.

the consideration of the report of the Secretary of the

« AnteriorContinuar »