MOORE, Mr. CALHOUN, Mr. WEBSTER, Mr. LEIGH, Mr. WRIGHT, and Mr. SOUTHARD, took part. The Committee on Commerce had reduced the amount of appropriations in this bill one third from that which had passed the House. Mr. CLAYTON asked for the yeas and nays on the reduction made by the committee of the appropriation for Newcastle harbor, in order that he and his colleague might record their votes against it. The yeas and nays being ordered, the question was taken, and decided in favor of the reduction: Yeas 22, nays 5. The other amendments of the committee were concurred in. On motion of Mr. DAVIS, the bill was amended by the addition of an appropriation of $30,000 for surveys, under an existing law of Congress. The bill was then reported to the Senate, and ordered to a third reading by the following vote: [SENATE. who were married during the war and who have remained widows since; which amendments were agreed to, and the bill was ordered to a third reading. DELAWARE BREAKWATER. The bill making additional appropriations for completing the Delaware breakwater, and for the improvement tain rivers, was read the third time and passed: Yeas 25, of certain harbors, and for removing obstructions in cernays 12, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hendricks, King of Alabama, Linn, Niles, Page, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright-25. gia, Leigh, Mangum, Nicholas, Porter, Preston, Rives, NAYS-Messrs. Black, Calhoun, Clay, King of GeorWalker, White-12. DEFENCE OF THE FRONTIER. The bill to provide for the better protection of the western frontier was taken up. YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Clayton, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Ewing of Illinois, Goldsborough, Hendricks, King Mr. CALHOUN said a few words in opposition to the of Alabama, Linn, Niles, Page, Robbins, Robinson, bill, and proposed laying it on the table, that the subSouthard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster,ject might be taken up next winter, when they would Wright--20. be in possession of the estimates and surveys for the NAYS--Messrs. Calhoun, King of Georgia, Leigh, military road contemplated. Walker, White-5. At half past one, the Senate adjourned. Mr. PRESTON opposed the motion. Mr. TOMLINSON called for the yeas and nays on the question; which were ordered, and it was decided in the affirmative: Yeas 18, nays 15, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Grundy, Hendricks, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Nicholas, Robinson, Southard, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, White-18. NAYS-Messrs. Black, Calhoun, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Kent, Leigh, Mangum, Moore, Porter, Preston, Robbins, Ruggles, Swift, Walker, Wright-15. Mr. TOMLINSON explained and advocated the bill. Mr. PRESTON opposed it, as extending the pension system to an enormous and alarming degree. The debate was continued by Messrs. CALHOUN and KING of Georgia, who moved to amend the bill by confining its benefits to the widows and orphans of those who have died or may die of wounds actually received in service, or who have been killed or may be killed in action. After a debate the amendment was adopted. Mr. TOMLINSON submitted a further amendment, embracing the widows and children of certain revolutionary pensioners who have died since March, 1831; and an amendment at the suggestion of Mr. BUCHANAN, to provide for widows of revolutionary officers and soldiers Mr. LINN and Mr. BENTON severally addressed the Senate in support of the bill; after which it was ordered to a third reading, and subsequently read the third time and passed. LIGHTHOUSE BILL. Mr. DAVIS, from the Committee on Commerce, made a report on the bill from the House making appropriations for lighthouses, &c., referred to that committee yesterday. The report states that, in so short a period give to the bill that examination which its importance as that allowed to them, it had been found impossible to required; and, although there are many useful objects which must suffer, the committee find themselves compelled to return the bill, for the Senate to make such disposition of it as may be thought desirable. HARBOR BILL. ported the bill making appropriations for certain harMr. DAVIS, from the Committee on Commerce, rebors, &c., with amendments. The Senate then proceeded to the consideration of the bill. considered and agreed to. The amendments reported from the committee were $8,000 for the improvement of Chagrin river, and of On the amendment striking out the appropriation of $20,000 for the improvement of the mouth of Maumee river, Mr. EWING, of Ohio, resisted the striking out; but the amendment was agreed to: Ayes 23, noes not counted. Some discussion ensued, in which Mr. DAVIS, Mr. part, until 3 o'clock, when the Senate took a recess till CALHOUN, Mr. WEBSTER, and Mr. NILES, took 5 o'clock. EVENING SESSION. HARBOR BILL. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill making appropriations for harbors, &c. Mr. SOUTHARD moved to strike out the appropriation for an ice-breaker, &c., on Staten Island. The amendment was negatived: Ayes 14, noes 15. Mr. PRESTON moved to amend the bill by striking out the appropriation of $20,000 for deepening the harbor of Baltimore. Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH and Mr. KENT defended the appropriation. Mr. KING, of Georgia, said he might be disposed to go somewhat at length into the subject of the bill, had not the most important principles connected with it already been very fully discussed. As we were pressed for time, his principal object was to give to the Senate the history of our legislation upon the subject of harbors, more in detail than had been presented, by which it would be seen that gentlemen were greatly mistaken when they supposed that this system had age to recommend it. He was astonished at the mistake of the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BUCHANAN,] and the Sena tor from Massachusetts, [Mr. WEBSTER,] who had stated that we were only pursuing the policy adopted by the Government from the date of the constitution. Congress had passed an act in 1789, to pay the expenses of keeping in repair such lighthouses, buoys, beacons, public piers, &c., as the States might cede to the General Government. Some cessions were made, and the statute had been executed at a very trifling expense, for the system of jobbing had not been encoura ged by the State Governments, which had only constructed such works as were of some utility. But on the passage of this act did we find States, commercial cities, corporations, villages, and private specu lating companies, pouring in upon Congress to improve their harbors, and make new ones, at the common ex pense of the nation? Not so. They never dreamed of such a thing. Such works had been constructed at the expense of those who were benefited by them, and it never occurred to any body that such works should be constructed at the national cost. Until recently, a system had been introduced resulting in benefits entirely local, building up cities and enriching individuals at the cost of the Government. He had drawn off, he said, a statement which would show how far Senators were in error when they supposed this system had commenced with the Government. The first appropriation which he had been able to find for such objects as those contained in the bill was in 1816. Mr. K. then read to the Senate the following statement of appropriations made for harbors by the General Government: Appropriations for surveys, harbors, and rivers. 1816 Here was a little upwards of three hundred thousand dollars appropriated by the Government between 1789 and 1828, and not one dollar had been appropriated for these objects for twenty-seven years after the adoption of the constitution; yet some shrewd patriots had all at once discovered that the commerce of the country would be ruined, unless two or three millions per annum should be appropriated by the Government for these local and partial purposes. Mr. K. continued the statement. He said in 1828 the breakwater was commenced, and $250,000 was appropriated for that purpose, and something for other objects, as follows: 1828 (including $250,000 for Delaware breakwater,) 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834-5 [JULY 2, 1836. $317,402 10,181 671,000 541,300 457,256 458,056 Thus the history of this harbor-making would be seen. It never commenced till 1816, when a small appropriation of $30,000 was made. Was that a precedent so popular as to be immediately followed up? No; Congress seemed so alarmed at that small transgression, that nothing more was appropriated until 1821, when the small sum of $2,500 only was appropriated, and the ap propriations continued to be trifling, and principally for old works, except the Delaware breakwater, till 1832, a year which would be long remembered by the political economist of this country, as one in which a premium was offered to any one who could suggest the best means of squandering the public money. From that time the appropriations had averaged about half a million, till this year. This year, said he, we had sent to us bills from the House for near three millions, including lighthouses, and upwards of two millions for harbors alone. The bill for new works, then before the Senate as sent from the House, was near a million, and, by an estimate made by the intelligent chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means in the House, was the commencement only of an expenditure of at least ten millions on the new works proposed. He thought the expenditure would be much more, and, from past experience in such works, the proposed new works would cost thirty millions; for it was a singular fact, that this local jobbing, once commenced, was almost interminable; and some works had cost annually, for many years, as much as the first estimate, and the estimated cost of completion more than the original estimate. It would always be so, when we undertook to war against nature, and make harbors where God never intended them, or to appropriate money merely to give a job by its expenditure. This vast expenditure was almost entirely confined to one section of the country, and was drawn from the Treasury by local combinations for no national purpose. It could not be borne by the people generally, when understood. If the proceedings of this session were an earnest of what we had to expect in future, he looked upon the subject as one of the most important that had ever agitated the councils of the country. There was nothing national in it, and the tariff was a blessing to the South, when compared with it. The tariff benefited large communities, and however onerous, was national and patriotic in its origin, and the patriotic of every section of the country were disposed to forbear long with those who struggled to maintain interests that had grown up under it. But this was a new system of local bounties and private specula-tion. Those who had the most modesty got the least money, and those who had the least conscience got the most money. The South had constitutional scruples upon the subject, and asked for nothing, got nothing, wanted nothing. It was, he said, not only internal improvements, but internal improvements in the worst form, and (except for our naval stations) he would like to know how those opposed to internal improvements could vote for cutting out a harbor to aid the approach of vessels to a village, and could not vote for a road between one State or one city and another. They pretended to derive their power from the power to "regu late commerce with foreign nations." Well, did not the same power, in the words, extend to the regulation of commerce among the several States?" If one was unconstitutional, the other was equally so; and the advan tage was greatly in favor of the road in every other view; JULY 2, 1836.] Harbor Bill. [SENATE. don't want it, strike it out;" and was a great national interest to be controlled by the simple wish of an individual? But such language was perfectly natural, con were got up. Who asked for or recommended them? Any general interest? No; the applications were all from cities, from individuals, or from companies who laid out sites for towns, got Congress to make them an appropriation for a harbor, and then sold out their lots on speculation. Thousands were squandered in bribes for votes, by making an appropriation for objects entirely useless, and where the only advantage was a job in the expenditure of the money. for that would be a useful highway for all the world who travelled it, and the other confined its advantages to enriching a petty corporation, or a few individuals. But it had been said by the Senator from Massachu-sidering the manner in which these speculations and jobs setts [Mr. DAVIS] that our revenue was collected at these ports; and there was an obligation to open them and keep them in repair on that account. And was our revenue increased by clearing out and multiplying these harbors? Not a single dollar. On the contrary, the more the ports were multiplied, the greater the expenses of collection; and consequently the revenue was diminished by the amount of this increase, and by all we expended on harbors beside. How would our national commerce suffer by an obstruction in the harbor of a particular city? If there should be an obstruction in the harbor of New York, it would only give a neighboring city some advantage, until New York, whose interest was affected, removed the obstruction. But if the Government removes the obstruction, other cities contribute to these very improvements, which have a direct tendency to injure them. If the ports of Charleston or Philadelphia, he said, had advantages over New York, that was a matter of rival interest between those cities, and had always been so considered, until this modern invention of taxing the people of the United States to relieve those who were alone interested. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WEBSTER] had stated that other Governments had paid for opening and repairing harbors in their commercial cities. This, he thought, was not generally true. Some of the despotic sovereigns of Europe, without any limitation of power or sense of justice, occasionally took cities under their royal protection, and disbursed the public money upon them without regard to any particular rule. But the rule, he believed, was most generally to authorize the city to levy a tonnage duty on vessels for this purpose; this was the correct mode; this gave to each city its own natural advantages, and taxed those who had the benefit of the improvement. The Senator from Massachusetts, he said, was equally in error, when he stated that the States or cities had never considered themselves bound to keep their own ports in repair since the adoption of the constitution. This was directly contradicted by the history of every important seaport in the Union, and particularly that of Baltimore, which had just been mentioned by the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. PRESTON.] Maryland had granted an annual appropriation for Baltimore of $30,000, to keep the harbor of that city in repair. As a punishment to the city for the late outrages on private property, permitted and committed by its citizens, that fund had been taken to indemnify those who had suffered by those outrages. And now, for the first time, Baltimore comes here, and, by joining in the combination, gets the same amount from the national Treasury. This, Mr. K. said, was a fair illustration of the whole system. Maryland comes into the concern, and the people of the United States are made to pay for the depredations of a Baltimore mob. Again, said Mr. K., I have shown that harbors have been made and improved by those to whom they belonged, from 1789 until a few years back, or have not been made or improved at all. And if they had needed no improvement for so many years, he thought it good evidence that this rush for millions all at once was uncalled for by the public interest. The truth was, the public had nothing to do with the matter. This vast combination, that was to plunder the Treasury of so many millions, was made up of interests purely private and local. What was constantly the language used on the floor of both Houses, if any member expressed a doubt, who had a few thousands offered to his own State, to bribe him into silence? Why, it was, "if you Mr. K. said it could not be disguised, and ought not to be denied, that this abominable system of plunder was carried through Congress by interested combinations, and could succeed in no other way. Members, by the skill of the managers, were frequently placed in such a situation that they were obliged to vote for the bill, however objectionable, to save themselves with their constituents. An honest member of the other House had told him that he had in this way been compelled to vote for the bill, although he pronounced it "a bill of abominations," and hoped it might be arrested in the Senate. The member alluded to had pronounced this new harbor bill one of the most corrupt combinations of interested speculation that had ever disgraced the country, and such Mr. K. said he believed it. Mr. K. then called the attention of the Senate to another trick by which these managers had furnished evidence of their skill. It would be recollected that we had passed a moderate harbor bill long since, and sent it to the other House. We have never heard of it since, said Mr. K., until we find it actually incorporated in the monster before us. Why was this? Why, it was only to unite the interests of the two bills. Among other things, no doubt, great calculations of strength were made, by uniting the breakwater with the improvement of the Mississippi, and by this unnatural union between the French and the Friends, we are, said he, swept on by a current as irresistible as that of the Mississippi itself. And here he was reminded, he said, of the curious argument of the Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. NILES.] That Senator had given us sound doctrine, with much ability, and great earnestness. He had pronounced the whole system wrong, partial, unconstitutional, and unjust, and condemned the bill as very objectionable; yet concluded by saying he should vote for the bill, because, now the system had commenced, we could not stop it! I know "we can't stop it," said Mr. K., unless we vote against it. This fraudulent expenditure is doubling on us by millions per annum, and gentlemen denounce it, as in duty bound; express their alarm, shut their eyes, and vote for it; and say, "we can't stop it." Mr. K. said he felt some difficulty in comprehending the principle which led to this fatal necessity. He hoped even the friends of the bill would have some mercy upon the South and West, and be satisfied at the present session with the enormous bill already passed. Let us, said he, have a little time to recover from the shock, and look into this heavy bill pushed upon us at the very last hour of the last day of the session, involving an expenditure so enormous, and which the committee themselves tell us they have had no time to examine. He hoped they would allow the bill to lie over till the next session, to give time to learn, at least, where the places are for whose benefit we proposed to saddle the country with such a vast expenditure. There was another reason, he said, why the friends of the bill should be content with this course. That was, the great amount of our appropriations during the present year, and the extreme difficulty of procuring labor at any SENATE.] Appropriation Bill--Suspension of the Rules. price. Labor was now one hundred per cent. on the usual prices. And the great additional demand that would be created by these large Government expenditures would render it impossible to expend any thing | during the present year with any regard to economy. He hoped these considerations would induce the Senate to postpone the bill to the first day of the next session, and he made a motion for that purpose. Messrs. WALKER and MANGUM addressed the Senate in favor of Mr. KING's motion. Mr. KING, of Georgia, then withdrew his motion, and moved to strike out all the items in the bill except the item of $75,000 for improving the mouth of the Mississippi, and asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. The question was taken, and decided as follows: Yeas 17, nays 21: YEAS-Messrs. Black, Calhoun, Clay, Cuthbert, Ewing of Ohio, Grundy, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Leigh, Mangum, Moore, Nicholas, Porter, Preston, Rives, Walker, White-17. NAYS--Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Buchanan, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Kent, Linn, Niles, Page, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Webster, Wright--18. So the motion of Mr. KING was negatived. Mr. KING, of Georgia, renewed his motion to postpone the further consideration of the bill until the first Monday in December, and asked the yeas and nays; which were ordered. The question was taken, and decided as follows: Yeas 17, nays 22: YEAS--Messrs. Black, Calhoun, Clay, Cuthbert, Ewing of Ohio, Grundy, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Leigh, Mangum, Moore, Nicholas, Porter, Preston, Rives, Walker, White-17. NAYS--Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Buchanan, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Kent, Linn, Niles, Page, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright--22. So the Senate refused to postpone the bill. The question was then taken on the renewed motion of Mr. PRESTON to strike out the clause of $20,000 for deepening the harbor of Baltimore; which was rejected: Ayes 14. The bill was then reported as amended, and the amendments having been concurred in, the yeas and nays were ordered on the question of engrossment and reading it a third time. There was a brief discussion between Mr. CLAY, Mr. PRESTON, Mr. WALKER, Mr. BUCHANAN, and Mr. KENT, when Mr. PRESTON moved to strike out the item of five hundred dollars for a survey of the mouth of the Susquehanna, but withdrew his motion. Mr. KING, of Georgia, renewed the motion, and called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered; and the ques tion was then taken, and decided in the negative: Yeas 14, nays 24. Mr. PRESTON moved to strike out the appropriation for the harbor of Georgetown, South Carolina: Yeas 21, nays 15. Mr. KING, of Georgia, moved to strike out the appropriation of $10,000 for the harbor of Brunswick; which was negatived. The amendments were then ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time: Yeas 21, nays 17. The bill was then passed. APPROPRIATION BILL. Mr. WRIGHT, from the Committee on Finance, to [JULY 4, 1836. which had been referred the amendments of the House to the bill in addition to the act making appropriations in part for the support of Government for the year 1836, made a report thereon, recommending that the Senate concur in the amendments of the House, with the exception of the amendments for removing the naval monument to the botanic garden, $2,000,” and “ for extending the enclosures of the Capitol square, $25,000," which they recommend to be stricken out. On taking the question of concurring with the committee as to striking out the provision for extending the grounds, the Senate refused to strike it out. The appropriation of $2,000 for removing the naval monument was stricken out. Mr. KING, of Georgia, moved that the Senate do not concur in the amendment of the House appropriating dollars for the purchase of books and documents for the new members; which motion was agreed to: Yeas 15, nays 10. The other amendments were concurred in. CHOCTAW TREATY. Mr. MOORE moved to take up the bill for the adjustment of certain claims to reservations of lands, under the fourteenth article of the treaty of Dancing Rabbit creek, with the Choctaw Indians; which motion was agreed to. Mr. WALKER moved to amend the bill by striking vision appropriating $30,000, in addition to the sum alout the whole of it, and inserting in lieu thereof a prodians now in the State of Mississippi to the west of the ready appropriated, for the removal of the Choctaw InMississippi river. Mr. PRESTON submitted whether it was in order to move to strike out the subject of the bill, and to insert an entirely different subject. The CHAIR decided that it was always proper to move to strike out and insert. After a debate, in which Messrs. WALKER and MOORE took part, Mr. EWING, of Ohio, moved to lay the bill on the table; which motion was agreed to. After taking up and finally acting upon several other bills, It was ordered, on motion of Mr. EWING, of Ohio, o'clock on Monday morning. that when the Senate adjourns, it adjourn to meet at 8 The Senate then (at 3 o'clock) adjourned, only eight members being present. MONDAY, JULY 4. ADJOURNMENT. Mr. GRUNDY submitted a resolution for the appointment of a joint committee to wait on the President of the United States and inform him that the two Houses were ready to adjourn, and desired to know whether he had any further communication to make to them. On the suggestion of Mr. WHITE, the resolution was suffered to lie on the table for the present. MRS. ANN ROYALL. On motion of Mr. PRESTON, the report of the Comtition of Mrs. Ann Royall, was taken up. mittee on Revolutionary Claims, unfavorable to the pe Mr. P. moved to reverse the report, so as to read that the prayer of the petitioner ought to be granted. Mr. WHITE explained the nature of the claim, [interest on the commutation for half pay of the petitioner's husband, a captain in the revolutionary war.] Messrs. PRESTON and WALKER briefly advocated the claim, and after some remarks from Messrs. WHITE and MANGUM, the report was laid on the table. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES. A message was received from the House of Repre sentatives, by Mr. FRANKLIN, their Clerk, stating that the House had suspended the seventeenth joint rule of the two Houses, which declares that no bill shall be sent to the President for his signature on the last day of the session, until two o'clock, so far as relates to the bill for the repair of the Potomac bridge; the bill to amend the judicial system of the United States; the bill repealing the provisions in the tenth section of the tariff act of 1832; the bill to confirm certain land claims in Missouri; the bill to repeal the provisions of the act of 1792, which requires issuing the certificates on imported wines; and the bills that were passed by both Houses on Saturday, and not submitted to the President. The question on taking up this resolution requiring the unanimous consent of the Senators present, Mr. MANGUM objected to the consideration of the resolution. The CHAIR declaring that the resolution could not be considered, Mr. WALKER said he felt strongly inclined to appeal from the decision of the Chair. The CHAIR then read the 48th rule of the Senate. Messrs. LINN and WALKER expressed their wishes that the Senator from North Carolina would withdraw his objections, so far as related to the bill to confirm land claims in Missouri, and the bill to carry into effect the compact between the United States and the States of Mississippi and Alabama. Mr. MANGUM said he felt constrained to avail himself of the privilege conferred on him by the rule, and object to the resolution. His long experience in the Senate had convinced him of the great advantages resulting from the rule which the House proposed to suspend, and the great mischiefs that would result from dispensing with it. It had been adopted after a full knowledge of the inconveniences of the old practice, and had been found to have the most beneficial effects. They all knew the experience of Congress was such, that some of the most important bills had been passed on the last night of the session, without debate, whipt through the other House, and they (the Senate) were called on to assent to them without knowing whether they were passed by a quorum or not. Although he felt the strongest disposition to yield to the wishes of gentlemen whose constituents were interested in particular measures, yet, on this occasion, he felt it his duty to persist in his objections. He felt that making any exceptions would be equivalent to a departure from the rule altogether; and if they excepted in favor of any particular measures in the Senate, why might not the House do the same thing, and carry it farther? He appealed to gentlemen whether his course in that body had not always been conciliatory and ready to yield to the wishes of a majority; and he assured gentlemen that, in this instance, he was actuated by no unkind or unaccommodating feelings, but solely by a sense of duty. Mr. CALHOUN said they all knew that this rule was adopted after many years of experience, and that, on the last day of the session, the Executive had no opportunity to examine a number of bills. He felt obliged to the Senator from North Carolina for making his objec. tions, as he thought it highly important that the rule should not be relaxed. Mr. LINN did not suppose, for a moment, that his friend from North Carolina was actuated by any unkind feelings, but that his objections were prompted by a sense of duty; but he begged him to reflect a moment whether there were not occasions on which the most rigid rule should be dispensed with, and whether this was not one of them. It appeared (Mr. L. said) that this rule had been relaxed on more than one occasion, and he trusted the gentleman would see that there were VOL. XII.-122 [SENATE. If some reasons for not so rigidly adhering to it now. there was one single bill that ought to pass, why let it be excepted; but if it should be found that all ought not to pass, or that there were objections to them tending to create discussion, why let them fall. In this particular case he wished to except from the rule the bill for the confirmation of land claims in Missouri; a measure to which there was not the slightest objection, and one of the greatest interest to his constituents, who had been long anxiously looking for its passage. He should regret exceedingly to see that measure, which had passed both Houses, and only waited the President's signature to become a law, cut off by the rigid adherence to a rule which could not have been intended to apply to such a case. He could not conceive that it was the duty of the Senate of the United States to make its rules as irreversible as the laws of the Medes and Persians, or that it ever intended to make rules that should by no possibility be relaxed. He admitted the general propriety of the rule, but he repeated the hope that the Senator from North Carolina would see that there were occasions on which it might be departed from. Mr. WALKER felt conscious that the objections of the Senator from North Carolina, and sustained by the Senator from South Carolina, resulted from a strict sense of duty; but he appealed to those gentlemen whether their objections to bills that had been passed in a hurry, rightfully applied to bills that passed after full consideration, and to which there were no objections. He begged gentlemen to consider whether such bills ought not to be excepted from the general rule. The bill he particularly referred to, and which he felt so anxious should become a law, was the bill to carry into effect the compact between the United States and the States of Alabama and Mississippi, relative to the sixteenth sections of school lands, which pass d the Senate two months ago, was reported favorably on by the Committee on Public Lands unanimously, having the sanction of its chairman, [Mr. EwING, of Ohio,] who was so rigid in his examination of every bill relating to the public lands. Now, he appealed to gentlemen whether the rule ought to apply to such a bill as this. He did not wish the rule to be suspended with regard to any bill to which there was the slightest objection; and he hoped the Senator from North Carolina would yield to the general wish of the Senate, and withdraw his oppo. sition. Mr. BLACK read a list of the bills which would be sent to the President under the resolution, if adopted by the Senate, and said that he would offer an amendment to prevent its being carried further. After some remarks from Mr. PORTER, The CHAIR stated that the rule was imperative. The rule was, that no bill or resolution should be sent to the President on the last day of the session. The Chair, however, felt bound to sign the bills, and, in the mean time, any gentleman who thought proper might appeal from the decision. Mr. MANGUM said that, the measure he regarded as the most pernicious not being included in the resolution, he would yield to the wishes of his friends and withdraw his objections. Mr. LINN said that his friend from North Carolina, in withdrawing his objections, had acted with that kind. ness and good feeling which had always characterized his course in that body. If he could mention one act which would confer a greater degree of happiness on a particular portion of the people, he would refer to the bill he had already mentioned; and in behalf of those who would be so essentially benefited by this most just and necessary measure, he returned his thanks to the Senator from North Carolina for withdrawing his objections to the suspension of the rule. |