Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

The SPEAKER said the gentleman from Massachusetts had declared that these were not his precise words, and the question for the House to determine was, whether they were the words or not; and then the Chair would decide on the point of order.

Mr. MERCER inquired if the member from Massachusetts desired to alter the words, as written down. Mr. ADAMS. Yes; strike out every word in which I am represented as alluding to a present debate in the Senate. I allude to the "National Intelligencer." Mr. REED, of Massachusetts. To whose speech does the gentleman allude?

Loud cries of "order! order!"

Mr. HARDIN rose to say something, but the House called loudly for order, and

The SPEAKER decided that that gentleman was out

of order.

Mr. HARDIN. Oh! very well, Mr. Speaker, but I will be heard some time yet.

"Order!" "order!"

And the question was then put, "Are the words reduced to writing, the words spoken by the member from Massachusetts?"

Whereupon, the House decided that they were not the words spoken; and so there was no question of order before the House.

Mr. ADAMS then proceeded. Mr. Speaker, I do assure this House that my object, in the resolution I have now offered, is precisely the same with that which the gentleman from Virginia has, with sincerity I doubt not, offered as his motive for endeavoring to arrest me in my address to the House. It is my wish to restore harmo. ny between all the departments of this Government, not only between this House and the Senate, but also between both Houses of Congress, if possible, and the executive department. For, let me now say, that if ever there was a time when harmony, perfect and complete, between the different departments of this Government was necessary, that time is the present. The people of this country call for it; the interests of the nation demand it; and this is my motive for submitting the resolution before you. Sir, I trust that if this House will indulge me with the appointment of the committee I demand, that committee will have it in their power to report that all the charges which have been made against the House of Representatives of the last session of Congress are utterly groundless and unfounded. Believing that such will be the result, in the appointment of this committee, I hope that it will contribute to restore the harmony, which can no longer exist under present circumstances, between the two branches of the Legislature of this country. The restoration of that harmony depends upon the vindication of the honor of the House of Representatives at the last session of Congress; for, if that vindication cannot be made complete, I see no prospect of any harmony between this House and the other at the present session of Congress, and more especially upon that most important of all subjects before us, our relations with a foreign Power--the question of peace or war.

Sir, the foundation of my resolution is entirely defensive; its object is to vindicate the late House of Representatives from reproaches, such as I believe to be utterly undeserved. It is difficult for me to reconnect together the train of thoughts which I was presenting to the House at the time I was interrupted; but I will come to one or two points, which, I believe, require to be elucidated, in order to restore harmony between the two Houses. Whilst giving the history of the introduction of that section for the appropriation of the three millions, I assigned the cause for it, and, in assigning the cause, I said that, in the multitude of reproaches as to the unconstitutionality of the proceedings, both of the

[H. OF R.

Executive and the House of Representatives, at the last session, one of the great charges was, that the House inserted this appropriation without a recommendation from the Executive. This, sir, was the great basis upon which was founded that burst of patriotic indignation and eloquence, which would rather have seen an enemy " battering down the walls of this Capitol" than have agreed to this appropriation for the defence of the country. Sir, only one step more was necessary, and an easy step it was, for men who would refuse an appropriation, even in the terms and under the specifications in which that was proposed, if the enemy were at the gates of the Capitol-I say, there was only one step more, and that a natural and easy one--to join the enemy in battering down these walls.

The

[At this stage of Mr. A's remarks, there was a loud burst of applause from every part of the House. Speaker called upon the House to aid him in the preservation of order, and remarked that such an innovation of the rules and dignity of the House had not been known for the last ten years.]

Mr. A. continued. Sir, I pass from that subject to the incidents which occurred in the passage of that bill. I have stated that this section was introduced, from absolute necessity, upon the very last day of the session, because it was the consummation of the unanimous vote of the preceding day; which, in the opinion of many reflecting men, and even of those who voted for the resolution, might probably lead to hostile measures, and might compel the country to appropriate all its resources to the purposes of its own defence. This was the foundation upon which the appropriation was introduced into the bill. And are we now to be told that this and the other House must not appropriate money for the defence of the country unless upon the recommendation of the Executive? Why, sir, the Executive has told you, in his message, that this appropriation was perfectly in accordance with his views, and that declaration is made the ground of the charge of unconstitutional conspiracy and man-worship upon the part of this House, for consenting to that appropriation. Where was the possibility of a recommendation from the Executive of all the estimates to be made from the Department, of all the messages and communications from this to the other House of Congress, to demand these three millions? The resolution of the House passed the day before; that resolution was passed in consequence of a communication from the Executive, and was the act of this House, upon the recommendation, and in furtherance of his views, as expressed in his communication to Congress. What, sir, is the meaning of all these charges of man-worship? Am I a man-worshipper of the President? I appeal to the conscience of every man in this House. I voted for that appropriation in the bill; and if there is one act in which I glory more than another in my life, it is the vote I gave on that occasion. Am I chargeable with man-worship for so voting? Sir, in the repeated occasions which I had to address the House on this subject whilst before it, I certainly did take the liberty of differing with the Executive in relation to certain measures proposed by him. This House differed from the Executive; this House did not adopt the measures recommended by the Executive. But this House, and, thank God, the people of this country, have done homage to the spirit of the Executive which suggested the measures they did not approve. Now, I repeat again, why is it that this House must be charged with man-worship and unconstitutional conspiracy with the Executive of the United States, because they passed an appropriation for three millions of dollars for the defence of the country, at the time when there was believed by many to be imminent danger of war, without a message from the President, and esti

[blocks in formation]

mates from the Departments?--when it was well known that the resolution passed upon the last day previous to the day on which the session was to close, and when this very appropriation was proposed, instead of another resolution, founded upon the recommendation of the Executive? If you will look to the journal, you will find that the present chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, at that time the chairman of the Com. mittee on Foreign Relations, at that time gave notice to the House and to the world, that, instead of the resolution founded upon the recommendation of the Executive, he should propose this very appropriation of three millions of dollars.

We are told in the newspaper that no one knew any thing of the matter; that it was not known till afterwards. No, sir, nothing that passed in the House, more especially going to defend the honor of this country, was known to a certain party of another House; nothing of that kind had been done there. In that place there had been abundant evidence shown upon their journals that they would not do any thing which had the recommendation of the Executive. If you look to the journal of that year to find a syllable of what they thought should be done for the interest of the country, you will look in vain, or you have better eyesight than I have.

Here is a fact as regards the relations of the country with France at that time; there were two systems of policy, or, rather, three. There were the measures recommended by the Executive. (I may refer to these matters now, because they are matters of history.) In another place, there were resolutions passed, very explicitly declaring that they would not do what the Executive recommended; but there was no resolution saying what they would do; there was no resolution having any allusion to a question with a foreign Power. This is not to be found upon their journal. In this House a different course was pursued. This House did not, under the influence of man-worship, adopt the specific recommendation of the Executive, but it adopted that unanimous resolution to show that, although the specific recommendations of the Executive did not meet their views, yet that the rights of the country and the execu tion of the treaty were to be insisted on. Well, sir, in another branch of this building it seems it was not even known what was doing in this House, and we are told now that they knew nothing about this resolution of the House which had passed unanimously, there being 217 approving ayes recorded on your journal.

That resolution, sir, was the cause of the appropriation; and I believe that in the impartial estimate of the people of this country, and of posterity, it will be found a sufficient cause for the appropriation of the money for the eventual defence of the country, notwithstanding that there were no estimates from the Departments, and no formal declaration of the Executive, betwixt the 2d of March at 12 o'clock at night, and the 3d of March at 8 o'clock in the evening, when that resolution was proposed. The simple statement of the fact that the appropriation arose from the vote of the House, knocks to the ground the whole scaffolding against it, that it was not recommended by the Executive. I ask, where is the objection now? All the eloquence and indignation and horror of the violation of the constitution, of the conspiracy with the President of the United States, and of man-worship on the part of this House, are all gone; not a shadow is left. But, sir, it is not an unnatural thing, in looking for motives for public actions, to imagine that this diversity of policy on the part of the House was by no means welcome in the other part of this building, for the reason that the course taken by this House in the face of the nation was, with out question, a declaration that, in another place, there had not been sufficient attention paid to the rights, honor,

[JAN. 22, 1836.

and interest of the country. The force and power of this resolution was felt. What was the consequence? We did vote the appropriation; and if that vote could have had any effect abroad on the foreign country upon whose action all was depending, to sustain the honor and rights of this nation, the failure of the bill was equally calculated to destroy any effect which that vote might produce.

Well, sir, the three million appropriation was received in the Senate in a most unfortunate temper. I now speak of that, sir, and beg to refer to the proceedings. In the first place, a motion was made for the three millions in this House at seven or eight o'clock in the evening: the yeas and nays were taken upon it-there was little objection made to it here. It was understood by the whole House, upon both sides, that the proposition was in consequence of the resolution the night before; and that that was the foundation of the appropriation. There was not a syllable of objection made here, on the ground that no recommendation from the President or estimates from the Department had been received. No man rose to object to it on this ground. All knew what was the real cause of the proposition; that it was the vote of the previous night; for notice had been given by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in withdrawing his resolution, that measures ought to be taken to put the country into a state of defence. This was the resolution for which was substituted the appropriation of the three millions, explicitly confined to a contingent necessity, intended to provide against the possibility of an enemy battering down the walls of this Capitol. I said, sir, that the proposition was received in another place in a bad temper. Now for the authority: the resolution appears on the journal of this House, as follows:

"And be it further enacted, That the sum of three millions of dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended, in whole or in part, under the direction of the President of the United States, for the military and naval service, including fortifications and ordnance, and increase of the navy; provided such expenditure should be rendered necessary for the defence of the country prior to the next meeting of Congress."

This was the object. Was this House squandering the public money when they made this appropriation? No, sir. But will it be said that this appropriation might have been abused? Well, sir, when the country is invaded, when the country has an enemy at her walls, it is a sorry objection to make to an appropriation for defence, that it might possibly have been abused. It is a sorry objection to say, that you have no confidence in the man at the head of your Government, that he would apply the money to the proper purpose. I had no such objection. I did believe, in the honesty of my heart, that if an occasion had arisen for the expenditure of this money, it would have been faithfully expended for the purposes for which it was devoted by this House; and whatever may be my opinion of, or my relations with, the head of this Government, I hope the sentiment with which I voted for the appropriation cannot be charged to man-worship.

Upon this appropriation 109 names are recorded in the affirmative; and of this number my own name is recorded as the first. And if all the members of the House are here present, there are seventy-two gentlemen who now hear my voice, whose names are also recorded for it. Are they man-worshippers? Are they conspirators against the constitution of the United States, with the President, or any other human being, or association of human beings? If we are, I apprehend that those who charge us must bring some other evidence of the fact before they will be believed by the people of

[blocks in formation]

this country, or by impartial posterity. And, sir, among those seventy-two names, I recognise some whose opinions by no means accorded with those of the Execu tive, or with those of the majority in this House-names of men who, if they were capable of any thing like man-worship, which I do not believe, it would not be for the present tenant of the executive mansion, but for some other men, even for men who now make this charge against them.

I said that this section of the bill was received in a bad temper in the Senate. There was a burst of indignation and of eloquence against this appropriation; and the Senate immediately disagreed, with very little debate, I believe. They sent their disagreement to this House. Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I appeal with certainty to your recollection as the then chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, when I say that upon this disagreement you did me the honor to ask me, as I had voted for the bill and the appropriation, what the House should do? and that I said that I should vote for receding, because, with the temper which prevailed elsewhere, I was satisfied, if we did not recede, that the whole bill would be lost. That was my opinion; and that was the occasion upon which it will be found upon the journal that, after the Senate had first disagreed, my name is found changed, so far as to vote to recede. I did so vote, as I here declare in the face of the country, not because I meant to recall the vote I had given, but solely under the impression which I say I believed, and then communicated to the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, that, if the House did not recede, the whole bill would be lost. Now, as the object of the bill was for an appropriation of the same kind as ordinary appropriations for the defence of the country, and believing it impossible to gain the assent of the Senate to the bill as it then stood, I was unwilling to hazard the loss of the whole bill, and I agreed to give up the three millions. A motion in this House was made to recede; and although my vote was given in favor of receding, yet such was not the sense of the House. Upon that motion, the vote stands 87 yeas, against 110 nays, being two or three more than voted for the original proposition, and from which I voted to recede. The sense of this House, therefore, was strong, earnest, and repeated.

How was the bill treated in the Senate? How was it treated in the Senate? Sir, the next communication which the House received was, that the Senate adhered to their disagreement. Adhered! Every man knows that, in the process of intercourse between the two Houses, adhering is the last term in the disagreement, and that it is scarcely ever recurred to except as a challenge of defiance to the other House to persist. What is its consequence? It is, that, by the vote to adhere to that single section, the Senate does substantially say to this House, "take back your appropriation, or lose your bill," and that at the earliest stage at which they could pass such a vote.

It is well known to every man in this House, who has experience in these matters, that this vote to adhere never is passed between the two Houses in a good temper. It is always considered as a gauntlet thrown upon the floor as a challenge, which says, "there, lose your bill, or do what we think right."

As I adduce this circumstance as evidence that the appropriation was received in bad temper, I think myself called upon to prove what I state, that this is not the ordinary and courteous mode of communication between the two Houses. Mr. Jefferson's Manual, under the title of "Amendments between the two Houses,"

[blocks in formation]

[H. or R.

amendments. The regular progression in this case is, that the Commons disagree to the amendment; the Lords insist on it; the Commons insist on their disagreement; the Lords adhere to their amendment; the Commons adhere to their disagreement. The term of insisting may be repeated as often as they choose, to keep the ques tion open." The term "insist" (continued Mr. A.) is the courteous and decorous term: one House insists upon its own view, the other upon its own, and then a committee of conference is appointed. The Manual goes on to say:

"But the first adherence by either renders it necessary for the other side to recede or adhere also, when the matter is usually suffered to fall;" that is to say, (continued Mr. A.,) that when both Houses adhere, the bill is lost. The Manual then says:

"The term of insisting was certainly (in 1679) a hap py innovation, as it multiplies the opportunities of trying modifications which may bring the Houses to a concurrence. Either House, however, is free to pass over the term of insisting, and to adhere in the first instance. But it is not respectful to the other."

Now, sir, I adduce this as an evidence that the appropriation was received in the other House in bad temper. The Senate did not take the ordinary course of insisting upon their disagreement and asking a conference, or insisting and giving an opportunity for this House to insist and ask a conference. The Manual says it is usual to insist three or four times, sooner than come to this disrespectful mode of communication.

This, sir, is the practice of the British Parliament; we know it is the practice here; we know that if the Senate send here, and the House determines to have no communication whatever, they do sometimes adhere. I know not a single instance of the kind. When a thing is so inherently odious that the House will not listen to it, they send it in this form to the Senate. The Senate does the same thing under similar circumstances; but I doubt whether another instance can be found in which, at so early a stage, the Senate has adhered. No, sir, it was a special odium, a bad odor with which this appropriation was recieved in that House, which induced them to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard, and they adhered to their refusal to appropriate. But, sir, notwithstanding that, on the adherence of the Senate, the natural feeling (which I confess was in my bosom) was, that the House should adhere also; and, although a motion to that effect was made, yet so anxious was the House to pass the bill, that they did not adhere. They passed over the uncourteous and disrespectful proceed. ing of the Senate, and they neither adhered nor receded; but they insisted again, and they asked the appointment of a committee of conference, to which the Senate agreed. When that agreement was made, the hour of 12, by the real time of the night, had already passed; not by a few minutes, but, according to my recollection, by nearly half an hour. When, I say, the conferees were appointed, that clock, to be sure, (pointing to the clock above the Speaker's chair,) whoever had the management of it had, so far as a clock could show, the pow er of Joshua, who commanded the sun and moon to stand still. But that was not the power to which old Time submitted; he moved along, not regarding the hands of this or any other clock.

Well, sir, the committee of conference went out, and the conferees of the House on that committee, I am bound to believe, felt constrained very reluctantly to consent to a reduction of this appropriation to $800,000, and thus this dreadful constitutional conspiracy all melted down to a single question of dollars and centswhether $3,000,000, or only $800,000 should be appropriated for the defence of the country in case of absolute necessity. The appropriation was made positive,

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

instead of being contingent upon a necessity not certain to come, and it was confined to two objects of permanent ordinary appropriation, still leaving the possible contingent danger unprovided for. I say, sir, I believe the committee on the part of the House had been constrained to accede to this reduction, for the same reason for which I had myself voted to recede from the appropriation itself, and that was, to save the bill. But, sir, when that committee returned, this House was no more; it was a lifeless corpse. A friend and colleague of mine, now in my view, remarked indeed that, if it was dead, it was the noisiest dead body he had ever seen or heard of, and he said truly. It was so, but it was nevertheless dead de facto; and your journal will show that, from that time, it was impossible to form a quorum, Just before that, not only a quorum, but a very large quorum, had been found; and I say this, because, among the charges made in the "National Intelligencer,' I find a contrasted view in which the extreme assiduity of the members of the Senate upon this last day of the session is compared with that of the House, where business was not transacted for want of a quorum; and that circumstance is much dwelt upon. But why was the House without a quorum? Because there were at least some sixty or seventy members who, being conscientiously convinced that they were no longer representatives of the people, refused or forbore to answer to their names. Your journal will show that motion after motion was made to ascertain if there was a quorum; your journal will show that one of the members of this House, [Mr. GILMER,] upon a call of the yeas and nays, declined to answer, upon the ground that the House was not in existence; and your records will show that no motion was made to resort to the rules of the House in order to compel him to vote.

Sir, I must say, in candor, that I was not one who believed that the powers of this House expired at midnight. I held a different opinion, and I then expressed it. More than two hours after the hour of midnight, I here stated that, in my opinion, the two years' duration of Congress, and the four years' duration of the office of President of the United States, was from the time of the day at which the President of the United States was inaugurated, and the time at which the House first commenced its operations-say the hour of noon on the 4th of March. This, I believe, is the true construction of the constitutional term of two years; but it is a constitutional question, and it is not for me to judge of the motives of others who conscientiously believed that, after midnight, they no longer held in their hands the trust which had been committed to them. This was the case with many of the members, and, as a proof of it, I refer to a vote taken a few moments before the want of a quorum was discovered. Upon the last bill which had passed, (the Cumberland road bill,) the question was taken by yeas and nays, and there appeared ninety-four members voting in the affirmative, and eighty in the negative, making a total of one hundred and seventyfour votes. One hundred and twenty-one members constitute a majority of this House; and I say this in vindication of this House upon one of the charges to which it has been subjected-of negligence to do business to such a degree as not to have a quorum. Within ten minutes of the dissolution of this House, there were one hundred and seventy-four members voting; and the want of a quorum was not in consequence of members not being here, but because they conscientiously believed that they no longer had a right to act as the representatives of the people. He recollected the particular instance of an honorable member from Georgia, a man as able, as conscientious, upright, and intelligent, as any member of that House or the present, who, being called upon, refused to answer, and gave as a reason for

[JAN. 22, 1836.

refusing to answer, that he was no longer a representative of the people; and, when the vote was taken, he left his seat, and went out of that door, from which he never returned. I speak of Mr. Gilmer, of Georgia. At the time, then, when there appeared an absence of a quorum, it was not that there was not an amply sufficient number of members to vote so long as they thought it their right to vote, but from the conscientious conviction of so large a number as reduced the remainder to less than a quorum, that they had no longer a right to vote, because, at the very next calling of the yeas and nays, the whole number that appeared to answer to their names was one hundred and thirteen, being sixty or seventy names less than the previous vote had shown.

Sir, after that took place, the committee of conference returned from the Senate to this House. No report was made upon the conference to this House, and the reason assigned by the chairman of the committee was, that there was no House. The yeas and nays were called, and it appeared that no quorum could be formed. I have said, sir, that it was not my opinion that the constitutional powers of Congress expired at midnight on the 3d of March; and it becomes a question of some importance, because, if this were so, you would have no continued Government. Every two years there would be twelve hours during which there would be an interregnum, a vacuum, an anarchy, in which no Congress of the United States existed. And worse than that, upon the same principle, at the expiration of the term of service of the President of the United States, you would again have twelve hours of interregnum, of anarchy, before the President elect was inaugurated in his office. I believe, therefore, that the two years' duration of Congress and the four years' duration of the presidential term commence from noon, the time of the inauguration of the President of the United States, and the time at which the first Congress assembled to commence its operations under the constitution. There is nothing said upon this subject in the constitution of the United States; it cannot be made a question of constitutional law. What is the amount of the term of two years? It would be difficult to prove astronomically that two years, computed from the 4th of March at noon, expired in two years on the 3d of March at midnight; there would be a chasm of twelve hours. The time at which a day shall commence and terminate is a matter purely arbitrary and conventional. Some nations, in their civil computations, have commenced the day at sunrise, some at sunset, some at midnight, and some at noon. Do not all navigators, and individuals engaged in the operations of astronomy, compute the day from noon to noon? Every navigator knows this. The principle, once established, could be attended with no inconvenience, whereas the computation from noon to midnight must be subject every two years to a solution of continuity for twelve hours by the non-existence of a House of Representa tives, and once in every four years to an interregnum, or vacancy, in the office of President of the United States; and emergencies might arise, might, perhaps, even be precontrived, in which either of these events would be attended with great national inconvenience. Now, astronomically speaking, if you must come to a definite conclusion, I should say that, since the first Congress met at noon on the 4th of March, 1789, two years from that time, at noon, the Congress would cease to exist; and so on up to the present time. Monarchical Governments are always guarded with every possible care against the solution of continuity-their kings never die. It would be a radical defect in every republican Government not to be invested with similar official immortality; the office always filled, however often the incumbent might be changed. Such is my opinion, and if the House had concurred with me, I would have staid

JAN. 22, 1836.]

Fortification Bill of Last Session.

[H. OF R.

it is not the province of this House to remind the other of its duty. I hope that this House will always understand the courtesy that is due from one public man to another, and from one public body to another, sufficiently to suppose that the Senate of the United States knew themselves what was their duty, and would discharge it accordingly.

such messages, and they are referred to in the same Manual of Mr. Jefferson. This, sir, is the passage, under the head of Messages:

"When a bill is sent by one House to the other, and is neglected, they may send a message to remind them of it."

here until noon of the 4th of March. But such was not the opinion of a large number of the members. It was their opinion that, when the hour of midnight arrived, (making some, and no trifling allowance for the different indications of different timepieces-probably more than half an hour-and willing to do that, some, perhaps, more, and some less, when the time could no longer be doubted,) they believed they had no right to I have said that no such example exists on the records vote. But all that allowance of time had passed, and it of the journal of the two Houses. There are, I am was, in my opinion, at least one o'clock before the chair-aware, instances in the Parliament of Great Britain of man of the committee of conference returned to this House. Well, sir, it was understood to be a fact, and much discussion has appeared in the newspapers respecting it, that at the time the chairman of the committee of conference returned, the President of the United States had left the Capitol, declaring that he would receive no further communication from Congress, because he considered that the constitutional term of that Congress had expired. Sir, I believe this to be true, and that he did not leave the Capitol till very shortly before one o'clock, if it was not quite one. What was doing in this House at the time must have been known to the members of the Senate, if they had seen fit to take the pains to learn. It was well known to all here that, after this time, no quorum could be formed. No vote could be had--none was taken--the House was de facto dead, however noisy. In this state of things, after the House had expired, and after it was a lifeless corpse, equally impotent for aggression or defence, there came a message to this House from the Senate. And what was it? I ask the Clerk to read it.

[The Clerk read as follows:

"Resolved, That a message be sent to the honorable the House of Representatives, respectfully to remind the House of the report of the committee of conference appointed on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill respecting the fortifications of the United States."]

Mr. A. continued. Mr. Speaker, as one of the oldest members of this House, and as being, from your official character, the guardian and vindicator of the honor of this House, I ask you if, in your experience in the legislation of this country, you have any recollection of such a message passing between this House and the Senate? A message reminding the House of their duty! reminding, the House of what they were to do! reminding the House of that particular business which it was their duty to take up and pass upon! Turning from you, sir, I ask the oldest member in this House, I ask the youngest member in this House, whether he has any recollection of such a message passing between the two Houses, in his experience? Any recollection of such a message from the House to the Senate, or from the Senate to the House? I pause for a reply.

Mr. A. proceeded. But, sir, even there the impropriety of such a message, in all cases inexpedient, and as an act of the grossest discourtesy from one House to another, is noted; and it is said: "But if it be mere inattention, it is better to have it done informally, by com. munications between the Speakers or members of the two Houses."

This, sir, is the practice in England. Now, this communication, in the first place, presupposes that the House to be reminded had neglected the business; and the only case in which the Manual says it is practised in England, is where one House neglects. Sir, I have referred to the authorities in Hatsell and Gray, set down in this Manual, for the instances adduced; and I find that the last instance of such a message passing between the two Houses of the British Parliament was in the year 1721, one hundred and fifteen years ago; and in all the cases, and there are several referred to there, principally in the Parliamentary Debates, these messages were never sent unless where there was a serious misunderstanding between the two Houses, and when the neglect of a bill sent from one House to the other was great and exceedingly injurious.

Such is the nature of this message, which I hope, as I have said before, will never be repeated in the future intercourse between the two Houses of Congress. But, sir, to complete the true character of that message, let me inquire at what time it was sent. It was sent at two o'clock in the morning; it was sent after it was perfectly well known here and in the Senate that no quorum of this House could be formed; that the majority considered itself as having closed its labors, and as being no longer the representatives of the people. What was the consequence? When that message was delivered, I was sitting in this chair, and I must confess that, if ever pain and indignation filled my bosom, it was at that moment. I felt it as an insult to the immediate representatives of the people; and if the message had been sent I hear none, sir; and, under these circumstances, I at a moment in which the House was competent to act, take upon myself the responsibility of saying that no with the power to resent an unprovoked insult, I verily such message had been recorded on the journals of the believe that, imitating the example given us by the two Houses since the Congress of the United States has Congress of our confederacy during the revolutionary existed. What, sir, one of the two Houses of the Legis- war, not to the Senate of the United States, but on anlature turning task-master to the other! to teach them other occasion, I should have moved that the message their duty! Why, sir, we read in Holy Writ of a judge be sent back by two members of the House to the Senof Israel who undertook to teach the men of Succoth, ate, and cast upon the floor, with the declaration that it and it was by scourging them with the briers of the was not the custom of the House to receive insolent wilderness; and this was precisely such a feature. Here messages. Probably it was well, I believe it was, that I are the briers of the wilderness sent in a message from had no opportunity of giving vent to those feelings which the Senate of the United States, to teach this House arose in my bosom at that time. What were the feelwhat they are to do, and what are their duties. I dwellings of other members of the House I know not; it was upon this, sir, because, if there is to be any such thing not for me to say in what light others considered the as harmony between the two Ilouses of Congress in the message. I do not know that I have ever communicadischarge of their duty to the people of this country, I ted my feelings to any member of that House; I did not hope this resolution will stand a solitary warning and communicate them at the time; I suppressed them, for I monument, never to be repeated. I hope that no such saw that this insult was committed upon a dead body; I message will ever go from this House to the other, for saw that it was the Achilles of the American nation,

« AnteriorContinuar »