to subdue our liberties come with the boldness of a Napoleon; let him, in the sight of all the people, put on the imperial purple and the crown! We will know then the worst, and can prepare the armor of our defence. I could admire whilst I should strike the tyrant of genius and brave ambition, who would attempt to seize upon our liberties by force. But, of all despotisms, that brought upon an unsuspecting people, a confiding, a generous, free people, through the pimps, imps, spies, tools, and pensioned trained bands of secret corruption, is the most loathsome, the most despicable, the most to be dreaded!

Sir, I remember well that when, that night, two of my colleagues [Messrs. GORDON and GHOLSON] warned us against trusting so much to the Executive, I, for one, denied that it was any "pitiful administration or antiadministration measure.' "9 I thought so in truth and honest sincerity. It was expressly denied by gentlemen of "the party," among the rest by a gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. BYNUM,] that the President had called for this appropriation, and they contended that we had no right to infer that it was his wish. When I returned home to my good constituents, and was arraigned for voting three millions to the President to do with as he pleased, I vindicated myself most successfully from this charge of man-worship, by showing these very denials that it was the wish of the President to have this appropriation made. It was over and often repeated in your presence, Mr. Speaker, and in that of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, [Mr. CAMBRELENG,] that the President did not call for the appropriation, and that no man, therefore, could be impeached for man-worship who voted for it. And it was as frequently asked whether we would appropriate so large a sum without a call from the President. You, sir, and the other gentleman, knew the secret, were present, and neither corrected the denials nor answered the inquiries! Sir, you permitted truth to fall in the streets. Knowing the secret, and not disclosing it, would have been bad enough; but knowing it, and keeping it confidentially--not disclosing it to but one or two individuals, that with the view, too, of obtaining their votes for the grant of the three millions, and enjoining secrecy upon them--is awfully alarming! The secrecy, I say, sir, implies some object in the amendment which is not expressed. What was that object? Were three millions wanted for a peace establishment? Certainly not, in the estimation of the Executive, or it would long ere then have been recommended. If for peace, he should have given us information at the previous session. Without doubt the President did not suddenly find out, on the last day of the last Congress, that three millions were wanting for a peace establishment. No, it was not for peace.

Was it for war? No. The House was unacquainted with any such object. It is true, I believe, the President was for war at the last Congress, and I do not know that he has alighted from his war horse yet. But, sir, if war was in the wind, the House was deceived, completely deceived, by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, who but the day before withdrew his resolution upon French relations, declaring that "contingent preparation should be made for war." And here, sir, let me say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] that he could not have inferred from the resolution to insist upon the execution of the treaty" with France, that preparation for war was necessary, because such an inference was precluded by the withdrawal of the express resolution to make contingent preparation for war. I ask, then, was the object of this amendment to make secret preparation for war? Did the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs [Mr. CAMBRELENG] Suppose that the resolution

[H. OF R.

to make contingent preparation for war, which he withdrew, would be published in foreign journals as well as our own, and that, taken in connexion with the other. resolution, to insist upon the execution of the treaty, the two would be regarded by France as a threat, when this amendment, thus clandestinely smuggled into an ordinary appropriation bill, would attract no notice at home or abroad, and we at the same time could attain the objects of the resolution which he withdrew?

If such was his policy, why did he not make it known to his committee, if not in debate, and let it be understood generally in the House? Is this to be the pretext? Were we to have a war in disguise? Were we to steal upon the enemy? Does it become a nation like this to put a dagger up sleeve, like an assassin? I protest against secret preparations for war, supported by secret appropriations! Would war have been now raging or not, Congress or no Congress, if that amendment had passed? Save me from the question!

But, for the objects of war or of peace, if the amendment had been in proper form, I put it to the members of the last Congress if there was any necessity for secrecy? Neither army nor navy was in a proper conditition for peace or for war, and the Departments had the best reason in the world for an honest and an open course. Sir, how much do you suppose the Secretary of the Navy now asks, as an additional appropriation, to put your navy in trim? Only $6,337,775! Well, sir, we were in no better condition, as I have shown you, on the 3d of March, 1835, than we are in now. There was then, I say, as this their own estimate shows, reason enough for a grant of supplies, which might have been honestly and openly stated to us. Why was not this estimate then made as it is now? I mean, sir, in a word, was there any object besides peace establishment for army and navy, or war, which was meant to be attained by the three millions amendment? I fear, sir, that a war upon the Treasury for the purpose of Government patronage, rather than a war upon France for honor or treaty, was meant then, and is meant now! Millions of your public money, which is appropriated for the public good, is, by some legerdermain, appropriated into the pockets of the pets of "the party." Your navy, for instance, since the last war, I am told, has cost you, sir, sixty-five millions of dollars, and for that sum you have got afloat, in commission, 1 ship of the line, 4 frigates, 11 sloops of war, and six smaller vessels! The United States has, I am told, sir, fourteen millions of property in the Pacific, round Cape Horn, one half of which-more than the whole amount of the French treaty-might be struck off at a blow by three French frigates; and you have on that station, I believe, one frigate and two sloops of war! Yes, sir, I have all along thought that it was high time we were making preparation. I thought so for two reasons: I knew we were not upon a respectable peace establishment, and I thought, what I think now, that war is not an improbable thing when General Jackson desires it. I therefore voted for the three millions, and more than ever am I for making preparation, when I fear that the question of peace or war depends upon one man alone-he has enough to do his bidding, here and elsewhere-and when I look at our strength compared with that of other nations.

Twenty million five hundred and fifty-two thousand dollars additional appropriation is required to give us our relative naval strength, compared with France and Great Britain. Five million five hundred thousand dol. lars per annum required for ten years, to attain and keep afloat such a force.

I think, sir, when we look upon this comparative statement, we cannot say to France, as did the wolf to the lamb in the fable: "Tis crime enough that she cannot resist!"

House how I was prevented from obtaining the answer which I desired from the honorable chairman. I asked the question; the chairman was rising to answer, when the Speaker asked, "Does the gentleman from Virginia yield the floor?" "Yes, to have his question answered by the gentleman from Maine," [Mr. JARVIS.] The question was repeated, and again and again interrupted by the Speaker in the same way, until I gave up, sir, in despair, the attempt to obtain the answer which was so necessary for the correct information of the House. It was the first time since I have been a member, sir, that I ever saw a gentleman thus interrupted and positively prevented from obtaining an answer to an inquiry for information courteously put to a member in his seat. But, sir, I can confirm a remark which was made the other day, that the Speaker may, if he will, by many tricks upon order, and courtesy too, exercise undue powers over the proceedings of this body. So it was; an honest inquiry was, it seemed to me designedly, stifled in the case which I put. The answer was not obtained, which, if it had been obtained, I flatter myself there would have been apparently either no necessity for the resolution of the honorable chairman, or there would have been no minority of 18. The resolution passed with a vote in the affirmative of 164. And what then did the Committee on Naval Affairs do? How "inquire into the expediency of increasing the naval force in commission," without going right back to the Department, which had already once refused to answer the very same inquiry? We did order a written inquiry to be immediately directed to the Secretary, which is now answered by a written communication, but which also, I am told, would not have been answered, but for a circumstance and an influence which I am not authorized to name. Yes, sir, the answer has at last come, and what does it disclose? Why, that the Department does want more than six millions for the navy alone! The Department of War also has, within this week, crept out of its shell, and called for more than five millions! Eleven millions now, instead of three, actually wanted, and if wanted now, was wanting on the 3d of March, 1835, and no call, no recommendation, no estimates, until almost this very moment! Now, sir, does this need comment? Has there not been clearly an attempt to shuffle off responsibility on Congress? Is it not a plain case that "the party" and its Departments have been longing wishfully for a full sweep at the public coffers, but they wanted you and I to take out the money for them? If we refuse, the cry is raised, "You are against defending the country; the next step for you is to join the enemy!"

Sir, I will not put my hand into the Treasury of the people until I know specifically for what their money is to be expended. Why, sir, even after the House had adopted the resolution to inquire, and before an answer, by some new mode of appropriating, the Committee of Ways and Means, to ensure relief to the Secretary, I suppose, reported an increase of two millions to the ordinary navy bill, voluntarily, and without any call or information from the Department, for aught we know! Sir, this mode of voluntarily appropriating enormous sums, without message, without estimates, without recommendation, or information, or responsibility, on the part of the Executive, other than in expending them, will soon corrupt the Government, and make Congress but the mere tool of the Executive! And now, sir, what judgment shall be passed upon this same Secretary of the Navy, who admits now, by his own showing, that more than six millions additional are, and have been all the time, required for the "increase of the navy," and who yet has never made any recommendation whatever, either to this or the last Congress, except for two frigates, three sloops of war, and four steam-vessels, which was meant as an increase to the peace establishment VOL. XII.-145

[H. OF R.

only, up to this week of this session? Will the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. HAWES] now embrace him in his mortification and regret, and hand him over to the executioner for not defending the country?

Sir, my distinguished friend from South Carolina [Mr. THOMPSON] told the gentleman from New York [Mr. CAMBRELENG] the other day, that "it is the fashion of the party' not to shrink from responsibility." My honorable friend has convinced me that he is a most excellent judge of men and things, but he was mistaken that time. No, sir! General Jackson, in perfect accordance with his high-toned independence of mind and action, assumes responsibility, but "the party" shrinks, and skulks, and dodges, in fear and trembling! When Jupiter shakes the empyrean heights, all the gods tremble! When Jackson frowns and stamps his foot, rises in his majesty, and says "I take the responsibility!" all the sycophants of "the party" quake with fear! Witness the deposite question. When the President went forth in doubtful contest against the bank, there was a "little man" who trembled from his hair to his heels, [here some one said he had no hair,] right, sir, his head is bald--from the crown, then, of his head to the sole of his foot. His knees smote together with fright during the battle, but the moment the victory was achiev ed, out sprang the Lilliputian from behind the Old Hero, and strutted, hectoring over the dead body of the monster monopoly! So it was, sir, with that very three millions amendment. I have no doubt the President was independent and honest enough to have recommended it boldly, but "the party" leaders kept the recommendation secret; and when the sum was reduced so low as to disappoint the Old Hero, and to rouse his wrath to veto the bill, "the party" were manoeuvring, and dodging, and whispering, and cutting, and shuffling through the Capitol, and sending billets, to change the responsibility of the failure of the fortification bill from the President to the Senate! That is the secret. Sir, when it is found that any measure will succeed and aggrandize the "little man," then "the party" will take the responsibility--not before. So it was this very session with this same Secretary of our Navy. If there had been no responsibility, no popularity to risk in recommending six millions for the increase of the navy, the service would not now be suffering for appropriations. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a certain class of men who, put them where you will, in any situation in life, will piddle-I mean old bachelors! I never will henceforth support any man for the presidency who will appoint a bachelor to any office of honor or profit, and especially of responsibility. An old bachelor, sir, is a "withered fig tree"--he is a "vis inertia!" Old bachelors are too near akin to old maids!

Sir, when the Executive desires an appropriation, if he will "give me the information of the state of the Union," which he is bound to give, and show me that the public good requires it, and how and for what it is to be made, I, for one, will never be niggardly in voting supplies. The Naval Committee has already, without recommendation from the Executive, or instructions from this House, of its own motion, inquired into the expediency of increased appropriations. My policy and views are the same as when I voted for the three millions amendment. If war is to come, I fear only the consequences of being unprepared. We have the sinews of war, and should apply them in time. With an overflowing Treasury, and a quarrel with France to settle, I would have voted liberally the supplies asked for, but until now none have been called for. I am for peace--peace! for the sake of peace! But, if war must come, we must be ready. Since the rejection of the most conciliatory overture of compromise, unless there be a mediation of some sort, I cannot see how war is to

be avoided. France will not strike, but she will not pay the money. We will not explain, it seems; and, having the cause of war on our part, we cannot remain inactive. But, sir, I do not mean to say I am for war, or to discuss that question at all. I only mean now to say that I shall not take part with France against the President, much less will I against the Congress of the United States. I shall go for my country, "right or wrong." And, sir, as I would not-I am sure the President will agree with me in this, for he knows all about the sport--pit a game chicken without his gaffs on, I might, perhaps, a dominico, just to see him killed--much less would I send out our old ships, which have whipped the proudest of England's navy, to fight Frenchmen, without batteries complete, and the gallant sons of our army and navy, without swords and buckler, and mail of triple steel! But, sir, I must have the recommendation, the estimates, the data, and there must be no juggling! Let the Executive come forward and recommend what is to be done. I will rely chiefly upon his knowledge of the wars. He should have come forward last session. We must have communications from the Departments. They know of the necessity, of which we are ignorant. Even the "fourth department" of the Government, the Globe, has been furnished with more information than has been given to us, to whom it is all, all, without reservation, due. If war does depend upon the will of one man, he will have enough to do his bidding, to vote when he bids them vote, to be silent when he bids them; in short, to say "ay or no," as he may prompt.

Sir, I must hereafter-I have been bitten once by low party tricks and chicanery, practised to put an immense sum at the secret service of "the party"--I say I must hereafter know to a certainty that an appropriation is to be applied to the purposes of national defence, and not of electioneering, before 1 vote for it. Every man in the Government is now authorized and franked to electioneer, from Indian agents and postmasters up to the President. We now have a President electioneering for his successor, and it is time the nation was told of it with the voice of a trumpet! Sir, since the publication of that letter of outrageous dictation and of justification of "the Government patronage in conflict with the purity of elections;" that letter to a member of the Tennessee Legislature, which appears in the Government official, and is there not only justified but lauded, claiming the right to employ all his constitutional powers to expunge a resolution of one branch of Congress, and the right to interfere with the independence of State and Federal Legislatures, I feel constrained, by the love I bear my country, to cry aloud and spare not!" Sir, I wish to see the public mind concentrated on these facts.

But to return from this digression. The three mil. lions amendment passed; and, after a disagreement, the Senate adhered. Was it disrespectful to adhere? The gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] who I thought was "in a stew" all that dreadful night, seems now to have a holy horror of the word "adhere." I understood the Senate, sir, as strongly asserting only the doctrine of specific appropriation; not as dissenting from the ordinary items of the bill, and not as objecting to a reasonable amount of additional appropriation formally enacted. The Senate, sir, did not know the secrets! And shall the Senators-among the rest an honored Senator from Tennessee, [Mr. WHITE,] who knows his duty generally as well as any man without being told, who was once trusted by the President first of any, and deserves now to be trusted with his confidence more than all his present friends, who, when he was in confidence, kept it honorably, and the confidence itself was honorable and patriotic--shall they, shall he, be accused and condemned for not knowing without hearing the Exec

[JAN. 22, 1836.

utive secret? Shall he be required to know without being told-to vote without knowing why? Why, sir, the service is hard enough to do the sovereign will and good pleasure of potentates when the bidding comes loud and authoritatively, and that Senator is not one who is likely to obey orders from any power but that of his own people and their Legislature; but to do the will of his master without bidding, and to know that will without being told, is too much to expect of any slave. If this is a sin, I hope, sir, that he and his friends will ever have to plead guilty. Sir, the Senate knew no "why or wherefore" whatever for the passage of that amendment--they were taken by surprise--they respectfully disagreed. The House refused to recede, and insisted. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] voted to recede from the three millions amendment, and yet yesterday he asserted that any one "who would refuse to vote for that amendment had but one other step to take, and that step would be to join the enemy and assist in battering down the walls of the Capitol." [Mr. ADAMS here rose to explain. He had made no personal allusion, he said, to any member of this Congress, nor to any individual member of the last Congress. He had personified a sentiment, and his remarks were applied to that personification.]

Mr. WISE. I am glad to stand corrected; I quoted the language in order to be put right. "The personi. fication of a sentiment!" I see it, sir; I can give it form, size, color--a skin, muscle, bone, and sinew. I can make it a palpable man, whose cranium the phrenologists would mark as very intellectual. I understand now that this is a Massachusetts war, and it is not for me, sir, to meddle with it. If I understand the gentleman's explanation for receding, it was to prevent the loss of the bill; and yet, sir, when the House was for adhering, did he not adhere too? [Mr. ADAMS shook his head.] So it is: the gentleman did vote for once, twice, to recede. Generally, if any man ever does adhere, adhere, and adhere, it is he. I voted for the amendment, and adhered to it throughout. I was not in the secret. I was on the verge of a precipice, and I might have had to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] for a vote which might have saved me from an awful plunge into error.

When the House asked for a conference, the Senate readily agreed, and appointed conferees on its part. The conferees of the two Houses agreed on reducing the appropriation from three millions to eight hundred thousand dollars, and on making it more specific. And I now again ask the honorable gentleman from New York, [Mr. CAMBRELENG,] the chairman of the conferees of the House, whether, when he left the conference, after agreement to report, he did not intend to report? Why did he not report? Sir, I said yesterday there were two conjectures. I say now there are three modes of accounting for the failure of the honorable gentleman's intention. One is, that the report failed because of a word in the ear, whispered by two high functionaries between the conference-room and that door, [pointing to the door next to the Speaker's room,] or the gentleman's seat in the House. Were there not two such "busybodies" in the way of duty to report? Another is, sir, that there was a special communication, a billetdoux, handed to the honorable gentleman, [Mr. CAMBRELENG,] in his seat, after he came in from the conference. Was there such a billet, and what was its purport? A third is, that there was a special visit, in person, from a certain distinguished Senator of "the party," [Mr. SW-t, Jr.] What did he say? Was not the burden of all three, the whisper, the billet, and the special messenger-(the Senator stooped low from his high degree, to become a runner between the two Houses)-that the conferees of the