JAN. 27, 1836.] war. Fortification Bill of Last Session. Senators have urged against the three million appropriation, proposed for our defence in the contingency of We have been told, sir, that the amendment spe. cified no objects--that every thing was left to the discretion of the President-that be could do every thing touching the naval service, without control-and that he would have an absolute power to raise and employ land forces; and we are asked whether our legislation, under our constitution, furnishes any precedent for all this. Mr. Speaker, these objections are made, and these questions are asked, by Senators distinguished as statesmen; gentlemen of great experience, having been in the public councils some twenty or thirty years, in peace and in war. Such bold declarations of gentlemen of expe rience and reputation, though entirely unsupported by the history of our country, may sometimes mislead, especially when put forth with an air of confidence and authority. The history of our legislation, sir, is replete with precedents, notwithstanding the bold declarations of gentlemen to the contrary. I have in my hand a list of some forty or fifty, a few of which I will only notice. In the early history of our legislation, in Washington's administration, all our expenditures for the civil list were in one line, and for the army in another, without any specification whatever. I know that we have long since departed from that rule, but I doubt a little whether we have consulted true economy by such a course, for every branch we have lopped off has become a tree; till, finally, one, two, and three hundred thousand dollars have mounted up to two or three times as many millions. Such, sir, are some of the results of too much specification. [H. or R. the constitution, or destroy the Government with the battery of an appropriation. 1803, February 26. Two millions of dollars in addition to former appropriations, without any specification whatever, "for the purpose of defraying any extraordinary expenses which may be incurred in the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations," "to be applied under the direction of the President of the United States." Authorized to borrow the money. 1803, March S. President authorized, "whenever he shall judge it expedient," to require of the Executives of certain States to organize, arm, equip, and "hold in readiness to march at a moment's warning, a detachment of militia not exceeding eighty thousand." One million five hundred thousand dollars for pay and subsistence of such as may be wanted, for ordnance and other military stores, "and for defraying such other expenses as, during the recess of Congress, the President may deem necessary for the security of the territory of the United States, to be applied under the direction of the President." 1804, March 26. For equipping such armed vessels "as may be deemed requisite by the President," and for "defraying any other expenses incidental to the intercourse with the Barbary Powers," against Tripoli, "or any other of the Barbary Powers which may commit hostilities," &c. Mediterranean fund established by this act: $1,500,000 appropriated-President authorized to borrow it. The following act is so important, comprehensive, and indefinite, and applies so directly to the case of secret service money, (never contemplated in the appropriation last year,) that I give the whole section. The President was also authorized to borrow the money. 1806, February 13. That a sum of two millions of dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated towards defraying any extraordinary expenses which may be incurred in the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, to be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and to be applied under the direction of the President of the United States, who shall cause an account thereof to be laid before Congress as soon as may be. On the 20th March, 1794, one million of dollars was placed at the discretion of President Washington, without specification of any kind whatever, to defray "any expense which may be incurred in relation to the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations." In the next administration, sir, on the 3d of May, 1798(and, lest gentlemen should be alarmed at the period referred to, I shall, before I sit down, give them more republican authorities)--in 1798, sir, 250,000 dollars was placed at the discretion of President Adams, for certain fortifications, "and to erect fortifications in any other place or places, as the public safety shall require, in the 1806, April 18. The President authorized, "at such opinion of the President of the United States; to be erect-time as he shall deem necessary, to require of the Execued under his direction, from time to time, as he shall judge necessary." 1798, May 4. $800,000 for cannon, small arms, ammunition, and military stores, for "the public safety and defence, at the discretion of the President," who was by the same act authorized to establish armories and foundries, &c. 1798, May 28. The President authorized to raise ten thousand troops "in the event of a declaration of war against the United States, or of actual invasion of their territory by a foreign Power; or of imminent danger of such invasion discovered, in his opinion, to exist before the next session of Congress;" and authorized to organize them into corps of artillery, cavalry, and infantry, with a suitable number of major generals, &c. 1798, July 16. $900,000 for the increased army. 1799, March 2. The President authorized to raise "twenty-four regiments of infantry, a regiment and a battalion of riflemen, a battalion of artillerists and engineers, and three regiments of cavalry, or such part thereof as he shall judge necessary, in case war shall break out between the United States and a foreign European Power, or in case imminent danger of invasion of their territory by any such Power shall, in his opinion, be discov. ered to exist." Two millions appropriated, and the President authorized to borrow the money. We now come to the administration of Mr. Jefferson, when, sir, I believe there was no disposition to violate VOL. XII.-149 tives of the several States" to organize, and “to hold in readiness to march at a moment's warning," one hundred thousand militia. Two millions of dollars appropriated. 1808, February 24. Thirty thousand volunteers, "to be called upon to do military duty at any time the President of the United States shall judge proper." Fifty thousand dollars appropriated. 1808, January 8. $1,000,000 for such fortifications "as he may deem necessary" to repair, and for "such other fortifications, &c., as will afford more effectual protection to our ports and harbors," &c. We now come down, sir, to Mr. Madison's administration, and approach a period with which some of the distinguished gentlemen of the Senate must be familiar, even if they had no hand in framing or voting for these laws. 1809, January 14. $750,000 "for certain purposes, and erecting such fortifications as may, in the opinion of the President of the United States, be deemed necessary for the protection of the northern and western frontiers," &c. 1811, March 3. $131,046 30, generally, for completing fortifications. 1812, January 14. $1,500,000 to purchase, under the direction of the President of the United States, ordnance, ordnance stores, camp equipages, and other quartermaster's stores for the army. 1812, January 8. President authorized, "whenever he shall have satisfactory evidence of the actual or threatened invasion of any State," &c., to raise six companies of rangers. 1812, March 20. $50,000 additional, "for the purposes of fortifying and defending the maritime frontier of the United States." July 5. $500,000 more. The following were appropriations simply: 1813, January 20. $1,000,000 for the military establishment; $1,000,000 for the naval. 1814, March 9. $500,000 for floating batteries. November 15. $600,000 for any number of vessels, not exceeding twenty, which, in the President's opinion, the public service may require. The act of 20th April, 1816, appropriates a million annually, for eight years, for the navy, and the President is authorized to build ships, or to cause them to be framed, &c.; and never, sir, till 1821, was there an appropriation made for fortifications, except generally, and without specification. Such, Mr. Speaker, are some few of the precedents for appropriations in sudden emergencies, and to prepare our country for the contingency of war. Instead, sir, of making all these objections to forms, instead of resorting to all these expedients to avert responsibility, and making unfounded appeals to the history of our legislation, would it not be more candid, more manly, nay, more honorable, sir, to take the honest ground which some gentlemen have occupied, and say they would not make the appropriation through fear of a war with France? Sir, these timid counsels never have succeeded, and never will. It was the unfortunate decision of the Senate, that it was inexpedient to do any thing, that produced the prompt rejection of the three million ap. propriation for our national defence; it was their unfortunate and unchangeable resolution to oppose the House, the President, and the country. France exulted at this division in our national councils; the result is, the treaty is not executed, and we are now preparing for any emergency. Mr. Speaker, the Senate, in former days, was not found, in any question between our country and a foreign Power, uncourteously and rudely resisting measures of this House designed for our national defence, in case war should come upon us in the recess of Congress. They did not reject propositions without examination, and adhere without previous conference. They did not scruple about forms, specifications, and estimates of Departments, when called upon by the President to adopt measures "to maintain the rights and honor of the country." Bat, sir, it is time to dismiss this inquiry, It is a matter of little moment now to the nation which House destroyed the three million appropriation, or who the fortification bill. I am glad to learn, from almost all sides, that we are now determined, in both Houses, to unite with the Executive in putting our country in that strong attitude which she ought to assume, whether we have peace or war. This is no time, sir, for continuing a war between the House and the Senate. The crisis demands that there should be no differences between the different branches of our Government. We are in the midst of an Indian war; we are threatened with a border war on our Mexican frontier; we are engaged in a controversy with one of the most powerful nations, and the scales are so equally balanced that a feather would decide the question of peace or war. France has told us the conditions on which only the treaty will be executed; she now stands pledged to exact conditions which this country never will submit to, though it should be desolated from Maine to Louisiana. I am still not without hope of peace; but when a French fleet is abroad upon the Atlantic, it is not a time to inquire about lost appropriations. [JAN. 27, 1836. We should be looking promptly to measures of defence; we should be developing the vast resources of our country, and erecting upon the ruins of our fortification bill a fabric of defence which will do honor to this Congress. Let us arm our fortifications, multiply our steam batteries, and in less than twelve months put upon the ocean, as our great maritime resources will enable us to do, a fleet capable of successfully contending with the naval power of France or of any other nation. When Mr. CAMBRELENG had concluded Mr. REED rose and said: I feel embarrassed in rising to address the House on the present occasion. The subject is painful, but I am allowed no choice; and I proceed, without introduction, to state such facts as I deem important and relevant, concisely and plainly. The President of the United States, at the commencement of the present session of Congress, alludes to the loss of the fortification bill in the following words: "Much loss and inconvenience have been experienced in consequence of the failure of the bill containing the ordinary appropriations for fortifications, which passed one branch of the national Legislature at the last session, but was lost in the other. This failure was the more regretted, not only because it necessarily interrupted and delayed the progress of a system of national defence, projected immediately after the last war, and since steadily pursued, but also because it contained a contingent appropriation, inserted in accordance with the views of the Executive, in aid of this important object, and other branches of the national defence, some portions of which might have been most usefully applied during the past season." The complaint is somewhat indefinite, (said Mr. R.,) as the bill referred to passed both Houses of Congress, but not in concurrence. I presume it was intended to make the charge against the Senate. Though respect. ful in form, it is a grave and weighty charge. Appro priations were not made. We did some things we ought not to have done, and left undone many things which we ought to have done. I hold the President himself deeply implicated, and will not therefore answer to his charge. But I will suppose the charge comes from the people of the United States, and then I hold myself bound to render an account of my stewardship to my. constituents and country. I will consider the charge as made against the Government-the President, Senate, and House of Representatives. I plead not guilty, and mean to exculpate myself. I intend to do more-to criminate others, and fix upon them the guilt, so far as guilt there may be, of defeating the passage of the fortification bill. I charge the defeat of that bill to the Pres ident, or a majority of the House of Representatives of the last Congress, being administration men. In examining this painful subject, I determine to bear testimony to the truth-to state what I saw, and heard, and know. I intend to express my opinion upon the subject frankly, firmly, and temperately. The President, in his message at the opening of Con. gress, in December, 1834, sounded the war trumpet, and it did not give an uncertain sound. The following are his words: "It is my conviction that the United States ought to insist on a prompt execution of the treaty; and, in case it be refused, or longer delayed, take redress in their own hands. After the delay, on the part of France, of a quarter of a century, in acknowledging these claims by treaty, it is not to be tolerated that another quarter of a century is to be wasted in negotiating about the pay. ment. The laws of nations provide a remedy for such occasions. It is a well-settled principle of the international code, that where one nation owes another a liquidated debt, which it refuses or neglects to pay, the aggrieved party may seize on the property belonging to the other, its citizens, or subjects, sufficient to pay the debt, without giving just cause of war. This remedy has been repeatedly resorted to, and recently by France herself towards Portugal, under circumstances less unquestionable." The President's advice and recommendation, if not war direct, could not fail to result in war with France. What man believes we could have made reprisal, or seized upon a single ship of France, without producing war? A powerful nation may seize upon the property of a feeble and timid one, by way of reprisal, without resistance; but not so as to France. The message was a war message, and notified us to make the necessary preparation. But I desire to thank God our voices were not for war. [H. OF R. Another motion was made by Mr. Parker, on the 19th January, to strike out "For a fort on Throgg's Neck, East river, New York, (in addition to a balance of former appropriations,) $30,000." The yeas and nays were--yeas 86, nays 113. The bill passed precisely as reported by the Committee of Ways and Means. We in the minority (said Mr. R.) were not allowed to increase the amount a single dollar. The bill, having passed the House of Representatives, was sent to the Senate. How did the Senate treat the bill? Did they attempt to reduce the amount proposed by the House? No. And yet one not informed upon the subject might well be led to think so, from the complaints from vari ous quarters that the Senate defeated the ordinary appropriations for fortifications. On the contrary, the Senate considered the bill of the House of Representatives as wholly inadequate and deficient, in not provi pro-ding for the defence of the most important and defenceless parts of the country. Their amendments to the bill of the House of Representatives were essential to the defence of the country--so all-important, that I name them particularly, viz: This message was referred to the appropriate committees. What was had upon the subject? What prepa. rations and what appropriations did the committees pose for fortifications and for defence? I hold the bill, called the fortification bill of the House of Representatives, in my hand. It proposed to appropriate for fortifications, in all, the sum of $439,000. The journal of the House states: "Mr. Edward Everett moved to amend the bill by striking out these words, viz: "For the preservation of Castle Island and repairs of Fort Independence, in addition to the balance of former appropriations, $8,000, and, in lieu thereof, insert the following, viz: "For the preservation of Castle Island, and for repairing the fortifications on Castle Island, in Boston harbor, according to the plan adopted by the board of engineers on the 24th of March, 1834, in addition to the balance of former appropriations, $75,000." The That all the forces of the House of Representatives might be rallied, we had a "call of the House," and then the vote was taken by yeas and nays: for the amendment 87, against it 120. These yeas and nays are in the journal of the House of Representatives, page 225. Few administration men can be found among the yeas. chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means [Mr. POLK,] and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs himself, who figured so much in the three million amendment, are among the nays. They and others would not consent, notwithstanding the threatening aspect of war, to appropriate $75,000 for the defence and protection of the harbor of Boston, and Boston itself, and the immense public property at the navy yard at Charlestown. We of Massachusetts, and those who acted with us, were accused of extravagance and profusion for pursuing a course that would increase the expenditures, and render the administration unpopular. There was no predisposition to the three million appropriation at that time, or the money was intended for a very different object from that of the defence of Massachusetts and Maryland, &c. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. McKIM] moved to amend the bill by adding, "for the repair of Fort McHenry, at Baltimore, and putting the same in a proper state of defence, $50,000." The yeas and nays upon this amendment were-yeas 66, nays 129; and gentlemen voted as on the former amendment. The mover, though a good administration man, in the present case fared no better than others. Impartial injustice was dealt out to all propositions for amendment. Again: Mr. Thompson moved an amendment, "viz: $44,000 for the protection of St. Augustine." For the amendment--yeas 67, nays 115. This happened on the 15th January, about 45 days before the memorable 3d of March, when $800,000 (in addition to the amendments of the Senate, doubling the appropriation of the House) was pronounced by the Secretary of State (Mr. Forsyth) to be a "pitiful sum." The House of Representatives of the last Congress must be responsible for the consequences. I speak of the ordinary appropriations. The extraordinary--the three millions-I will consider by and by. The President very justly makes the distinction in his charge; and I intend to make it, and keep it distinctly in view, though the resolution we are considering proposes to inquire as to the cause of the failure of the ordinary ap propriations only. Although this bill was perfectly familiar to this House--our own child--we could not adopt it with the Senate's amendments. We took time to consider; in a session of 93 days, when there was no time to be lost. The bill was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, that every dollar of appropriation should be scanned and scrutinized, that not a brick or stone should be laid upon our fortifications, unless it were absolutely required, and the cost counted. But the committee would not consent to appropriate for Massachusetts, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, &c. They reported amendments to the Senate's amendments, and the bill was reported to the House, with the amendments, on the 3d day of March; but the House finally agreed to the amendments of the Senate. What next? At 8 o'clock on the 3d of March, the last night of the session, still holding and detaining the fortification bill in our possession, an amendment was proposed of an entire new section. It deserves not the name of amendment. It was a proposition, at that late hour, entirely to change a bill we had been examining for months. It was in the following words: [JAN. 27, 1836. tification for such secret interference and influence in this House. I saw we were swiftly swept along against the apparent current, by a strange undertow, the cause unseen and unknown. Those who would not vote for $50,000, or $75,000, in addition to the $439,000, were now ready for three millions; and ready to denounce any man as regardless of his country's danger and country's honor who would refuse to vote for that sum. The proposition to annex a section to the appropria. tion bill for fortifications, of three millions, was most extraordinary. The President had not recommended it. The Committee of Ways and Means had not examined it. There was no report of any committee in favor of it; no "And be it enacted, &c., 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 fortifica-estimate from any body; no specification; no precedent. tions 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 amendment was proposed by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The appropriate Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs, and even Ways and Means, were all superseded. The three million amendment came upon us as sudden as a thunderbolt, without report, or estimate, or explanation. We were called upon to vote. There was no time for debate; and all we could do was to call the yeas and nays, and record our names upon the journal. Well might we be astonished; and our astonishment was not a little increased to see the very men, chairmen and all, who would not consent to add $175,000 to defend two of the principal cities in the Union in an exposed and defenceless state, ready in a moment to vote three millions. But so it was. And we Representatives, not intrusted with ex. ecutive secrets, were left to wonder what could have produced so sudden and extraordinary a change. The tables were turned. Profusion and extravagance took the place of parsimony, and precipitation that of tardy delay. I repeat, without stopping to deliberate, for we had no time, we voted and adopted the three million section, and called it an amendment to the bill. It passed: Yeas 109, nays 77. We then sent the bill so amended, to the Senate, for their approval. And here, give me leave to say, it is all-important to the correct understanding of this controversy to inquire at what hour we sent it to the Senate. We sent the bill, to the Senate at eight o'clock P. M., four hours only before the close of the session, according to the opinions of some of the members of the House of Representatives. Well might the Senate be astonished. But we are told that "the Senate did not receive it in good temper." The gentleman from New York, [Mr. CAMBRELENG,] who just closed his speech, has tendered what he calls the true issue, and it is this: "Who defeated the three million appropriation?" intended, as he says, to provide for a contingent war. I must remind the gentleman that he has wholly forgotten the resolution we are discussing. The resolution proposes to inquire into the causes of the failure of the ordinary appropriation for fortifications. Surely the three millions was not ordinary, but most extraordinary. I will examine that subject before I sit down. The President secretly and improperly interfered, to induce the House of Representatives to act "in accordance with the will of the Executive." We have just learned in this debate that the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means [Mr. POLK] was an agent to that effect, and enjoined secrecy upon some, at least, of those whom he informed that the President wished to obtain the three million appropriation. The then chairman (now Speaker) being called upon, has stated it from his chair publicly, and it has been publicly confirmed by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. LEA.] The President, in so doing, greatly erred. There can be no jus The gentleman from New York [Mr. CAMBRELENG] has just read a number of cases which he considers precedents-cases of general appropriations of money to a considerable amount. I have now no opportunity to examine the cases he has referred to. They seem all to be of ancient date, and most of them specific. The case mainly relied upon is that of two millions, in 1806, and which the gentleman informs us is "so important, comprehensive, and indefinite, and applies so directly to the case." If my recollection be correct, that appropriation was called "secret service money," put into the hands of the President to purchase Florida. There was, I think, at the time, loud complaint against that appropriation. It was answered, that the object of the appropriation must be kept a secret, or the purpose for which it was appropriated would be defeated. Does the gentleman view that case like the one we are considering? Was the three millions of last year, proposed to be added to the fortification bill, considered secret service money? I defy the gentleman to find a case like the three million proposition of last year. The history of our legislation does not furnish it, in my opinion-an appropriation of such vast amount, made without time for examination and without specification. The three million amendment was first presented to the notice of Congress six hours only before the close of the session, without report, or time for examination or discussion. Sir, for such a precedent I am quite sure gentlemen will search in vain. Things ought not so to be. We are bound to examine and consider before we decide such important subjects, and vote away such large sums. We want time, and facts, and estimates, and specifications; and we ought not to act in the dark, under the influence or dictation of any man. But my colleague [Mr. ADAMS] has discovered a reason and foundation for the three million appropriation to me as novel and extraordinary as was the proposition for the appropriation itself. It was, he says, founded on his resolution; which I will consider hereafter. In presenting the resolution now under discussion, the gentleman from Massachusetts, my colleague, saw fit to indulge in a course of remarks wholly unlooked for, and of the most painful character. The resolution is one of inquiry; its object is the ascertainment of facts; it asks a special committee. By the usage of this House, should the resolution pass, the mover would be appointed chairman. But my colleague [Mr. ADAMS] has seen fit to give a minute and detailed history of what he supposes facts, in the very case to be investigated. He has done it in a spirit and temper ill calculated to inspire confidence in his impartiality. Was it necessary, or expedient, or commendable, or justifiable, to use such language of violence and abuse towards Senators and the Senate of the United States? The rule in what is called Jefferson's Manual, our book of rules, is as follows: "It is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been said upon the same subject in the other House, or the particular votes or ma jorities on it there; because the opinion of each House should be left to its own independency, not to be influenced by the proceedings of the other; and the quoting them might beget reflections leading to a misunderstanding between the two Houses." This rule is not an empty form. How all-important to maintain kind and respectful feelings between two bodies, who must act in unison, or the operations of the Government must cease! With this rule before him, and with strong and reiterated professions of a desire to promote harmony between the different departments of the Government, my colleague has quoted in this debate the votes and speeches of Senators, and denounced the Senate with unmeasured severity, and thereby violated most palpably the rule above named, and set at naught all his professions in favor of harmony and a good understanding. His speech is a poor commentary upon his professions, and I listened to it with regret and pain. My colleague, throughout his speech, has had much to say about man-worship. I never heard him accused of that idolatry. But there is another kind of idolatry, of which, perhaps, some are in more danger-I mean the worship of--what my colleague was pleased to call, a few days since, in this House-our noble selves. Next to being right, we all desire to be consistent. That desire is lawful and commendable; but we are in danger of putting the consistent before the right, and that is a sore evil under the sun. My colleague, in his speech, in reference to the fortification bill, 1st, defended himself throughout. Of this I do not complain. I mean to imitate him. 2dly. He defended the majority of the House of Representatives, even when opposed to himself. 3dly. He defended the conduct of those who urged constitutional scruples in opposition to him, and his opinions, in relation to the hour of adjourning, and who broke up a quorum, and defeated the bill. But my colleague [Mr. ADAMS] is very indignant at two things: 1st. An expression used by a distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. WEBSTER,] who, after showing, in an able an masterly argument, the unconstitutionality, danger, and inexpediency, of voting for the section proposed by the House of Representatives, "adding the three millions, "observed, "if the proposition were now before us, and the guns of the enemy were battering against the walls of the Capitol, I would not agree to it." And he immediately adds, "the people of this country have an interest and property, an inheritance, in this instrument, (the constitution,) against the value of which forty Capitols do not weigh the twentieth part of one poor scruple." [H. or R. And my colleague makes the following comment: "When that message was delivered, he must confess, if ever a feeling of shame and of indignation had filled his bosom, it was at that moment. He felt it as an insult to the immediate representatives of the people; and if it had been sent at a moment when the House yet existed, with the power to resent unprovoked insult, he verily believed that, imitating the example of our Congress in a somewhat similar case, during the revolutionary war, he should have moved that a message be sent by two members of the House to cast the Senate's message on their floor, and tell them that it was not the custom of the House to receive insolent messages. It was, perhaps, well that he had no opportunity to give vent to those feelings. The above message was sent after anxious waiting in the Senate to hear from the House of Representatives. The conference committee had separated, and the Senate's committee had long before reported to the Senate, but nothing was heard from the House of Representatives. Was there just occasion for such a burst of indignation as my colleague describes, and which agitated his breast, and urged him to do that which, if done, must have dishonored both him and the House of Representatives? And yet he takes frequent occasion to complain of the Senate that they received the amendment of the House of Representatives in bad temper. I was here, Mr. Speaker, upon that abasing and mortifying occasion. It was a painful night. Though subject to like passions as other men, I desire to be thankful that I was not on that occasion so filled with "anger and indignation." I felt humbled by the gross misconduct of some in this House. I saw things here that were wrong and wholly unjustifiable; and if I felt anger rising in my breast, that feeling was tempered, moderated, and repressed, by the high and responsible obligations of duty to my country. These obligations had an influence paramount to passion. I was for the fortification bill. I was for substance, and not form. I was not for war with the Senate, but for the defence of the country. I beg for a moment to consider certain resolutions which are supposed to materially affect the present controversy: I refer to resolutions from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, reported to this House on the 27th of February, four days only before the close of the session. These were the war resolutions, the foundation of the three million appropriation. My colleague quoted the first sentence, and used lan- On the 2d day of March, late in the day, the war resguage in reference to the quotation, and in reference to olutions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs were the great and distinguished man, the author of those brought before the House by a motion of the chairman remarks, which I will not repeat, wholly unjustifiable, [Mr. CAMBRELENG] to discharge the Committee of the and without foundation. But I stop not to eulogize or Whole. This motion, as every body knows, was made defend the distinguished individual referred to. He to facilitate and hasten the adoption of those resolutions. needs not my aid. I merely ask my colleague why The vote was taken by ayes and nocs: Ayes 104, noes he did not quote the argument of the Senator from Mas- 92. The administration party were too strong; we sachusetts, and why he selected a single isolated sen- were beaten. How did we vote? Was my colleague, tence? I ask my colleague, if he had entertained the then, in favor of passing resolutions as the foundation of same opinions as did the Senator referred to, that war appropriations? No: he voted with us. But the the "three million section was unconstitutional, inexpe- committee were discharged, and the resolutions were dient, and of most dangerous tendency," whether he brought before the House; and the journal states the would have voted for it to save the Capitol or his own life? House then proceeded to the consideration of the said The other thing that excited my colleague's hot dis- reports, viz: the reports of the majority and the minoripleasure was, a resolution sent by the Senate to the ty; and the resolutions recommended by the comHouse of Representatives, on the 3d of March, as fol-mittee were read, as follows. I here read from the jourlows, viz: "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 appointied on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate to the bill respecting the fortifications of the United States." nal, page 496: "1. Resolved, That it would be incompatible with the rights and honor of the United States further to negotiate in relation to the treaty entered into by France on the 4th of July, 1831; and that this House will insist upon its execution as ratified by both Governments. 2. Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Af |