the gentleman from New York declared it in his speech a few minutes ago. What was the mighty import of such a declaration, made by a disappointed chairman, defeated in his projects, and by the efficient aid of my colleague, too? He and his friends were defeated and disappointed. Peace prevailed over war. But the gentleman from New York threatened, as he retreated, to ask for additional appropriations, &c.; and this happened on the evening of the 2d of March, and that was notice of the three millions. I purposely, on this occasion, avoid going into a consideration of the value and importance of prep. aration for defence in time of peace. It does not appertain to this debate; but those who are now accused of neglect have steadily pursued that policy to a reasonable extent, and by so doing have subjected themselves to the reproaches of their present accusers.

[H. of R.

The

bers, as reduced the remainder to less than a quorum, that they had no right to vote on any thing in the House. After that took place, the committee of conference returned to the House, but no report was made; and what was the reason? Because there was no House. roll was called, and no quorum was to be found. "He said that he did not consider that the constitutional term of two years, assigned to the members of the House of Representatives, and the term of four years, during which the President holds his office, commence or expire at midnight. The services of two and of four years commenced running from the time when the members of the first Congress assembled to commence the operations of this Government under the constitution of the United States, which was on the 4th of March, 1789, at noon. The two years from that time expired, not on But my colleague quotes the third resolution of the the 3d of March, 1791, at midnight, but on the 4th of Committee on Foreign Affairs, as follows: "Resolved, March, at noon. The expiration of a year is not from That contingent preparation ought to be made to meet noon to midnight, but from noon to noon. It is so, asany emergency growing out of our relations with France;"tronomically, by the law of nature. The time at which and he says: "This was the resolution intended to sus- a day shall commence and terminate is a matter altotain at once the spirit of the President's recommenda- gether arbitrary and conventional. Some nations have, tions, and the sincerity of the resolution just adopted by in their civil computation, commenced the day at sunrise, the House." I perfectly concur with him that the above and some at sunset--some at midnight, and some at noon. resolution was intended to sustain the recommendations Astronomers and navigators always reckon the day from of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; but, be it remem- noon to noon; and why should not the constitutional bered, those resolutions were virtually rejected, and my computation of time follow the same law, which is the colleague's peace resolution substituted. I deny that the law of nature? The principle, once established, could three million appropriation ever was intended to sustain be attended with no sort of inconvenience; whereas the the sincerity of the resolution adopted. Never-never. computation from noon to midnight must be subjected I again refer to the resolutions I have read-Foreign once every two years to a solution of continuity for twelve Affairs, and my colleague's substitute: hours by the non-existence of a House of Representatives, and once in every four years to an interregnum or vacancy in the office of President of the United States. Emergencies might easily be foreseen, perhaps even precontrived, in which either of those events would be attended with very great public inconvenience. narchical Governments are always guarded with the utmost possible care against every solution of continuity: their kings never die. It would be a radical defect in every republican Government not to be invested with the same official immortality-the office always filled, however frequently the individual incumbent may be changed. It was therefore my opinion that the House might have sat transacting business till noon of the 4th of March; and, accordingly, my name will be found and recorded on every taking of the yeas and nays until the adjournment, after it was announced that the Senate had adjourned.

Third resolution of Foreign Affairs. "Resolved, That contingent preparation ought to be made to meet any emergency growing out of our rela

tions with France."

Mr. Adams's substitute for the third resolution. "Resolved, That no legislative measure of a hostile character or tendency towards the French nation is necessary or expedient at this time."

According to my recollection, the speeches were more at variance, if possible, than the resolutions themselves. Let us for a moment examine the defence of those who professed to have constitutional scruples as to the time of the termination of Congress; and here I read my colleague's argument, as follows, viz:

"He was not one of those who believed that the session ended at midnight. In his opinion, the two years' duration of Congress was from the time of day at which the House commenced its session-say the hour of noon on the 4th of March. He believed that to be the true construction of the constitutional term of two years; but it was a constitutional question, and it was not for him to judge of the motives of men who conscientiously believed that the period of their political existence had expired. When the Cumberland road bill passed, the question was taken by yeas and nays, and the vote was ninety-four to eighty, making one hundred and seventy-four votes. Here was a quorum voting, which showed that the House, at 12 o'clock, was doing business; but in ten minutes after that, no quorum could be found-not in consequence of there not being members present, but in consequence of their conscientious scruples. He recollected the instance of a gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. GILMER,] a man as conscientious and as intelligent as any member of that or the present House, who, upon being called, refused to answer, and gave as his reason that he was no longer a representative of the people, and, immediately after the vote was taken, went out of the House at that door, and never returned. It was not therefore the want of a sufficient number of members present, but from the conscientious conviction of so large a number of the mem

Mo

Mr. A. said that was his opinion then, and he had then expressed it to the House; but it was not the opinion of a large number of members of the House. The members were in the House, ready to vote, but in their opinion the time had passed. Now, whatever was doing at that time in the House might have been known to every member of the Senate, if they had seen fit to make the inquiry. It was perfectly known that after that time no quorum of the House could be found. No vote was taken. The House was de facto dead."

I will only add, that the usage and construction as to the time of the expiration of office, I believe, have been uniform; that it has happened very frequently, I know, that Congress have been in session hours after 12 o'clock, the 3d of March, and at the expiration of their respective terms of office; and so of all our Presidents. General Washington, as I have been informed, and believe, at the expiration of his first term of four years, arose, after he had been in bed, at 2 o'clock in the morning of the 4th of March, and signed many bills, which, in consequence of his signing, became laws, affecting life and property. Have we not all heard of the midnight judges, &c. of the elder Adams? Mr. Jefferson did the same. Mr. Madison, Mr. Monroe, and my colleague himself,

unless I greatly misremember, imitated the example of all his predecessors. Who ever seriously called it in question until the 3d of March, 1835, when the appropriation for fortifications was before us, and the three millions could not pass the Senate?

Yet, after presenting the above unanswerable argument in defence of himself, as well as others, my colleague is at no loss to find a perfect apology for those who viola ted the constitution and their duty, and defeated the bill. My colleague says, after the return of the committee of conference, there was no House-not for the want of numbers;" the roll was called, and no quorum. Why? Because a number refused to answer. He states "a large number were ready to vote, but the time had passed; and it might have been known to every member of the Senate, if they had seen fit to make the inquiry." Again: "the House was de facto dead." But my colleague has himself shown, conclusively, it was not dead de jure. It was rightfully and constitutionally alive, and the Senate were bound so to consider it, and govern themselves accordingly. They did so act; and their notice and attention to the House, after they chose to consider themselves dead, though present and noisy, seems to have incurred the peculiar displeasure of my colleague | and the gentleman from New York [Mr. CAMBRELENG] who has just resumed his seat.

[JAN. 27, 1836.

opinion, hereafter to trust it with other Presidents. It is a dangerous and unsafe precedent, and ought not to pass.

I had been educated to believe that the President of the United States had not too much power. I had heard much said of the dangerous tendency of presidential power, and of the increase of that power. But I never witnessed so much evidence of the truth of that democratic apprehension as on the night of the 3d of March, 1835. I declare most solemnly, that, in my opinion, (and I saw those who were counted and who were not,) there was a quorum until we adjourned. I believe I had the honor to make some of the last remarks upon a motion to call the House. I then stated that there was a quorum present, and it was well known to all; that when gentlemen chose to be counted, they were present; and when they chose not to be counted, they retreated or refused to vote; that the most impor. tant business of the session yet remained undone, &c. Much has been said by my colleague and others in regard to a vote of the Senate to adhere against the amendment proposing the three millions. It is said that that vote of adherence was contrary to all parliamentary usage, and was the cause of all the evils we experienced on the 3d of March, and the loss of the bill itself. The gentleman who has just sat down [Mr. CAMBRELENG] has made the same complaint.

But Mr. Gilmer, of Georgia, refused to vote, on account of conscientious scruples. His case, I believe, has As gentlemen speak with confidence, I will refer them been named by every speaker on this subject. I knew to a case in point, and precisely the reverse of what they Mr. Gilmer, in this House, for a number of years. I be- suppose the parliamentary usage; and I trust the author. lieve he is a pure, honest, and honorable man. He en-ity will not be questioned by my colleague, or the gentertained, we thought, many singular opinions of the constitution, and he widely differed from us in its construction. Mr. Gilmer had scruples; and what did he do? Arose, declined acting, and left the House, and has never since returned. The very praise and commendation bestowed on Mr. Gilmer is censure to those who entertained the same doubts, and yet remained here to vote, or not to vote, as circumstances made the constitution more or less dear in their estimation. But Mr. Gilmer is the standing witness of honest scruples. "Exceptio probat regulam." Where were the other Mr. Gilmers, or those who trod in his steps? The gentleman from New York [Mr. CAMBRELENG] was so pressed with conscientious scruples that he refused to report and act upon the fortification bill; but his conscience was less scrupulous as to other matters, and he staid to vote and act, and did vote and act, upon other subjects before the House, long after he refused to act upon the fortification bill. Let him reconcile such inconsistency.

tleman from New York. The case I refer to is found in
the journal of the Senate, 19th Congress, 1st session,
pages 306 and 307. Here Mr. REED read the case.
[Mr. ADAMS called aloud to know the book and page.]
The House of Representatives and Senate disagreed as
to a judiciary bill, and "Mr. Van Buren, chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, drew up a report, which con-
cludes with resolving not to insist, but adhere, and but
twelve dissented; and the report states, it is expressly
within the rules, and best to prevent the unprofitable
formality of a conference at this advanced period of the
session." Mark, sir, this happened fourteen days be-
fore the close of the session. In the case of the fortifi-
Ication bill, the Senate had determined not to agree to
the three millions section, and a few hours only must
close the session.

Mr. Cambreleng then moved that the House insist on said amendment; which motion was agreed to. The Senate then voted to adhere as to the three millions. A The House was reduced, in a short time, by scruples, motion was again made in the House of Representatives from 174 to 111, and this appears on the yeas and nays; trecede, and give up the three millions. We voted nearly and, by looking at the names on the yeas and nays at the as before; my colleague, [Mr. ADAMS,] and other col two different periods, those "noisy dead men" my colleagues, and myself, voting to recede: Ayes 88, noes 107. league speaks of may be known as absentees, though present.

I most solemnly aver to my constituents and country that I was in favor of the fortification bill; that I thought the original bill insufficient, and tried to increase it; that I voted against the three million amendment with pain, because I wished a liberal specific appropriation; but I believed the three million section a violation of the spirit of our free Government, and of dangerous tendency. I well remember a conversation on that night with a worthy member, not now here. He asked me why I did not vote for the three millions? I replied, that three millions was a great sum; the use to be made of it was not specified, &c. He answered, General Jackson will not spend a dollar of it, &c. I then rejoined, if that be so, it ought not to be voted; you have confidence in the President, which I have not; but if three millions may be so voted without specification, twenty millions may be so voted; or words to that effect. It may not be safe, even in your

A conference with the Senate was then proposed and passed, and conferees appointed. The conferees of the House and Senate agreed upon a compromise. The bill was to pass with all admendments, and, instead of $3,000,000 in gross, it was agreed to add $800,000, and make it specific, viz: $300,000 for arming the fortifications, and $500,000 for repairs and equipment of ships of war. And my colleague finds fault even with this compromise, and says: The appropriation was made positive, 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 confess I am wholly at a loss to know what my colleague did desire. I can see one thing very distinctly-that he does not desire to agree with the Senate.

The appropriation bill, as agreed upon by the committee of conference, might have passed before or after the hour of 12 o'clock. I have no doubt the conferees

H. OF R.]

Grant of the Hall-Fortification Bill of Last Session.

most suddenly to lose all interest in the bill. It was determined that the bill, as finally agreed upon by the committee of conference, should not pass the House; that, as the Senate had refused to agree to the "three million amendment" proposed by the House, the loss of the whole bill, including ordinary appropriations for fortifications, should be charged to that body. This decision came with a weight and energy not to be withstood. The House would not pass a bill, the provisions of which the President's first Secretary had just pronounced pitiful. Then came the last scene--delay, constitutional scruples, refusal to vote, threats against the Senate, &c. &c.; and so perished the fortification bill in the House of Representatives.

As soon as this debate shall have been closed, (I hope and trust others who were present will not fail to express their opinions,) I am desirous of attending to the appropriation bills and other important business before the House. I trust some good may result from the evil of which there is so loud complaint; that we may not hereafter neglect the important business under our charge to the last few disputed hours of the session, when there may be neither time nor means to perform such duties with fidelity and sound discretion; when it may be in the power of a few, even a single individual, to defeat the most important measure.

The CHAIR. Certainly.

[JAN. 28, 1836.

Mr. HAWES said he had always given his vote against every proposition granting the use of this hall, which was built with the people's money, and for the exclu sive use of their Representatives, for the purpose of holding meetings of certain societies. He should continue to oppose these indirect inroads upon the public Treasury. He understood the object of the members of these societies, in asking permission to hold their meetings in this hall. It was to save their own pockets. There was another building in this city, which was peculiarly suited for such meetings; but, by procuring permission to use this ball, two or three hundred dollars were taken from the public Treasury on every evening of such meeting, to pay for candles, wood, &c., which ought to come out of the puckets of the members of these societies. If it was an object of those gentlemen to save this expense, it was also his right and duty to object that it should be paid out of the public Treasury. It was perhaps a small matter; but if the House yielded to these applications for the use of the hall, they might expect, after a while, an application from a dancing society. He was opposed to granting this privilege to temperance, colonization, abolition, or historical societies. He considered them all upon a par. He concluded by calling for the yeas and nays on the adoption of the resolution; which were not ordered.

The resolution was then agreed to.

I have always considered the fortification bill, with the three million amendment proposed, as a subject of vast importance, as involving more or less the question of peace or war--a question of vital importance to those whom I have the honor to represent. Since the Presi-resolution, heretofore offered by Mr. J. Q. ADAMS: dent, in his annual message to Congress, has seen fit to complain of the loss of that bill; since the administration

presses and administration men reiterate the complaint; since my colleague has seen fit to bring the subject before this House by a resolution and speech, I have felt bound to vindicate my own conduct, and the conduct of those with whom I had the honor to agree and act, and present the case to this House and the people, and especially to my constituents, to whom, without distinction of party, I am under obligations I shall never be able to cancel. I feel and acknowledge the weight of those obligations, and I trust, when my conduct shall be understood, their justice and candor will acquit me of negligence or want of fidelity in the discharge of my duty. When Mr. REED had concluded his remarks,

LAST YEAR'S FORTIFICATION BILL.
The House resumed the consideration of the following

Resolved, That so much of the message of the President of the United States to Congress at the commencement of the present session as relates to the failure, at the last session of Congress, of the hill containing the ordinary appropriations for fortifications, be referred to a select committee, with instructions to inquire into, and report to the House, the causes and circumstances of the failure of the bill.

The question still being on the motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, to amend the resolution by adding thereto the words "with power to send for persons and papers"-

Mr. HARDIN rose and addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Speaker, it was either my good or ill fortune

Mr. HARDIN took the floor, and moved an adjourn (for, at this time, I know not in which point of view to

ment.

The House then adjourned.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 28.

GRANT OF THE HALL.

Mr. McKENNAN asked the consent of the House to present a resolution, granting the use of the hall of Representatives to the Historical Society, on Saturday evening next, for the purpose of holding a meeting of said society. Mr. McK. said it was understood that the Secretary of War would deliver an address on the occasion.

Objection being made, Mr. McKENNAN moved to suspend the rule; which was agreed to-114 to 42. Mr. MCKENNAN then submitted the resolution indicated in his motion.

The SPEAKER said he had received a communica-
tion from a member of the Historical Society, making a
request similar to the proposition before the House,
which, if permitted, he would present at that time.
It was objected to.

The question being on the adoption of the resolution,
Mr. HAWES rose in opposition to it.

Mr. BOND inquired whether it was in order to discuss the resolution.

consider it) to obtain the floor last evening. To have consulted my own feelings and wishes on the subject, I ought instantly to have proceeded with what I had to say; it was late, and, to accommodate some gentlemen around me, I moved for the House to adjourn; which motion was agreed to. Gentlemen in more remote parts of the hall voted for it, as a favor accorded to me. I owe, and now tender to them, my most profound acknowledgments for their kindness manifested on that

occasion.

Sir, the time, manner of presenting, and the subjectmatter of the resolution now under consideration, seem to be a phenomenon in legislation. To review our proceedings for some day's past is neither pleasant nor instructive: they contain nothing to feed our pride, flatter our vanity, or redound to the honor of this House; there is something in them so strange, so unaccountable to an ordinary observer, nevertheless so much in character with some of the leading members of the administration party in this House, that I hope to be indulged until I recapitulate them.

The appropriation bills have been reported to this House, and, put them all together, amount to something like ten millions more than for the same objects was appropriated last year, and near that amount more than an