H. OF R.]

Fortification Bill of Last Session.

taken-debate should have been had-all the forms of parliamentary etiquette should have been observed! Why, sir, does not the honorable gentleman recollect that the hours, nay, that the very minutes, of that Congress were numbered, and were fast wasting away? In addition to its business of legislation, the Senate was pressed with business of an executive character, and every moment of its time was actively employed. Was that an occasion to stand upon questions of mere punctilio and matters of idle ceremony? No, sir; the Senate, entertaining objections of a character which can never be abandoned by men who respect themselves or deserve the respect of others, but which might have been obviated on the part of the House, lost none of the time, more valuable then than all the precedents of ceremony which the gentleman can find in his labored researches, in bringing the subject of disagreement to direct issue; and with all the "indecent baste" they are accused of, a conference, the usual parliamentary mode of reconciling disagreeing votes, was not obtained seasonably to have reported, as is now contended, during the life of that Congress. To my mind, these proceedings manifest an earnest solicitude to save the bill, rather than a willingness to defeat it. The Senate overlooked all minor considerations--disregarded all inferior and subordinate matters, in the great object of appropriating largely for works of defence and security. They exposed them selves to this very charge of precipitation and indecorum, or what under other circumstances might be so considered, in their zeal to get the bill so framed as to be acceptable to both Houses. What could they do? Compelled to vote for an amendment which they regarded as unconstitutional, and which they could not, therefore, under any circumstances agree to; or to see a measure they were anxious to adopt perish before their eyes, with no power to save it--how were they to act? The steps taken by them, standing in the emergency they did, were the only ones possible by which the bill could have been rescued from the destruction that awaited it; and if they had been met by the House in a corresponding temper, it would have become a law. How it failed, I shall consider presently. But, sir, "the message" to which the gentleman refers, and upon which he has expended his warmest indignation--what was it? A message from the Senate "respectfully to remind the House of the report of the committee of conference appointed on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses" in respect to the fortification bill. It may have been unusual and without precedent-I do not dispute it. But that it was insolent and contemptuous towards the House, or was so designed, or so regarded, I utterly deny. If it was unusual and without precedent, it was because the condition in which the business between the Houses stood was new and without precedent. Emergencies--extreme cases-make their own precedents, and furnish their own justification. What was the condition of the bill to which the message referred?

The two Houses had disagreed in relation to the three millions. A committee of conference had been appointed. A report had been agreed upon unanimously, as was then supposed, and which it was not doubted would be satisfactory to each House. The chairman of the committee of conference [Mr. CAMBRELENG] retained the papers, with a view of making the report to the House first; after which it was to be sent to the Senate, and, until thus sent, the Senate had no power over it. A considerable time elapsed, and no intelligence was received by the Senate from this branch. Few mo. ments only remained. The bill was every where deemed of great importance. The report of the conferees, if adopted by the Houses, would save it. Nothing had been done in this body, nor, as they feared, would be done, upon the report of the conference. To meet a

[JAN. 28, 1836.

state of things so new, so unusual, so extraordinary, demanded new and unprecedented proceedings. Deeply solicitous for the passage of the bill, the Senate, regardless of forms, not studious of precise rules of ceremony, made a last effort for its safety. Surprised they doubtless were, that the conferees on the part of the House, who had so lately agreed in a report, should fail to present it, and that no information should be afforded them of its final disposition. In this view of the matter, sir, I can perceive nothing in that message, against which the gentleman has directed his sharpest indignation, but a respectful though earnest intimation that the Senate was ready to pass the bill in the shape which the conferees appointed by the House had agreed to recommend. They could not do it until the papers should be sent to them. Where was the disrespect and the insolence of such an intimation? I confess, sir, I have not a perception keen enough to discern it. One sincerely searching for the truth, unheated by other considerations, would not be very apt, I think, to discover it.

The honorable member, sir, has furnished us with a history of the introduction of the three million appropriation into the fortification bill. He says it was founded upon a resolution of the House, unanimously adopted on the preceding day, in these words:

"Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the treaty with France of the 4th of July, 1831, should be maintained, and its execution insisted on."

I perceive nothing in this leading to hostilities, and requiring measures, and extraordinary measures, too, of defence. Yet it is said the appropriation was consequent upon this resolution-growing out of it-part and parcel of it, and absolutely necessary to give it efficiency.

[Mr. ADAMS interrupted. He hoped he should not be misrepresented. He had not said so. He said the appropriation was proposed in consequence of the resolu tion unanimously adopted the preceding day.]

I shall not, sir, designedly, misrepresent the gentleman. There is quite as much in the speech which I have before me, without misrepresentation, as can be maintained. The gentleman has said: "It was well known to every member of the House, and he believed to every person out of the House, that the appropriation of three millions was introduced in consequence of the vote on that resolution the night before. It was well known that the resolution, which finally passed by that vote, had been contested by a debate of several days immediately before its passage, upon grounds that such a resolution would occasion war. If you look, said he, to the journals of the House for the resolution which passed, and to the several resolutions proposed as substitutes for it, you will see that it was admitted with extreme reluctance by many members of the House, that it was ardently and perseveringly contested, and upon the grounds that it would occasion a war. Under these cir. cumstances, although the House were not of opinion that it would give just cause for war, still, how was it possible for a statesman, looking to the interests of our common country, not to see that these reasons so pressed upon the consideration of the House, and looking to the action of another Government, might have that tendency? The conduct of a foreign Government, to be predicated upon this act of our own, was matter of foresight and conjecture. There was misunderstanding and irritation between our Government and that of France. The members of the House who had resisted the pas sage of the resolution, intelligent and patriotic men, had urged the House against it; and all the tender sympa thies of our nature, and all the sentiments of humanity in our bosoms, had been appealed to as warnings against that resolution. The image of war, in all its terrors and with all its calamities, had been held up before us

to deter the House from the assertion of the nation's rights and of the nation's honor contained in that resolution. Conscious that the resolution could not give any just cause of offence, the House did not believe that it would offend or endanger the peace of the country; yet in deference to the fears of the minority, and as an earnest of their sincerity in the determination to insist upon the execution of the treaty, it was deemed fitting that the country should put itself in an attitude of defence, to meet the worst possible contingency, and to sustain that resolution which they unanimously passed. These were the grounds upon which that item was introduced on the last day of the session. And why on the last day? Because it was only the night before that the unanimous vote had passed.

"In all the debate in the National Intelligencer to which he had referred, there was no more trace of such a resolution as having passed the House, than if it had never existed."

{H. of R.

which the gentleman challenges, does not bear him out. But this is a matter, sir, about which there need be no controversy. The journals show the facts. On the 27th day of February, the Committee on Foreign Affairs made a report, accompanied by these resolutions:

"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 on its execution as ratified by both Governments.

"2. Resolved, That contingent preparation ought to be made to meet any emergency growing out of our relations with France."

A minority of that committee made a separate report, offering no specific resolutions, but expressing the sentiment that the execution of the treaty should be insisted on "at all hazards."

The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] then offered his resolutions, as substitutes for those proposed by the committee, in these words:

"2. Resolved, That if it be, in the opinion of the President of the United States, compatible with the honor and interest of the United States, during the interval until the next session of Congress, to resume the negotiations between the United States and France, he be requested to do so.

"3. Resolved, That no legislative measure of a hostile character or tendency towards the French nation is necessary or expedient at this time."

Now, sir, I am not sensible that I misunderstand or "1. Resolved, That the rights of the citizens of the misrepresent the gentleman. He certainly attributes United States to indemnity from the Government of the appropriation of three millions to an apprehension France, stipulated by the treaty concluded at Paris on somewhere existing that the adoption of the resolution the 4th of July, 1831, ought, in no event, to be sacrimight lead to measures requiring defence on our part--ficed, abandoned, or impaired, by any consent or acto a determination on the part of the House to sustain quiescence of the Government of the United States. that resolution. The resolution was the ground-work-the basis of the appropriation. Sir, I take issue upon these assertions. The appropriation would have been moved, I doubt not, and agreed to, whatever resolution had been passed. The particular resolution was passed unanimously, not because it looked to war, and involved contingent appropriation, but because it looked to peace, and was a rebuke upon hostile designs. Ifit was not so designed, and so to be regarded, ifit enfolded within itself any thing which might by possibility lead to war, and which demanded corresponding preparations, then I will say, with my honorable friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. REED,] that we were deceived and betrayed into its support. We agreed to it as a measure of peace. The abandonment of the treaty nobody dreamed of. Even France had not intimated it. Hostile movements, or movements tending in any degree to hostilities, were never intended by us. We would not have moved an inch in that direction; least of all would we have done any thing to place the question of peace or war in the sole hand of the President. The resolution, therefore, was not the foundation, I repeat, of the appropriation of three millions. It was not so understood, as the gentleman says it was, on all sides of the House. On the other hand, so far from being regarded as a consequence"-a "consummation of the resolution," it was looked upon as directly repugnant to it. A distinguished member from Virginia, [Mr. GORDON,] who I regret is not now here, and who represented the principles of the ancient Commonwealth with great ability, then said: "Yesterday, the House had voted unanimously that there was no occasion to make war; and now, just before the moment of adjournment, the extraordinary proposition is made, to remove all the guards from the Treasury, and to give up that and all the legislative power to the President, in order to carry on a war." The same sentiment prevailed among many members of that House. The appropriation was considered utterly inconsistent with the object and the spirit of that resolution, which is now represented as having been the basis of it. Nor, sir, is the gentleman any more correct in the remark that "the resolution which finally passed by that vote had been contested by a debate of several days immediately before its passage, upon grounds that such a resolution would occasion war.' The truth is, the resolution which passed was hardly debated at all. It was scarcely resisted. The reference to the journals,

These various resolutions and the reports from the committee were debated on Saturday, 28th February, and also on Monday, the 2d day of March; and these were the resolutions which, upon the one side or the other, were "contested" and "resisted." The animated debate to which the gentleman refers, and the spirited resistance, were not upon his resolution which finally passed-for it had not then been proposed; but it was to some of these, and chiefly to that which looked to contingent preparations. Objections were made to the phraseology employed in the report and resolutions. The expression "at all hazards" was regarded as minatory, and so also the words "in no event," which occur in the first of the gentleman's proposed substitutes. Milder language was sought. Various unsatisfactory amendments and suggestions were offered, all going to soften down the asperities which were thought to exist in the language and spirit of the reports and resolutions. Finally, at a late hour in the evening, the House having been in continued session fourteen hours, a new resolution, or perhaps a modification of one which had been already offered, was proposed. Very little, if any, debate occurred upon it. None is reported. It was unanimously adopted, with but two slight efforts to substitute others in its stead. These are the facts. They cannot be controverted. The House will now judge whether that resolution, which is asserted to have been the foundation of the appropriation of three millions, was debated and resisted several days, upon the ground that it would or might involve the nation in war-whether it was agreed to under any expectation that it was to be followed up by measures for defence. As to the notice said to have been given by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, [Mr. CAMBRELENG,] that he should submit a motion for large contingent appropriations, I lay it out of the case. Few heard it. But what of it? Was the House thereby pledged to vote any appropriation he might choose to propose? Above all,

to be derived from this source should be appropriated for the purpose of arming our fortifications, and for making other military and naval preparations for the defence of the country, in case such expenditures should become necessary before the next meeting of Congress."

[H. OF R.

[Mr. ADAMS. That was a sufficient reason, then, for the appropriation of three millions.]

Unfortunately, sir, no such reason was then assigned or thought of. But that is not what I am now considering. I am showing, sir, that the honorable member did not, from any cause, at the close of the last session, consider the danger so imminent as to require preparations for defence; for, immediately following the expression of his disapprobation of the recall of Mr. Livingston, he proceeds: "We should therefore be left defenceless all over the ocean for many months--at least until Confence of the country." Now, sir, although the gentleman spoke with much earnestness, and at some length, disapproving this step of the President, and expressing his opinion that, by possibility, it might lead to hostilities, he nowhere gave the slightest indication of a wish that Congress should provide for such an emergency; on the contrary, he distinctly avowed the opinion that nothing would be done "until Congress could be convened." Three days only before the termination of that session, when the whole subject of our French affairs was before us, was discussed, and was understood in all its aspects, did the honorable member anticipate any necessity for such an appropriation as was subsequently made? Did he recommend it, or advise it? No, sir. I submit, then, whether the danger was so imminent, the emergency so pressing, the necessity so overshadowing and irresistible, as to have required that appropriation in the objectionable form it was proposed? But, sir, it has been said that the constitutional objections of the Senate finally "melted down to a mere question of dollars and cents," whether the appropriation should be three millions or eight hundred thousand dollars. Is it possible that the honorable member does not perceive the true ground upon which these objections stood? Has the intellectual acumen for which he has been distinguished become so utterly blunted under the influence of feelings and passions which he seems to cherish? Nothing is plainer to the most obtuse understanding than the difference between the appropriation of three millions as it passed the House, and the proposition agreed upon by the conferees to reduce it to eight hundred thousand dollars, which, doubtless, would have received the sanction of the Senate. It is not in the amount, but in the form of the appropriation. In the one case, it was indefinite, loose, limited to no specific objects, undefined as to purpose. This was the objection. In the other case, it was a proposition for a precise, defined, limited appropriation, in the usual form, and for ordinary purposes--"three hundred thousand dollars for arming the fortifications of the country; five hundred thousand dollars for the repair and equipment of ships of war." The purpose is clearly expressed, the object declared. Now, sir, does not the gentleman perceive the wide difference between these forms of appropriation? Is he so blind as not to see that the constitutional objections which lay in the one case did not apply to the other? And will he then say that it all "melted down to a question of dollars and cents?" Sir, I put it to his candor, I put it to his sense of justice,

A strong solicitude was manifested, and an effort made, on the part of certain gentlemen, to adopt that third resolution forthwith; so that the bill for the sale of the bank stock might immediately be passed, it being the last day on which bills could be sent from one House to the other. The friends of "contingent prepara-gress could be convened, and take measures for the detions" and warlike measures urged speedy action. The effort on the other hand was, to discuss that resolution in a Committee of the Whole House, where we knew latitude of debate could be secured, and where the previous question could not be applied. The gentleman from Massachusetts was with us on that occasion. He advocated the motion made by a highly distinguished member from Virginia [Mr. ARCHER] to commit the resolution to the Committee of the Whole. He said "it was the only constitutional course." "The resolution proposed to spend the money of the nation; but its reference to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union was objected to, because, if it went there, the House could not be bound to pass it by the previous question. It was, in effect, a proposition to tax the people; to take seven millions of their money, and appropriate it to certain purposes." "He now discovered that war with France was to be connected with the war upon the bank. The two wars were to be united, each supporting the other." "Is this a proceeding touching an appropriation of money, or not? It was certainly a proceeding by which seven millions of the public money was to be taken and expended in a windmill war against France, in favor of which, he thanked God, there had yet been no expression of opinion on the part of this House." "It was now for the first time disclosed that these two wars were to be blended together-the war with France, and the war with the bank; one was to carry the other, if either was too heavy to sustain itself," Yes, sir, the war with the bank found favor in the House; it was popular. It was to carry the heavy load of the war with France. So thought the member at that time. Other gentlemen spoke also. The then chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means [Mr. POLK] said: "The third resolution of the committee should be acted on forthwith, to the end that the bill to sell the stock should be acted on to-day. He suggested the propriety of acting on the resolution forthwith. To commit this subject was to bury it." Certainly it was. That was precisely what we desired to do. The gentleman from Massachusetts was with us. He desired no preparations for "a windmill war;" a Quixotic expedition to be sure it was, in which at one time we had strong fears that the member from Massachusetts was to act the subordinate part. Well, sir, we succeeded. The resolution was buried. The war was defeated, as well that against the bank as that against France. In all the debate, the honorable gentleman made no allusion to any other means of defence or preparation. His objection was directed not to the particular mode of supplying the means then recommended, but it went to the whole matter of hostile measures, The war itself was held up to ridicule, and justly held up. And yet, sir, it is now said we were then in "imminent danger.' On the following day (28th of February) the gentleman again spoke to the questions growing out of our French relations. He expressed his regret that orders had been given Mr. Livingston to leave Paris, in the event of the rejection of the bill of indemnity by the French Chambers. Such a course, "according to the usage of nations, might be construed into an act of hostility."

to answer.

Much indignation has been expressed by the honorable member [Mr. ADAMS] at the charge he supposes to have been made by the "personified sentiment," in the columns of the National Intelligencer, against the last House of Representatives, of "man-worship" and subserviency to executive dictation. Whether such a charge be well or ill-founded, I shall not discuss. I wish only to produce some authority upon which it may be maintained: an authority having weight in certain quarters, and possibly which may be of some consideration with the gentleman himself-it is the authority of his own assertions and opinions. In the debate I have already referred to,