Generally, sir, (said Mr. M.,) I believe I have been considered as radical in respect to appropriations of the public money. True, sir, I have always endeavored, as far as my vote would go, to withhold appropriations of a personal chatacter, made for individual and personal objects of aggrandizement to the officers of the Government. So, too, for local and sectional purposes. In respect to public objects-great purposes of national defence-objects confided to the national Government by the constitution, I have endeavored to distinguish in my action. Believing these distinctions, to exist, and that they are apparent, it will not be necessary for me to defend myself against any charges of seeming inconsistency in voting for this appropriation, and such others of the same character as may appear necessary and proper. These estimates (said Mr. M.) are made upon the basis of peace, with a prudent foresight, however, to any contingencies which await us. It is not necessary now to consider or debate our relations with other nations. Those relations are in a delicate condition at present, but we have a right to hope they will not be more seriously disturbed. Whether they are so or not, the measure now under consideration seems to be required by all the motives of prudence and patriotism. Mr. EVERETT inquired of the Chair, if it would be in order to move to strike out the whole clause. The CHAIR replied, not at that stage of the bill. The motion would be in order after the amendment had been acted on. [H. or R. was to be expended, of the character of the works re- We If the estimates are to be taken as prima fucie evidence of the propriety and necessity of public works, they must to nineteen twentieths of the House be conclusive. Those few representatives who reside in the vicinity of the place where the works are to be erected only can judge from actual knowledge, and they, too, are not very likely to be prejudiced against them. They will not at least be induced to search for objections. Take the present case as an illustration: The honorable gentleman, [Mr. CUSHMAN,] who represents the section of country around Portsmouth, is not even satisfied with the present estimate, and has given notice he shall move to increase it. A similar notice has been given in relation to the appropriation for Pensacola. He contended that such information should accompany the estimates as would satisfy the committees, and enable them to satisfy the House, of the propriety of the appropriations. Mr. E. further contended that the House ought to be informed, not only of the necessity of the work proposed, but of the plan on which the money was to be expended. They had a right to know, not only the general object proposed, but the means by which it was to be effected; to see that their money was not wasted by inefficient or extravagant expenditures. All that seemed now required of the representatives was to vote the money for general objects, and let the Executive ex Mr. EVERETT said he was in favor of putting the navy yards that were necessary for the service in perfect condition. He thought, however, that the present number was more than was necessary. We had now seven, viz: at Portsmouth, Charlestown, New York, (Brooklyn,) Philadelphia, Washington, Gosport, and Pensacola; that, of these, three might, without injury to the service, be discontinued, viz: at Portsmouth, Philadelphia, and Washington; at least, that we ought not to erect any new works at these places, but only keep them in repair for the present, and ultimately discontinue them; and that all the appropriations for additional improvements should be thrown on the four navy yards that were to be continued. The expense of maintaining the yards, independent of the cost of the per-pend it at its own discretion. In his opinion, in appromanent works, was worth saving. To each yard were attached commandants, navy agents, clerks, guards, &c. &c. If gentlemen, however, would not be willing to go with him in discontinuing the three navy yards, he thought there were strong reasons for discontinuing the one at Portsmouth. It was within sixty miles of that at Charlestown. That yard was sufficient for the coast east of the Cape; the principal materials from the South, live oak, &c., must all pass that depot in their way to Portsmouth. He saw no reason for maintaining two yards so near each other, and which were not required for the use of the naval service. The appropriation now asked for was for the erection of new works, with a view to the permanent continuance of the station. For one, all he was willing to do at present was, to provide for its present preservation; whatever should be necessary for this purpose he would vote for. What the unexpended balance of appropriation was for Portsmouth he was not informed. On the 1st January, 1834, it was over $12,000, and $39,925 was then appropriated; and he wished to know whether this had been expended. When the present motion was decided, he should move to strike out the whole appropriation, with a view to elicit information of what was necessary for repairs, and to have the appropriation limited to that purpose only. When called upon to vote for appropriations, he was desirous of being informed for what object the money priations for all new works, the plan of expenditure should be exhibited to the House, and not only exhibited, but should be sanctioned and prescribed by the act of appropriation. This was, he thought, very properly proposed to be done in a bill now pending, for the erection of buildings for the State and Treasury Departments; the bill prescribed they should be erected according to the plan which is now exhibited on the wall of this House. He could refer to instances of an opposite character, in which the country had suffered, and might yet suffer, for the want of similar provisions. An appropriation was made for the armament of the navy: the manner was left to the Executive, and by the Executive to experiments of the navy commissioners. Under their experiments, the weight of the guns, in proportion to their caliber, was reduced; and the result is, that you have now seven hundred and fifty guns in your navy more dangerous to the crews than to an enemy. Another case: In 1833, an act passed appropriating | $200,000, on estimates, too, for building a bridge over the Potomac, between this city and Alexandria. The estimates were for a bridge of wood, and sufficient for the purpose; yet the act did not, though the estimates did, say that the bridge should be made of wood. The act merely provided for a bridge, but prescribed no plan on which it was to be built. Under this $200,000 act, a contract was made with a Mr. Dibble to erect a H. or R.] Naval Appropriation Bill. [FEB. 10, 1836. limits of internal improvement--they would expect a similar jealousy on the part of the seaboard. Indeed, they think they have seen something of the kind al stone bridge, for which he was to receive one million three Two years since it pleased the Committee of Ways and Means to drop from the harbor bill the appropriation of the $30,000 for surveys--this only remnant of the system of internal improvement left to its friends. A motion was made to insert it, but failed, and failed, too, by the opposition of the tide-water votes. What was the consequence? The hill country saw that, while they were voting millions for others, not a cent could be expended above tide water. They united, and laid the harbor bill on the table by a majority over twenty; and He would instance another magnificent project now there it would have laid till this time, had not the $30,000 in progress the New York custom-house. The House been inserted. He would excite no sectional jealousy, had prescribed no plan for this work, nor fixed any limit but would insist that equal justice should be done to all to its cost. They had voted ahead half a million, and parts of the country; and it would be the fault of those the work was hardly yet visible above ground; what, who united on that occasion if it was not done. He was with its columns and decorations, it would cost, he could not willing there should be one constitution for the seanot estimate; probably some millions of dollars. A board and another for the country. fourth case: We had now before us a bill appropriating large sums for what might be called floating fortifications, yet to be erected, on sites yet undesignated and unpurchased. In all cases, he thought the House should not only judge of the general utility of any proposed object of expenditure, but should, as far as practicable, limit the discretion of the Executive in the expenditure. He was willing to vote for every necessary appropriation for fortifications, for the navy, and for navy yards. He would put the four principal navy yards in the best condition, but he could not vote for unnecessary objects, useless objects of expenditure. Such he conceived that of the navy yard at Portsmouth. Though he did not propose now to abandon it, he would not consent to enlarge it. Ultimately, he trusted, it would be discontinued. A new and strong motive for economy is now presented-a motive which would have its influence on him in Mr. LINCOLN was in favor of the whole bill as it regard to every expenditure. He looked forward to stood, and contended at length for the necessity of keepthe passage of a bill now in progress for the distributioning the navy yards in a state of complete repair; for, both of the proceeds of the public lands, in effect, of the sur- in time of war and in time of peace, they were indispenplus revenue, among the States. He trusted the bill sable. It was an error to say that no statements had would pass the present session. The principle was one of been furnished to the House; for a report had been sent those on which the present Executive came into power; in embracing the very subject under consideration, both it had been favorably noticed in the message of 1829; it from the Secretary of the Navy, in general terms, and had been recommended by the Legislatures of many of from the commissioners of the navy, in detail. Better the States. He would now guard the Treasury with authority, better evidence, could not be adduced. the same vigilance as though it were already a law, with Would any gentleman in the House, or the gentlemen the same vigilance as though the surplus revenue had from Tennessee and Kentucky in particular, [Messrs. already been actually divided among the States, and the BELL and HARDIN,] presume to say they understood the questions now were on calling it back and reappropria- subject better than the head of the Navy Department, ting it to objects of national concern. or the commissioners of the navy? Mr. L. then referred the report of the Secretary of the Navy, and the statements and recommendations of the board of commissioners, a body of gentlemen selected as being the best qualified in the country, and conversant with the subject from their youth. The works were proved indispensable, and the onus was upon the mover of the amendment to prove that one half the sum proposed in the bill would be sufficient for the completion. Mr. L. did not believe there would be war; and he was mistaken if he did not see the lowering cloud dispelled by the President's recent message. He did not believe war was contemplated or anticipated, and the very appropriations now asked for justified that conclusion. He believed, if war had been apprehended, more direct, specific measures would long ere this have been recommended. This he believed, too, in view of the admonition of the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means [Mr. CAMBRELENG] yesterday, that he would put this country into a state of defence. If war should come, Mr. L. would stand by his country to the last, but he had no anticipations of any thing but peace at present. He hoped the bill would pass without reduction. Some gentlemen had advocated the appropriation as more necessary in view of our present relations with France, and had taken the occasion to avow their course on war appropriations. He considered this as a bill founded on peace estimates. Other bills reported looked to other prospects. He would not regard this bill as having any relation to war. And he wished to be distinctly understood that he would not be induced to abandon the principle of economy to which he had referred from any imaginary danger of war; that he would vote for no war appropriation, unless he believed there was danger of war; that then he would go as far as the farthest, but that at present he had no such apprehension; that he could not, from any mere imaginary danger, be induced to depart from the principle of economy, and permit irrevocable appropriations to be made, to the peculiar advantage of any section of the country. He thought it not improbable that some who agreed with him on the leading principle might differ from him in its application. The appropriations for the navy and for fortifications would be expended on the seaboard. The money of the Government, like the water of its streams, runs to the ocean. He trusted that those who represented the hill country would not be uncharitably judged by their brethren, if they should not be satisfied so easily as themselves of the necessity of every appropriation. Should the current be reversed-should the money ever run up stream, and beyond the proper constitutional Mr. SMITH said there were two features in the remarks of the honorable member from Vermont [Mr. EVERETT] which excited his special admiration. I allude now, sir, to his profound love of economy in the expenditure of the public money, and to his frankness in avowing the ultimate purpose which he has in view in opposing the particular appropriation now before the committee, for the navy yard at Portsmouth. But, sir, it has often fallen under the observation of most men, that those who set up for great economists in the abstract are not always the most economical in fact, when they come to the application or practice of what they call economy. And believe (said Mr. S.) that this remark will be found particularly true in relation to that class of expenditures of the public money to which the honorable member from Vermont has ever been foremost in giving his most liberal support. But of this by and by. [H. OF R. Mr. SMITH proceeded. I am happy to take the explanations of the gentleman. But how is his argument relieved by it? Have we not evidence before us of the necessity and propriety of this appropriation? The honorable member from Massachusetts [Mr. LINCOLN] has already adverted to the recommendation of the Secretary of the Navy upon the subject; and also to that of the board of navy commissioners. Yet another document from the board of navy commissioners pronounceз, in so many words, this class of works, at the navy yards mentioned in the document, including the one at Portsmouth, as among the "most important" of the Government's works. Besides these recommendations from the board of navy commissioners, backed by the recommendation of the Secretary of the Navy, you have also the report of a committee of this House, reiterating the same recommendation. And yet the gentleman says, we have no information, we have not sufficient information to show the propriety of this appropriation! Why, sir, what other information would the gentleman have than this accumulation of it in the printed documents upon this table, and from the appropriate sources? He says it is impossible for all the members of the House to understand the necessity of the work. But, sir, it is not impossible, if he will but make the effort. If he be not negligent of the opportunity given him to understand it, or blinded by prejudice against every recommendation that emanates from the heads of Departments, he can fully understand the propriety of every recommendation made. If he suspects their propriety or expediency, and the recommendations of the appropriate officers, he can, at very little trouble, possess himself of their whole merits; and unless he chooses to do this, with all due respect to the gentleman from Vermont be it said, he cannot, with propriety, complain, or object, that he has not sufficient authority for the appropriation. The gentleman from Vermont avows his object in opposing this item in the bill for the Portsmouth navy yard to be, not simply to defeat this appropriation, but to discontinue and abolish the yard at Portsmouth entirely. And what, sir, are his reasons for opposing the appropriation itself? Why, the first reason with which he sets out cannot but illustrate to every member of this committee, most satisfactorily, that the gentleman has taken but a one-sided view of the subject-that he looks but one way in relation to it. He says there is no necessity for building up and keeping in repair the yard at Portsmouth, because within sixty miles westwardly, that is, at Charlestown, Massachusetts, the Government has an extensive navy yard and depot. Why, sir, if the gentleman had but looked in the other direction, he would have at once seen a distance of three hundred miles of seacoast, upon the east of Portsmouth, where not a single dollar of naval preparation has been made by Government for the defence of the country against any enemy. If it be an argument against the continued existence of the navy yard at Portsmouth, that another yard is supported within sixty miles on the west of it, is it not a much stronger argument in favor of its continuance at Portmouth, that no other navy yard or depot has been provided by Government for the wide distance of three hundred miles on the east of it? If it be true, sir, that the absence of all naval preparation by the Government through the whole extent east of Portsmouth is the result of necessity, and from the want of suitable waters for the pur-mont, of destroying and abolishing entirely the navy yard pose on that seacoast, or that it is the result of other sufficient causes, it is equally obvious that the nearest point that you can approach to that unprotected coast is the most suitable point for such a provision of Gov. ernment as is in question. With this understanding of localities, no gentleman, as it seems to me, should think of discontinuing the navy yard at Portsmouth under any circumstances. But the gentleman from Vermont urges other reasons in opposition to this appropriation, and perhaps they are equally cogent with that to which I have just adverted. He says the appropriation ought not to be made, because the Government has appropriated, or is about appropriating, some million or more of dollars to erect a custom-house in the city of New York; and because, forsooth, the Government appropriated some considerable amount--I know not how much, but probably an extravagant sum-to construct a bridge across the Potomac river. Sir, there is no doubt a very striking connexion between these subjects and the navy yard at Portsmouth, in the mind of the gentleman from Vermont, although I confess I am totally unable to perceive it. [Mr. EVERETT asked leave to explain. He said the gentleman from Maine had misunderstood his remarks. That he alluded to the expenditures relative to the custom-house at New York, and the Potomac bridge, as cases in which the acts of appropriation prescribed no plan of the works to be constructed. The same objection, said he, applies to the appropriation now proposed at Portsmouth. We want evidence of its necessity.] VOL. XII.-158 I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that we have all the neces sary information to not only justify, but to require, this appropriation. We have all that is usual, and all that ought to be desired, unless we are also actuated by the ulterior purpose avowed by the gentleman from Ver at Portsmouth-a purpose which I apprehend very few members of this committee are disposed to entertain. Look at the question in point of economy, and how will the case stand? Is it not good economy to construct sheds and docks at our navy yards, to preserve the property of the Government that necessarily accumulates there? The gentleman from Vermont is himself, I believe, an agriculturist, or if not, the region he represents upon this floor is made up of agriculturists. I would ask him, what would be, what must be, his opinion of the individual who is in the management of an extensive farm, requiring an extensive body of implements and materials, and who totally neglects to make preparation of suitable sheds and buildings for the protection and preservation of them from the elements that destroy them-from rain, snow, dampness, and decay? Would you, sir, would that gentleman, pronounce such a man a good husbandman, a prudent agriculturist? Would he say such a man was practising upon principles of econ. omy? It cannot be. Well, sir, apply the same reasoning to your Government. It necessarily engages an extensive navy; it must maintain naval depots at different points. Vast amounts of property, in a wrought and in an unwrought condition, are necessarily accumulated there. And is it not economy in the Government to construct, at such points, the sheds and docks by which alone we can hope to preserve the property thus accumulated from the action of the elements that destroy it, that it may be ready for the service of the Government on any emergency? It would be neglect and waste not to make such preparation. The question that alone remains is, are the appropriations proposed--$18,000 for timber sheds, $25,000 for mast and boat house, $20,000 for a timber dock, and $4,000 for repairs--proportioned to the character of the works needed? The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LINCOLN] has well said that, before objection be made to these propositions, regard ought to be had to the nature of the works designed. They are proposed to be permanent and durable works, and not to be constructed of materials and after the fashion of many of that class of works for which the honorable member from Vermont has invariably voted most liberally to supportworks of internal improvement, in harbors and rivers, of which the first parts constructed have actually, in numerous instances, fallen into decay and ruin before the other parts were completed. It is not such a kind of economy as the gentleman's favorite works have been conducted upon that is designed to be applied in the construction of the navy buildings at Portsmouth. The works are to be permament and durable--of lasting materials; and if they should cost more in the outset, they are designed to be cheapest in the result. But, sir, we hear the cry of war sounded upon this subject, and with what view I can scarcely conceive. War, and war measures, and war appropriations, appear to have, in the estimation of some gentlemen, an intimate connexion with almost every proposition that comes before the House at the present session. No proposition, however trivial, no appropriation, however small, comes up, which does not seem to partake of war in some way. This panic appears to be very much of the character with that which pervaded the British nation subsequent to the French Revolution. Nothing could occur there, nothing could be proposed, at all out of the common course, either in public or private circles, though it were that a letter was discovered to have two seals instead of one, which did not excite alarm at once, as partaking in some way of French influence, or having some connexion with the French Revolution! Sir, I see no war measure in the proposed appropriations for the navy yard at Portsmouth. It is a work of economy, of expediency, and of necessity. The idea of rejecting it, with a view of discontinuing the navy yard at that place, cannot, I trust, influence any considerable portion of this committee. It would be, in my estimation, the extreme of folly in the Government to forego the privileges which that yard combines, the facilities which that harbor furnishes for ship-building. In no place of the Union is ship-building carried on with higher reputation than at Portsmouth. The best, or among the best, vessels that float upon the ocean were constructed at Portsmouth; and the facilities of the Government for the purposes of a navy yard of certain magnitude at Portsmouth are unsurpassed at any other point of our seacoast, from one end to the other of the Union. And I trust that the item of the bill now before the committee will not be stricken out, with a view to delay the construction of the necessary buildings, and much less with a view to discontinue the navy yard at Portsmouth. It would not only be bad economy to do so, but a direct and serious injury to the public service. Mr. JENIFER thought the estimates of the proper Department, sustained as they were by the Committee of Ways and Means, were sufficient, in the absence of any evidence against their propriety, to justify him to vote for all these appropriations. He was entirely opposed to the proposed reduction, whether with reference to war or peace; though Mr. J. did not consider war to be at all improbable; for the acceptance of the mediation of England was so conditional that no one could say what would be the result, though he, from his heart, hoped such a crisis would be averted. Mr. WISE wished to make known a fact of which [FEB. 10, 1836. the House was uninformed. A communication had been made from the Navy Department to the Committee on Naval Affairs, some days or a week ago, recommending a large appropriation in reference to our present foreign relations. That committee had ordered this communication to be reported to the House; and it would be done, doubtless, as soon as the chairman had an opportunity. That communication expressly stated, that when the Secretary of the Navy made his recommendation, at the commencement of the session, for an increase of two frigates and three sloops of war, he made it solely with a view to a peace establishment. He now recom. mended an increase of appropriations to the enormous sum of $6,337,000. Mr. W. supported the motion of Mr. BELL, and drew a contrast between the sums expended on the east and those on the south coast, and condemned the whole policy of the Government in constructing navy yards near the large cities. There was not a single navy yard in the country but what was defenceless. He was opposed to the item under consideration, and said that, while so large a sum was proposed for Portsmouth navy yard, which was not necessary, Charleston, South Carolina, would require at least $250,000, and Pensacola $500,000, to put them in a fit condition. With regard to war, it was not a war with France, with Louis Phillippe, but it was a war on our own public Treasury. Mr. CUSHMAN said the navy yard at Portsmouth was not only one of the oldest in the country, but one of the most important for its locality. It was approachable at all seasons of the year, which was not the case of any one yard north of the Potomac. Even from four to six weeks, in the winter, Boston harbor was frozen up, while there was not a day in the whole year that ships could not enter Portsmouth. Mr. CAMBRELENG said he had made application at the proper Department to ascertain whether the appropriations for the yard at Portsmouth were necessary, and had ascertained that the estimate submitted by the naval officer of that station was one hundred and eleven thousand dollars, which the navy commissioners had reduced to sixty-seven thousand dollars. one. Mr. JARVIS said that the navy yard at Portsmouth had been long in existence, and was a very important In consequence of its situation, it was to be approached at all seasons of the year. Efforts had heretofore been made to abolish that station, which proved unsuccessful for that very reason. One argument made use of against these appropriations was that gentlemen could not depend on the estimates submitted by the Depart ments. He thought those estimates were to be relied on, because they came through the hands of persons of long experience. In the first place, the estimates were submitted by the commanders of those stations, who are always old and experienced officers, to the navy commissioners. Then it was the duty of the commissioners to visit those stations yearly, to ascertain whether those estimates were correct; and, if so, to concur in them. They were then laid before the Secretary of the Navy, and had to pass his inspection, and from him they came to the House. Another objection to the appropriation was, that there was an unexpended balance in the Treasury. Mr. J. said there must necessarily be a balance in the Treasury on the 1st of December; otherwise there would have to be a suspension of operations in the navy yards between that time and the time that our appropriations would be available. Mr. BELL had, in the first instance, risen to propound an inquiry, whether this appropriation was necessary or not, without going into the general question; for on that he would take the very authorities adduced by gentlemen on the other side, which went to demonstrate that the navy yard at Portsmouth ought to be abolished altogether. He had not got a specific answer to his inquiry. But with regard to the general question, the propriety of having seven navy yards, it was generally admitted, by competent officers, that a single station was better. England, with her thousand ships of war, had but two naval stations, by which means she was enabled to concentrate the best talent, and to carry on her works with more vigor. He had made the motion he had to test the sense of the House, and see whether or not, with a view to a probable contingency, they were inclined to dispense with what he believed to be unnecessary buildings. He could not himself conceive them to be necessary. He could not see the necessity of erecting a timber shed to preserve the accumulated timber in the yard. But it was not so much into this inquiry he wished to go, as whether or not some part of these large appropriations might not be wisely and prudently dispensed with during the present year. He intended to apply the same principle to every part of this bill, to an amount of three or four hundred thousand. Mr. B. referred to the unexpended balances, and said it appeared that the estimates of the Navy Department had been made without reference to those unexpended balances made for the same objects last year. Mr. CAMBRELENG would inform the gentleman from Tennessee that, on the 1st of December, the whole of the unexpended balance remaining on hand was $135,000, the whole of which would probably be expended before this bill passed both Houses. The argument of the gentleman, that only two navy yards existed in England, would, if carried out, create at least thirty on our three thousand miles of coast; Plymouth and Portsmouth, in England, being only one hundred and fifty miles apart. Mr. C. agreed with the gentleman from Virginia, that the southern coast had been neglected, and he would cheerfully go with the gentleman from Florida to increase the appropriation for Pensacola. Mr. PEARCE, of Rhode Island, then moved that the committee rise; agreed to: Ayes 83, noes 48. The committee accordingly rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again; and, on motion, The House adjourned. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11. PUBLIC LANDS. The following resolution, heretofore submitted by Mr. VINTON, was, by consent, taken up: "Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to communicate to this House any information in his possession of frauds or fraudulent practices, under the existing pre-emption laws; and that he also inform the House what has been the effect of the pre-emption laws now in force, or heretofore passed, upon the sales of the public lands, and upon that branch of the public revenue." Mr. GARLAND, of Louisiana, offered the following amendment, which was accepted as a modification by Mr. VINTON: Also, the quantity of land entered or purchased in the State of Louisiana, under the pre-emption law approved the 19th June, 1834, designating the quantity entered or purchased in each land district, and the quantity entered as floats in each district, under the several sections of the pre-emption law approved May 29, 1830, revised by the pre-emption law of June 19, 1834; together with copies of all documents and papers on file in the Department relating to the official conduct of the late register of the land office and receiver of public moneys at Opelousas, in the aforesaid State, or either of them; {H. of R. also, copies of all letters written by the late Commissioner of the General Land Office, and Gideon Fitz, Esq., formerly register of the land office at Mount Salus or Clinton, in the State of Mississippi, upon the subject of allowing pre-emption on floats, under the second section of the pre-emption law approved May 29, 1830; together with copies of all the instructions that have been given to the registers of land offices and receivers of public moneys, for their government in executing the pre-emption laws of May, 29, 1830, and the 19th June, 1834. Mr. VINTON further modified his resolution by adding the following: Also, that he communicate to the House any information in his possession respecting combinations of persons, by force or otherwise, to prevent or obstruct the sales of the public land, either at public sale or private entry. Mr. BOON moved to strike out so much of the resolution as called for the "opinion" of the head of the Department. Mr. B. was willing to vote for any requisition for information, but was decidedly opposed to asking the opinion of that officer. Mr. VINTON had no objection to modify that clause so as to inquire of the Department what had been the "effect" of the pre-emption laws. Mr. BOON assented; and after a few remarks from Mr. HOWARD, the resolution, as modified, was agreed to. FRENCH AFFAIRS. The following resolution, heretofore offered by Mr. MASON, of Virginia, was taken up: "Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to communicate to this House a statement showing the amount of duties received into the Treasury of the United States on wines and silks, of the production of France, since the passage of the act entitled 'An act to carry into effect the convention between the United States and His Majesty the King of the French,' concluded at Paris on the 4th of July, 1831, approved 13th July, 1832; and the amount of duties which would have been chargeable on the same importations under the revenue laws as they existed at the time of the passage of that act, with the amount of importations of those articles in each year, for five years past; that he be also requested to communicate to this House a statement showing, in analytical form, the awards made by the commissioners who acted under the act aforesaid, in execu. tion of the said convention, their amount, the several classes or categories in which they are arranged, and the amount of the awards belonging to each class, and the persons and companies, and the sums awarded to each." Mr. ADAMS moved as an amendment the following resolution, heretofore offered by him: Resolved, That the President of the United States be also requested to communicate to this House, if not incompatible with the public interest, a copy and translation of the act of the Legislative Chambers of France, making appropriations for carrying into effect the indemnity stip ulated for claims of citizens of the United States by the treaty of 4th of July, 1831; and, also, copies of all the communications from the French Government, and their representatives in the United States, in relation to the execution of that treaty, in the French language. Mr. EVANS moved, as an amendment to the amendment, the following; which was agreed to: And, also, to communicate, if it be, in his opinion, compatible with the public interest, so much of the several letters of Mr. Livingston, addressed to the Secretary of State, of October 4, 1833, of November 22, 1834, of December 6, 1834, and of December 22, 1834, as have not been heretofore communicated to Congress; |