operate here should be found to have been efficient there also, a still greater degree of pressure and distress than has yet been felt may be expected.

The committee, therefore, cannot but regard the removal of the deposits, on the whole, as a measure highly inexpedient, and altogether unjustifiable. The public moneys were safe in the Bank. This is admitted. All the duties of the Bank connected with these public moneys were faithfully discharged. This, too, is admitted. The subject had been recently before the House of Representatives, and that House had made its opinion against the removal known by a very unequivocal vote. Another session of Congress was close at hand, when the whole matter would again come before it. Under these circumstances, to make the removal, with the certainty of creating so much alarm, and of producing so much positive evil and suffering, such derangement of the currency, such pressure and distress in all the branches of the business of private life, is an act which the committee think the Senate is called on to disapprove.

The reasons which have thus been stated, apply to the whole proceedings of the Secretary relating to the public deposits, and make it unnecessary to consider whether there be any difference between his power over moneys already in the Bank, and his power to suspend future deposits. The committee forbear, also, to consider the propriety of the measures adopted by the Secretary for the safe keeping of the public moneys since their withdrawal from the Bank. They forbear, too, from entering into any discussion, at present, of the course of legislation proper to be adopted by Congress under the existing state of things. In this report, they have confined their consideration to the removal of the deposits, the reasons assigned for it, and its immediate consequences; and on these points they have formed the opinions which have now been expressed.

They recommend to the Senate the adoption of the resolution which has been referred to them.

REMARKS

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE AFFAIRS OF THE GENERAL POST-OFFICE, JUNE 27, 1834.

In the Senate, June 27th, 1834, the Report of the committee on the condition of the general post-office, and the resolutions with which the Report concludes, having been taken up and debated by several gentlemen, Mr. WEBSTER, in conclusion, made the following remarks:

MR. WEBSTER said that he thought great credit was due to the committee for the labor, diligence, and ability, which its members had bestowed on the subject referred to them. They have now made a report of a very serious character, containing explicit charges of maladministration, and accompanied by the evidence on which those charges are founded. Two members of the committee have made a report, or presented a paper, of their own, in which they undertake in some instances to defend, and in others to excuse, the conduct of the Postmaster-General, and other persons employed in the department. Now, Sir (said Mr. W.), in an affair so complicated, where there are so many charges, and so much evidence, the first question to be asked is, Are any of these charges admitted to be true, by the friends of the Administration, and, if any, which? And, as to the rest of the charges, are they all denied or contradicted, or are some of them, and, if any, which, left without denial or contradiction? The honorable chairman of the committee (Mr. GRUNDY), who does not agree in the report of the committee, but who is one of the two members who signed the other paper, called the report of the minority, has addressed the Senate repeatedly, on the subject of these charges. Some of them he has objected to; others he has not attempted to rebut; and of others he has said nothing. The honorable gentleman is friendly to the Administration, and to the head of the Post-Office Department; and, therefore, perhaps, it was hardly to be expected that he should show great zeal in the prosecution of this inquiry. Yet I think, Sir, we had a right to expect from him not only his opinion on all the charges, but also some degree of patriotic indignation against lawless acts, which he admits to be lawless. Take, 50

VOL. II.

for example, the first resolution of the committee, which declares that the Postmaster-General has borrowed money on the credit of the United States, without any authority of law. The honorable chairman says, he admits the truth of this charge. Admits it? But why does he content himself with admitting it? Does he not regard it as a gross violation of duty? Does he not think it an alarming thing, that the Postmaster-General should borrow half a million of dollars, in order to cover up the deficiencies of the department, and that he should keep this loan concealed, for years, from the knowledge of Congress? As the head of a committee charged to inquire into abuses, and this enormous abuse having been discovered, can the honorable member justify himself by simply saying he admits its existence? Has he no reproof, no word of censure for such a flagrant violation of law? Has he no disapprobation to express, no complaint to enter, in such tones as that the Administration shall hear them? No man denies the fact, and none undertakes to defend it. What then? Is the department still to go on in its career, and nothing done, any more than if nothing had been discovered? If there were nothing else in the whole report- if that charge stood alone-I cannot conceive how any man can doubt that the department ought to be immediately and thoroughly reformed. The country, if I mistake not, will call for such reformation. As to upholding the administration of the department, with such charges against it proved and admitted, it is more even than the spirit of party devotion can accomplish.

Again, Sir, the third resolution distinctly declares that a practice prevails, in the post-office, of granting contracts on bids which vary from the advertisements, and of altering contracts, after they are made and accepted-a practice which destroys all competition, and enables the department to give all contracts to favorites. Is this charge denied, or admitted? I have not heard the honorable member, the chairman, deny it. Does he acknowledge it to be true? If he does, why does he not tell us, in a plain and direct manner, that this, too, is an enormous abuse, and ought to be reformed? Is such a practice to pass without reprehension? While its existence is detected, discovered, and acknowledged, is there to be no rebuke of it?

There is, then, the sixth resolution, which declares, that extra allowances have been made to contractors, which are unreasonable and extravagant, and out of all proportion with the increase of service. Is this true?

The eleventh resolution alleges, in general terms, that the department is deeply in debt, and its affairs in disorder. I have heard no man deny this. None can deny it. The department is deeply in debt; its affairs are disordered, greatly disordered. These extra allowances appear to have lost their original character. Instead of

being extraordinary, they have become ordinary. Contractors calculate upon them. The probability of an extra enters into their motives, when they make bids. Indeed, it seems of very little importance what bids they make. They are, in fact, paid just what sums the Postmaster-General sees fit to pay; and they are generally very well satisfied. From the frequency and the amount of these extras, the constant changing of contracts, it is quite evident that all fair competition among contractors is done away.

Mr. President, the country is awakened to these abuses in the post-office, and it will not be, and ought not to be, satisfied without a thorough examination, and an honest and real reform. I give my hearty thanks to the committee for their zeal and industry. They have had a laborious winter, and are likely to have a laborious summer. Let them go on fearlessly, and the country will appreciate their services.

Let them explore all the sources of corrupt patronage; let them bring all abuses into the broad light of day. Let them inquire into the number of removals of postmasters, with the alleged causes of such removals. Let them inquire at whose bidding honest and faithful men have been removed, to make way for partisans. Let them ascertain whether it be true that persons here may go into the post-office, and require the removal of postmasters by dozens; and whether the Postmaster-General, as matter of course, complies with such requisitions.

Mr. President, it is due to the committee-it is due to the Senate itself-it is due to this highly important subject, that we should express an opinion on some of the leading resolutions reported by the committee. If some are more doubtful than the rest, or require further examination, let them remain for further consideration. But on the plain, acknowledged, notorious cases, let us come to a vote. Let us show the country that we are in earnest. Let us begin with the first, with that which respects the borrowing of the money from banks, without authority of law, or even the knowledge of Congress; and let us see whether any one individual member of the Senate is prepared to withhold from that proceeding his vote of censure.

[Mr. BENTON thought the Senate ought to defer, for the present, taking a vote on the resolutions. He said he had had no opportunity of carefully examining the reports, and therefore knew but little of their contents. However, he must say, that he had found things in them at which he had felt much mortified.]

Mr. WEBSTER thought the best course, which was called for by the importance of the subject, and what was due as well to the committee as the Senate, was this to take a vote on the first resolution. He would then move to lay the others upon the table,

until such time as gentlemen had an opportunity of examining them, when he would move that they be taken up.

The question was then taken on agreeing to the first resolution reported by the postoffice committee, in the following words:

"Resolved, That it is proved, and admitted, that large sums of money have been borrowed at different banks by the Postmaster-General, in order to make up the deficiency in the means of carrying on the business of the Post-Office Department, without authority given by any law of Congress; and that, as Congress alone possesses the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, all such contracts for loans by the Postmaster-General are illegal and void."

And the question on agreeing to this resolution was decided unanimously in the affirmative.