« AnteriorContinuar »
July 2, 1836.]
for that would be a useful highway for all the world who travelled it, and the other confined its advantages to enriching a petty corporation, or a few individuals. But it had been said by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DAvis] that our revenue was collected at these ports; and there was an obligation to open them and keep them in repair on that account. And was our revenue increased by clearing out and multiplying these harbors? Not a single dollar. On the contrary, the more the ports were multiplied, the greater the expenses of collection; and consequently the revenue was diminished by the amount of this increase, and by all we expended on harbors beside. How would our national commerce suffer by an obstruction in the harbor of a particular city? If there should be an obstruction in the harbor of New York, it would only give a neighboring city some advantage, until New York, whose interest was affected, removed the obstruction. But if the Government removes the obstruction, other cities contribute to these very improvements, which have a direct tendency to injure them. If the ports of Charleston or Philadelphia, he said, had advantages over New York, that was a matter of rival interest between those cities, and had always been so considered, until this modern invention of taxing the people of the United States to relieve those who were alone interested. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wr astEn] had stated that other Governments had paid for opening and repairing harbors in their commercial cities. This, he thought, was not generally true. Some of the despotic sovereigns of Europe, without any limitation of power or sense of justice, occasionally took cities under their royal protection, and disbursed the public money upon them without regard to any particular rule. But the rule, he believed, was most generally to authorize the city to levy a tonnage duty on vessels for this purpose; this was the correct mode; this gave to each city its own natural advantages, and taxed those who had the benefit of the improvement. The Senator from Massachusetts, he said, was equally in error, when he stated that the States or cities had never considered themselves bound to keep their own ports in repair since the adoption of the constitution. This was directly contradicted by the history of every important seaport in the Union, and particularly that of Baltimore, which had just been mentioned by the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. PREston.] Maryland had granted an annual appropriation for Baltimore of $30,000, to keep the harbor of that city in repair. As a punishment to the city for the late outrages on private property, permitted and committed by its citizens, that fund had been taken to indemnify those who had suffered by those outrages. And now, for the first time, Baltimore comes here, and, by joining in the combination, gets the same amount srom the national Treasury. This, Mr. K. said, was a fair illustration of the whole system. Maryland comes into the concern, and the people of the United States are made to pay for the depredations of a Baltimore mob. Again, said Mr. K., I have shown that harbors have been made and improved by those to whom they belonged, from 1789 until a few years back, or have not been made or improved at all. And if they had needed no improvement for so many years, he thought it good evidence that this rush for millions all at once was uncalled for by the public interest. The truth was, the public had nothing to do with the matter. This vast combination, that was to plunder the Treasury of so many millions, was made up of interests purely private and local. What was constantly the language used on the floor of both Houses, if any member expressed a doubt, who had a few thousands offered to his own State, to bribe him into silence? Why, it was, “if you
don’t want it, strike it out;” and was a great national interest to be controlled by the simple wish of an individual? But such language was perfectly natural, considering the manner in which these speculations and jobs were got up. Who asked for or recommended them? Any general interest? No; the applications were all from cities, from individuals, or from companies who laid out sites for towns, got Congress to make them an appropriation for a harbor, and then sold out their lots on speculation. Thousands were squandered in bribes for votes, by making an appropriation for objects entirely useless, and where the only advantage was a job in the expenditure of the money. Mr. K. said it could not be disguised, and ought not to be denied, that this abominable system of plunder was carried through Congress by interested combinations, and could succeed in no other way. Members, by the skill of the managers, were frequently placed in such a situation that they were obliged to vote for the bill, however objectionable, to save themselves with their constituents. An honest member of the other House had told him that he had in this way been compelled to vote for the bill, although he pronounced it “a bill of abominations,” and hoped it might be arrested in the Senate. The member alluded to had pronounced this new harbor bill one of the most corrupt combinations of interested speculation that had ever disgraced the country, and such Mr. K. said he believed it. Mr. K. then called the attention of the Senate to another trick by which these managers had furnished evidence of their skill. It would be recollected that we had passed a moderate harbor bill long since, and sent it to the other House. We have never heard of it since, said Mr. K., until we find it actually incorporated in the monster before us. Why was this? Why, it was only to unite the interests of the two bills. Among other things, no doubt, great calculations of strength were made, by uniting the breakwater with the improvement of the Mississippi, and by this unnatural union between the French and the Friends, we are, said he, swept on by a current as irresistible as that of the Mississippi itself. And here he was reminded, he said, of the curious argument of the Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. NILEs.] That Senator had given us sound doctrine, with much ability, and great earnestness. He had pronounced the whole system wrong, partial, unconstitutional, and unjust, and condemned the bill as very objectionable; yet concluded by saying he should vote for the bill, because, now the system had commenced, we could not stop it! I know “we can’t stop it,” said Mr. K., unless we vote against it. This fraudulent expenditure is doubling on us by millions per annum, and gentlemen denounce it, as in duty bound; express their alarm, shut their eyes, and vote for it; and say, “we can’t stop it.” Mr. K. said he felt some difficulty in comprehending the principle which led to this fatal necessity. He hoped even the friends of the bill, would have some mercy upon the South and West, and be satisfied at the present session with the enormous bill already passed. Let us, said he, have a little time, to recover from the shock, and look into this heavy bill pushed upon us at the very last hour of the last day of the session, involving an expenditure so enormous; and which the committee themselves tell us they have had no time to examine. He hoped they would allow the bill to lie over till the next session, to give time to learn, at least, where the places are for whose benefit we proposed to saddle the country with such a vast expenditure. There was another reason, he said, why the friends of the bill should be content with this course. That was, the great amount of our appropriations during the Present year, and the extreme difficulty of procuring labor at any SENATE.]
..Appropriation Bill—-Suspension of the Rules.
[July 4, 1836.
price. Labor was now one hundred per cent. on the usual prices. And the great additional demand that would be created by these large Government expenditures would render it impossible to expend any thing during the present year with any regard to economy. He hoped these considerations would induce the Senate to postpone the bill to the first day of the next session, and he made a motion for that purpose. Messrs. WALKEl? and MANGUM addressed the Senate in favor of Mr. KING's motion. Mr. KING, of Georgia, then withdrew his motion, and moved to strike out all the items in the bill except the item of $75,000 for improving the mouth of the Mississippi, and asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. The question was taken, and decided as follows: Yeas 17, nays 21: YEAs—Messrs. Black, Calhoun, Clay, Cuthbert, Ewing of Ohio, Grundy, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Leigh, Mangum, Moore, Nicholas, Porter, Preston, Rives, Walker, White—17. NAys--Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Buchanan, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Kent, Linn, Niles, Page, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Webster, Wright—18. * So the motion of Mr. KING was negatived. Mr. KING, of Georgia, renewed his motion to postpone the further consideration of the bill until the first Monday in December, and asked the yeas and nays; which were ordered. The question was taken, and decided as follows: Yeas 17, nays 22: YEAs—Messrs. Black, Calhoun, Clay, Cuthbert, Fwing of Ohio, Grundy, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Leigh, Mangum, Moore, Nicholas, Porter, Preston, Rives, Walker, White—17. NAYs--Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Buchanan, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Goldsborough, Hendricks, Kent, Linn, Niles, Page, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, Wright-–22. - So the Senate refused to postpone the bill. The question was then taken on the renewed motion of Mr. Pn Eston to strike out the clause of $20,000 for deepening the harbor of Baltimore; which was rejected: Ayes 14. The bill was then reported as amended, and the amendments having been concurred in, the yeas and nays were ordered on the question of engrossment and reading it a third time. There was a brief discussion between Mr. CLAY, Mr. PRESTON, Mr. WALKER, Mr. BUCHANAN, and Mr. KENT, when Mr. PRESTON moved to strike out the item of five hundred dollars for a survey of the mouth of the susuehanna, but withdrew his motion. Mr. KING, of Georgia, renewed the motion, and called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered; and the question was then taken, and decided in the negative: Yeas 14, nays 24. Mr. PRESTON moved to strike out the appropriation for * of Georgetown, South Carolina: Yeas 21, nays Mr. KING, of Georgia, moved to strike ou ropriation of $10,000 for the harbor of io. which was negatived. • The amendments were then ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time: Yeas 21, n. 17.” The bill was then passed.
APPROPRIATION BILL. Mr. WRIGHT, from the Committee on Finance, to
which had been referred the amendments of the House to the bill in addition to the act making appropriations in part for the support of Government for the year 1836, made a report thereon, recommending that the Senate concur in the amendments of the House, with the exception of the amendments “for removing the naval monument to the botanic garden, $2,000,” and “for extending the enclosures of the Capitol square, $25,000,” which they recommend to be stricken out. On taking the question of concurring with the committee as to striking out the provision for extending the grounds, the Senate refused to strike it out. The appropriation of $2,000 for removing the naval monument was stricken out. Mr. KING, of Georgia, moved that the Senate do not concur in the amendment of the House appropriating dollars for the purchase of books and documents for the new members; which motion was agreed to: Yeas 15, nays 10. The other amendments were concurred in.
Mr. MOORE moved to take up the bill for the adjustment of certain claims to reservations of lands, under the fourteenth article of the treaty of Dancing Rabbit creek, with the Choctaw Indians; which motion was agreed to. Mr. WALKER moved to amend the bill by striking out the whole of it, and inserting in lieu thereof a provision appropriating $30,000, in addition to the sum already appropriated, for the removal of the Choctaw Indians now in the State of Mississippi to the west of the Mississippi river. Mr. PRESTON submitted whether it was in order to move to strike out the subject of the bill, and to insert an entirely different subject. The CHAIR decided that it was always proper to move to strike out and insert. After a debate, in which Messrs. WALKER and MOORE took part, Mr. EWING, of Ohio, moved to lay the bill on the table; which motion was agreed to. b After taking up and finally acting upon several other ills, It was ordered, on motion of Mr. EWING, of Ohio, that when the Senate adjourns, it adjourn to meet at 8 o'clock on Monday morning. The Senate then (at 3 o'clock) adjourned, only eight members being present.
Mox DAY, JULY 4. ADJOURNMENT. Mr. GRUNDY submitted a resolution for the appointment of a joint committee to wait on the President of the United States and inform him that the two Houses were ready to adjourn, and desired to know whether he had any further communication to make to them. On the suggestion of Mr. WHITE, the resolution was suffered to lie on the table for the present. MRS. ANN ROYALL. On motion of Mr. PRESTON, the report of the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, unfavorable to the petition of Mrs. Ann Royall, was taken up. Mr. P. moved to reverse the report, so as to read that the prayer of the petitioner ought to be granted. Mr. WHITE explained the nature of the claim, [interest on the commutation for half pay of the petitionel's husband, a captain in the revolutionary war.] Messrs. PRESTON and WALKER briefly advocated the claim, and after some remarks from Messrs. WHITE and MANGUM, the report was laid on the table. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES.
A message was received from the House of Repre
sentatives, by Mr. FRANKLIN, their Clerk, stating that the House had suspended the seventeenth joint rule of the two Houses, which declares that no bill shall be sent to the President for his signature on the last day of the session, until two o'clock, so far as relates to the bill for the repair of the Potomac bridge; the bill to amend the judicial system of the United States; the bill repealing the provisions in the tenth section of the tariff act of 1832; the bill to confirm certain land claims in Missouri; the bill to repeal the provisions of the act of 1792, which requires issuing the certificates on imported wines; and the bills that were passed by both Houses on Saturday, and not submitted to the President. The question on taking up this resolution requiring the unanimous consent of the Senators present, Mr. MANGUM objected to the consideration of the resolution. The CHAIR declaring that the resolution could not be considered, Mr. WALKER said he felt strongly inclined to appeal from the decision of the Chair. The CHAIR then read the 48th rule of the Senate. Messrs. LINN and WALKER expressed their wishes that the Senator from North Carolina would withdraw his objections, so far as related to the bill to confirm land claims in Missouri, and the bill to carry into effect the compact between the United States and the States of Mississippi and Alabama. Mr. MANGUM said he felt constrained to avail himself of the privilege conferred on him by the rule, and object to the resolution. His long experience in the Senate had convinced him of the great advantages resulting from the rule which the House proposed to suspend, and the great mischiefs that would result from dispensing with it. It had been adopted after a full knowledge of the inconveniences of the old practice, and had been found to have the most beneficial effects. They all knew the experience of Congress was such, that some of the most important bills had been passed on the last night of the session, without debate, whipt through the other House, and they (the Senate) were called on to assent to them without knowing whether they were passed by a quorum or not. Although he felt the strongest disposition to yield to the wishes of gentlemen whose constituents were interosted in particular measures, yet, on this occasion, he felt it his duty to persist in his objections. He felt that making any exceptions would be equivalent to a deparore from the rule altogether; and if they excepted in fayor of any particular measures in the senate, why might not the House do the same thing, and carry it farther? He appealed to gentlemen whether his course in that body had not always been conciliatory and ready to yield to the wishes of a majority; and he assured gentlemen that, in this instance, he was actuated by no unkind or unaccommodating feelings, but solely by a sense of duty. Mr. CALHOUN said they all knew that this rule was adopted after many years of experience, and that, on the last day of the session, the Executive had no opportunity to examine a number of bills. He felt obliged to the Senator from North Carolina for making his objections, as he thought it highly important that the rule should not be relaxed. Mr. LINN did not suppose, for a moment, that his friend from North Carolina was actuated by any unkind feelings, but that his objections were prompted by a sense of duty; but he begged him to reflect a moment whether there were not occasions on which the most rigid rule should be dispensed with, and whether this was not one of them. It appeared (Mr. L. said) that this rule had been relaxed on more than one occasion, and he trusted the gentleman would see that there were
some reasons for not so rigidly adhering to it now. If there was one single bill that ought to pass, why let it be excepted; but if it should be found that all ought not to pass, or that there were objections to them tending to create discussion, why let them fall. In this particular case he wished to except from the rule the bill for the confirmation of land claims in Missouri; a measure to which there was not the slightest objection, and one of the greatest interest to his constituents, who had been long anxiously looking for its passage. He should regret exceedingly to see that measure, which had passed both Houses, and only waited the President's signature to become a law, cut off by the rigid adherence to a rule which could not have been intended to apply to such a case. He could not conceive that it was the duty
of the Senate of the United States to make its rules as
irreversible as the laws of the Medes and Persians, or that it ever intended to make rules that should by no possibility be relaxed. He admitted the general propriety of the rule, but he repeated the hope that the Senator from North Carolina would see that there were occasions on which it might be departed from. Mr. WALKER felt conscious that the objections of the Senator from North Carolina, and sustained by the Senator from South Carolina, resulted from a strict sense of duty; but he appealed to those gentlemen whether their objections to bills that had been passed in a hurry, rightfully applied to bills that passed aster full consideration, and to which there were no objections. He begged gentlemen to consider whether such bills ought not to be excepted from the general rule. The bill he particularly referred to, and which he felt so anxious should become a law, was the bill to carry into effect the compact between the United States and the States of Alabama and Mississippi, relative to the sixteenth sections of school lands, which passed the Senate two months ago, was reported favorably on by the Committee on Public Lands unanimously, having the sanc. tion of its chairman, [Mr. Ewing, of Ohio, who was so rigid in his examination of every bill relating to the public lands. Now, he appealed to gentlemen whether the rule ought to apply to such a bill as this. He did not wish the rule to be suspended with regard to any bill to which there was the slightest objection; and he hoped the Senator from North Carolina would yield to the general wish of the Senate, and withdraw his oppo. sition. Mr. BLACK read a list of the bills which would be sent to the President under the resolution, if adopted by the Senate, and said that he would offer an amendment to prevent its being carried further. After some remarks from Mr. PORTER, The CHAIR stated that the rule was imperative. The rule was, that no bill or resolution should be sent to the President on the last day of the session. The Chair, however, felt bound to sign the bills, and, in the mean time, any gentleman who thought proper might appeal from the decision. Mr. MANGUM said that, the measure he regarded as the most pernicious not being included in the resolution, he would yield to the wishes of his friends and withdraw his objections, Mr. LINN said that his friend from North Carolina, in withdrawing his objections, had acted with that kind. ness and good feeling which had always characterized his course in that body. If he could mention one act which would confer a greater degree of happiness on a particular portion of the people, he would refer to the bill he had already mentioned; and in behalf of those who would be so essentially benefited by this most just and necessary measure, he returned his thanks to the Senator from North Carolina for withdrawing his objections to the suspension of the rule.
read as follows: Resolved, That the 17th joint rule of the two Houses of Congress, which declares that no bill or resolution shall be submitted to the President for his signature on the last day of the session, be suspended so far as respects such acts and resolutions as have already passed both Houses, and received the signatures of their presiding officers. The resolution, thus amended, was agreed to, and sent to the other House for concurrence; after which, A message was received from the House of Representatives by Mr. FRANKLIN, their Clerk, stating that they had concurred in the amendment.
Suspension of the Rules.
[JULY 4, 1836.
After the consideration of executive business, A message was received from the President of the United States, by Mr. Don Elson, his secretary, stating that he had signed the several bills (specifying them by their titles) submitted to him on that day. The motion submitted by Mr. Gmundr, for the appointment of a joint committee to wait on the President of the United States to inform him that the two Houses of Congress were ready to adjourn, and desiring to know whether he had any further communications to make to them, was taken up and agreed to. After waiting some time, Mr. GRUNDY, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the President, reported that they had performed the duty assigned them, and that the President had answered that he had no further communications to make to Congress. On motion of Mr. BUCHANAN, The Senate adjourned sine die.
D E BATE S
T H E HOUSE OF REPRESENTAT I W E S.
LIST OF MEMBERS
Of the House of Representatives at the first session of the twenty-fourth Congress.
MAlNE—Jeremiah Bailey, George Evans, John Fairfield, Joseph Hall, Leonard Jarvis, Moses Mason, Gorham Parks, Francis O. J. Smith—8. NEW HAMPSHIRE—Benning M. Bean, Robert Burns, Samuel Cushman, Franklin Pierce, Joseph Weeks—5. MASSACHUSETTS-John Quincy Adams, Nathaniel B. Borden, George N. Briggs, William B. Calhoun, Caleb Cushing, George Grennell, jr., Samuel Hoar, William Jackson, Abbot Lawrence, Levi Lincoln, Stephen C. Phillips, John Reed—12. RHODE ISLAND–Dutee J. Pearce, W. Sprague—2. CONNECTICUT-Elisha Haley, Samuel Ingham, Andrew T. Judson, Lancelot Phelps, Isaac Toucey, Zalmon Wildman–6. VERMONT—Heman Allen, Horace Everett, Hiland Hall, Henry F. Janes, William Slade—5. NEW YORK–Samuel Barton, Samuel Beardsley, Abraham Bockee, Matthias J. Bovee, John W. Brown, C. C. Cambreleng, Grahag H. Chapin, Timothy Childs, John Cramer, Ulysses #". Valentine Efner, Dudley Farlin, Philo C. Fuller, William K. Fuller, Ransom H. Gillet, Francis Granger, Gideon Hard, Abner Hazeltine, Hiram P. Hunt, Abel Huntington, Gerrit Y. Lansing, George W. Lay, Gideon Lee, Joshua Lee, Stephen B. Leonard, Thomas C. Love, Abijah Mann, jr., William Mason, John McKeon, Ely Moore, Sherman Page, Joseph Reynolds, David Russell, William Seymour, Nicholas Sickles, William Taylor, Joel Turrill, Aaron Wanderpoel, Aaron Ward, Daniel Wardwell–40. NEW JERSEY—Philemon Dickerson, Samuel Fow. ler, Thomas Lee, James Parker, Ferdinand S. Schenck, William N. Shinn–6. PENNSYLVANIA—Joseph B. Anthony, Michael w. Ash, John Banks, Andrew Beaumont, Andrew Buchanan, George Chambers, William P. Clark, Edward Darlington, Harmar Denny, Jacob Fry, jr., John Galbraith, James Harper, Samuel S. Harrison, Joseph Henderson, William Hiester, Edward B. Hubley, Joseph R. Ingersoll, John Klingensmith, jr., John Laporte, Henry Logan, Job Mann, Thomas M. T. McKennan, Jesse Miller, Matthias Morris, Henry A. Muhlenberg, David Potts, jr., Joel B. Sutherland, David D. Wagener—28. DELAWARE--John J. Milligan–1. MARYLAND--Benjamin C. Howard, Daniel Jenifer, Isaac McKim, James A. Pearce, John N. Steele, Francis Thomas, James Turner, George C. Washington——8. VIRGINIA—James M. H. Beale, James W. Bouldin, Nathaniel H. Claiborne, Walter Coles, Robert Craig, George C. Dromgoole, James Garland, G. W. Hopkins, Joseph Johnson, John W. Jones, George Loyall, Edward Lucas, John y. Mason, William McComas, Charles F. Mercer, William S. Morgan, John M. Patton, John
Roane, John Robertson, John Taliaferro, Henry A. Wise—21. NORTH CAROLINA--Jesse A. Bynum, Henry W. Connor, Edmund Deberry, James Graham, Micajah...T. Hawkins, James J. McKay, William Montgomery, Ebenezer Pettigrew, Abraham Rencher, William B. Shepard, Augustine H. Shepperd, Jesse Speight, Lewis Williams—13. south CAROLINA-Robert B. Campbell, William J. Grayson, John K. Griffin, James H. Hammond, Richard J. Manning, Francis W. Pickens, Henry L. Pinckney, James Rogers, Waddy Thompson, jr.-9. GeoRGIA—Jesse F. Cleveland, John Coffee, Thomas Glasscock, Seaton Grantland, Charles E. Haynes, Hopkins Holsey, Jabez Jackson, George W. Owens, George W. B. Towns—9. ALABAMA–Reuben Chapman, Joab Lawler, Dixon H. Lewis, Francis, S. Lyon, Joshua L. Martin-5. Mississippi-David Dickson, J. F. H. Claiborne–2. LouisiaNA—Rice Garland, Henry Johnson, Eleazer W. Ripley—3. ---TENNf,SSEE--John Bell, Samuel Bunch, William B. Carter, william C. Dunlap, John B. Forester, Adam Huntsman, Cave Johnson, Luke Lea, Abram P. Maury, Balie Peyton, James K. Polk, E. J. Shields, James Standefer—13. KENtucky--Chilton Allan, Lynn Boyd, John Calhoon, John Chambers, Richard French, Wm. J. Graves, Benjamin Hardin, James Harlan, Albert G. Hawes, Richard M. Johnson, Joseph R. Underwood, John White, Sherrod Williams—-13. MISSOURI–Wm. H. Ashley, Albert G. Harrison–2. ILLINOIS-Zadok Casey, William L. May, John Reynolds-–3. in DIANA–Ratliff Boon, John Carr, John W. Davis, Edward A. Hannegan, George L. Kinnard, Amos Lane, Jonathan McCarty–-7. OHIO-William K. Bond, John Chaney, Thomas Corwin, Joseph H. Crane, Thomas L. Hamer, Elias Howell, Benjamin Jones, William Kennon, Daniel Kilgore, Sampson Mason, Jeremiah McLene, William Patterson, Jonathan Sloane, David Spangler, Bellamy Storer, John Thompson, Samuel F. Vinton, Taylor Webster, Elisha Whittlesey—19. - DeLegATES.