FEB. 3, 1836.] Executive Patronage. [H. OF R. Mr. ANTHONY moved to amend the instructions so as to require the committee to regulate and equalise the pay of the members. : Mr. HARPER supported the amendment of his,colleague. had been made to reduce the pay on mileage of members of Congress, and he had never known one of these attempts to succeed. He considered that members had acquired a right to be paid under an existing law. If an abuse existed under the law, Congress should alter the law. But the Committee of Ways and Means had nothing to do with the subject; it was their duty to report the sum which they may suppose to be wanted for different services. He suggested that no law could be made applicable to the mileage of the present session, because that had been drawn, and was snug in gentle. men's pockets. to distance, per session. He thinks the act of Congress, passed at a time when the Government mail stage route was the only route known or used, makes it obligatory on his conscience to charge the river route, whether he travels it or not. Yes, sir, this shows how an honest, well-meaning man, aiming to reach the spirit of the law, Mr. PATTON said it had happened every year since may differ with other gentlemen in the same situation. Sir, he had been a member of the House, that while the apwhen the act of Congress regulating the mileage of mem-propriation bills were under consideration, an attempt bers of Congress was passed, steamboats were not in use. The direct mail stage route was the only one in existence. But the improvements of the age present a more speedy and much cheaper mode of travelling. We can make our election; if we take the river route, which is the invention of a subsequent day to that in which the law of Congress was passed, we have the right to do so. It is cheaper, more speedy, and in every way more comfortable. But there is the same old direct mail route, which was the usual route at the time the act of Congress was passed. If we choose to take it, very well; if not, it is our own lookout, and should not increase our charge upon the Treasury. But, sir, the Tennessee Senator, to whom I have alluded, considers himself bound to charge the long route, even if he travels the short one. Yes, sir, he may take his seat in the same stage at the seat of Government with his colleague, travel every inch of the ground together, but when they charge for each mile that they have passed over, he is bound in conscience (for if he were not, he would not do it; it is a mere difference of opinion) to charge for all the meanders of the Ohio river, notwithstanding he has never touched its waters. This is a case in point to show that it is not safe to trust an unlimited discretion to the purest and the best. I hope the committee will be further instructed to report the amount which each member of Congress has received, for a sufficient number of years to show the abuses to which this discretion has been sub. ject in past time. Mr. GIDEON LEE opposed the recommitment of the bill, and urged its speedy passage, as a measure of justice to those to whom the money was due. The members of Congress were drawing their own pay, but no one else for whom payment was provided in the bill. After some further remarks from Messrs. DUNLAP, HANNEGAN, ANTHONY, and PEARCE of Rhode Island, Without taking any question, On motion of Mr. GRENNELL, the House adjourned. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3. EXECUTIVE PATRONAGE. The bill from the Senate, "to repeal the first and second sections of the act limiting the term of certain offices to four years, and for other purposes," having been read twice by its title- Mr. MANN moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. BELL said that no subject of greater importance than this would come before the House at the present session. None of the standing committees were peculiarly appropriate for the consideration of the subject, and he did not see that the Judiciary Committee was more appropriate than any other. It was a most singular fact, that this branch of Congress, by its rules, and the operaMr. UNDERWOOD suggested that there would be notion given to them by the decision of the Chair, sustainnecessity for delaying the bill in case his motion was agreed to, as the committee could retain the subject of mileage for a separate bill, and send back the remaining portion of the bill. Mr. MANN made a few remarks in favor of recommitment. He had found, from experience, that the only way to secure any promised reform of this kind was by holding on upon the money. Mr. ANTHONY said that, when the present rule was adopted, it was contemplated that members could travel but twenty miles a day. And the fact was, that many gentlemen travelling from the far West were paid at the rate of two hundred miles a day, receiving not eight dollars a day, but eighty dollars a day for travel. The pay of members coming from the far West was thus made double the amount received by members coming from Pennsylvania. The present rule was not at all adapted to the modern improvements in the mode of travelling. Mr. MERCER said he would vote for the motion, but not for the reasons given by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Those who came from a great distance found their pay a poor compensation for the inconvenience of leaving their homes. But he was willing that a uniform rule for estimating the mileage should be adopted. Mr. CAMBRELENG rose to beg the House, and the gentleman from Kentucky, to modify his motion, so as to refer his inquiry, not to the Committee of Ways and Means, but to a select committee. The subject, as it related to accounts, did not belong to that committee; and, moreover, that committee was pressed with other business. ed by the votes of the House, had become so restricted and tied down in its action, that it could not take up for consideration and discussion any great fundamental principles of the Government; no opportunity is ever afforded to bring forward propositions upon any important subject, in a distinct and separate form. This was entirely a new day in the history of the country. He was com paratively a young member, but there were members who had been here for fifteen or twenty years and more, and to them he appealed to say whether the House was ever before so bound down by rules as to prevent gentlemen from bringing forward, in the form of resolution, any important subject for discussion. But nothing could now be brought forward, because the House had blocked up the way, perhaps, for the whole session, by the adoption of the resolution reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations. The subject of executive patronage could not be brought forward, although it was connected with the best and most vital interests of the country, and with principles without which we should have neither constitution nor country of which an American could feel proud. With a view to ascertain whether there was a disposition on the part of the House to permit an investigation of this subject, he would move that the bill be referred to a select committee. Even if the majority of the committee appointed should be opposed to the principles of the bill, there would yet be an opportunity afforded to the minority of the committee to express their views on the subject of the bill. He did not know that he would support the bill in its present shape or not, but he wished the subject of executive patronage, generally, brought before the House. He moved the reference of the bill to a select committee. Mr. J. Q. ADAMS hoped, he said, that the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee would prevail; and lie assured the House that nothing but the consideration that he had consumed much of the time of the House had prevented him from making the same proposition. We never had, and never would have, before us a more important subject. One of the newspapers, when the bill was introduced into the Senate, remarked that it was a bill to amend the constitution of the United States. He considered it a bill not to amend, but to alter, the constitution; and he trusted that discussion would be had upon it to a great extent, and that the decision upon it would be made with great deliberation. What ever might be the impressions of gentlemen in regard to the policy of the bill, he hoped that, after its importance had been so forcibly represented by the gentleman from Tennessee, it would be referred to a select committee. [FEB. 3, 1836. from Massachusetts, that this was a bill to change the constitution. It originated in the Senate, and many gentlemen would doubtless deem it uncharitable to that body to say that they would, by means of a mere law, change the constitution. If it was not a proposition to change the constitution, it was only a proposition to change an existing law, and therefore belonged most appropriate. ly to the Judiciary Committee. The mere importance of the subject, upon which the gentleman from Tennessee had dwelt with so much force, was certainly no reason for referring this bill to a select committee. The Judiciary Committee was surely one of the most important committees recognised by the rules of this House. It required great ability and learning, and its members were always selected, he supposed, in reference to their requisite talents and qualifications. He did not believe that select committees engrossed all the wisdom and capacity of the House, but was rather disposed to think that a body of gentlemen, who were permanent, and chosen for the investigation of great and interesting subjects, would be apt to be quite as select for their wis dom, in reference to the subjects that came within their province, as another body, which we dignified with the appellation of a "select committee." The gentleman from Tennessee had not ventured to say that the subjectmatter of the bill did not most naturally belong to the Judiciary Committee; but it was an important subject, and ipso facto, in the opinion of that honorable gentleman, it ought to be referred to a select committee, This was to his (Mr. V's) mind a very unsatisfactory reason for a special reference. It was, he believed, a very important law, and one which proposed to secure to the incumbents of office a freehold title in offices. Mr. V. said the honorable gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. BELL] had given the House another lecture about the mischiefs resulting from our rules, or from the administration of them. He did not understand the honorable gentleman to impute any blame to the presi ding officer of the House, but the grievance of which Mr. HAMER remarked that a great deal had been said in regard to the appropriate committee of the House for the investigation of the subject. If any gentleman would take the trouble to refer to the rules of the House, he would find that the bill ought to go to the standing Committee on the Judiciary. [Mr. H. here read the rule.] Did not the rule, he asked, propose to change laws long in existence? Where, then, should the subject be considered, if not in the Committee on the Judiciary? If gentlemen were extremely desirous of getting up a report of a partisan or political character on this subject, their purpose could be answered in another way. All they wished to say in a report could as well be said in a speech, and for making speeches opportu nities occurred daily. He did not very well understand the frequent lectures upon rules which the House received of late, nor did he see how the gentleman could assert that no opportunity was afforded in the House for the discussion of great principles. This was very extra-he most complained was, that the discussion of no one ordinary. What had we done here but discuss great principles? After a session of eight or nine weeks, we had passed three acts, and two of those of a private nature. During the whole time we had been constantly engaged in discussing matters and things in general. Two or three general resolutions, admitting of a wide range of discussion, were pending now, and upon them two or three unfinished speeches were lying over. Day after day gentlemen were waiting to obtain the floor for the purpose of concluding these speeches; a blaze of light, pouring from this hall, illumined the whole country; and if the session, as was predicted, lasted till July, there would be scarcely a single constitutional question which was ever agitated in this country, that the readers of debates would not be fully enlightened upon. If the rules were wrong, let us (said he) change them. But, as long as they were in existence, they ought to be observed. According to these rules, the bill ought to be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. VANDERPOEL said that he had heard no good reason for a reference of this bill to a select committee. The honorable member from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] had observed that this was a bill to change the constitution, and therefore he would vote to refer it to a select committee. Another honorable gentleman [Mr. BELL] had observed that it was a very important bill; it was one in which the people took great interest, and therefore it ought to go to a select committee, that a report might be speedily made, and gentlemen might have an opportunity of discussing this subject. Mr. V. said he hardly thought that the gentleman from Tennessee would hazard the assertion made by the gentleman important subject was finished, before another was ob truded upon our consideration. This was no new mischief. He (Mr. V.) had felt the annoying influence of it under former auspices, and very shortly after he became a member of this House. Two years ago he undertook to make a speech upon an important subject, and proceeded with his argument for about half an hour; when he gave way to a motion to adjourn. Next morning he resumed his seat, with notes in hand, to continue his argument, and, much to his annoyance, the subject was not again announced from the Chair till after the expiration of some weeks! And most of the gentlemen here would bear witness to the agony which resulted from being laden for whole weeks with a half-delivered speech. His past experience, therefore, enabled him to bear witness that the confusion in which the business of the House was involved, by means of our rules, was not unprecedented, and therefore it was not a fit subject of rebuke to the majority of this House. He did not know that the honorable gentleman intended to rebuke the majority, but he at least took good care to remind them very often of the evils of their rules. The honorable gentleman from Tennessee seemed to think that it was vitally important to the people that this and other subjects of importance, to which he had adverted, should be here discussed. He (Mr. V.) had not, for some time past, so far as the enlightening of the people was concerned, been in the habit of attaching quite as much importance to speeches made here, and in the other end of the Capitol, as was ascribed to them by many other gentlemen. He did not believe that this was the fountain-the source of all light for the people. No; he believed that the people of this country had wis dom enough to understand their political rights and interests, and independence enough to assert and vindicate them; and if gentlemen here would more frequently yield to, or profit by, the lessons which the people taught them, they would be more apt to perpetuate the confidence, and subserve the interest, of the people. But, if gentlemen wanted to make speeches to enlighten the people, they could as well perform that duty after the report of a standing committee as after the report of a select committee. They might make their two hours' speech, print it in the Globe or "Sun," and thus illuminate the benighted people. The argument of the honorable gentleman [Mr. BELL] in favor of a select committee, because of the facility that might be afforded to make speeches, was as unsound as the argument that it ought to be referred to a select committee on account of its importance. Mr. BELL said that it was because speeches of this nature were not thought calculated, by the gentleman and his friends, to enlighten the people, that he complained of the operation of the rules, which restricted the discussions to such subjects as those who control the❘ business of the House thought proper for discussion. A member could not present his views on this subject without being called to order, and arrested in his remarks by a majority of the House. All discussions were shut out unless they were approved by a majority of the House, and such as were calculated to enlighten the people upon one side of the question only. Petitions, for the last three mornings, had cut off one of those resolutions upon which the gentleman said we could have the opportunity of general discussion. This was the result of a new construction of the rules of the House. The gentleman from Ohio, he said, was hardly candid in saying that an opportunity was afforded for discussion by these resolutions. The gentleman had certainly the sagacity to perceive that his friends had burned their fingers when they agreed to consider the resolution of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS.] Instead of affording an opportunity for the discussion of that resolution, great pains had been taken by the gentleman's friends to cut it off. When the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. MASON] brought forward his resolution to bind the House to the consideration of the appropriation bills from the precise hour of one o'clock each day, he saw plainly that it was intended to seal the lips of all those who wished to take part in the discussion of that subject. The abolition resolutions had slept so long that those who took most interest in them had forgotten them. The same was the case with the resolution on the Military Academy. He was sorry to allude to any political interests in this House, but he must remark that neither of these resolutions appeared to be favorite subjects with the majority of the House. The gentleman could not be sincere in saying that an opportunity was afforded by these resolutions to enlighten the people by discussions on general subjects. The gentleman intimates (said Mr. B.) that I want an opportunity to make a party report. That gentleman has known me, as a member of this House, for some time, and he never knew an instance in which I acted as a partisan on this floor. I defy him to point to a single act of mine which can justify the imputation. [Mr. HAMER explained. The gentleman having alluded to majorities and minorities, he had only intended to indicate a mode in which the minority could present their views.] Mr. BELL was obliged to the gentleman, he said, for his explanation, but it appeared strange to him that it was taken for granted that no speech could be made here but with immediate relation to the prospects of men for office. Was it supposed, in 1826, that the subject of Government patronage was exclusively a parti [H. OF R. san or political subject? We had passed through a great revolution, indeed, if the friends of this administration had become champions of executive power and patronage. Times had changed, and men had changed with them. The importance of the subject was not the only reason which he had urged in favor of the reference of the bill to a select committee. On parliamentary principles, a committee ought to be allowed for the bill which was composed of members favorable to its object, but, according to the parliamentary law of the Congress of the United States, the lamb is always committed to the wolf. His object in desiring a select committee was to bring the subject before a committee which would direct its attention exclusively to the subject, and make an early report upon it. That was the only way in which the subject could be brought before the House for discussion. He did not know that even a minority of the committee appointed would be in favor of the bill, and present a report of their views on the subject. He believed that the best mode of enlightening the people on public topics was by discussion here-by open, free, manly, discussion on this floor. When gentlemen meet here face to face in debate, error will be exposed, and fallacy detected. It was far preferable to the light which issues from editorial columns of a party press, which presents only one side of a question. Here both sides are heard. He should continue his lectures on the rules of this House, but always in a spirit of courtesy to the House, and, in defiance of the taunts of gentlemen, should point out the practical purposes which they were made to serve. Sir, free discussion exists no longer on this floor. How happened it that the Senate had become the popular branch of the National Legislature? It was because every Senator had an opportunity to speak on any great subject which he might choose to introduce in that body. He should continue, from day to day, to complain of the rules of this House, and of the operation given to them, so long as they tended to defeat the object and end of the popular branch of the National Legislature. He regarded the subject of executive patronage a great one, and one which ought to be fully and freely discussed in this House, and his object was to bring it before the House in such a shape that it could be discussed untrammelled by rules. He did not know that he approved of this bill as it stood; he had no party feeling in regard to it; but he invoked discussion upon the subject as one of the greatest importance to the welfare of this country. Mr. MANN explained that he had made the motion to refer the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary, because he believed that to be the proper course, and he saw no reason to deviate from that course, unless there was some great principle that could be brought to bear against the propriety of doing so. He agreed that the subject was one of the highest importance, and one that required the most deliberate examination. But it was not a new proposition, for it was as early as the first Congress. Mr. M. had heard no reason why the usual course should be departed from. The gentleman from Tennessee had manifested a very commendable zeal in regard to the business of the House, and told them that times had changed, strangely changed. Mr. M. would ask, was it not rather a change of the gentleman than a change of the times? With regard to the complaints made about the rules of the House, he could not perceive its application to the present question of referring this bill to a standing committee. Mr. M. had, as the principal organ of the committee of the House on the subject of the rules, made a report thereon, and had proposed to call it up; but he had as yet been unable to do If he waited till it became the regular order, he feared the report would not be considered during the present session; and, for the purpose of endeavoring to So. H. OF R.] Executive Patronage. discharge his duty, he would ask the House to take it up every day, from that day henceforward, until a decided manifestation of the House rejected his motion. Mr. M. complained of the disingenuous imputation cast upon the majority by the gentleman from Tennessee, of wishing to evade the question. Mr. BELL remarked that principles never changed, though men did. Principles were of all times, and no change of circumstances altered them. If those who supported the principles of 1826 now opposed them, it was a proof that men had changed. When he should have an opportunity to enter upon the discussion of this subject, he would endeavor to show who had changed. Mr. MANN replied that it was true that principles did not change, but men changed their principles. Mr. MERCER inquired in what length of time the Committee on the Judiciary would probably be able to report on the subject, if the bill should be committed to them. Mr. THOMAS felt great difficulty, he said, in saying whether the bill ought to be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary or not. In reply to the gentleman's question, he would remark that the Committee on the Judiciary was closely engaged upon several very laborious subjects-the Ohio and Michigan boundary question; the judicial circuit court system of the southwestern States, and other bills. He supposed, however, that the House would not be able to take up the subject of this bill for at least ninety days, and by that time, or before, he presumed that the committee would be prepared to make their report. Speaking for himself, he had very little ambition to take charge of the subject. Mr. INGERSOLL made some remarks on the constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, with a view to show that the bill in question did not come within the scope of their duties. Mr. SUTHERLAND contended that, inasmuch as the bill involved legal and constitutional questions, the JudiIciary was the committee to which it ought to be referred. He referred to the rule relative to the reference of subjects to committees. There would, he said, always be differences of opinion, as long as we were a nation, and it was proper that it should be so. What was the advantage proposed to be gained by referring the subject to a select committee? Why, that a select committee would sooner be able to make a report. And from whom were the select committee to be chosen? The first would be the gentleman himself, and he was the chairman of a standing committee. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee would be the next, for this large subject required all the legal intellect of the country; then it would be requisite to take all the legal light that the House could afford, and the making of this committee would be the breaking up of several of the other committees. He was against it. The Judiciary Committee would make its report; the subject would be discussed in the House and through the newspapers; the country would have the whole of it before them. But if it were referred to a select committee, part of this committee must necessarily be selected from each side, and the result would be two reports. He was in favor of discussing it in the House, to see if it were in the power of the House to alter the constitution, if such alteration were wanted. If it was a great constitutional question, to whom should it be sent? To a select committee? No; let it be sent to the Judiciary Committee, who had been selected on account of their legal knowl edge, and let them examine whether it infringes upon the constitution. When it came back, let the result be laid fairly before the people, and let them decide. If (said Mr. S.) we cannot sustain it by reason, we ought not to attempt to carry by power. Nothing can be gained by a select committee, unless it could compel us [FEB. 3, 1836. to take it up in the House. The House will not take it up till it is ready; and there are other matters of greater importance before the House than whether John Doe or Richard Roe shall hold office in the country. Mr. PHILLIPS acquiesced in much that had been said by the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. SUTHERLAND,] and, if he was persuaded that the subject was a proper one for judicial counsel, would concur with him in its reference. But this bill contemplated a great variety of officers. Suppose the bill related to officers of the customs alone, would it not be referred to the Committee on Commerce? But, as the bill was general in its character, embracing all the officers of the Gov. ernment, there was no particular propriety in referring it to any standing committee. If it was a question of which lawyers only could judge, then it would be proper to refer it to the Judiciary Committee; but as it was a bill relating to all officers, it became a case which required a select committee. It ought to be an able committee, having the advantage of the best talent in the House. If it be a practical question, give it the benefit of a practical man; and so far as it may be a legal question, let it have the advantage of legal acquirement. He was not satisfied that it was a party question, and he expected to see parties divided upon it. He himself acknowledged no party obligations on the question. Mr. HAMER did not wish to prevent the gentleman from Tennessee from discussing any question, and hoped his course had not been such as to prevent him or any other gentleman from discussing the question. He would ask if it was kind in him to talk of majorities and minorities, and executive patronage, and, when other gentlemen make similar remarks, to complain of it? If gentlemen would complain that they were not allowed to speak, had they a right to complain if they were replied to? It was not to be supposed by the gen tleman, or by him, that the House had no political feeling. If he suspected that the majority were guided by partisan principles, was it not natural that those of the majority should suspect the minority of the same? It all amounts to a declaration by each that he is following out the measures which he supposes to be the best for the country. He was against referring this bill to a select committee. He apprehended that the gentleman from Tennessee was mistaken in supposing that it was the custom of the British Parliament to refer all propositions to committees which are in favor of them. The rule might be on their books, but it was not put in practice. Mr. McKIM moved the previous question, and the tellers were engaged in ascertaining whether there was a second; when The CHAIR informed the House that the main question would be on the third reading of the bill, and not on the motion to commit to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. McKIM then withdrew the motion for the previous question. After some remarks from Messrs. MERCER and THOMAS, Mr. BELL declared that he was not instigated by any party views, and that it was of importance that members should not broach the subject of executive patronage as a party question. The interest of the country required that the House should consider the subject, uninfluenced by party feelings. The gentleman from Ohio denied that it was the practice of the British Parliament to refer subjects to committees which were willing to report. He said that the rule appeared on their books, but was not adopted in practice. Well, then, (said Mr. B.,) still they go before us, for they acknowledge the right. Mr. ROBERTSON had risen, he said, solely for the purpose to state a fact which would induce him to vote against the reference of the bill to the Judiciary Committee. It had already been stated that several important subjects were now before that committee, including the Ohio and Michigan controversy, and the southwestern circuit bill. The chairman would also bear him out in stating that, after a discussion before the committee, the meeting was adjourned for one week, and they would then meet for the purpose of acting on a large mass of unfinished business, which had accumulated upon them during the session. Under these circumstances, he felt justified in saying that the committee could not give early attention to the subject. As a member of that committee, he had no desire to shrink from the performance of any duty, but the committee had already as much business as they could attend to for some time to come. Mr. PEARCE, of Rhode Island, said that, from the title of the bill, he could not tell what the Senate had in view; but it was a bill which had passed in that branch of the Legislature last year, and had failed in this. The bill (said Mr. P.) required us to retrace our steps, and alter rules which were coeval with the formation of the constitution. It interfered with the rights of the Executive, and altered the form of the Government. [H. of R. gentleman from Maryland had said that the committee could make a report in ninety days, he should have said that he had not taken time enough, even if the committee was unencumbered with other business. Mr. PEYTON, of Tennessee, expressed the hope that the bill would not be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. That committee, (said Mr. P.,) to which he had the honor to belong, is at this time burdened with more important business than any other committee, perhaps, of this House--more than it can dispose of in any reasonable time. We have the important and exciting question of the Ohio and Michigan boundary-a question which has been argued before us at great length, and with distinguished ability, by the gentlemen representing those who feel so deep and lively an interest in the question. Sir, up to our last meeting, we had not even began to form an opinion upon this solitary question, beIcause we had not fully heard the argument. There are other subjects of perhaps equal importance before that committee, untouched, unacted upon-the constitution of Michigan, and the bill to revise the Judiciary. The whole time of the committee has been consumed on the first of these important subjects, to the exclusion of all other matters. Business of a less important character has been accumulating upon the table of that committee. At our last meeting a large distribution of such cases was [The SPEAKER said that it was not in order to discuss made. Sir, I have not the most distant hope, if the bill the merits of the bill on a question as to its reference.] be referred to that committee-notwithstanding the inMr. P. said it was his object to show that he consid-dustry, talents, and information, which I know my colered it to be a bill which involved constitutional ques- leagues to possess, and have devoted, and will continue tions. As he understood the rules, if there was one to devote, to all business intrusted to them-that a report committee more proper than another to which to refer can be expected during this session of Congress. It will the consideration of the present subject, it was the be impossible. If the House wishes action upon this imCommittee on the Judiciary, whose province it was to portant bill, then let it not be referred to that committee. consider and to report on propositions of this nature. But if the object of gentlemen be to give it a quietus, The President of the United States was required to and send it to sleep-if not so long as Rip Van Winkle execute the laws of the United States. He could not do slept, yet for a time, for a purpose, during this session it in person, but must do it by and with the assistance of Congress-they cannot do better than send it to the of others; and when he sends a notice of an appoint- Judiciary Committee. ment to the Senate, this bill required him to say why he selected A, B, or C. [The SPEAKER reminded the gentleman that he was going into the main question.] Mr. P. continued his remarks in favor of the reference of the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. J. Q. ADAMS said that, as the yeas and nays had been called, and he should vote against referring the subject to the Committee on the Judiciary, he wished to assign his reason for so doing. It was not from any want of confidence in that committee, but because he was of opinion that the subject-matter of the bill ought to be referred to a select committee. This proposition, under the form of a bill, was, in fact, a proposition for altering the constitution, as it was first formed, in what he considered one of its most vital parts. The constitution placed the executive power in the President of the United States- [The SPEAKER called Mr. A. to order. He was discussing the merits of the bill, which was not the subject before the House.] Mr. ADAMS continued. One ground on which he objected to referring this bill to the Committee on the Judiciary, and preferred a select committee, was, that the bill involved a question relative to the constitution; and questions of this nature were subjects for a special committee, and not for a standing committee. On that ground he should vote for its reference to a select committee. The subject required profound knowledge, not only of the constitution of the United States, but also of the his. tory of the country, and of the practice since the constitution was formed; and a report ought to be made to the House, exhibiting all these particulars. Such a report could not be made out in sixty or ninety days; and if the With regard to the principles of this bill, sir, I would remark, that they were once popular with the party to which I belong, if that party has yet an existence! It is fast merging into the party! The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. J. Q. ADAMS] doubtless well recollects what were these principles in 1826, and what were the feelings of our party at that day. He, sir, is consistent, perfectly consistent. He was then, as now, opposed to the principles of this bill. But the gentleman from Massachusetts has given his friends-I mean, sir, his new friends, for that gentleman is now decidedly the leader of the party in this House-he has given his new friends a dreadful thrust. He has told them that this bill proposes an amendment, no, not an amendment, but an alteration of the constitution of the United States-a curtailing the Executive of his constitutional and necessary powers. Yes, sir, and they submit in silence, are dumb under the rebuke. Whose measure is this? Who is the father of this bill? A distinguished Senator from Missouri [Mr. BENTON] reported it. Another distinguished Senator from Tennessee [Judge WHITE] was on the committee, and concurred with him. But there was another distinguished Senator at that time, now one amongst, though not one of, the Senators, but fills a still higher station, and is aiming at one still a little higher, [Mr. VAN BUREN.] This gentleman was on the committee, and sanctioned and sustained this very bill in 1826. This was the popular measure of the party in 1826, ushered to the world under such auspices. I call upon gentlemen, if they have principle, and go for principle, to show it; I call upon them, if they have any pride of consistency, to say nothing about principle, to come forward and meet the gentleman, [Mr. ADAMS,] although he is the head and leader of the party in this House. Your pride, your |
