H. OF R.]

Klingensmith, Lane, Lansing, Laporte, Lawrence, Lay, Gideon Lee, Joshua Lee, Leonard, Lincoln, Logan, Abijah Mann, Job Mann, Manning, William Mason, Moses Mason, Samson Mason, May, McCarty, McComas, McKay, McKennan, McKeon, McKim, McLene, Miller, Milligan, Montgomery, Moore, Morgan, Morris, Muhlenberg, Owens, Page, Parker, Parks, Patterson, Franklin Pierce, Dutee J. Pearce, Phelps, Phillips, Pinckney, Potts, Reed, Rencher, John Reynolds, Joseph Reynolds, Ripley, Rogers, Russell, Schenck, Seymour, Augustine H. Shepperd, Shinn, Sickles, Sloane, Smith, Spangler, Sprague, Storer, Sutherland, Taylor, Thomas, John Thomson, Toucey, Turrill, Underwood, Vanderpoel, Vinton, Wagener, Ward, Wardwell, Washington, Webster, Weeks, Whittlesey, Lewis Williams, Sherrod Williams--174.

NAIS-Messrs. Chilton Allan, Bell, Bouldin, Bunch, Bynum, John Calhoon, Campbell, Carter, John Chambers, Chapman, Nathaniel H. Claiborne, Dickson, Dromgoole, Forester, French, James Garland, Rice Garland, Glascock, Graham, Grayson, Griffin, Hammond, Holsey, Henry Johnson, Lawler, Luke Lea, Loyall, Lucas, Lyon, Martin, John Y. Mason, Maury, Mercer, Patton, James A. Pearce, Pettigrew, Peyton, Pickens, Roane, Robertson, William B. Shepard, Standefer, Steele, Taliaferro, Waddy Thompson, Towns, White, Wise-48.

So the first clause was agreed to.

The question being taken on the second member of the proposition, it was determined as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Chilton Allan, Heman Allen, Anthony, Ash, Ashley, Bailey, Banks, Barton, Beale, Bean, Beaumont, Bell, Bockee, Bond, Boon, Borden, Bouldin, Bovee, Boyd, Briggs, Brown, Bunch, Bynum, William B. Calhoun, Cambreleng, Carr, Carter, Casey, George Chambers, John Chambers, Chaney, Chapman, Chapin, Childs, Nathaniel H. Claiborne, John F. H. Claiborne, Clark, Cleveland, Coffee, Coles, Connor, Corwin, Craig, Cramer, Crane, Cushman, Darlington, Davis, Deberry, Dickerson, Dickson, Doubleday, Dromgoole, Dunlap, Efner, Evans, Fairfield, Farlin, Forester, Fowler, French, Fry, Philo C. Fuller, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, James Garland, Gillet, Graham, Granger, Grantland, Graves, Haley, Joseph Hall, Hamer, Hannegan, Hard, Hardin, Samuel S. Harrison, Albert G. Harrison, Hawes, Hawkins, Haynes, Hazeltine, Henderson, Hiester, Hoar, Holsey, Hopkins, Howard, Howell, Hubley, Hunt, Huntington, Huntsman, Ingersoll, Ingham, Jabez Jackson, Jarvis, Jenifer, Joseph Johnson, Richard M. Johnson, Cave Johnson, Henry Johnson, Benjamin Jones, Judson, Kennon, Kilgore, Kinnard, Klingensmith, Lane, Lansing, Laporte, Lawler, Lawrence, Lay, G. Lee, Joshua Lee, Luke Lea, Leonard, Lincoln, Logan, Love, Loyall, Lyon, Abijah Mann, Job Mann, Manning, Martin, John Y. Mason, William Mason, Moses Mason, Samson Mason, Maury, May, McCarty, McKay, McKennan, McKeon, McKim, McLene, Mercer, Miller, Milligan, Montgomery, Moore, Morgan, Morris, Muhlenberg, Owens, Page, Parker, Parks, Patterson, Patton, Franklin Pierce, Dutee J. Pearce, James A. Pearce, Pettigrew, Phelps, Phillips, Pinckney, Potts, Reed, Rencher, John Reynolds, Joseph Reynolds, Ripley, Roane, Rogers, Russell, Schenck, Seymour, William B. Shepard, Augustine H. Shepperd, Shields, Shinn, Sickles, Smith, Spangler, Sprague, Standefer, Steele, Storer, Sutherland, Taliaferro, Taylor, Thomas, John Thomson, Toucey, Towns, Turrill, Underwood, Vanderpoel, Vinton, Wagener, Ward, Wardwell, Washing. ton, Weeks, White, Whittlesey, Lewis Williams, Sherrod Williams-201.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Denny, Everett, Rice Garland, Glascock, William Jackson, Robertson-7. So the second clause was agreed to.

[FEB. 8, 1836.

Mr. WISE, when his name was called, rose and said: I refuse to vote at all upon such a proposition; because to affirm any proposition by declaratory resolution is to admit it needs affirmation; and because Congress has no constitutional power either to affirm or deny any proposition whatever, in relation to slavery in the States.

Mr. PINCKNEY moved that the gentleman be excused from voting; which was agreed to.

The question being about to be taken on the third branch of the proposition

Mr. UNDERWOOD called for a division of the question on this branch, so as to take the question on the clause declaring that Congress "ought not to interfere in any way with slavery in the District of Columbia," and omitting the reasons therefor.

The CHAIR decided that the division was in order. Mr. BOULDIN appealed from this decision. After a discussion of the point of order, by Messrs. UNDERWOOD, BOULDIN, MASON of Virginia, BELL, SUTHERLAND, RIPLEY, and HARDIN,

The decision of the Chair was affirmed by the House. The question being taken on the first clause of the third branch indicated by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. UNDERWOOD,] it was decided in the affirmative, as follows:

YEAS--Messrs. Chilton Allan, Anthony, Ash, Ashley, Barton, Beale, Bean, Beaumont, Bell, Bockee, Boon, Bouldin, Bovee, Boyd, Brown, Bunch, Bynum, John Calhoon, Cambreleng, Carr, Carter, Casey, John Chambers, Chaney, Chapman, Chapin, Nathaniel H. Clai borne, John F. H. Claiborne, Cleveland, Coffee, Coles, Connor, Craig, Cramer, Cushman, Davis, Deberry, Dickerson, Doubleday, Dromgoole, Dunlap, Efner, Fairfield, Farlin, Forester, French, Fry, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, James Garland, Rice Garland, Gillet, Graham, Grantland, Graves, Haley, Joseph Hall, Hamer, Hannegan, Hardin, Harlan, Albert G. Harrison, Hawes, Hawkins, Haynes, Henderson, Holsey, Hopkins, Howard, Howell, Hubley, Huntington, Huntsman, Ingham, Jabez Jackson, Jarvis, Jenifer, Joseph Johnson, Richard M. Johnson, Cave Johnson, Henry Johnson, BenjaJones, Judson, Kennon, Kilgore, Kinnard, Klingensmith, Lane, Lansing, Laporte, Lawler, Gideon Lee, Joshua Lee, Luke Lea, Leonard, Logan, Loyall, Lyon, Abijah Mann, Job Mann, Manning, Martin, John Y. Mason, William Mason, Moses Mason, Maury, May, McComas, McKay, McKeon, McKim, McLene, Mercer, Miller, Montgomery, Moore, Morgan, Muhlenberg, Owens, Page, Parks, Patterson, Patton, Franklin Pierce, James A. Pearce, Pettigrew, Phelps, Pinckney, Rencher, Joseph Reynolds, Ripley, Roane, Robertson, Rogers, Schenck, Seymour, William B. Shepard, Augustine H. Shepperd, Shields, Shinn, Sickles, Smith, Spangler, Standefer, Steele, Storer, Sutherland, Taliaferro, Taylor, Thomas, John Thomson, Toucey, Towns, Turrill, Underwood, Vanderpoel, Wagener, Wardwell, Wash. ington, Weeks, White, Lewis Williams, Sherrod Williams-163.

NAYS--Messrs. Adams, Heman Allen, Bailey, Banks, Bond, Borden, Briggs, William B. Calhoun, George Chambers, Childs, Clark, Corwin, Crane, Cushing, Darlington, Denny, Evans, Everett, Philo C. Fuller, Granger, Hard, Hazeltine, Hiester, Hoar, Hunt, Ingersoll, William Jackson, Janes, Lawrence, Lay, Lincoln, Love, Samson Mason, McCarty, McKennan, Morris, Parker, Dutee J. Pearce, Phillips, Potts, Reed, Russell, Sloane, Sprague, Vinton, Webster, Whittlesey-47.

So the first member of the third clause, as above stated, was agreed to.

The question being then taken on the remaining part of the third clause, it was decided as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Ash, Ashley, Barton, Beale, Bean,

H. OF R.]

recommend a suspension of all proceedings on that part of my special message of the 15th of January last, which proposes a partial non-intercourse with France. While we cannot too highly appreciate the elevated and disinterested motives of the offer of Great Britain, and have a just reliance upon the great influence of that Power to restore the relations of ancient friendship between the United States and France, and know, too, that our own pacific policy will be strictly adhered to until the national honor compels us to depart from it, we should be insensible to the exposed condition of our country, and forget the lessons of experience, if we did not efficiently and sedulously prepare for an adverse result. The peace of a nation does not depend exclusively upon its own will, nor upon the beneficent policy of neighboring Powers; and that nation which is found totally unprepared for the exigencies and dangers of war, although it come without having given warning of its approach, is criminally negligent of its honor and its duty. I cannot too strongly repeat the recommendation already made to place the seaboard in a proper state of defence, and promptly to provide the means for amply protecting our commerce.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, February 8, 1836.

On motion of Mr. MASON, of Virginia, the message was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

The House then, at a quarter after five o'clock, P. M., adjourned.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9.

SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Mr. GARLAND, of Louisiana, offered, on the part of himself and Messrs. GLASCOCK, of Georgia, and ROBERTSON, of Virginia, a protest, to be entered on the journal, against the first clause of the instructions contained in the resolution of the gentleman from South Carolina, adopted yesterday.

The protest was read, as follows:

The undersigned, who voted in the House of Representatives on Monday, the 8th instant, against the first clause of the instructions to the select committee proposed to be raised under the resolution offered by Mr. PINCKNEY, to which "all the memorials which have been offered or may hereafter be presented to this House, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and also the resolution offered by an honorable member from Maine, [Mr. JARVIS,] with the amendment thereto proposed by an honorable member from Virginia, [Mr. WISE,] together with every other paper or proposition that may be submitted in relation to the subject," are to be referred; which clause is as follows: that Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere in any way with the institution of slavery in any of the States of this confederacy," did so vote, and now protest against said clause:

1. Because the constitutional power of Congress "to interfere in any way with the institution of slavery in any of the States of this confederacy" is not brought in question, or in any manner referred to, in any memorial that has been presented, or in the resolution mentioned, or the amendment thereto, and we will not consent to have so vital and important a proposition brought forward gratuitously, referred to a committee of this House, reported on, and reasons given for a conclusion, not open to discussion, thereby, as we conceive, admitting the power of Congress to entertain the question, and asking its opinion upon a subject about which it has no right to express one.

2. Because believing, as we do, that it is undeniable "Congress possesses no constitutional authority to in

[FER. 9, 1836.

terfere in any way with the institution of slavery in any of the States of this confederacy," it is our intention to prevent any discussion of that question, so far as it is in our power, or even its submission as a proposition to Congress; and being determined now, and at all other times, to resist any such assumption of authority, we will not permit any doubt of such absence of constitutional power to be questioned or inferred by consenting to refer it to the committee of a body having no jurisdiction, and obtaining from it a disclaimer of a want of such authority.

The undersigned having been prevented from stating their objections in the House to the aforesaid clause in the instructions, by the previous question having been called for and sustained, within one hour after this most important resolution was submitted, now, to prevent all misconception or misconstruction as to their motives and opinions, submit this their solemn protest against this House entertaining any such proposition, and respectfully ask that it, and their reasons, as herein briefly stated, may be entered on the journal.

RICE GARLAND,
THOMAS GLASCOCK,
JOHN ROBERTSON.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 9, 1836.
Objections being made,

Mr. GARLAND moved that the rules be suspended for the purpose of enabling him to offer the paper; and, thereupon, he asked the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

The question being taken on suspending the rules for this purpose, it was decided in the negative: Yeas 81, nays 136.

On motion of Mr. CAMBRELENG, the House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. MILLER in the chair.

NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL.

On motion of Mr. CAMBRELENG, the committee took up the bill making appropriations for the naval service for the year 1836.

The bill had before been under the consideration of the Committee of the Whole, and the pending amend ment was Mr. CAMBRELENG's to strike out $950,000 and insert the sum of $2,000,000, for repairs of vessels in ordinary, and the repairs and wear and tear of vessels in commission, and completing those on the stocks.

Mr. CAMBRELENG withdrew the amendment, so as not to embarrass the passage of the present bill, and especially as the subject would come up in a separate bill, to be reported by the Committee on Naval Affairs. This being the ordinary appropriation bill, and Mr. C. having withdrawn the only amendment pending, he hoped it would pass without delay.

Mr. BELL moved to reduce the several appropriations for the navy yards one half the amount proposed in the bill. Mr. B. read the various items proposed, and maintained that such large appropriations might not be passed, in the prospect of a contingency that might probably ensue. The items were as follows:

For improvements and necessary repairs of the navy yard—

At Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
At Charlestown, Massachusetts,
At Brooklyn, New York,
At Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
At Washington,

At Gosport, Virginia,
At Pensacola,

$67,000

199,000

84,300

11,750

37,500

- 167,000 64,000

Mr. JARVIS thought the gentleman should at least examine whether the appropriations were necessary or not, before he made a sweeping motion to reduce the whole of them indiscriminately one half. Mr. J. then

did so, that he would be more successful in explaining them than he had been on this present occasion, to this House. Mr. C. had been unable to understand what the gentleman had been driving at. The gentleman said, whether war or peace was to ensue, he wished to reserve our funds, in order, if called upon for large appropriations, they might apply them to the proper object. Well, taking this for granted, suppose they should be called upon to make large appropriations during the present session, to defend ourselves from war with France, was this the place the gentleman proposes to save the means to do it? Would he propose to diminish the conveniences of the navy yards in such a crisis? Let any man look to the present condition of our navy yards, and compare them with the most insignificant Power of Europe--Sweden, Denmark, or any other petty Power of the Atlantic--and what were they? They were in as bad a condition as our fortifications. Mr. C. then referred to the acts by which a gradual increase of the navy had been authorized, and compared the proposed items in this bill with those of former years, to show that they varied in some particulars, some more and some less. He had hoped, when he withdrew the amendment of $2,000,000, that the bill would have gone speedily through the committee. He had withdrawn that proposition for the purpose of facilitating the passage of the ordinary appropriation bill, and he did not anticipate the opposition of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. BELL.] Mr. C. said that, be the result of our foreign relations what they might, he should vote to put this country in an attitude for war, not only upon the ground of expediency, but upon the ground of policy, not to suffer this nation to be insulted by every Power on earth. He hoped the bill would pass as it stood.

Mr. HARDIN said he could not but admire the largeness of the views of the gentleman from New York [Mr. CAMBRELENG] upon the subject of those appropriations. A bill, amounting altogether to the sum of about four hundred thousand dollars, was considered so small a matter in his eyes that he could not perceive how gentlemen could object to it. And a gentleman from Pennsylvania | [Mr. SUTHERLAND] had said that they ought to take all the estimates and recommendations of the Departments as correct, until the contrary was shown. He thought if that gentleman would look around he would see that it was almost impossible for members on that floor to show that those estimates were not correct, even if that should be the case; and, according to that doctrine, the House would have to give all that the Departments asked. He thought, however, he saw the object of gentlemen in recommending large appropriations. He thought they were in reality nothing but a trick to get all the surplus revenue expended on the seaboard; and not to give the western country a cent of it.

Mr. PARKER said that a part of the increase of expenditure was on account of the increase in pay of officers of the navy, and the greater number of men required this year over the last; and he hoped the committee was ready to vote on the subject, and that the original appropriation would be sustained.

Mr. PHILLIPS explained. He said he had asked the chairman of the Committee of Naval Affairs, whether he could furnish the committee with a statement of the amount of the unexpended balance of last year, as he could not ascertain from the documents whether it had been expended or not; and he thought the House was getting into a loose way of making appropriations. With regard to the navy, he was in favor of the most liberal expenditure; but he did not wish to expend money, unless it was actually necessary. If they would give him the information, he would probably go as far in favor of appropriations for the defence of the country as any other gentleman.

[FEB. 10, 1836.

On motion of Mr. MANN, of New York, the committee then rose, reported progress, and The House adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10.

NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL.

The committee resumed the consideration of the bill making appropriations for the naval service for the year 1836. The question pending was the proposed amendment of Mr. BELL, to reduce the appropriation for the improvement and necessary repairs of the navy yard at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, from $67,000 to $33,500. Mr. MANN, of New York, said that when he made the motion yesterday that the committee rise, it was not with a view to enter into this debate, and he would not trouble the committee with but a very few general remarks. On looking into the estimates for the current year, for the navy, it will be perceived that the whole increase asked for by the navy board, constituted for the express purpose of supervising this important arm of the public service, combining great experience and fidelity, "having seen some service," amounts to the sum of $622,151 75; a sum certainly very moderate, considering the state of the country, and its proud financial condition. This increase, we are informed, is occasioned by the proposed addition to the force to be employed in commission, and in consequence of the increased pay of the officers, under the law of the last session. As to the immediate question before the committee, the improve. ment and repair of the navy yard at Portsmouth, and the other navy yards of the United States, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that its importance must be apparent to the committee, and to the country, whether we contemplate the contingencies of our foreign relations or not. For this purpose the increase of appropriation asked for is $287,010. The commissioners deem this necessary to meet the immediate wants of the public service. The commissioners remark that, "although much has been done in the different yards since the adoption of approved plans under the law of 3d of March, 1827, much still remains to be done to provide adequate means for the preservation of the materials which a prudent foresight has directed to be collected for future use, or to prepare the necessary conveniences for building, repairing, and equipping ships with proper economy and despatch." This recommendation is clear and explicit, emanating from a source entitled to great respect, and which, I presume, will not be suspected of "Executive dictation to Congress," to use the favorite language of some gentlemen. The importance of these great naval depots, for the construction and repair of the navy, must be apparent, even to gentlemen representing the great West: for they are equally so, in truth, to every part of this wide country. Sir, let me ask those gentlemen to reflect upon their vast interests; their immense commerce float. ing down the Mississippi, and requiring more protection in the Gulf of Mexico than is now afforded to it, and that too from the navy. That portion of our coast seems to me to require more adequate provision for its defence; and I would vote without scruple an appropriation for a dry dock, to be constructed at the navy yard at Pensacola, to enable our ships cruising there and in the West Indies to repair and refit; to enlarge that navy yard, and supply it with every requisite to be useful and efficient. The true policy of the country requires that these great naval depots should be well prepared and supplied with all the material of naval preparation. Believing this, for myself, sir, (said Mr. M.,) I do not see the propriety of agreeing to the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. BELL,] to reduce the appropriation for the improvement and repair of the navy yard at Portsmouth.