were admitted on the roll under the law of 1818, and were stricken off by the law of 1820, because they had a little more property than the War Department had decided should be the maximum. Who were these men ? They were, most of them, men who entered the army in 1775, under the rules prescribed by the Board of War. They were, most of them, over seventy years of age; and some of them ninety years of age. He then proceeded to read the documents in one case, but was interrupted by Mr. CHAMBERS, who moved to dispense with the further reading of the documents. It having been decided that the motion was in order, and that it precluded debate, the question was stated, "Shall the reading of the documents be proceeded with?" Mr. BERRIEN called for the yeas and nays, and the question was decided in the negative, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Branch, Berrien, Benton, Chandler, Dickerson, Eaton, Hayne, Iredell, Noble, Ridgely, Rowan, Smith, of South Carolina, Tazewell, Tyler, White, Williams.-16. NAYS-Messrs. Barnard, Barton, Bell, Bouligny, Burnet, Chambers, Chase, Dudley, Foot, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnson, of Kentucky, Johnston, of Louisiana, Kane, Knight, McKinley, Marks, Prince, Robbins, Ruggles, Sanford, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, of Maryland, Willey, Woodbury.-26. The question then recurred on the passage of the bill. Mr. HAYNE took the floor, and made a few remarks, briefly protesting against such a course. He then called for the reading of the documents in the case of the second name-that of Samuel Snow. Mr. CHAMBERS again objected to it, and it was decided in the negative, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Berrien, Bouligny, Branch, Chandler, Dickerson, Eaton, Hayne, Iredell, Noble, Ridgely, Rowan, Smith, S. C., Tazewell, Tyler, White, Williams.-17. NAYS-Messrs. Barnard, Barton, Bell, Burnet, Chambers, Chase, Dudley, Foot, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnson, of Kentucky, Johnston, of Louisiana, Kane, Knight, McKinley, Marks, Prince, Robbins, Ruggles, Sanford, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, of Maryland, Webster, Willey, Woodbury--26. Mr. BERRIEN said, the principle asserted by these votes is, that, in relation to these two persons, we shall be called upon to vote, and say that they are entitled to a pension, without the least information upon the subject. We have asked for information from the committee--the organ of the Senate: they have answered that the documents are voluminous, and that there is not time for an examination. They have divided the labor among themselves, and the collective committee has decided upon the results arrived at by individuals. If the Chairman cannot give us information relative to the bill, each member can give us what we want in relation to the cases he examined. The committee have been called upon to do this: one of them is willing, and would have given us this information, but he was arrested, and the Senate has decided by its vote that we shall not have this information Now, I am not bound to vote for any case concerning which I am in ignorance, and I will not vote without the information I call for. I shall now make a motion which does not preclude debate, but which will extort information. I move to strike from the bill the name of John Polerezsky. He was a French officer, in the pay of the French Government, and our Government has settled, long since, with the French Government, for his services. Upon this motion, Mr. BERRIEN called for the yeas and nays. Mr. Noble said, this very case had been repeatedly rejected by the Committee on Pensions. [MARCH 2, 1829. Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, wanted to know why the officer of a foreign Government was upon the pension roll of the United States? Mr. FOOT said, the remarks of the gentleman from Georgia_placed the committee in an unpleasant situation. They had stated the circumstances in which they were placed, and the manner in which they had acted. He would never oblige any man to "extort" information from him. The bill came from the House. He did not consider himself responsible for the manner in which the House had acted. The action of the committee was the amendments they had proposed, and on them there was a written report. Mr. BERRIEN protested against the admission of such a distinction. It was the duty of the committee to examine every case in the bill. The case of Polerezsky was peculiarly obnoxious to the charge he had made, inasmuch as the documents were before the Senate, and they would not hear them. Mr. NOBLE again moved to lay the bill on the table, which was again rejected, as follows: YEAS--Messrs. Berrien, Branch, Chandler, Eaton, Hayne, Iredell, Johnston, of Louisiana, McKinley, Noble, Ridgely, Rowan, Smith, of Maryland, Smith, of South Carolina, Tazewell, Tyler, White, Williams-17. NAYS-Messrs. Barnard, Barton, Bell, Benton, Bouligny, Burnet, Chambers, Chase, Dickerson, Dudley, Foot, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnson, of Kentucky, Kane, Knight, Marks, Prince, Robbins, Ruggles, Sanford, Seymour, Silsbee, Webster, Willey, Woodbury.-26. Mr. PRINCE defended the committee in the course they had taken. So many names were included in the bill, and so many documents were to be examined, that one person could not get through with them. The bu siness, consequently, had to be divided among four members, who each separately examined the part allotted to him and all were ready to give any information required. He was not an advocate for the bill; but he had felt it his duty to give to it, so far as he was concerned, an attentive examination, &c. : Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said a few words relative to the case of Polerezsky. If he was in the service of the United States, he was correctly included in the bill; but if in that of the King of France, he should not be included. Mr. CHANDLER was well acquainted with the Major; he knew him to be a worthy man, but certainly he had never been in the service of the United States Mr. CHASE stated the services of Major Polerezsky in the Southern States, under Gen. Green, &c., and mentioned the particular battles in which he had been engaged. He was a patriot in every sense of the word, and faithfully served through the whole of the Revolutionary war. At the close thereof, he was ordered home by the King of France, but after hesitation, determined to remain in this country, and become an American citizen. His property in France was confiscated, and he had been poor ever since. Mr. C. likened his case to that of Lafayette, and could see no reason why he should not receive a pension. Mr. TAZEWELL opposed the bill at considerable length. He recapitulated the fact of a division of the bill among the members of the committee, and then asked what had been done? What were we told? Upon the very first case arising in the bill, we were told we must act by faith. Faith in whom? In the committee? No. In one member of the committee. Was this legislation? It deserved any other name. The bill came before us precisely as it had been sent to the committee; and when we ask for information, we are told we must act on faith; that, if we talk upon it, so much time would be consumed, could not pass. He had, as a Representative upon this floor, faith in no man. He acted on his MARCH 2, 1829.] Inauguration of the President Elect.-Revolutionary Officers, &c. own responsibility-he must have light, or he could not act at all. If we ask for the principle on which the bill was to be supported, there was none: no more of this than of fact; the fact then was, that we were called to act without fact, principle, or rule, to govern us. Under this state of things, he would struggle through each name, and endeavor to have all rejected, if no facts were to be obtained. Mr. HOLMES saw nothing alarming in this case. There could be but few persons in the same situation as Major Polerezsky; but if there were others, they would hardly come from France to obtain a pension. The individual alluded to had faithfully served this country, was now eighty or eighty-five years of age, was very infirm and poor, and needs relief. For his own part, he would cheerfully grant a pension were there more cases presented of the same nature-so much for the principle. Mr. BERRIEN again addressed the Senate, enforcing his former views. His motion was to amend the bill by striking from it the name of a single individual. Polerezsky was certainly a major in the service of the King of France; but because he was obliged to act under the command of superior American officers, he claims a pension. On this principle we must pension the whole French army in the service of the United States. As to the principle which the Senator from Maine was willing to go upon, he would find there would be many to apply for a pension. The calculation of the Senator from Maine was conjectural, and therefore erroneous. Many of the French officers and soldiers settled in this country after the war of the Revolution, lived here in ease and indolence, and refused to return to serve their own country, when required to do so by the King of France. Mr. HOLMES said, the very reason why he would grant this pension was, because the officer in question did remain here. He instanced the case of the Canadians during the last war, as a case in point. Polerezsky renounced his allegiance to his own country, and had raised a family here. Every man had a right to renounce it, and to become a subject or citizen of any other country. And if for no other better reason, this would be sufficient for him. Polerezsky was an American citizen-was unwilling to tear himself from wife and children to serve his former sovereign. He was as much in the service of the United States as Lafayette, though in a minor capacity. INAUGURATION OF THE PRESIDENT ELECT. Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said he had been anxious to move a resolution, which he read; and he hoped, situated as we were at the present moment, the Senate would consent to lay the bill on the table for five minutes, that he might offer it. The CHAIR stated that he had received a letter from the President elect on the subject to which the gentleman had referred. The bill was then laid on the table, and the following communication from the President elect was read: CITY OF WASHINGTON, March 2d, 1829. SIR: Through you I beg leave to inform the Senate, that, on Wednesday, the 4th instant, at 12 o'clock, I shall be ready to take the oath prescribed by the constitution, [SENATE. The resolution was adopted, and a committee of three members ordered, consisting of Messrs. SMITH, of Maryland, WHITE, and CHANDLER. Mr. MARKS them moved again to take up the bill last laid upon the table. Mr. HAYNE said, that if the discussion of the bill was resumed, the several important matters now on the table could not be acted upon. This was the last day for doing business: for, by the joint rule of the two Houses, bills could not be acted upon to-morrow. He submitted it to the Senate whether they would abandon all the other business, for the purpose of discussing this bill. From what had already transpired, it was evident that the bill could not go through. Mr. H. then entered into a long and argumentative course of remarks to show why the bill should not pass, in the course of which he commented on the Revolutionary Pension Bill, and was called to order by Mr. CHAMBERS; but the Chair decided the gentleman was in order. He concluded with the hope that the bill would be suffered to lie on the table, and called for the yeas and nays on the motion again to take up the bill. After some remarks from Mr. NOBLE against the motion of Mr. MARKS, the yeas and nays were ordered on again taking up the bill. Mr. BENTON stated that he had twice to-day voted against laying the bill on the table; but he should now vote against again taking it up, and explain the reasons which had actuated him in the votes heretofore given, and those by which he was now actuated. He was willing to give time for information, but they had not been able to obtain it. He should vote now, as he did in May last, against the bill; and precisely on the same ground; they had no facts to act upon, and he could not consent to act in the dark, without knowing the length, breadth, depth, and height, of this pension system. Seventy bills from the House lie on the table, and he could not consent to sacrifice them for this bill. Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, was generally in favor of the bill; but the second section was particularly obnoxious, and he should vote against taking it up again. Mr. PRINCE had voted against laying the bill on the table in the morning, but was now compelled to vote against taking it up. He had done his duty faithfully as a member of the Committee, but was in duty bound not to sacrifice all the bills on the table together with this; for, if this bill was discussed, none of them would pass; and discuss this even till midnight, and it would not go through. He was willing to change his vote, also, with regard to reading the documents, &c. Mr. MARKS would not say another word, did he not think that some unjustifiable imputations had been thrown upon the Committee. He then went on to defend his own course, and the course pursued by the other members of the Committee on Pensions, and recapitulated the course which had been pursued by the Senate itself. The anxiety of the Committee was great to get the bill through, and therefore it was that they had early stated, that, if an examination and reading of all the documents was gone into, the bill would not be got through with to-day. Mr. BERRIEN made a few observations, by way of previously to entering on a discharge of my official duties, correction of some previous remarks; and Mr. NOBLE added a few words: when The question was taken on again resuming the consideration of the bill, and decided in the negative, as follows: YEAS-Mesrss. Barnard, Bell, Burnet, Chambers, Chase, Dudley, Foot, Hendricks, Holmes, Kane, Knight, Marks, Robbins, Ruggles, Sanford, Seymour, Silsbee, Thomas, Webster, Willey, Woodbury-21. NAYS-Messrs. Barton, Benton, Berrien, Bouligny Branch, Chandler, Dickerson, Eaton, Hayne, Iredell, SENATE.] Cumberland Road.-Panama Documents. Johnson, of Kentucky, Johnston, of Louisiana, McKinley, Noble, Prince, Ridgely, Rowan, Smith, of Maryland, Smith, of South Carolina, Tazewell, Tyler, White, Williams-22. So the Senate refused farther to consider the bill. CUMBERLAND ROAD. Mr. HENDRICKS then called up the bill providing for the preservation and repair of the Cumberland Road, promising, if the constitutional objections should be called up, to let the bill lie upon the table. He understood an amendment would be offered, striking out the objectionable sections, and merely make an appropriation for repairing it. The bill was then taken up, (ayes 19, noes 16,) and Mr. BENTON offered an amendment striking out the whole bill except the appropriation of one hundred thousand dollars, and inserting a provision, that, from and after the first of November next, the road shall belong to the States through which it runs, and shall be left to their direction. Mr. HENDRICKS said, this certainly was not the amendment he had expected; he could and should vote for striking out, but he could not vote for the insertion of the new provision. The question was then divided, and first taken on the motion to strike out, and was decided in the affirmative as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Barnard, Benton, Berrien, Branch, Burnet, Chambers, Chandler, Dickerson, Dudley, Eaton, Foot, Hayne, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnson, of Kentucky, Johnston, of Louisiana, Kane, McKinley, Marks, Noble, Prince, Ridgely, Robbins, Rowan, Ruggles, Sanford, Silsbee, Smith, of Maryland, Smith, of South Carolina, Tazewell, Tyler, Webster, White, Williams, Woodbury-35. NAYS-Messrs. Bell, Barton, Bouligny, Chase, Seymour, Willey-6. [MARCH 3, 1829. as follows: Mr. WEBSTER having called for the yeas and nays: YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Berrien, Branch, Chandler, Dickerson, Dudley, Hayne, Iredell, Johnson, of Kentucky, McKinley, Prince, Ridgely, Rowan, Sanford, Smith, of South Carolina, Tazewell, Tyler, White, Williams, Woodbury-20. NAYS-Messrs. Barnard, Barton, Bell, Bouligny, Burnet, Chambers, Chase, Eaton, Foot, Hendricks, Johnston, of Louisiana, Kane, Marks, Noble, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, of Maryland, Webster-21. After some trifling amendments, the question then recurred on engrossing the bill for a third reading; which was ordered. The bill was afterwards reported by the engrossing Committee, received its third reading, and passed, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Barnard, Barton, Benton, Bouligny, Burnet, Chambers, Chase, Dudley, Eaton, Hendricks, Holmes, Kane, Johnson, of Kentucky, Johnston, of Louisiana, Marks, Noble, Ridgely, Robbins, Rowan, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, of Maryland, Webster, Willey, Williams.-26. NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Berrien, Branch, Chandler, Dickerson, Hayne, Iredell, Prince, Sanford, Smith, of South Carolina, Tazewell, Tyler, White.-13. TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1829. The following message was received from the President of the United States, by the hands of his private secretary, Mr. John Adams. To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America: WASHINGTON, 3D MARCH, 1829. I transmit herewith to Congress, a copy of the instruc The question was then upon inserting the provision giv- tions prepared by the Secretary of State, and furnished ing the road to the States. Mr. KANE said he was prepared to vote for the appropriation of $100,000, because it would be applied to an object of a general and national character. He could not consent, however, to vote for the insertion of the new clause, because he could not consent to leave such general interest to any individual State, or any number of States. Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said he should vote against the amendment, because it was of no utility whatever. I would require, instead of one, three hundred thousand dollars, and the States would not receive the road unless it was in complete repair. Mr. CHANDLER understood the gentleman from Illinois to say that the work was to be an expense to the Government to the end of all time, or as long as there should be any United States. If that was the case, he should vote against the amendment, and also move to strike out all the rest of the bill. Mr. EATON said the road had been a tax upon the country for several years past; but it was a binding link between the Eastern and the Western States, which should be kept up at any and every expense. He knew the scruples of gentlemen on the floor; he did not expect them to give up these scruples: but to those who had no scruples, he urged them not to vote for any amendment which would delay the passage of the bill. If they then had a separate proposition to give it to the States, he hoped it would be agreed to; but the road should be first placed in complete repair. He wished for the appropriation; that the amendment would not be agreed to; but that the bill would be passed. After some farther consideration and conversation, the question was taken, and it was decided in the negative, to the Ministers of the United States appointed to attend at the Assembly of American Plenipotentiaries, first held at Panama, and thence transferred to Tacubaya. The occasion for which they were given has passed away, and there is no present probability of the renewal of those negotiations; but the purpose for which they were intended are still of the deepest interest to our country and to the world, and may hereafter call again for the active energies of the Government of the United States. The motive for withholding them from general publication having ceased, justice to the Government from which they emanated, and to the people for whose benefit it was instituted, require that they should be made known. With this view, and from the consideration that the subjects embraced by those instructions must probably engage hereafter the consideration of our successors, I deem it proper to make this communication to both Houses of Congress. One copy only of the instructions being prepared, I send it to the Senate, requesting that it may be transmitted also to the House of Representatives. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. The message having been read, Mr. TAZEWELL rose and said that, before another word of the papers was read, he moved their reference to the Committee on Foreign Relations. The reference was ordered without a division. Mr. CHAMBERS moved that the message and documents be printed. Mr. TAZEWELL, in opposition to the motion, asked if the Senate was willing to give to the world, without previous examination, the secret instructions of the Government. This proposition was made here a few days ago by a Senator from Massachusetts, in a resolution. It MARCH 3, 1829.] Panama Documents. [SENATE. ought to be acquainted. We were still referred to the authority of the Executive to do in this case what it was said they had done before-to publish without a call; and that we had no claim upon the members opposed to us, and who now compose the majority, to ask their aid in procuring them by a resolution of the Senate. was suggested by the Senator from South Carolina, that the documents should come to the Senate confidentially, and in secret session. The mover himself became satisfied of the impropriety of receiving them in any other way than with closed doors, and he modified his resolution accordingly. What then? The Senate determined not to make a call for documents on a President having but three days to live, and the resolution was laid on the table. Although the mover declared that he had no knowledge of the President's intentions or wishes in regard to the publication of these papers, yet, the resolution having been rejected, the President, uncalled, obtrudes the secret documents on the Senate. After these documents had been referred to a Committee, to be examined, and to be published or withheld, at their discretion, the Senator from Maryland, though he knows nothing of their contents, proposes to publish them to the world. Mr. T.mittee, and see if it is proper, in their judgment, for the hoped that the Senate would examine before they promulgated documeuts sent hither in the last moment of the expiring political life of the President. Mr. CHAMBERS said he was greatly surprised at the opposition made to the motion to print. He regretted the absence from his chair of his friend from Massachusetts (Mr. WEBSTER), who had introduced the resolution referred to by the Senator from Virginia, because he did not understand the motives or the objects of that resolution to have been those which that Senator now expressed them to be. He had not understood the mover of the resolution to intimate, and certainly in the remarks which he himself had made in support of that resolution, he had not intimated, his motive and object to be to purify the present Executive, or to rekindle the flames of party animosity. When that resolution was introduced, it was objected by the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. HAYNE), that the information asked for should be sent to the Senate in secret session, in Executive session, and other exceptions were taken to its language. The mover of the resolution acquiesced in all the suggestions of amendment, and modified his resolution accordingly. It was for the avowed purpose of conciliating the views, and subduing opposition, that the modifications were adopted, and not as the Senator from Virginia suggests, because the mover of the resolution deemed it proper to have the Senate in Executive session to receive the communication. He had admired, although he believed he could not have imitated, the conciliatory temper of his honorable friend who❘ had moved the resolution, in yielding to the modifications proposed, when he was yet convinced that, in its original form, the proposition ought not to have received opposition. Yet what was the event? A strong and animated appeal was made by the Senators from Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia, and ultimately the resolution was defeated by a vote to lay it on the table. Well, sir, the President has published. By sending the papers to the two Houses of Congress, he has done what gentlemen said "he can do" and "let him do ;" and what his power to do was made the ground of opposition and defeat to the resolution. And what now do we hear? Why, that the Senate must step between the Executive and the public, and arrest the information. Those who said, a day or two ago," the President can assume the responsibility and publish when he pleases"-" let him do it"-now tell us they must examine the matter by a Com public eye? and that the President is under no responsibility for the effects of the publication. If by this it be intended that the publication will not advance or retard the future elevation of the present chief magistrate to a political office, he concurred with the Senator who had again repeated the remark; but the true responsibility of a public functionary was to be found in the odium to which they exposed themselves by unwise, injurious, and criminal measures; the disgust and contempt which pursued them into retirement, and fastened upon their name and reputation. From this responsibility, an officer found no relief by the expiration of his term of office; he could look to none, even with the termination of his life. The Senate, Mr. C. continued, had no right to this paper, no exclusive right. It belongs in common with us to the House of Representatives and to the people. The President was at this moment, and to the last hour of the last day of his official existence would be, invested with the constitutional powers and duties which belonged to the station. Amongst those duties was that of transmitting information and advice to both Houses of Congress. By an arrest of communications in their transit to the House from the Executive do you not usurp control over both these co-ordinate branches? By what authority can you say to the President that he shall not communicate to the House? And by what authority can you say to the House, you shall not receive a communication addressed to you? The law of force may justify it, but none other. It has been said the President has obtruded papers on the Senate containing secrets of the Government. What justifies this remark? Does the Senator know the contents of the papers, and from such knowledge assert their character? Does he not assume an appellate power over the opinion of the Executive ? Does he not refuse to the President the exercise of concurrent and co-ordinate power vested by the constitution? The Executive has the right to make public his official acts. By sending his communications to Congress, he does publish to them and to the world, and this body has no right to lay hands on official papers in transitu, and smother them by sending them to a committee room, and refusing to print them. Mr. BERRIEN had no wish, he said, to inquire into the motives of the President, or of individuals, in regard to this subject; but this last motion forcibly reminds us of the circumstances under which the original motion was in The main argument then urged was, the power of the President to communicate the document upon his own responsibility, and the absence of all necessity for the call. It was in vain we urged that these instructions concluded and consummated a transaction, all other parts whereof were published to the world; that they were necessary to a correct and intelligent view of the subject, and proper to vindicate the course we had pursued in reference to the mission; that the power of the President to publish, and thereby sustain, nis agency in the measure, did not take away or lessen our right to obtain and use the means introduced. our control to sustain our agency in it; that our concern was to take care of ourselves, and as we did not move in this matter as the representatives of the Executive, so it was not proper to leave us to the gratuitous interposition of the Executive for facts necessary to a just judgment upon our conduct, and with which the American public * Messrs. Webster, Johnston, of Louisiana, and Silsbee, were absent, attending the funerel of Mrs. Barnard, as pall-bearers, and did not return until at the moment of taking the final vote. The question upon the resolution was not whether the documents should be published, but whether we should, gratuitously, evoke them from the President, and give them publicity. The same argument which he opposed to the call for the papers, he would now oppose to the motion to print them. He would exclude all consideration of the motives of these motions, but look at their effects The effect of both motions was to draw distinctly the lines of parties. Gentlemen avail themselves of the very few moments in which they can have access to the public armory, to arm themselves for another contest. He did not fear their weapons. They had been found powerless for defence; they would be found equally so for offence. The object of the motion made the other day was declared to be not the justification of the President, though that, it was said, would be its effect, but to justify to gentlemen their own course. The real object which gentlemen had in reviving the discussion of the merits of this contemned and exploded political speculation, was to enable them, in their retirement, or in legislative halls, to renew the political conflict in which they had so lately been defeated. But this weapon would not aid them. Sir [said Mr. B.], it is not for me to distrust the declarations of gentlemen. I am not disposed, on this occasion, to urge the argument of "post hoc ergo propter hoc," but how soon had these several acts, tending to the same object, followed each other. In the earliest possible moment after the rejection of the original proposition, this message was received, and it was immediately followed by a motion of an extraordinary character. The President, in the exercise of a power not denied to him, has sent to us the documents in such haste, that the clerks could not furnish a copy of them. But one set was furnished, which we were required to send to the House of Representatives. Is this usual? The President should have put both Houses in possession of the document, and he cannot make us his agents in their communication to the other House. But is there any thing unusual in resisting the proposition to print the papers? Only one copy was sent, and that was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Was there any proof that we were disposed to withhold the documents from publication? Why were they not printed? Because they should first be examined by the committee, and should go to the public accompanied by a report from the committee. The bane and the antidote should be administered together. But he would ask if the President would not lay these documents before the public. It was in his power to do whatever he wish ed with them; nor would it be a new case, should he open the secret drawers of the State Department to make public such of their contents as he thought proper. The instructions to Mr. Cook were given to the public by the President after they had been refused to the House of Representatives. With my assent, no act of ours shall sanction the publication of these papers. They were in a condition to get before the public without our agency. He would not consent to be made the agent in drawing from the Department of State, and in publishing, the history of an ill-fated measure, which had long distracted the American people, and which was only called for with a view to revive and continue those distractions. Mr. HOLMES said he had been opposed to the Panama mission; for he suspected it would come to no good, and he had feared it might produce mischief. His maxims were to "let well enough alone," and "if you could not see where to go, nor what to do, it was safest to stand still and do nothing" But others thought well of it; public opinion was divided, and, the mission being established, and the ministers appointed, I [said Mr. H.] could not withhold the appropriation for their compensation. The President has communicated to us the instructions to those ministers, and the proposition is to print the documents for the use of the Senate, confidentially. The whole affair is over and finished, and we not only refuse the public the information, but we are afraid to trust ourselves. Sir, it is a grave question, whether we have the power to arrest here a communication sent to the House of Representatives through us. The President has sent information to both Houses, requesting us to transmit it to the House. It is an usual course, and when the documents are voluminous, it is almost always done. It has been admitted that the President has, himself, the right to make public the whole transaction; and yet we are so fastidious [MARCH 3, 1829. that we apprehend danger even to trust ourselves with reading the communication. They are to be locked up in the bureau of the Committee of Foreign Relations; and until these confidential gentlemen have examined them, we are not to have a sight of them. The result is, that we are to interpose to shut out from the public that information which the President himself, on his own responsibility, has a right to give. Sir, I opposed the mission, and still believe I was right; but instead of refusing, I will facilitate every thing which may go to show me in the wrong. I am not afraid nor ashamed to hear and publish any man's doctrines in opposition to my own. It is, moreover, made the duty of the President, by the constitution, to make this communication. He shall, from time to time," that is, when, on his own responsibility, he deems it expedient, "communicate to Congress the state of the Union." A transaction affecting essentially the state of the Union is communicated, and we, the Senate, even with closed doors, are neither permitted to hear or see it. Is it material that the committee shall detain these documents, that their answer shall go out simultaneously? Public opinion is not to be forestalled: for the people of these United States will hear the whole before they decide. But if we are, indeed, afraid to trust them, it is a little singular that we should be afraid to trust ourselves. Mr. WOODBURY explained that he did not move to withdraw the yeas and nays under the supposition that all objections to the resolution had been removed by the modifications which it had undergone. It had never entered his mind that the documents should go before the world promiscuously and without examination. On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, the motion was laid on the table, in order that the Senate might receive a message from the House of Representatives. Some other business having been transacted, A pro Mr. CHAMBERS said his colleague had declined, upon request, to withdraw the motion to lay upon the table his proposition to print the Panama instructions. When gentlemen stated on this floor the existence of majorities and minorities, he had hoped it would not be forgotten that minorities had rights; he had also hoped that these conceded rights would be respected. position to read a message had been rejected; another, to print it, had been laid on the table, whether permanently, or for the purpose of transacting the business now ended, was to be seen. He had intended to inquire if his colleague had withdrawn his motion. He was now about to move to take up the subject, and it would be discovered whether the right of being heard, the last remnant of the rights of a minority, would be denied. A motion to print a paper, communicated from the Executive or any of the Departments was almost, if not altogether, "matter of course 99 He had no recollection at the moment of its being refused or resisted. He might, he knew, avail himself of his possession of the floor to express his views, but it would be irregular to do so on a motion for consideration, and he did not choose to be driven to an indirect course. If it was intended to deny to the minority the usual courtesies belonging to legislative bodies, and this denial was to be put in its worst form to preclude even the power of debate or complaint, let it be so, and let the fearful responsibility of this course rest on those who adopt it. He moved that the motion to print be now taken up. Mr. HOLMES having desired the yeas and nays on the question, they were ordered. Mr. BERRIEN did not rise, he said, to oppose the motion, for he was ready to meet the question of printing directly. He rose to reply to a remark which fell from the Senator from Maryland, regarding the respect due to "the remnant of the rights of the minority." It struck him that the remark came with ill grace from a Senator who, the other day, opposed a call for informa |
