« 上一頁繼續 »
ing rich; the nature of our business does not admit of
common estimation to that of bare physical subsistence.
tellectual culture, this great object stands second only in
But these memorialists would feel unfaithful to their
country, to this Government, and to their posterity, if they rested their complaints on pecuniary sufferings alone. No, sir; there are connected with these measures considerations of higher public concernment. When we have seen the Executive, in repeated messages to Congress, denouncing the bank; denying its salutary influence as a regulator of the currency; denying its sectirity as a depository of the revenue and fiscal agent of the Government; and when we have seen him following up these hostile declarations by a bold and hasty removal of the deposites, only a few months after this House had, by a great vote, declared them safe, and but two months before the assembling of the representatives of the people, with the apparent design to resist their action and control of the people’s money, by the misuse of his veto power; and thus by art, as well as doctrine, claiming sole and supreme control of the public purse; when, I say, we have witnessgd all this, we cannot wonder that these memorialists should feel and express the deepest anxieties for the safety of our free institutions. And when it is seen, too, that, in order to effect his objects, the President has perverted the appointing power, a limited and qualified one under the constitution, there is, is there not, sir? great reason to apprehend the concentraton of ungranted and dangerous power in the hands of one man! But the danger is increased, when it is seen that this grasp of new power is at the expense of the popular branch of the Government. Congress loses what the Executive assurnes in control of the public treasure. And the Senate, holding a share of the appointing power, sees itself practically put aside in the process of filling the high offices of Government. Is it not so, sir? Not only has the President asserted his right to keep and control the collected treasure of the nation, but, to make his claim sure, he has carefully kept in the office of Secretary of the Treasury a man of his own sole appointment, and whose only will seems to be to do “his bidding and abide his will.” And it is a fact new in the history of our Government, and I hope it will stand out prominent, as a monitory fact, that for more than one year past we have not had a Secretary of the Treasury appointed according to the constitution! well might the public meeting of my constituents declare that the President was pursuing his destructive objects by means incompatible with the spirit of the constitution. Sir, it is not my design to go into an argument against the removal of the deposites, that hitherto undefended and indefensible exertion of Executive power, either as to its expediency or constitutionality, but only to present briefly, as I have done, the views of my constituents of this bold and pernicious measure, to speak of their suf. serings and apprehensions as produced by it; nor will I go into the great and grave subject of the currency of the country; but will only present their sentiments, as well expressed in one of the resolutions adopted at their convention. “Resolved, That a paper currency, based upon an adequate specie foundation, presents important advantages over an entire specie circulation, both in its power of expansion and contraction, according to the wants of the community; the object of a wise and patriotic Government, therefore, should be, not to destroy such a currency, but to regulate it, devising means for giving the whole system efficiency and safety, developing to the fail its advantages, and remedying its acknowledged defeets.” on this subject, the memorialists, referring to the reasonings and opinions of our ablest statesmen, during the existence of our present Government, and to past experience through all that period, declare their conviction, and 1 fully concur with them, that a national bank affords the only corrective of a disordered currency; that exserience has abundantly proved its importance to the industry and commerce of the country; its value as a rea
dy and efficient servant of the Government, in the great concerns of its revenue. And we all have seen, how great was the shock to the common sense of men, when all this experience was set at naught, for an untried, unexpected, and preposterous experiment, for a “hardmoney currency!” Respecting the constitutionality of a national bank, if my constituents could ever have doubted, their doubts would have been quieted by a review of the history of that institution. They would have perceived— 1st. That many of the framers of the constitution were members of the Congress that chartered the old Bank of the United States, and gave the measure their decided support. 2d. That Washington signed the charter of that bank. 3d. That President Madison signed the charter of the present bank. 4th. The Supreme Court have decided in favor of the constitutionality of a national bank. 5th. The people have been content with its existence nearly forty years. 6th. The last Congress, by large majorities in both branches, voted a recharter of the present bank. Lastly, President Jackson has expressed himself in favor of such a bank as he could propose. He has pronounced such an institution both useful and convenient to the people. Under these convictions, the memorialists see no other means of extending relief and restoring the constitution, than restoring the deposites to their lawful place and keeping in the Bank of the United States, and so fulfilling the solemn public contract with that institution; a contract which none will pretend the bank has ever violated. They know no other mode of creating and preserving a sound and equal currency, than by the agency of a national bank—an institution for the people, the whole people of this great country. For these objects, separate and distinct in their character, my constituents memorialize Congress. They come to this House, which emanates directly from the people, and to them is directly responsible. They believe their public agents here can enter into their views, realize their condition, and sympathize in their sufferings. And least of all do they fear that their representatives can retort upon them the reply which the President is said to have given to the complaints of the people, that those who do business on credit are undeserving regard and protection. Credit, sir, personal, pecuniary credit, though not implying exactly so much as moral character, is nevertheless too nearly related to it among a plain, agricultural, and mechanical community to be disregarded or reproached; for it rests more on moral and economical habits than upon any pecuniary pledges, and is at once an incentive to, and reward of, industry and integrity. Sir, I know not that these citizens ever before approached Congress with any public grievance. They may rejoice to know that, on this occasion, their voice is here mingled with that of hundreds of thousands, called forth by the same cause, and directed to the same end. And I devoutly wish I could tell them their prayer will be answered—that Congress will interpose all its power and authority for relief and quiet to the country, the redemption of the national faith, the restoration of the constitution and the laws, and the restraint of Executive assumptions. But, sir, indulging no such hopes myself, I will not encourage them in o constituents. Nay, it is my duty here, as their sentinel and servant, to declare that there is no hope of change in the measures of the administration; that the President has sternly declared there should be no change in his determined course of action; that, in this House, certain great questions of public right and policy, of vital importance to the people, have been negatived and put down, while others, of hardly less mo
ment, have been cautiously avoided in its action. ... I regret I must tell them that this representative body has shunned a vote on the sufficiency of the Secretary's reasons for the removal of the public moneys from the lawful treasury of the nation; and that, by a vote against their restoration, it has sanctioned a breach of faith with the bank, which, if it had occurred in a private transaction between man and man, would have covered its author with shame and dishonor—a violation of faith, which, occurring in the intercourse between two independent nations, would be regarded as a just cause of war! Sir, the people of this country look upon the measures of the Executive, and of this House, with astonishment and dismay—I will not say with despondency. For, in the review of public affairs, they find relief to the gloomy prospect, in the character and action of another branch of the Government—an oasis in a desert waste. And I should do injustice to my own feelings, to the occasion, and to the sense of the country, could I forget to give my humble testimony to the exalted and dignified character of the American Senate. That body has nobly, greatly exerted its powers, to illustrate the true principles of our republican system, to vindicate the constitution and laws, and to check Executive usurpations. Its discussions, decisions, and measures, of the present session, will be held in grateful, admiring remembrance, while this Government shall stand! But it cannot be forgotten, that this House of the people, where they have poured out their griefs and complaints, has heard them with sturdy indifference, and looked upon the gathering ruin without one effort to avert it. No, sir, these memorialists have nothing to hope here. They understand the ultimate remedy for public evils; they will bear them with patience, till they shall be redressed by the voice and votes of a free and intelligent people. The following message, received from the President of the United States on Thursday last, was read:
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
I transmit a letter from the Marquis de Rochambeau to the minister of the United States in France, (together with a translation of the same,) referring to the petition of certain descendants of the Count de Rochambeau, which was communicated to the House of Representatives with my message of the 22d February, 1833. Extracts from the despatches of Mr. Livingston to the Secretary of State, respecting the same subject, are also sent.
I likewise transmit, for the consideration of the House, a petition from the heirs of the Baron de Kalb, (accompanied by a note from General Lafayette,) praying remuneration for services rendered by the Baron to the United States during the war of the Revolution. *
WAshi NgtoN, May 19, 1834.
The message was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Various bills on the Speaker's table were taken up and disposed of, and then
The House adjourned.
TUEs Day, MAY 27. NAVY PAY.
Mr. WATMOUGH said, as he had given notice of an intention, with the permission of the House, to call up the bill to regulate the pay in the naval service of the United States, he would ask that it should be taken up and considered this day. If not, as the subject was one of paramount importance, he hoped that a specific day would be fixed for having it taken up.
Objections having been made
Mr. W. said he would, for the present, postpone his intention of calling up the bill.
Mr. MILLER asked the unanimous consent of the House to take up the motion submitted by him for the printing of 30,000 extra copies of the reports respectively presented by the majority and minority of the committee appointed to investigate the affairs of the Bank of the United States. Objections having been made— Mr. MILLER moved a suspension of the rule; which motion prevailed. And the resolution having been taken up— Mr. BRICGS moved, as an amendment, that the two reports be printed, attached to each other, and with an appendix to the whole. Mr. MILLER declined to accept this as a modification of his motion. Mr. BRIGGS said his object in submitting the amendment was to save considerable expense, which might be avoided by having only one copy of the documents printed, which, by having the two reports attached, would answer every purpose that could be desired. He was also actuated, in making this proposition, by the consideration that, when the printing of any extra number of documents was ordered by the House, the only justifiable reason they had for going to the expense of doing it, was that, thereby, they were disseminating full information to their constituents upon important public matters, by which they would be entitled to judge of the propriety of such measures as should be under discussion in Congress. This, then, being the motive, when two reports of totally opposite views were presented by the members of an important committee appointed by the House, he would contend that it was the bounden duty of the House to print both, as well as the right of the people of the United States to have both laid before them, that they might have an opportunity of comparing the views and conclusions to which either the majority or the minority of the committee had come, with those of the other. The people would be placed in a condition to judge for themselves, which they could not be, perhaps, if the reports were sent separately. He did not urge this with any peculiar reference to this question, but rather as regarding it important to be adhered to as a general principle, which he hoped the House would now settle, that when, hereafter, they should vote the printing of any reports in which conflicting and adverse views were presented, the whole matters should go out to the public together, for the reason he had already stated. Mr. B. said he had been informed that this had been the practice of the House heretofore, and one that was only recently departed from. It was one to which the House should return, and, believing that a decision to this effect was now desirable, being a question altogether addressing itself to the candor, intelligence, and integrity of every honorable member, he would now leave it to them to dispose of, desiring only to have the question upon his amendment taken by yeas and nays. Mr. LANE, of Indiana, said, while he agreed with the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BRiggs,) that the object of printing extra numbers of the reports was to disseminate correct information among the people, to make them acquainted with the action of this House, and to enlighten the public mind, he should vote against the amendment proposed, to have the report of the majority, and the appendix, and the report of the minority, printed and attached, in order that they shall be placed in the same hands at the same time, as he did not believe that mode best calculated to produce that result; that he desired them separate; they could then be circulated
to the best possible advantage. The majority report and
the appendix, by which it is sustained, can be forwarded to one individual, the minority report to his neighbor. Each would read, and each would be desirous to see and read the other; and the ambition of each would be increased to have the one he had read seen by his neighbor, in direct proportion to the excitement of his political feeling, or the desire he might feel to arrive at truth, and have others to possess the same advantage. Whereas to place both in the hands of the same person, he would have it in his power to suppress the one or the other, at his pleasure; and, therefore, to print and distribute them separate, to his mind, had the advantage as two to one: and this is the more desirable, when we take into consideration the fact, that, to publish the highest number proposed, (30,000,) will furnish to each member but 127 copies, and those to be distributed among 50,000 persons. Mr. L. said he had another objection to uniting the reports. To which would the appendix be affixed—the majority or the minority—to the report of the committee of the House, or to the bank report? From what we have seen, the evidence would be affixed to the bank report, and withheld from the other, by the printer of this House. For, said Mr. L., on examining those printed and laid upon our table, that course has been adopted; for what reason he knew not. He would therefore vote against the motion to amend. Mr. ELLSWORTH said that the suggestions of the honorable member from Massachusetts [Mr. BRIGGs] were such as would commend themselves to every gentleman in the House; for he could hardly conceive that one member would be found who would not, from the considerations presented to them, be anxious to send out the views of both the committees on this important subject. For himself, he would state that he was anxious to send to his constituents the views contained in the report of the majority of the committee as well as those contained in that of the minority, being desirous that the people of the United States should have the subject presented to them in every shape that it assumed. He agreed, therefore, in supporting the amendment of the honorable member from Massachusetts, conceiving that the reports ought to go out together, and not supposing that there could be any dependance placed, or that it should be left to depend on the contingency stated by the honorable member from Indiana, [Mr. LANE, that, if the reports were sent out separate, there would be an interchange of them by the people to whom they should be sent. The honorable gentleman is peculiarly happy in having such constituents, as that when he sends a bank report to a bank man, and an anti-bank report to an anti-bank man, he can feel assured they will be mutually interchanged. The reverse would be more likely to ensure the interchange. If the reports are printed together, these neighhors will be saved the trouble; and we shall know that, while we are appropriating the people's money to give them correct information, they will see both sides of the question, and judge for themselves. But his principal object in rising was to assure that honorable member that he was entirely mistaken in supposing that, in the printing of the majority report, there was a just ground of complaint against the printers of the House. He had made some inquiries into this subject, and he believed that it would be ascertained they were not to blame. For, after the reports were ordered to be printed, on Thurs. day last, these gentlemen had made every effort to proeure the report of the majority and other papers; applying for that purpose to the Clerk of the House, as the proper organ, in whose custody they ought to have been, when presented by the committee, until sent by him, in obedience to the order of the House, to them to be printed. But the report was not to be found with him, the clerk declaring to the printers that he had not set his eyes or hands upon it since it was presented to the House;
he could not, in fact, tell where it was, or what had become of it. The inquiries were renewed by the printers on the following day, (Friday,) but with the same result, and the first discovery that they had of where the report was likely to be found, was upon seeing an insertion of it in the columns of the official paper, the Globe. How it came there, or why it should have been sent there, instead of to those whose duty it was to have such matters for publication, it was not important for him to inquire. This was on Saturday. The printers, then, were not to blame for not printing documents which they certainly had not time to publish. It did not even appear that the Globe, to whom they must have been sent two days previously, had been able to print these documents with the report. They (the public printers) had, however, printed the documents with the minority report; not with any design to act partially in the matter, but simply because they had been sent with the report, in their proper place, in the accustomed manner, and because they had been so directed to print them. Would gentlemen, then, who were casting imputations, now say that they were to blame? If they did, how did it happen that the appendix they deem so valuable was not published in the Globe? He would not impute any design in withholding it; it was, however, somewhat strange, that those having the documents had not published them, and he feared did not intend to do so. Mr. E. went on to say that he was so desirous that men of all parties should examine into this question for themselves, that he looked with much anxiety to see whether the report of the minority, or the documents now the subject of complaint, were to make their appearance in that paper (the Globe) which had already inserted that of the majority. In this, however, he said his expectations had been disappointed; and, from what was stated in an editorial article in that paper, he presumed they would not be published. Mr. Blair, he much feared, was not governed by the principles of the affectionate politicians of Indiana: he omits to publish even the whole of the report of the majority; for he withholds the correspondence between the committee of the House and the committee of the bank, which is the whole matter of fact in the case; he has not dared, hitherto, to present it to the people, and never—no, never—will he suffer the report of the minority to appear in his paper. He, or some other one, deserves notice, for what has been done even with that part of the report of the majority which he has published. Were such views, and such conduct, and such an example, however, now to be followed up? . He would say, no. Rather let there be one report, one document made of it, containing all that was presented on both sides of the question; for he would ever raise his voice in detestation of ex parte dissemination of public documents; and it was with regret he must state that he heard such a course advocated. Under the circumstances, and the intelligence pervading this community, there could not, he maintained, be any thing to be dreaded by those who had a just cause, from sending out all the lights that could be sent to the public. Mr. BARRINGER rose to state, as the honorable member from Indiana had thought proper to cast imputations upon the conduct of men whose character for strict impartiality, during the stormiest times of party conflict, was irreproachable, that he was casually present when these gentlemen had received, in answer to a note addressed by them to one of the members of the bank committee on this very subject, a note, in which they were expressly given to understand by that honorable member, that it was not the intention of the committee to publish the appendix in the shape in which it was sent to them. The copy, in fact, was set up by them, and
was then in type, but they were induced to make the inquiry of the honorable member from Pennsylvania, who was on the committee, in consequence of some doubt arising as to whether the printing of the appendix was comprised in the order of the House. Mr. M UHLEN BERG admitted that he had received a letter from Gales & Seaton, but he said that his reply had reference only to the printing of the journal of the proceedings of the committee, which it was not deemed by the committee expedient to print—not to the appendix. Mr. BARRINGER would not contend this point, as perhaps the fact was as stated by the gentleman. He was glad to be corrected if in error in any particular; but the main fact had occurred as he had stated. Mr. THOMAS had endeavored, he said, to get the floor before this debate was indulged in, believing that he could satisfactorily explain this matter. As to the question whether the reports should be printed separately or united, he was perfectly indifferent how the House decided it. He should feel very little confidence
in the conclusions of the majority of the committee, if
he thought that the report of the minority was of a char. acter which could, in the slightest degree, shake or impair those conclusions. Not one fact stated by the majority was contradicted by the report of the minority. As to the inferences from these facts, there might be a difference of opinion. He apprehended no difficulty from joining the two reports. It appeared to be supposed that, by uniting the documents, some little expense might be avoided. But it was not so. The appendix of the majority report would not suit that of the minority. It was differently arranged, and contained different selections from that prepared by the minority. Whctlıct the reports were published together or separately, no expense would be saved, even if that should be considered an important object. Again, he was indifferent whether the reports were united or not; because, if any member should wish to send one without the other to a constitu. ent, he would greatly lack in ingenuity if he could not cut the piece of twine which unites them, and then send them separately. Of the propriety of separating or uniting them, each member must judge for himself, and consult the wishes of his constituents. Another matter was connected with this, which he was sorry to sce brought into the debate by one of the gentlemen [Mr. Ellsworth] who was his colleague on the committee. We are told that the public printer could not obtain access to the report of the majority. He had been applied to, as a member of the committee, for a copy of the report for publication in the Globe, in order that it might be published immediately. Being himself inexperienced in regard to the usage in such cases, he consulted others, who told him that it was proper and usual to give a copy for publication. The documents, he knew, must soon reach the public eye, and it did not appear to him that any inconvenience could arise from granting the request. With the consent of the other four members of the committee, who had assented to the majority report, he applied to Mr. Burch, one of the clerks of this House, and requested him to have a copy made out, under his direction, for the Globe, but asked him to have it done by one of the clerks in his office, and not to permit the original to be taken from under his control. Some of his colleagues, during his absence, had, it was said, informed the printers that the appendix was not considered a part of the report. There was some mistake in this; with whom it originated he knew not. Most certainly his colleague, [Mr. MANN,) who had, during Mr. T.’s absence, undertaken to superintend the publication of the report, had stated to the foreman in the office of the National Intelligencer, that the appendix was to be attached to the report. On his return to Washington, on Monday, Mr.
lished without an appendix, while the appendix designed for the minority report was attached to it. He went to the office of the National Intelligencer for an explanation. He there learned that the appendix to the majority report had been omitted by mistake. It had now been properly arranged, and the House would, no doubt, have possession of it to-morrow. Mr. T. said he did not understand the motive for the introduction of this small matter into this debate by the gentleman from Connecticut. It could not certainly affect the merits of the grave questions which the House would soon be called to deliberate on. When they arose it would be time enough to enter on this discussion. Mr. E. EVERETT desired to make some explanation in defence of individuals, who, being absent, could not defend themselves from the charge of negligence in their duty as printers to the House. [Mr. Thomas rose to disclaim having had any intention of imputing a charge of neglect to the printers; at least, any charge that would leave them subject to reprehension by the House. Such was farthest from his intention.] . Mr. Even Err said he did not suppose there was any intention on the part of the honorable member from Maryland to make a serious charge against the printers; but he would maintain that the printers had not, in the perform: ance of the duties assigned them, bech either guilty of negligence or inattention; neither had they committed any mistake in this matter. The committee had not decimed it important to have the journal of the committee printed. It had, however, been accidentally sent to the printing office with the report and the appendix, and as it had come to his knowledge, whilst at the printing office on business connected with his public duties, that they were setting it up for publication, with the other papers, Mr. E. had stated to them, that the printing of it had not been ordered by the House, according to the impression he had on the subject. It was at his suggestion, that the information referred to by the member from North Carolina [Mr. BARRINGER) was sought for by them, from the member from Pennsylvania, [Alr. Muh LEN Bong..] The impression of that honorable member, it appeared on inquiry, was in accordance with his own. So the matter then stood; and the printers, being anxious to do their duty. suspended the printing of the appendix until they could have this doubt decided in the most authentic form. By a subsequent order, as he (Mr. E.) supposed, they were directed to have the journal printed; in consequence of which it was, in fact, now on the tables of the House. It then followed that, under the circumstances, the printers had, so far from meriting censure, acted advisedly and correctly. The honorable member, however, had remarked that the appendix printed with the report of the minority was not such as would suit the purposes of the majority. That might be, Mr. E. said. He could not suppose that, in so stating the case, the honorable member intended to convey any thing that was exceptionable. But he would state that the appendix to the minority report was considered an allimportant part of the history of the proceedings of the committee. It was not, as it had been termed, a mere abstract from the journals; it consisted of a series of communications held by the committee with the bank, and their answers, arranged in chronological order, and printed, by the printers to the House, from manuscript copies sent by himself to them for that purpose. It was not printed, as stated, from manuscript severed fronn other documents, but was what he had himself caused to be prepared especially for the appendix. Adverting to the question whether the reports of the two committees should be printcd together or separate, Mr. E. said he had not supposed that any amendment was requisite to procure the former course to be taken. Always con
T. was surprised to find the report of the majority pub
ceiving that the views presented by the minority formed