ePub 版

[ocr errors]

tent men, and acting under their responsibility to the Government that employed them, are entitled to the full confidence of this Honse; and, from the information furnished by them, the practicability of improving the rivers mentioned in the amendment, so as to render them safe for steamboat navigation, at an inconsiderable expense, compared to the beneficial results, is made quite manifest. Green river is represented to be remarkable for the depth of its water and the gentleness of its current. From the examination made by the engineers, it appears that the average depth of Green river, for more than one hundred miles from its mouth, exceeds twenty feet. There is no river in the Western country for the navigation of which nature has done so much, and left so little to be performed by the art and industry of man. The navigation, as has been remarked by my colleague, is obstructed by rapids at three or four points on the river; none of them are very formidable, and all of them may be overcome, according to the opinion of the engineers, by the construction of three dams and locks, whereby, at a very moderate expense, a safe slack-water navigation may be obtained from the mouth of Green river to the junction of that stream with Big Barren river, a distance of about one hundred and fifty miles; and it is estimated that all the necessary works for this purpose may be completed at an expense of little more than $100,000. Such are the views of General Lacock and the gentleman associated with him, as set forth in their report; and they are, as I understand, corroborated by the opinions of the engineers who some years ago made a survey of Green river, under the orders of the Secretary of War; and they are confirmed by the commissioners charged with the superintendence of the work, who have made a report of their own. The utility and the practicability of the work, therefore, cannot be doubted. The able reports to which I have referred, although not procecding from an Executive department of this Government, must, I think, be considered satisfactory, and worthy of the confidence of the House. Sir, the importance of Green river, as may be inferred from what has been said, has already attracted the attention and employed the care of the Kentucky Legislature. Besides causing a survey to be made, they have appropriated, at different times, the sum of $75,000 towards the accomplishment of the work necessary to remove the obstructions to the navigation; and that sum, it is believed, in addition to the amount now proposed to be appropriated by this Government, will be sufficient to make the navigation of Green river safe and commodious for steamboats of two hundred tons burden, up to its junction with Big Barren river; an event from which incalculable advantages will be derived by a numerous and industrious population, and especially my own constituents; and I cannot but hope that so small a sum will not be refused by this House, when such extensive and important benefits are to result from its expenditure. Some gentlemen, I know, have constitutional objections to this amendment, as well as to all appropriations for works of improvement. I shall certainly not attempt to remove them. These gentlemen have at least the merit of consistency, and are impartial in the application of their rule. But there are others who, without feeling any scruples as to the general power of Congress to appropriate money for objects of internal improvement, are yet disposed to make a distinction between improvements made on the seaboard or the lakes, and those on the rivers in the interior. These gentlemen can perceive nothing unconstitutional or inexpedient in the appropriation of money to facilitate foreign commerce; to render secure and cheapen the transportation of merchandise to and from our seaports, at which vessels arriving from foreign countries break bulk, to use an expression of one of my honorable colleagues, [Mr. HARD IN;] but they consider it

[blocks in formation]

altogether inadmissible to apply any portion of the public money to the improvement of navigable rivers on the other side of the mountains, and, I must add, with regret, that this singular doctrine has been applied with peculiar severity to Kentucky. Hence, large sums are annually expended for the improvement of the navigation connected with the seaports and harbors on the lakes, while the State from which I come has been wholly excluded from all participation in such benefits. I do not mention this in the spirit of complaint, much less of reproach against any administration or any party, but intend only to state the fact, to strengthen, if possible, our claim to the justice, or, if you please, the liberality of this House. It is not, sir, my purpose to enter into any discussion of the constitutional question; neither shall I detain the House by a particular examination of the distinction that is said to exist in principle between the power to construct a breakwater in the Delaware, and to remove obstructions to the navigation of Green river in Kentucky. In my opinion, no such distinction is deducible from the constitution. If the grant of power to regulate foreign commerce gives authority to Congress to improve a harbor or erect a beacon on tide water, the power to regulate commerce between the States equally authorizes the improvement of a navigable river in the valley of the Mississippi. The power must be exercised in all cases where the interest of the people requires it, whether to promote the interests of foreign commerce or of commerce between the States, or it must be exercised in none. Sir, the people of Kentucky have been the decided and consistent advocates of a wise and prudent exercise of this power, although they have never derived any special advantage from it. They pay their equal share of the revenue of the country, and have contributed their full proportion of the millions expended for internal improvements in the other States; but, unless a more liberal policy shall at length be observed towards that State; she will be compelled, in justice to herself, to withhold her support from a system, from the benefits of which she must be excluded. All attempts that have been made to obtain for that State a portion of these benefits have hitherto proved unsuccessful; sometimes on pretence that there had been no survey executed, or no estimate made of the necessary expenditure; and sometimes it has been alleged that the work was not national, but local, and therefore inexpedient or unconstitutional. And it is possible that this last objection may have weight on the minds of some gentlemen in the present case; for Green river has its navigable course exclusively within the limits of the State of Kentucky; so has Big Barren river; and other works of internal improvement have been pronounced by high authority to be local, and therefore unconstitutional, on no better reason than this. But it will be borne in mind that the trade of Green river contributes to swell that of the Ohio and Mississippi, in the commerce of which great rivers not less than twelve or thirteen States and Territories are interested. The trade of Green river connects itself especially with that of Louisiana, in whose commer: cial metropolis the products exported through its channel annually find a market, though not always a ready or a profitable one. It is intimately connected with all the States whose commerce centers at the same great western market; and it may be said, indeed, that the whole nation has an interest more or less in this trade. The principal product exported from the Green river country is inferior in importance only to the cotton of the South, as an article of foreign commerce. The tobacco of Green river finds its way to the ports of the Atlantic; to Liverpool, to London, and to the ports of the European contiment. A public work, therefore, although located on, a river not passing out of the limits of a single State, the effect of which is to expedite and render more secure the

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

transportation of this and other valuable articles of commerce, and consequently to lessen the price to purchasers every where, is of national concern, and not local merely. Its benefits are not confined to the people of one State or of one neighborhood, although I admit they are interested to a greater extent, and more directly, than the rest of the community; but this is equally true of all works of internal improvement, wheresoever situated, whether at Oswego or Buffalo in New York, or at the falls of Vienna on Green river. Mr. MERCER regretted that he could not support the amendment, but went at length into a series of explanations of the views which governed his course in relation to proposed objects of improvement. The question was then put, and the amendment rejected. [it was now late in the evening; lights had for some time been in the hall, and much impatience and great confusion prevailed. The Chair exerted itself to restore and to preserve order, frequently interposing and stopping all business, until something like quietness was ob: tained. To add to the uproar, a very heavy storm of wind, thunder, and lightning, broke over the Capitol; and, as the upper windows were all open on account of the heat, the wind threw the large curtains of the gallery about with great violence, while the rain, beating on the range of large southern windows, occasioned such a noise as to drown effectually every other sound. During this time several motions were attempted, and the movers addressed the Chair, but neither the motion nor speech could be heard.] Mr. EWING moved an item of 20,000 dollars for the improvement of the Wabash river. Mr. E. supported this motion in a speech of some length. Mr. KINNARD said he was against all attempts at browbeating. He had waited for other members, of more age and experience, to raise their voices in opposition to it; but, as he heard none, he had broken the silence which he had imposed upon himself since the opening of the session, for the purpose of administering a modest and humble, but merited, rebuke to such con. duct on the part of the representatives of a free people toward one who enjoyed the same rights with themselves. He would refer gentlemen to the records of the country to prove that the river Wabash was one of the navigable waters of the United States. He should not reproach them with ignorance of the geography of their own country. Mr. K. here quoted some printed documents, from which he read, interposing occasional comments; he spoke with emphasis and much animation, but, such was the confusion, that we cannot attempt even an outline of what he said. He repelled, with much spirit, the imputation of land-jobbing and begging which had been cast upon the people of the States northwest of the Ohio, and explained at length the claims of the State of Indiana, and the importance of the contemplated improvement. He demanded the yeas and nays, but the House refused to order them; and the amendment was rejected: Ayes 48, noes not counted. Mr. CARR, of Indiana, renewed the amendment he had offered in Committee of the Whole, for an appropriation for deepening the Indian chute, in the falls of the Ohio. He said that, when he had before submitted this amendment, there were no estimates to support it; since then he had obtained estimates, made by Captain Shreve. He wished they should be read, and he sent them to the Clerk’s table for that purpose; but the House refused to hear them, and the amendment was rejected without a count. Mr. CROCKETT moved again his amendment for improving the navigation of Hatchie river, and some other streams in his district. He observed, however, that, as

should not ask so much as he had done before; he would now be content with 30,000 dollars instead of 60,000, and glad to get even that. His amendment was negatived. Mr. MANN renewed his former motion to amend Mr. MoRR1s's amendment by striking out $20,000 and inserting $17,000; but the Chair pronounced it not to be in order, inasmuch as Mr. MERCER's motion was itself an amendment to the amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole. Mr. GARLAND, of Louisiana, said he had now a letter from the Engineer department, in relation to the appropriation for cutting through the rast in Red river, which he desired to send to the Clerk's table, that it might be read. It would obviate the objection which had been made to the amendment he had offered. The CHAIR reminded Mr. G. that his motion was out of time at present; the bill must first be gone through with, then would there be an opportunity. The item for an appropriation for Deep creek, at the mouth of the Dismal Swamp canal, having been read— Mr. HAWES said he wished to have some further information as to this Deep creek appropriation. When rivers, in which the Western States had an interest, were rejected, and their improvement refused, without a division, he wanted to have the yeas and nays, that he might see who went for creeks and deep creeks when rivers were rejected. Mr. HUBBARD explained. He stated the ground on which the Committee of Ways and Means had inserted this item. A bill had once passed the House, in which this appropriation was included; but it was vetoed on other grounds. The United States were deeply concerned in having the object effected, inasmuch as it was important to the navigation of the Dismal Swamp...canal: a work in which the Government held a large proportion of the stock. Mr. BEATY observed that an act exactly similar had passed in favor of the improvement of Cumberland river. lf it was a good reason in favor of one object, why was it a bad reason in favor of another? Would the gentleman give to one and withhold from the other, both being situated alike? The appropriation for Deep creek had not been asked for, yet the gentleman had resolutely determined to give these $29,000 to Deep creek, a stream not half the size of Cumberland river. Mr. B. hoped that some gentleman from North Carolina would rise and exlain the necessity for such an appropriation, and not let it rest upon a member of the Committee of Ways and Means to take it entirely under his own patronage. Mr. MERCER asked a division of the question; but, after a brief debate on the question of order, he withdrew his demand. As to this being called a creek, the terms creek, run, brook, and branch, were all applied indiscriminately, almost, to streams of water of very different sizes, and very different degrees of importance in different parts of the Union. Mr. M. knew of one instance where it so happened that a “ river” ran into a “creek.” The name, therefore, gave no criterion from which to judge of the importance of the stream, nor the necessity or propriety of improving its navigation. Mr. HUBBARD disclaimed any particular affection for this item in the bill. The committee had agreed to insert it, and it had been in the bill of 1831. It was said that some of the members from Virginia were opposed to it, though it was in part a Virginia improvement. If so, let them reject it: Mr. H. was not streneous, however, on the matter. Mr. MERCER said he would explain the fact, in relation to this improvement in Deep creek, which would relieve gentlemen from some of the difficulties they seemed to feel in 'regard to it. Mr. M. then went into a de

nobody knew where the money of the country was, he

tailed explanation, insisting that the interest of the canal

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

company was a totally distinct matter: the appropriation rested on no such ground. Mr. WISE said he was opposed to this amendment, and should vote against it, if it were at his own door. His objection rested on constitutional principles. . He protested against its passage. As to the interest of the United States in the Dismal Swamp canal, he was informed that that measure had been stuck down the throat of the Virginia members, against their determined resistance to it; and afterwards, whenever they spoke against internal improvements by the General Government, this matter of the Dismal Swamp canal was constantly thrown in their teeth. He was opposed to the amendment, whether it was a Virginia improvement or not; and should vote to reject it. Mr. HAWES said it had been objected by the gentle. man from Tennessee [Mr. Polk] against a western improvement, that the present bill was intended to comprise only works commenced and actually in progress, and not any new works. Now, he wanted to know whether any appropriation had ever been made for this Deep creek? He understood it was a stream of 40 feet wide. The Virginia members were opposed to it. What authority had the House to interfere and force this improvement upon the State without her consent? This was merely a work yet to be commenced: how could it come into the present bill? Mr. MERCER denied that this was a new work, unless it could be called a new work to build a porch to a house after the house had been built. There was no getting into the Dismal Swamp canal without passing through Deep creek. The canal was completed, and . it was asked to remove an obstruction at the mouth of it. The question being put, the amendment was agreed to. The question was then put on concurring with the amendment proposed by Mr. MERCER, as amended, and decided in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, as follows: Yeas 92, nays 82. Mr. WISE now moved to lay the bill upon the table; but withdrew his motion at the request of Mr. SEVIER, who proposed an item of $30,000, to complete the navigation of the Arkansas river. Mr. S. declined accompanying his motion with any remarks, on account of the lateness of the hour. lt was rejected. Mr. WATMOUGH renewed the amendment he had before offered in Committee of the Whole, appropriating $10,000 for piers in the harbor of Delaware City. This shared the same fate. Mr. WISE now moved to strike out the enacting clause of the bill. Mr. SUTHERLAND demanded the previous question; but, on being assured the debate should not be renewed, he consented to withdraw the motion. Mr. WISE then renewed his motion to lay the bill upon the table; on which motion he demanded the yeas and nays. They were ordered by the House; and, being taken, stood: Yeas 66, nays 109. Mr. SUTHERLAND, dreading debate, renewed his demand of the previous question; but, being again quieted, consented again to withdraw it. The bill was then ordered to its third reading. The CHAIR inquired “When shall the bill be read a third time?” The House resounded with cries of “Now!” • ‘Now!” Mr. PARKER moved a call of the House; but it was refused. Mr. HAWES moved that the House adjourn; but the motion was negatived: Ayes 50. The bill was thereupon read a third time; and the question being “Shall this bill pass”

Mr. POLK demanded the yeas and nays. They were

ordered and taken accordingly, and resulted as follows:

Yeas 107, nays 48.
So the bill was passed and sent to the Senate.
And then the House, at near 9 o'clock, adjourned.


Mr. PARKER, of New Jersey, desired to present certain resolutions, entered into by a State convention, held at Trenton on the 21st May, and which he hoped, as the day usually assigned for the presentation of petitions and memorials had been otherwise occupied, the House would permit him to offer. Objections having been made, He moved a suspension of the rule. Mr. DENNY proposed to amend the motion, by suspending the rule for the presentation of memorials generally. The House having refused to suspend, Mr. POLK obtained leave to present certain amendments from the Committee of Ways and Means, which he gave notice it was his intention to propose, when the Indian bills should be taken up for consideration. The amendments were ordered to be printed. Mr. SUTHERLAND, from the Committee on Commerce, reported a bill transferring the custom-house from Magnolia to St. Marks, Florida, which bill was read twice; and he moved that it be ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. Mr. WATMOUGII desired to amend that motion, by including therewith “the bill to extend the limits of Philadelphia as a port of entry,” action upon which, he said, was highly interesting and important to the inhabitants of that city, and it was a measure due to them on the principles of justice; to which, as he could not see any possible objection ought to be made by his colleague, he hoped he would accept the amendment as a modification of his motion. Mr. SUTHERLAND explained that it was his intention to report, with amendments, several bills that had been passed in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce; amongst them, one in relation to this subject, and which, he presumed, would be the best means to secure the action of Congress on the subject this sesston. Mr. WATMOUGH said he rejoiced to hear that his colleague had pledged himself to bring up the bill in the manner he now stated; he would, therefore, withdraw his motion to amend; after which, The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third readingr. or. BEARDSLEY moved a suspension of the rule for the purpose of taking up the bill to settle the controversy as to the boundaries between New York and New Jersey, which it was desirable, he said, to have disposed of. The House refused to suspend: Ayes 77—(not twothirds.)


On motion of Mr. ARCHER, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. WARD in the chair, for the purpose of considering the bill from the Senate granting pensions to certain French seamen who were wounded, and to the families of those who were killed, in consequence of the accidental firing into the French ship Suffren, by the American frigate United States.

Mr. ARCHER moved an amendment thereto, to strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert, viz: * That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, authorized and empowered to make suitable provision for the families of the French seamen unhappily

June 24, 1834. )

killed in the harbor of Toulon, on occasion of firing athe lute from on board the frigate United States, and for wounded survivors; the same to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.” The amendment was considered and agreed to. After an ineffectual attempt by Mr. SELDEN to induce the committee to consider another bill, The committee rose and reported the bill, as amended, to the House; which was then concurred in, and the bill ordered to be engrossed sor its third reading. Mr. POLK called for the orders of the day.


The fortification bill being the unfinished business— Mr. POLK moved that its consideration should be postponed until five o'clock, with a view to proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill to regulate the deposites. Mr. MERCER said, if the honorable member was willing to prolong the session, he would be willing to go on with the bill he proposed, that it might be debated, as its importance made it necessary it should be, fully. Mr. POLK said that he would modify his motion by proposing that the fortification bill should be postponed until to-morrow. *: MERCER said he would object to any postponement. After a struggle to settle the order in which the busimess should be taken up— . The SPEAKER stated that the bill making appropriations for the several fortifications was the special order. The question pending thereon being a motion to strike out the enacting clause, Mr. E. EVERETT said he presumed that it would be in order to assign his reasons why he could not vote for the motion to postpone the bill that was first in order to be taken up, and which he deemed of importance to proceed with; he would therefore state that he had conversed with various members of the House on the subject, and there was not one of them who expressed an opinion that, by any possibility, this deposite bill could become a law this session. Every one knew and acknowledged its importance, and that it was one the details of which must necessarily occupy much time. Why, then, he asked, should they postpone all other business for that which, it was so generally admitted, the lateness of the session would prevent from being acted upon? If it was now taken up, he believed that the only result of doing so would be to the prejudice of other bills. This he did not mean in reference to the fortification bill solely, but to others of vast importance to the Country. His opposition to the motion to postpone that bill was not, he desired to say, to restrain discussion on the great question, but it was because he believed that it was altogether too late in the session to hope that any good could result from taking it up, whilst it would be a #reat injustice, under such circumstances, to do so, instead of proceeding with the other numerous bills, public and private, which yet remained to be acted upon. Mr. POLK said he had no desire to postpone, to any unreasonable time, the fortification bill, the importance of which he was ready to concede; but he had no idea that, as the principles of the deposite bill had been in part settled on the great questions so recently and fully dis*sed by the House, and as the bill had been partly gone through, there would be much time necessary now o discussing its details. He was in hopes that a very few hours would enable the House to complete it; and thus it might be sent to the other branch of the Legislature for their early action upon it. For these reasons, he onsidered it highly important now to be acted upon by the House, and must persist in his motion to postpone the bill which was the special order, with a view to take it

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors]

up; stating, at the same time, in order to show that he did not desire the fortification bill should lose its precedence in the order of business, that if no other member should, he would himself move to reconsider the vote by which it should be postponed. Mr. J. Q. As) AMS said, if the honorable member from Tennessee was sincere, which it was not his intention to question, when he called on all parties to give their aid to him in maturing the bill to perfection, he must say the conclusion to which he had come was irresistible, that there was not, at this late period of the session, time to act upon the bill. So far from its being possible, as that honorable member had intimated, to complete the bill in four or five hours, the discussion, the necessary discussion upon it, would not terminate in so many days. If, however, it shall be deemed advisable, by the honorable member, to prevent discussion, and that, to effect this, the screws, the previous question, is intended to be applied, why, then, less than four or five hours will undoubtedly suffice; half an hour, and at the close of the session, will be sufficient. He hoped, however, that the honorable member would evince his sincerity in calling for aid from all parts of the House, and postpone it until the bills which it was indispensable to pass should be acted upon. Situated as the House was with regard to other business, and the time they had fixed upon to adjourn, it was hardly possible to suppose that the bill could

J be disposed of in the limited period now allotted for busi

ness. Were there not, he asked, various amendments, and of various descriptions, necessary to be discussed and passed upon by the House? Amongst others, was there not the very important one which the honorable member from Rhode Island had proposed? one to provide that, as the State banks were to have the custody of the public money, for the use and keeping of which the Bank of the United States had paid a large bonus, these banks, to whom it had been transferred, and those to whom it might be hereafter committed from that institution, should pay the same or some other fair remuneration for the use of this money, as should be deemed a fair equivalent on their part for it. This was, in his view, so important a proposition, that it alone would consume one day at least; for, he could not suppose there was one member in the House prepared to give up to these State banks the benefit accruing from the use of the public funds, without providing that they should make some remuneration therefor to the Government. Mr. CLAY rose to a point of order. He must object to the honorable member from Massachusetts discussing the merits of the bank question on a motion to postpone. Mr. J. Q. ADAMS would remind the member from Alabama that he was not discussing the merits of that question; he was simply stating circumstances, which would convince the House, as he was convinced himself, that, if the deposite bill was entered into, as proposed by the honorable chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, the discussion upon it must necessarily occupy the remaining time of the session, to the prejudice of other business that it was indispensable for the House to act upon. The consequence, therefore, of taking it up must be, either that these important subjects should be postponed, or the House should come to a determination, which he did not desire them to do, if it could be avoided, viz: to rescind their vote to adjourn on the 30th, and to which he should, under no circumstances, give his assent, and prolong the session. He considered the fortification bill as one of those upon which it was important, indispensable, to act, and he hoped its consideration would not be postponed. Mr. ELLSWORTH said that, as he understood the honorable member on a former occasion, his argument then was, that the President had ample power already

over the deposites. This bill, now proposed, to regulate

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

them, &c., was therefore only a matter of discretion for the House to take up. But, according to the member's own views, where, he inquired, was the importance, or what necessity could there be, for taking it up; and particularly, when, by doing so, the certain effect to be apprehended must be the loss of the bill making appropriations for fortifications? To that it would come. He might, however, be permitted to state that, although this deposite bill should be taken up, even if it went through the House, most certainly it would be lost elsewhere. He would ask the honorable member, himself, to state whether he really expected, if it was taken up in the House, that it could be: come a law this session. That honorable member would not say that he believed it would; and had distinctly intimated that it was unnecessary to legislate on the subject at all, when he said that the President had full power to place the public moneys where he pleased, and to regulate the terms with those in whose custody he would place them; he brought forward the bill now, he acknowledged, only in deference to the wishes and feelings of the House, he himself having argued that there was no actual necessity for it. Was it sincerely desired to have the bill taken up at all for that purpose? If such was the sincere design of the honorable member, why had he not presented it before this late period of the session? Why was it, that up to the very last week he had abstained from introducing a measure, the necessity of which, however, was doubted by that honorable member? No one else, he believed, would be found to do so, or to deny that it was of paramount importance, going at it did to settle by law principles for the regulation and custody of the public treasure, which was not the question of a day, but was one for all time to come. Mr. CAMBRELENG here interposed for the purpose, he said, of reminding the honorable member from Connecticut that if so much time was taken to decide upon the order of business, there was little likely to be accomplished. Mr. ELLSWORTH remarked that his apology for combating the propositions as he had done would be found in the mere fact that it was contemplated to postpone one bill, which was of admitted importance, for the sake of taking up another which, it was equally admitted, would be a nullity, inasmuch as there was no one who believed that it could be brought to a successful termination this session. The attempt to bring up the subject now was, therefore, vain and nugatory, and if seriously desired by the honorable member, ought, as the subject was in his charge, to have been made at an earlier period. Mr. PATTON rose and said he could not refrain from expressing his surprise at the movements made for the purpose of preventing action on the bill for regulating the deposite of public money, and especially at the quarter from which these movements proceeded. For the last two or three months, daily, the House of Representatives have been taunted, here in the Capitol, and elsewhere, from one end of the country to the other, with a want of sincerity in the efforts they proposed to make, for providing more definite and satisfactory regulations concerning the custody and safe keeping of the public money, than the existing laws furnish. This body has been charged with standing here, and giving their sanction to a wanton seizure and unlawful custody of the public money by the Executive, and that they intended to leave the public money in this unlawful and unconstitutional condition, without any serious effort to place it under the regulation of law. We have been perpetually asked, Why do you not act on your bill? Why not do something to divest the Executive of his uncontrolled possession of the public money, &c. &c. And now, at the first moment at which, as is perfectly known, that the bill could come up by the rules of the House, and without passing by the indispensable appropriation bills,

now, when an effort is made by the chairman of the
Committee of Ways and Means to press the bill to a de-
cision, we are told it is perfectly idle to make any effort
to pass the bill; that it is vain to expect that it can pass;
and therefore we are urged to lay it by, and take up the
fortification bill, which is said to be indispensable. Why,
sir, have we a large maritime and hostile force on our
borders? Are we in danger of immediate invasion from
a foreign foe? Is the emergency so imminent that we
must take up this fortification bill without a moment's
delay, at the hazard of leaving the public money in a
condition where it is alleged, by those who urge us to
this course, to be uncontrolled, in the unregulated dis-
cretion of the President, who is charged with using it,
and claiming the right to use it, for his own purposes? If
gentlemen be serious in these opinions, I should have
thought they would have seized the opportunity gladly of
devising some practical and practicable scheme for the
purpose of placing the public money in some safe and
careful custodium, to do something for the purpose of
resuming and manifesting the legislative authority over
the public revenues. But, no; we are told it is a vain
effort; that every man knows that no law for the purpose
can pass.
How do we know this? I suppose there is not a man

here who does not believe that some law, for defining more precisely the extent of the executive control over the place of keeping the public money, and for limiting the discretion which is now supposed to belong to that department on that subject, will pass this body. A majority here, is, I presume, unquestionably favorable to some such action. Those who do not believe that the action of the Executive in relation to the deposites was unlawful; who do not believe that the public money has been seized and is held against the law, or without law; who are charged with being disposed to sustain the Executive in an unlawful and unconstitutional possession and use of the public money, are those who are anxious to place the public money under the dominion of more precise and indisputable legal control, and to satisfy every body, even the most jealous, that the public money is not left subject to executive discretion. But we are told no such bill can pass the Senate. Who is authorized to say so? And if one was so authorized, are we to be restrained from doing what is right, in our opinion, by being told that that the Senate will not concur with us? Certainly not. I should hope that the Senate will not hesitate to act on the bill, if it should pass here. I do not see well how that body can fail to make some provision on the subject, consistently with the opinion entertained by a majority of that body—that the public money is now held by the President, without the dominion and against the authority of law. They think the best course is to restore the deposites to the Bank of the United States. But it is now certainly and definitely determined that cannot and will not be done. This House has, on two occasions, and on the last occasion by an increased majority, decided against this. How, then, can the Senate hesitate to put the public money under the express regulation of law, instead of leaving it, as they now allege it to be held, without the authority of law? I do not entertain that opinion, but still I am willing and anxious to amend the existing law; to limit the executive discretion, and to define his authority with more precision; and I should suppose those who entertained a different opinion would have been still more anxious to pass some law on the subject. Why, then, shall we longer postpone this matter? Let us take up the bill, and, if we can agree upon the details, pass the bill. Let us at least show that we have no disposition to leave the executive discretion unshackled, and his will unrestrained. Let us do our duty; let us

endeavor to comply with the behests of public opinion;

« 上一頁繼續 »