網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[ocr errors]

ferent question. The bill allowed the Indians to organize a government; but it was not by the action of the United States alone that it could become either a Territory, in the technical sense of that word, or a State. If the bill contemplated at once to erect these Indian lands into a Territory, in that sense, there might be something more in the objection: but it did no such thing. Whether it should or not become a Territory hereafter, was a question hereafter to be settled. The Indians never could become such, unless by their own consent, and upon their own application. All that the bill did in this respect was to secure to them the enjoyment of the whole of a certain portion of our public land. But he was told that, if we legalize one color, we might legalize another. If we receive red men, we might hereaster receive black men also; and, on this ground, an appeal had been made to the feelings of the South. The appeal was no doubt well intended; but it implied an ignorance of the condition of our domestic slaves which he had not expected to find in any member of that House. The gentlemen could not but be aware that our slaves had no political relations, no civil rights; nor could they be congregated and erected into a State or 'I'erritory, without an open violation of the compact under which the Southern States had entered the Union, and an immediate dissolution of the confederacy of the States. There was not time, Mr. W. observed, for him to go further, as he could have wished to do; he would, in conclusion, make this declaration in his place—that, were he called upon to choose of what measure he would rather be known as the author, either in the present Congress or in preceding Congresses, with the hope of carrying his name down with blessings to a late posterity, he would choose this bill. Mr. FILLMORE was disposed to support the bill, but had difficulties as to the right of the IIouse to pass it. It was not properly an act of legislation, as it only made proposals to the Indians, which they might accept or reject. In fact, it approached nearer to an act of the treaty. making power, although in a form which would not, as other treaties did, require the assent of two-thirds ot the Senate for its confirmation. Mr. WILLIAMS, to prevent furthcr consumption of time in debate, moved to lay the bill on the table. Mr. H. EVERETT asked the yeas and nays, but the House refused to order them; and the motion was carried without a count. So the bill to establish a Western (Indian) Territory was laid upon the table; from which position it was not removed during the further progress of the session, and was, of course, lost.

CREEK TIREATY BILL.

On motion of Mr. H. EVERETT, the House went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Casey in the chair, on “ the bill to carry into full effect the fourth article of the treaty of the eighth of January, eighteen hundred and twenty-one, with the Creek nation of Indians, so far as relates to the claims of citizens of Georgia against said Indians, prior to eighteen hundred and two.” Mr. WILDE went into a general explanation of the grounds of the bill. Mr. A DAMS, of Massachusetts, inquired of him how often these claims had been paid? , Mr. WILDE replied, never. Mr. ADAMS explained the reason of his question, and expressed his belief that large sums of money had already been appropriated on this subject, and, as he believed, for the satisfaction of a part of these very claims. A long debate ensued, which occupied the House till nine o'clock. The bill was explained and defended by Messrs.

Creek Treaty Bill—-1ppropriation Bills.

[JUNE 26, 1834.

W1 lok, LEwis, G1 LMER, Jon Es, WAYNE, and Fosten, and opposed by Messrs. An AMs, H. EveRETT, HuxTING To N of Connecticut, F1 LLMoRE, MANN, PARKER STEwART, HARD1N, HARPER of Pennsylvania, and McKAY. Mr. MANN moved to strike out [that clause of the bill which allowed interest on the claims. Mr. ADAMS moved to lay the bill on the table; on which motion the yeas were 64, the nays 82. A motion was made to postpone the bill. Mr. PATTON proposed to amend Mr. MANN's amendment by striking out the 2d section of the bill, and modifying the allowance of interest; which was rejected: Ayes 63, noes 67. Mr. HUBBARD then moved to amend the bill by striking all out after the enacting clause, and substituting a different bill, which went greatly to restrict the extent of the claims to be allowed. This amendment was rejected, and the bill was at length ordered to its third reading, by yeas and nays, as follows: Yeas 82, nays 49. APPROPRIATION BILLS. -

The appropriation bill for the civil and diplomatic cz: penses of the United States, which had been received from the Senate, was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, for the purpose of considering the amendments made by the Senate thereto.

An amendment proposed by the Senate to the Indian annuties bill was concurred in.

The bill repealing provisos in an act to alter and amend an act imposing duties on imports was postponed; and then the House adjourned.

Thunspar, Ju NE 26.

Mr. C. P. W IIITE, from the Committee on Naval Af. fairs, reported a resolution to have this day sct apart for the consideration of bills from that committee. Objections having been made, Mr. W. moved a suspension of the rule, to enable the resolution to be considered. Mr. SELDEN said he had made several incsectual attempts hitherto to get up the bill, reported long since, making an appropriation for the improvement of the Hud: son river. He now requested that his colleague would include that bill, as a modification to his motion to suspend, that it might be progressed with. The House refused to suspend the rule: Ayes 50, (not two-thirds.) Mr. CHINN moved a similar suspension of the rule, for the purpose of taking up three bills in relation to the District of Columbia, viz: to complete the improvements of the Pennsylvania avenue; for the relief of the city of Washington; and for the city of Alexandria. Mr. Lyon moved to amend by including the bill for the construction of roads in Michigan; and Mr. MERCER moved that the bill in relation to the Washington bridge should be also included. Mr. LYON having withdrawn his amendment, Mr. POLK opposed the motion. The House refused to suspend the rule: Ayes 71, nocs 47; thereupon, Mr. POLK moved that the House should suspend the rule for the purpose of taking up, in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, the appropriation bills; and, finally, the motion of Mr. P. having prevailed, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. SPE1Ght in the chair, and took up the bill to carry into effect certain Indian treaties, which was debated at length by Messrs. McKAY, SEvien, Whittlesex of Ohio, Williams; and, after various amendments thereto were proposed by Mr. McKin

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

Ler and Mr. Polk, and agreed to, the bill was then laid aside, and The general appropriation bill, with the amendments thereto, from the Senate, was then taken up; which was also debated at some length, by Messrs. HARPER, SELDEN, WATMough, Suth ERLAND, GAR LAND, Polic, McKIM, WhittlesEy, McKINLEY, McKAY, WILDE, and WillIAMs. The amendments having been concurred in, with the exception of one substituting $2,400 instead of $1,600, for compensation to the Florida judges, as proposed by the House, and which was disagreed to, Mr. POLK moved an amendment to an amendment of the Senate, the object of which was to appropriate thirtyfive thousand dollars, in addition to former appropriation bills, for the contingent fund of the House of Representatives; which was agreed to. The committee thereupon rose, and reported the bills and amendments to the House. The amendments to the bill to carry into effect certain Indian treaties were then concurred in by the House, and having been ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, the bill was read a third time, passed, and sent to the Senate for concurrence, The amendments agreed to in committee on the general appropriation bill were then concurred in by the House, as well as the disagreement of the Committee of the Whole to the Senate’s amendment for the pay of the judges in the Territory of Florida. Mr. LINCOLN rose to protest against the haste with which the bill was hurried through the House, after the understanding that the House had gone into committee under the pledge that this latter bill should not be pressed until after the amendments were printed. Mr. POLK dwelt upon the shortness of time which the House had to act upon the various bills before it, and said that he had been under a mistake as to the time within which he supposed that the amendments could be printed. After a remark or two from Mr. McKAY and Mr. Whittlesey, requesting that the bill should be postponed until to-morrow, Mr. POLK declined. Mr. McKINLEY objected to an amendment in the third section of the bill (respecting the payment by collectors in bills at par) as a novel and useless measure. Mr. DENNY defended it, as likely to do good, and incapable of producing evil. The House concurred in the amendment. On the item of allowing Mr. Potter's pay, Opposition was made to it by Mr. McKINLEY; who was answered by Messrs. PEAnce, ADAMs of Massachusetts, and Bunges; when the item was agreed to by yeas and nays, as follows: Yeas 88, nays 56. The House then took a recess till half past four.

EVENING Session.

At half past four o'clock, the House resumed its sitting; and, on motion of Mr. ARCHER, went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. WARD in the chair, and took up the bill to carry into effect a convention between the United States and Spain, which was read by sections, and aid aside to be reported to the House.

The committee then proceeded to the bill to enable the Secretary of State to purchase the books and papers of General Washington.

..Mr. PEARSON, of New York, moved to amend the bill by striking out $25,000 and inserting $35,000.

Mr. WILDE described the papers to be purchased, (which consist of upwards of two hundred manuscript volumes, in folio, chronologically arranged, and strongly bound.) . Among other interesting papers, these volumes contained duplicate lists of all the officers of the American

army who held their commissions at the time the army was disbanded. . As the only other copy of these lists had been consumed in the destruction of the War Office, they now furnished the only means of checking false claims to pensions, several of which, to a large amount, had already been detected by a resort to these papers, when no other means of resisting them was extant. The Government had thus already saved to itself a large proportion of the money asked for these manuscripts; so that, on this account, as well as for all the other obvious reasons, these papers were invaluable to the country. Mr. JARVIS resisted the amendment with warmth. In his part of the country, a bargain was a bargain. The owner of these papers had agreed to take $25,000; and now, because they were found valuable to the country, it was attempted to exact $10,000 more. Mr. MANN, though he admitted the value of the papers, wished to know more distinctly what they contained. Mr. ARCHER referred him to the report of the committee who had brought in the bill, and which was read at the Clerk’s table. Mr. WAYNE vindicated the owner of these papers from the imputation of extortion thrown out by Mr. JARvis. The amendment was the spontaneous act of the committee themselves, and had been moved without his privity or counsel. Mr. REED bore witness to the value of these papers in saving the Government from the payment of fraudulent claims at the Pension Office. Mr. PARKER resisted the amendment, contending that, strictly speaking, these papers, or a large proportion of them, were not the private property of the commander-in-chief, but in truth belonged to the Government. He would not, however, object to paying the amount first asked for them, but was utterly opposed to increasing it. He was very sure that the pay-rolls and other papers of the army would be willingly surrendered by General Washington, were he now in life, without any pecuniary compensation. Mr. HAWKINS, of North Carolina, proposed to reduce the amount to $15,000; but this motion was not now in order. The question was then put on the amendment proposed by Mr. PEAR’son, and negatived: Ayes 51, noes 89. No further amendment being proposed, the bill was laid aside; and The committee proceeded to consider the bill to purchase live oak frames for the frigate Paul Jones and the sloop of war Levant, and for other purposes. Mr. WHITE, of New York, chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs, who had reported the bill, explained and defended its provisions, as did also Mr. WATMOUGH, from the same committee, in reply to Mr. PEARCE, of Rhode Island, who complained warmly of the continual appropriations for the navy yards at Boston and Brooklyn, although those points had not been recognised as the permanent location for a great naval depot. By and by the House would hear the argument that those places must be preferred to all competitors, because such large sums of money had there been vested in buildings and improvements. He moved to strike out the appropriation of $12,000 for Brooklyn; but it was negatived. Mr. MASON, of Virginia, moved an amendment, proposing an appropriation for the erection of a marine hospital at City Point, which was the head of navigation for large vessels on James river, and where they lay waiting for their cargoes from Richmond and Petersburg. Mr. PEARCE resisted the amendment, as inappropriate to a naval bill. Such a hospital pertained to the merchant service; and, if this amendment were adopted, he should move a similar one for Newport.

H. of R.] Mr. MASON thereupon withdrew the amendment. The committee next took up the bill to regulate the pay of the navy. Mr. WATMOUGH dwelt with warmth upon the importance and value of this bill to the improvement of the naval service, and invoked for it the attention which its importance demands. He did not think the discussion would occupy more than two hours. Mr. ELLSWORTH thought it would consume at least two days. Mr. McKAY moved that the bill be postponed. After some conversation, it was agreed not to consider the bill at this time, but suffer it to lie over till the next session. The committee then took up a bill to rebuild the frigate Congress, which, not being amended, was laid aside to be reported. The next bill considered was “A bill to provide for constructing three steam batteries;” which was in like manner laid aside. The committee then proceeded to the bill establishing rations for the navy. Mr. WATMOUGH moved that it be postponed. Mr. PARKER hoped not. He called for the reading of the bill. It was read, and its culinary details about pickles, cranberries, rice, and cheese, occasioned much laughter in the House, (insomuch that the Clerk himself ...so the infection, and was with difficulty able to proceed. ...) P. said he was pleased to see the House in such a good humor, and hoped they would continue so until they had passed the bill. He them explained why this particular feature of the general system of improvement had been selected and placed in a distinct bill. It was mainly with a design to second the laudable efforts of the Secretary of the Navy in discouraging the use of ardent spirits among our sailors, by allowing them substitutes more conducive to their health, comfort, and morals. Mr. BURGES, admitting the great importance of the subject, regretted that it should have been put off till within a few hours of the close of the session. He was opposed to any thing like precipitation in attempting so great a change in the habits of our tars. He especially dreaded any measure in the form of positive prohibition, lest it should produce reaction, and only confirm the evil which it sought to remove. Mr. WATMOUGH, with some warmth, objected to the consideration of the bill. He said the gentleman from New Jersey had picked out this particular item concerning rations from the general system of revised laws for the navy, which the naval committee had resolved not to touch. It could not be essential that such a measure should be brought forward at the present moment, nor did he consider it at any time expedient forcibly to derive our Jacks of their grog. The bill had been brought orward in direct opposition to the opinions of the committee. Mr. PARKER said he should admit this to be true, if he did not personally know the contrary to be the fact. This very bill had been brought before the committee. It was a part of the very code, the origination of which the gentleman had claimed, and which, if it were so, reflected #. credit upon the gentleman. Would he object to this bill because it carried into effect a part of his own plan? Or was it because the bill had been brought forward by Mr. P. He repeated that the bill had been approved by the committee, and he would go further, and state that it was approved by the Secretary, with whom he had had personal intercourse on the subject. If there was a single other member of the naval committee that would bear out the assertion of his colleague, he might admit himself to be in error. But the committee had recommended the provisions of the bill, and directed it to be reported.

..Appropriation Bills.

[June 26, 1834.

Mr. WATMOUGH said it was with some difficulty that he brought himself to entertain any discussion of this matter. The gentleman from New Jersey might conceive that he had a warrant in his gray hairs for making assertions which had such a bearing on the veracity of other gentlemen, and the gentleman was perfectly safe in whatever he chose to say. If, at a time when Mr. W. had not been present, the gentleman had picked out this part of the general bill, with a view to bringing it forward by it. self just at the close of so long a session, he had not been aware of any assent of the committee to such a proceeding. He would not appeal to his colleagues on the committee. He stated it as a fact that the committee had expressly resolved not to bring the subject forward, and press it at this time. He repeated, however, that the gentleman was safe, perfectly safe, if he chose to state the contrary. Mr. PATTON here interposed, after some confusion, and stated that further explanations between the gentlemen were needless, and tended only to produce a greater aggravation of feeling between them. They were, in fact, both right and both wrong. The gentleman from Pennsylvania was perfectly right in saying that the committee had resolved not to take up the general subject, and insist upon its consideration at this time; and the gentleman from New Jersey was equally right in stating that he had brought forward the present bill in committee; that it had there been discussed, and determined that the gentleman might bring forward the bill, but that the members of the committee would not hold themselves pledged to support it. For himself, he was decidedly opposed to the bill. He was not disposed to empower the commanders of our public vessels to compel Jack to part with his grog, and eat double rations of pickles or cheese. He moved that the bill be postponed; which motion, after a good-tempered explanation on the part of Mr. PARKER, was agreed to by the House; and the bill was postponed accordingly. The committee having then taken up a bill to improve the navigation of the Hudson river, Mr. HUNTINGTON, of Connecticut, moved to amend it by inserting an appropriation of $25,000 to improve the navigation of the river Thames, between Norwich and New London. He said the appropriation stood precisely on the same footing, and had received the same previous sanction with that in the bill. Three reports had been made in its favor, and it had twice passed the House, but, in consequence of other items in the bill, had fallen under the presidential veto. The amendment was rejected. Mr. SUTHERLAND, chairman of the Committee on Commerce, said that he had reportod another harbor bill, and had been somewhat at a loss what course to pursue in respect to it; but had finally concluded to move it in the form of an amendment to the present bill. A question of order was raised and discussed on this motion, which resulted in Mr. S.’s withdrawing his amendment. Mr. ELLSWORTH now offered an amendment, proposing an appropriation to deepen the harbor at the mouth of Connecticut river, and sustained the amendment by a short speech, in which he set forth the importance of such an improvement in preserving, not only property embarked in the coasting trade, but the lives of seamen exposed to storms in the sound. The amendment was advocated by Messrs. HUNTINGto N, MERCER, and SuthERLAND, and opposed by Mr. CRockett, to whom Mr. Ellsworth briefly replied. Mr. HARDIN also opposed it, protesting against bargains, &c. The amendment was then rejected. The committee then passed through a bill for the benefit of Nathaniel Tyler, a revolutionary soldier, and pro

June 27, 1834.]

ceeded to consider the bill granting additional lands for the satisfaction of revolutionary land warrants. Mr. LEAVITT, of Ohio, moved to amend the bill by striking out 150,000 and inserting 500,000 acres, on the ground that, since the bill had been reported, a large amount of warrants had come in, and more were appearing daily. Mr. HARDIN went into an explanation of the origin of these warrants, and the manner in which they had been satisfied; when the amendment was agreed to. The committee having gone through the bills referred to it, were about to rise, when, Mr. WHITE, of Louisiana, wished them to consider a bill to prevent explosions by steam. But his motion did not prevail, and the committee rose and reported to the House the bills which had been successively considered. In the House, after a struggle about the order of business, it was agreed first to take up such bills as had not yet been ordered to their third reading. Accordingly, the House took up the fortification bill; and the question being on the motion to strike out the enacting clause, it was negatived. The question next recurring on Mr. Polk’s motion to strike out the appropriation of 100,000 dollars for a fort upon George's island, the ayes were 64, the noes 55. The CHAIR declared that no quorum had voted. Mr. POLK insisted that it was a quorum, because vacant seats were not to be counted. The CHAIR interpreted the rule otherwise, and decided that a quorum must consist of one-half the entire number of the House, without regarding vacancies that had occurred. Mr. GOI&LIAM asked the yeas and nays, and moved the previous question; but the House refused to second it. Mr. HARDIN moved to lay the bill on the table; but consented to withdraw the motion, when a debate occurred, the counterpart of that which had taken place in Coinmittee of the Whole. The amendment was resisted by Messrs. Moon E, Wilde, SELn Ex, P. Evo. It Err, Go RhAM, V1N to N, IRE En, C RockErr, and Burg Es; and supported by Messrs. Polk, McKAY, and CAM But LENG; when, The question being taken, it was decided in the negative, by yeas and nays, as follows: Yeas 73, nays 80. So the House refused to strike out. Mr. POLK then moved to strike out the item of 100,000 dollars for the fort on Throg's neck. This was also negatived: Yeas 65, nays 80. Mr. POLK then moved to strike out the item for a fort at Grande Terre, Louisiana. This likewise was negatived, without a count. Mr. McK1M moved an amendment, appropriating 25,000 dollars to commence forts of the first and second class at Baltimore. Mr. McK. explained the necessity for these fortifications. Notwithstanding the vast amount of property in the city and harbor of Baltimore, that port remained precisely in the same state as in 1812, not a dollar having been expended since that time. These works had been proposed in the general system of fortifications reported and adopted fifteen years ago. He had had an interview with the Scoretary of War, and the Executive had also been consulted. In both quarters there seemed to be a disposition to proceed with these fortifications, but for a fear that the finances of the country might fall short. Mr. POLK opposed the amendment, and it was rejected. Mr. PEARCE, of Rhode Island, moved the previous question, but withdrew the motion, and the bill was ordered to its third reading. After another struggle as to the order of business, the House took up the light-house bill, which was advocated with great spirit by Mr. Suthen LAND and Mr. Whittlesex; and opposed by Messrs. MANN, IIAwks, KING, and

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

Polk, on the ground of the great number of light-houses already erected, and the unusually large number now proposed. Calculations were gone into to show the expense of erecting and supporting them. Mr. POLK moved to lay the bill on the table; but the motion was negatived by yeas and nays: Yeas 40, nays 97, as follows: YEAS–Messrs. John J. Allen, Beale, Bcan, Bockee, Bunch, Carmichael, Coffee, Davenport, Day, Dickinson, Foster, Gholson, Gilmer, Grayson, Griffin, Hardin, James IIarper, Hawkins, Hawes, Jarvis, R. M. Johnson, Seaborn Jones, King, Laporte, Luke Lea, Lewis, Lyon, Lytle, Abijah Mann, Joel K. Mann, John Y. Mason, McKinley, Patton, Pinckney, Polk, Ramsay, Schley, Wm. P. Taylor, Van Houten, Wagener—40. NAYS-Messrs. John Q. Adams, John Adams, Heman Allen, William Allen, Barber, Baylies, Beardsley, Binney, Bodle, Boon, Brown, Bull, Cage, Cambreleng, Cascy, Chambers, Chaney, Chinn, Samuel Clark, Corwin, Coulter, Denny, Dunlap, Ellsworth, Evans, E. Everett, H. Everett, Ewing, Fillmore, Fowler, Philo C. Fuller, William K. Fuller, Fulton, Garland, Gillet, Gorham, Grennell, Joseph Hall, Hiland Hall, IIalsey, IIannegan, Joseph M. Harper, Hazeltine, Heath, Howell, Jackson, William C. Johnson, Benjamin Jones, Kavanagh, IKinnard, I. ane, Lansing, Thomas Lee, Leavitt, Lincoln, Love, Martindale, Moses Mason, McCarty, McIntire, McKennan, Mercer, Robert Mitchell, Moore, Murphy, Osgood, Page, Parks, Patterson, D. J. Pearce, Pierson, Potts, tteed, Selden, Shinn, Sloane, Smith, Spangler, Steele, Stewart, Stoddert, Sutherland, William Taylor, Philemon Thomas, Tweedy, Wanderpoel, Vinton, Ward, Wardwell, Watmough, Webster, C. P. White, E. I.). White, Elisha Whittlesey, Wilde, Wise, Young—97. So the House refused to lay the bill on the table. The bill was then ordered to its third reading. The bill for West Point was then taken up, and explained and defended by Mr. BiNN Ex. A motion, made by Mr. SMITH, of Maine, to strike out an item for enlarging one of the buildings, was negatived: Yeas 59, nays 77. Mr. HAWES renewed in the House the amendments he had proposed in Committee of the Whole, first for discontinuing the establishment, after the present cadets should have been educated, and then for requiring the cadets to serve five years in the army or return the expenses of their education; but Both the motions of Mr. HAwes were negatived without a count, and the bill was ordered to its engrossment. The bill to provide for the organization of the Department of Indian Affairs was then read a third time, and passed. The bill to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers, was also read and passed. The bill to satisfy the Georgia claims being then at its third reading, Mr. ADAMS moved to adjourn; which was negatived; when Mr. A. observed that the bill contained the principle that the Government should pay interest in a case where an express treaty stipulation provided that no interest should be allowed, and that the President had vetoed another bill on this very ground; said he was desirous of an opportunity to present his views on this difficulty; and he moved that the further consideration of the bill be postponed till to-morrow; on which motion the ayes were 54, the noes 58. - - - No quorum having voted, and it being how ten o'clock, The Ilouse adjourned.

FitIDAY, JUNE 27.
After the reception of several memorials, reports from

committees, &c.,

Mr. E. EVERETT, from the Committee on the Library, reported a resolution directing that the

STATUE OF MER. JEFFERSON,

presented to Congress by Lieutenant Levy, of the navy, be placed in the square at the eastern front of the Capitol. Mr. AltGHER said he had some objections to the resolution. He conceived that if Congress desired to have a statue of this distinguished man, it would be more consistent with propriety to procure one for themselves, than to be indebted for it to any person whatever. He had another objection, which was, that as Congress had resolved to erect a statue in honor of the great and good father of his country, the immortal Washington, and which was in progress of execution, none other of any other man should be set up until that duty was performed which they had resolved should be done. He had learned that this statue of Jefferson was not of that finished order which, if a statue was to be put up at all in the grounds of the Capitol, it ought to be. For these reasons, then, he hoped that the resolution would not be passed; and said he would move to lay it on the table, only that his doing so might prevent some honorable member from replying to his remarks. Mr. LANE trusted that the House would not reject the resolution merely because the statue had been presented by a lieutenant instead of a commander. Mr. MERCER concurred in the opinion of his colleague, that it was not a good likeness, and he was opposed to the resolution. Mr. E. EVERETT would merely remark that, as he had reported the resolution by the instructions of the committee, he would now leave the decision upon it to the House. Mr. CLAY, of Alabama, remarked that the adoption of the resolution would not prevent them hereafter cither erecting another statue, or changing the site that was now contemplated. The resolution was finally ordered to be engrossed, and was passed: Ayes 69, noes 55.

PORTRAIT OF WASHINGTON.

Mr. JARVIS submitted the following resolution, which was unanimously adopted: Resolved, That the Clerk of this House be directed to pay to John Vanderlyn, out of the contingent fund of the House, fifteen hundred dollars, as additional compensation for the full length portrait of Washington, executed by him, to be placed in the Hall of Representatives, in pursuance of a resolution of this House of February 17, 1832. Mr. CHINN rose to state that a bill had been reported from the Senate for the benefit of the City of Washington, and as it was the desire of the Committee on the District to accept it as a substitute for that before the House, he moved that they go into Committee of the Whole thereon. The motion having prevailed, The IIouse went into committee, Mr. WAltd in the chair, considered the bill, and subsequently reported it to the House; after which, Mr. MASON moved that the House resolve itself again into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the

TUnion, for the purpose of taking up the bill to extend the

provisions of the act to relieve from duty iron prepared for and actually laid down on railroads, &c.

Mr. PEARC E moved also the bill for the erection of a marine hospital at Baltimore; and the bill imposing an extra tonnage duty on Spanish vessels.

Mr. ASHLEY moved to include the bill providing for the extension of the national road west of the Mississippi river.

Messrs. LYON, E. EVERETT, and DUNCAN, proposed to include other bills.

[merged small][ocr errors]

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. Ellsworth in the chair, to consider sundry bills. The bill to remit the duties on locomotive steam cmgines, either imported or to be imported, having been taken up, Mr. MASON moved to amend it, by inserting therein, cast iron whcels bound with wrought iron; upon which a desultory debate arose as to the propriety of encouraging domestic manufactures, and the right to alter the tariss, &c., in which Messrs. I) ENNY, BINNEy, McKixi, FillMon E, Gholson, Bung Es, WATMougii, CAM bro ELEN G, P. C. Fullen, Dick Enso N, WILDE, and McKINLEY, participated; when, with a view to arrest it, Mr. LEWIS remarked that, as the debate seemed to be interminable, and as the House had a great deal of business to get through with in a little time, he would move that the bill be laid aside. On this motion the debate was again resumed by Messrs. DENNY and PARK ER. Mr. LEWIS finally withdrew the motion to lay the bill aside. Mr. STEWART, however, renewed it, that the committee might report progress thereon when it should rise. Mr. WiLLIAMS inquired if it was in order to have a bill so disposed of, without final action upon it? The CHAIR said the motion was in order. Mr. JONES rose to a point of order; but making no appeal from the decision of the Chain, The vote on the motion of Mr. STEwART prevailed Ayes 79, noes 61. Mr. JONES insisted that the motion was out of order. Mr. STEWART contended that the objection came too late, the subject having been disposed of. Mr. JONES maintained that he had made the point of order before the vote was taken. - The CHAIR, after some conversation, decided that Mr. Jon Es had, under the circumstances, a right to appeal from his decision. Mr. JONES did appeal, and the committee having sustained the decision of the CHAI it that the motion was in order, the bill was then laid aside. The bill to remit the duties upon locomotive steam engines heretofore imported, was then taken up, and also laid aside. The bill making appropriations for the crection of marine hospitals in the city of Baltimore and other places being taken up, Mr. McKAY moved to amend it by inserting an item for a marine hospital at City Point, Virginia, and another somewhere in North Carolina; agreed to. Mr. BURGES moved an amendment for a similar liospital at Providence; which was not agreed to. Mr. SMITH moved for the establishment of one at Portland; which was carried. Mr. LYTLE proposed an item appropriating $10,000 to improve the arsenal at Cincinnati; but it was rejected. The committee then took up the bill in addition to an act passed 13th July, 1832, concerning duty on Spanish vessels, to equalize the discriminating duty imposed on our vessels in Cuba and Porto Rico. Mr. McKIM opposed the bill, as only going, in effect, to make war upon the tonnage of the United States; which was in no condition to endure any reduction or injury. There were more of our vessels sent to the Ilavana than of theirs which entered our ports; and Spain would immediately retaliate, as she had done on former occasions. The only way to meet the case was to put the duty on the products of Cuba and Porto Rico. Mr. PINCRNEY moved to fill the blank with the 1st day of January next, as the day on which the bill was to take effect; which was agreed to.

The bill was then laid aside.

« 上一頁繼續 »