網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors]

The next bill was for the benefit of W. T. C. Wright, allowing him for his services at the Court of Brazil. It was slightly amended by Mr. Ancitem, and laid aside. Mr. MASON now moved again to consider the bill to remit the duties on locomotive engines. Mr. MASON moved two amendments; which were agreed to. Mr. DENNY moved to strike out the 2d section of the bill; negatived: Ayes 36, noes 90. The bill was then laid aside. Mr. JOHNSON pressed the committee to take up the bill to consider the commissariat; but they refused. The committee then rose and reported the bill. Mr. POLK introduced, by consent, a joint resolution suspending the rule which forbids the sending of new bills from one House to the other on the three last days of the session, until 10 o'clock this evening. Mr. ADAMS opposed it, as unnecessary and absurd. This was not one of the last three days. Sunday was a day of the session; members received their pay for it as for other days; and business had sometimes been done on that day. After some further discussion, the joint resolution was read three times and passed. The House then resumed the consideration of the bill providing for the Georgia claims; and Mr. ADAMS had commenced a speech in opposition to the bill, when, the hour of two having arrived, the House took a recess until four o'clock.

Even ING SEssion.

The House at 4 o'clock resumed its sitting. Mr. MERCER made an effort to get up the Potomac bridge bill, but without success. The bill giving the assent of the United States to an arrangement of the boundary line between New York and New Jersey was slightly amended, on motion of Mr. An AMs, and ordered to its third reading. Mr. MERCER renewed his motion for the bridge bill, and moved to suspend the rule, but the ayes were 52, (not two-thirds,) and the motion failed. The House then resumed the consideration of the bill for the payment of certain Georgia claims. Mr. ADAMS stated at large his objections to the bill, and was replied to by Mr. CAM n RE LENG, Mr. Bunges, and Mr. LIN colN. The latter gentleman was not in favor of the bill, but differed from his colleague on the question of interest. Mr. BARBER, of Connecticut, moved the previous question, which was seconded; and the bill was passed by yeas and nays, as follows: Yeas 99, nays 60. The sortification bill was read a third time and passed. The light-house bill was read a third time, and the ques. tion being on its passage, Mr. POLK opposed the bill, as going much too far, and incurring a heavy charge on the treasury. He made a statement, showing that appropriations to the amount of twenty-two and a half millions had already passed the House. He demanded the yeas and nays. Mr. SUTHERLAND replied, observing that Mr. P. had made again his last evening's speech, and if the bill were postponed the House would have it again. The gentleman, he believed, never yet had voted for a lighthouse. Mr. ELLSWORTH asked Mr. Polk to point out to which of the light-houses he objected, and not to scare the House with ghosts of expenditure. Mr. WISE demanded the previous question; which was seconded: Ayes 109. The question was then put on the and decided by yeas and nays, as follows: nays 61. . The bill making appropriations for the Academy at

assage of the bill, Yeas 105,

West Point was read a third time and passed: Yeas 119, nays 55. The bill from the Senate, for the benefit of the city of Washington, being next taken up, Mr. Hawes made a vehement speech in opposition to the bill. Mr. CHINN said that he had foreseen what would be the consequence of introducing the subject of the canal. He regretted that that subject had been brought into the debate, however delighted he had been in listening to the eloquent appeal of his colleague, [Mr. Mencer, J in relation to the District. Members of Congress were, in fact, its responsible representatives; they represented not of. fice-hunters, not mere sojourners or visiters, but the permanent residents of these ten miles square. As representatives who constitued the sole Legislature-of these citizens, it was surely proper and just that Congress should possess and exercise some discretionary power. All other Legislatures had it, and why not the Legislature of the District of Columbia? Were Congress to be prohibited from appropriating one cent directly for their benefit? Surely not. Their citizens were placed in a situation to be commiserated. While they were deprived of the privilege enjoyed by all the citizens of the United States, of having representatives chosen by their own act, and responsible to them, they are charged with a full share of all national burdens; they had to submit to taxation without representation, and would it be contended that Congress was forbidden to allow persons thus situated from participating with the rest of the citizens of the United States in the ordinary benefits of legislation? During the late war they had been subject to the same ratio of direct taxation as all the other people of the Union; and when a large amount of real estate had by them been vested in Congress, in trust, could it have been intended that they were themselves to be excluded from all the benefits resulting from it? Mr. C. insisted that they were entitled to a full and fair participation. Had Congress made no donation to the new States? By what right was it that they had appropriated enormous amounts of public property for objects of charity or of internal improvement, for the benefit of the people of the West, when a like benefit must be denied to the people of this District? IIere was the same fund to draw upon, and here, as there, was a public territory owned by the whole United States, and whose value was to be enhanced by these appropriations. The principle was the same in both cases, and the principle being conceded, the only question was, whether the appropriation was disproportioned and extravagant? IIe thought it was not. As to the idea that Congress was asked to assume the Holland loan, obtained on account of the canal, it was wholly gratuitous, and directly in the teeth of the report of the committee. The bill proposed to appropriate $60,000 a year, for three years, to release the city from its embarrassment. , Was this an assumption of its debts, foreign or domestic? Was this an entering wedge? How could the present Congress by such an act control or bind their successors. Each Congress must stand upon its own responsibility. If the bill were rejected, it would not prevent the next Congress from making just such an appropriation, or a much larger one, nor would the passage of the bill bind them to do so. He thought it was but a fair share of the benefits which had been conferred by the cession of this territory, and he thought the city most fairly entitled to it. Mr. WARDWELL said that he wished to propose an amendment. He was in favor of the bill, but for a reason directly the opposite of that which had been stated by the gentleman from Virginia. If Mr. W. thought that the stock of the Chesapeake and Ohio canal would ever become as profitable as that gentleman seemed to anticipate, he would not grant the city one farthing; it was because

he felt fully persuaded that the sanguine expectations of

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

that gentleman would never be realized, and that the stock would not pay three per cent. in fifty years, that he was in favor of the bill. His own opinion was that the best mode of relief would be to give them a million of dollars at once, and take the stock off their hands, and thus free the city from the load under which they were now oppressed. But as they only asked for this $60,000 to pay the interest, he was for giving it. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Merckm] had spoke about the rise in price of the stock of the Hudson and Delaware canal, in the State of New York. Dut he could tell the gentleman that that stock was now below par. It was true that the State had loaned that company $800,000, and the same sort of statements were made then in the New York Legislature as had now been submitted by the eloquent gentleman from Virginia, and yet the very Legislature that made this loan are now cansured, as having squandered away the public money, and as not being fit or worthy to govern the State. If there was to be any parallel between the cases, the way to complete it would be to adopt the plan he had suggested—to loan the city a million of dollars, and to take the canal stock as security. This was what New York had done in respect to the Hudson and Delaware Company. Yet, although that company had the consumption of the whole city of New York for its market, the stock had never to this day yielded the interest of the money; neither would the stock of this canal. Its dimensions were too large; the style of expenditure was too extravagant. There had been no economy in the construction, and it never would pay three per cent. In the mean while, what were the people of the city to do? Their taxes were enormous. No community could exist under such a state of things, and he was in favor of giving them the proposed relief. When Mr. Curs.N had concluded, Mr. MANN said he would make a single remark, in reply to the honorable gentleman of Virginia. He feared the attention of the committee had been diverted from the question before it, by the eloquent appeal of that gentleman. It was not a question whether internal improvements should be carried further, but whether Congress should assume the payment of the debt of the corporation of Washington—a debt created for two or three different objects, amounting to more than $1,500,000. He feared that his previous remarks in opposition to this bill had been misunderstood; he had not intended, by what he had before said, to censure the conduct of the gentlemen who were charged with the management of the concerns of this corporation; he did not now intend to do so, for he was deeply sensible of their condition, and he knew no remedy; it was not for him to propose any. The question now to be determined was, whether it was wise, just, and proper, that Congress should assume the payment of this debt? It cannot be denied that they will do so, if this bill passes. The report of the committee expresses the hope that the financial condition of the corporation within three years will be different from what it is at present. On what does this hope rest? It is mere hope. What reason have we to indulge such anticipation? I have not examined the act by which the corporation was enabled to borrow this money; but I am told that the President is authorized and required, on a failure of the corporation to pay the interest, to order the sale and conveyance of individual propeity to meet the deficiency in payment of their foreign debt. It did not appear to him sound policy for the nation to assume this burden. Why should they do so? It was a concern between individuals, with which the people had nothing to do. They ought not to be burdened with the payment of the debts of individuals, whether contracted improvidently or otherwise. He was aware of the zeal with which the honorable member from Virginia [Mr. Meace R] approached the subject of internal improve

ments—particularly the Chesapeake and Ohio canal; it was an honorable zeal; but it had cost the people $1,000,000 already. A bill was now before the House for another, and the bill under consideration in effect assumes the payment of another already expended. This, Mr. M. said, was more than either justice to the people we represent or liberality could require. But the gentleman from Virginia reminds me of a precedent in my own State. It is always with reluctance that I speak of my own State on this floor. I remember well, too well, the condition of that State in regard to the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company. The State did loan its credit to that company for $800,000, but not by my consent. I am also reminded that the stock of that company, previously to the aid granted, was very far below par, but afterwards rose into great favor, and far above par; that, in consequence, a great amount of coal has been produced, to great public advantage, and the gentleman predicts further great benefits. I hope his predictions will be realized, yet I cannot estimate the interest of New York in that company, when considered in a fiscal point of view, as of any value. I have understood how that stock was raised above par. It is said that certain persons interested in the coal lands at the termination of that canal had a contract with the company for the sales of those lands for a large price, (I believe $200,000, ) whenever the stock should rise to par value. After this loan by the State to the company, by one of those stock-jobbing operations which have so often dis graced Wall street, this stock was blown up into a bubble above par. This, sir, is the reason why this stock has excited the attention and surprise of the gentleman from Virginia. Again: Mr. Chairman, I am reminded that the State of New York applied here for aid in the construction of her magnificent works of internal improvement, now so productive as to excite the jealous admiration of her sister States. True, sir, I confess it with humility; and what answer did you give to her application? Did you unlock your treasure, and pour into her lap from your bounty and abundance? No, sir, you told her that you could not favor her with your liberality. The gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. M Encen,) however, argues that the canals in New York and in Europe are productive, and therefore that the Chesapeake and Ohio canal will be profitable. I fear that the gentleman and the public have long labored under a delusion in regard to that subject. Great and productive as those canals are, embracing an extent of shore, from which the tonnage is derived of more than 2,000 miles; a soil, climate, and population unsurpassed by any portion of the continent of the same extent; yet these canals, considered as a mere fiscal operation, have never, until within the last two years, produced a nett income sufficient to pay the interest on the cost of construction. The whole expenditure, up to the period when those canals were navigable in the whole extent, was $11,416,000, (I speak from recollection,) borrowed at an average interest of 5% per cent., or more than $600,000 annually. The nett proceeds of tolls have not, until recently, equalled this sum. I do not mention this to detogate from the great value and importance of those works, but merely to show their fiscal results. Independent of all pecuniary considerations, those works have ever commanded and received my humble support; but it does not follow that, because those canals are productive, all others will produce like results. If the honorable gentleman from Virginia will cast his eye over the map of the habitable globe, he will not discover another spot where a canal can be constructed with the same hope and prospect of success as from the Hudson to the lakes. All reasoning, therefore, by analogy with these works and their results must prove fallacious and illusory, because the analogy, in extent of shore, fertility of soil, extent, value, and

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

variety, of resources and productions, will fail. If you go to Europe, and examine the works of ages and their results, you will not find a parallel. But, sir, is there much propriety in contending that Congress should assume the payment of this million due from this corporation, because the nation has already become the owner of $1,000,000 in the stock of this comany To my mind there is not; and I hope that the subject will commend itself to the careful deliberation of the committee before they agree to charge the country with this debt. I am satisfied, sir, that if we assume to pay the interest on this $1,000,000, we had better provide for paying the principal. For one, I am not prepared for this, and 1 therefore hope the bill will be rejected. The previous question was now moved and seconded, the yeas and nays ordered, and the bill passed: Yeas 98, nays 78. The bill giving the assent of Congress to the compromise between the States of New York and New Jersey, respecting their boundary line, was read a third time and passed. The bill repealing provisoes in the tariff law, and the bill for the relief of Susan Decatur, were laid upon the table. The bill for the final adjustment of land claims in Florida and Arkansas having been read, Mr. CAVE JOHNSON moved an amendment, allowing certain claimants to produce the testimony in favor of their claims before the registers and receivers of the land offices in their districts, to be by them reported to Congress. Mr. HUNTINGTON and Mr. VINTON made inquiries respecting the lands and claimants on whom the amendment was to operate; and it appearing that the lands were those which had been the subject of alleged notorious frauds, Mr. VINTON opposed the bill, and moved to lay it on the table; but withdrew his motion to admit explanations by Messrs. C. Johnson and Sevi En, who acknowledged the frauds of the individual named, but vindicated the present holders, who had purchased the lands innocently. Mr. CLAY moved the previous question, but withdrew the motion; whereupon, Mr. JARVIS moved to lay the bill on the table. Mr. THOMAS, of Louisiana, asked the yeas and nays on this question; but the House refused to order them, and the bill was laid on the table. [It was subsequently, on motion of Mr. VINTON, taken up again, that the amendment might be withdrawn; and the bill was then ordered to its third reading.] The bill authorizing the construction of railroads and canals through lands belonging to the United States being taken up, Mr. FILLMORE inquired into the nature of its provisions; which were explained by Mr. CLAY. Mr. MASON moved an amendment, restricting the action of the bill to lands subject to private entry. Mr. HARDIN opposed the bill in toto. Mr. McKINLEY replied and defended it, and the reputation of the people of Alabama, whose character he considered as having been assailed by the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. H. EVERETT objected to some of the provisions of the bill. Mr. CLAY offered an amendment to meet his objection. Mr. HARDIN again opposed the bill, as being altogether too loose and unguarded, and moved to lay it on the table; which was agreed to. A bill to incorporate the Washington Monumental Society, and a joint resolution respecting new paintings in the rotundo of the Capitol, were laid upon the table. A bill respecting patents and copy-rights was ordered to its third reading.

The bill to prevent the corporations of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria, from issuing bank bills of a less denomination than ten dollars, coming up, Mr. VINTON moved an amendment, to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets in the District, which he had copied from the code of laws prepared for the District with the utmost care, by an able committee. Mr. WISE moved to lay the bill on the table, but offercd to withdraw the motion if Mr. WINTo N would withdraw his amendment. IIe afterwards withdrew his motion and moved the previous question, which was carried; and the bill was then ordered to its third reading. The bill for the benefit of the city of Alexandria (appropriating one hundred thousand dollars in aid of the Alexandria canal and aqueduct) coming up next in order, Mr. MASON moved to lay it on the table. Mr. CHINN demanded the yeas and nays. Mr. HAWES wished the House to know that the bill gave to Alexandria “one hundred thousand dollars.” Mr. P. THOMAS wished the House also to know that Virginia had given to the United States three hundred thousand dollars, when Alexandria came under the General Government. The question being put on Mr. Mason’s motion, it was decided as follows: Yeas 79, nays 84. So the House refused to lay the bill on the table. The question being on its engrossment, Mr. MILLER opposed the bill. If it were to relieve Alexandria from embarrassment, he should not oppose it. But he would never consent to give this money for such a canal. Mr. MERCER was consident that, if he could converse with the gentleman for half an hour, he could convince him that he was in error. More than one hundred thousand dollars had already been expended on this work. It had been in progress for two years, and all that was done must be lost if the present appropriation should be refused. He explained the situation of Alexandria in relation to the Chesapeake and Ohio canal; commended the good faith and punctuality with which she had paid up her subscription to that work; and dwelt upon the importance of the aqueduct, especially, as furnishing a secure mode of transmitting the southern mail, even though the bridge might be carried away. Mr. STEWART moved the previous question, which was seconded, and the bill ordered to its third reading: Yeas 83, nays 81. The bill to complete the improvement of Pennsylvania avenue was next considered; when Mr. PARKER moved to strike out the item for cleansing the avenue from dust; but his motion failed, and the bill was ordered to its engrossment. A number of bills were then successively laid upon the table. The House then took up the bill to authorize the construction of a bridge across the Potomac, and to repeal all previous acts on the subject. A motion was made by some member to lay the bill upon the table; but on Mr. Menckn's demanding the yeas and nays, it was withdrawn. Mr. FILL MORE moved an amendment, proposing that the Secretary of War should settle the accounts of Mr. Dibble, the contractor, who had commenced preparations for constructing the bridge on an expensive plan, now abandoned. - Mr. F. warmly sustained this amendment, insisting if it should be refused that individual must be ruined. Mr. MERCER objected, on the ground that no legal contract had been made with Mr. Dibble. He had given no security, and if he had proceeded on an unauthorized promise, and had consequently suffered loss, he must resort, as other individuals in like cases did, to a memorial

[ocr errors]

on Claims. Mr. FILLMoRr, Mr. BLAin, Mr. LANE, Mr. WAnnw ELL, Mr. McKENNAN, and Mr. CLAY, all sustained the amendment with zeal, as being demanded by every consideration of justice and equity, and declaring that, if it should be negatived, they must vote against the bill. Explanations took place between Messrs. BLAin, WINtoN, Stew ART, and W. Cost Jon Nso N, as to what transpired in committee as to this allowance to Mr. Dibble. Mr. MERCER declared it to be his opinion that the individual had not a shadow of right to compensation. He had acted on his own risk, without authority, and had never consummated the contract he proposed, by giving any security for its fulfilment. The question being put, the amendment was carried without a count, and the bill was then ordered to be engrossed for its third reading. The bill making appropriation for public buildings; the bill to carry into effect the convention between the United States and Spain; the bill to enable the Secretary of State to purchase the Washington papers; the bill to purchase frames for a frigate and schooner; the bill authorizing the President to direct transfers of appropriation in the naval service; the bill to provide for rebuilding the frigate Congress; were severally ordered to their third reading. The bill for the improvement of the Hudson river, New York, coming up— A motion was made to lay it on the table, but was negatived: Yeas 69, nays 84. Mr. HUNTINGTON and Mr. ELLSWORTH respectively proposed again the amendments which they had moved in Committee of the Whole, for the improvement of the river Thames and of the mouth of the Connecticut river; but both amendments were rejected. The bill was ordered to its third reading by yeas and nays, as follows: Yeas 92, nays 72. Mr. POLK proposed that there be sent to the Senate to-morrow a written schedule, stating the titles of all the bills which were ready for the action of that body, having been previously acted on in the House, and stated that he had such a list prepared. Mr. ADAMS and Mr. HARDIN pressed for an adjournment; against which Mr. HEATH loudly remonstrated. But the motion prevailed; and the House thereupon, at half past 10 o'clock, adjourned.

SAtumn AY, JUNE 28.

Mr. POLK asked the consent of the House to submit a joint resolution, to rescind the rule, so as to enable such bills as had already been passed to be sent from either House until 10 o'clock; which, he said, it was necessary to have, the Senate not having returned the joint resolution sent them yesterday.

Mr. SELI) EN remarked that, as the effect of such a resolution being adopted would be to destroy all the bills that were ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, he must object.

Mr. POLK said that these bills could be provided for by another joint resolution.

Mr. E. EVERETT said, with that understanding, he would not object.

The House, on motion of Mr. POLK, having suspended the rule,

Mr. J. Q. ADAMS remarked that it was out of order, and was inconsistent with that self-respect the House ought to have, to adopt a resolution of this description, whilst the former one had not yet been acted upon by the other House.

[JUNE 28, 1834.

The resolution having been read, Mr. HAWES moved to strike out all after resolved, and insert “that the resolution of Congress to adjourn on the 30th June be rescinded, that Congress shall adjourn on the 2d July, and that no business shall be sent from either House to the other after this day.” Mr. H. remarked that such a course was not without precedent. Mr. BEARDSLEY hoped, however, that it was a precedent that would not be followed. Mr. RICHARD M. JOHNSON called for the yeas and niaws. Mr. POLK moved the previous question. not having voted thereon, Mr. HARDIN moved a call of the House; whereupon, the motion for the previous question, and the amendment submitted by Mr. HAwes, were withdrawn, and the resolution offered by Mr. Polk was adopted. Mr. R. M. JOHNSON asked the consent of the House to permit him to offer a resolution embracing a vote of thanks, for his services, to the late Speaker of the House of Representatives. Several members objected. Mr. CROCKETT said: I go against the resolution altogether, and I am ready to state why I do so. I am not inclined to adopt a vote of thanks to any man, without knowing what for, or being satisfied they are deserved. Mr. R. M. JOHNSON having moved that the House suspend the rules to enable him to present the resolution, Mr. BURGES called for the yeas and nays on the motion to suspend; which were ordered, and taken, as follows: Yeas 87, nays 51, (not two-thirds.) The joint resolution adopted yesterday, to rescind the rule as to the reception of bills by each House at the close of the session, and sent to the Senate, having been returned by them with an amendment thereto, extending the time until 2 o’clock this day for that purpose, was, on motion of Mr. Polk, taken up; and, after a desultory conversation, the amendment of the Senate was adopted. Mr. PINCRNEY moved that the House take up the bill imposing an extra tonnage duty on Spanish vessels, which, he said, was highly important to his constituents, that it might be ordered to be engrossed sor a third reading. Some objections having been made, Mr. P. moved a suspension of the rule for that purpose; but, ascertaining that the sense of the House was against the motion at present, he finally withdrew it, to be renewed at a later period in the day. The bills which were last night ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, were read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Senate for concurrence. The bill making an appropriation of $70,000 for the improvement of the navigation of the Hudson river (reported by Mr. SELDEN) being on its final passage, Mr. HAWES called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. The bill was passed, yeas 95, nays 62, and sent to the Senate for concurrence. The House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. WILDE in the chair, to consider the harbor bill, which was returned from the Senate with amendments thereto, and which were agreed to by the committee. The committee having risen and reported to the House their agreement to the amendments, Mr. POLK moved that the House do non-concur in the amendment increasing the appropriation for the removal of “the raft” or obstructions in the Red river, from $30,000 to $50,000. Mr. BEARDSLEY said that, although it was possible that more than $30,000 could be expended on this work before the meeting of the next Congress, yet, as the

A quorum June 30, 1834.]

whilst provision was made that the money should be properly expended under the direction of the Secretary of War, he saw no good reason why the House should reject the amendment. Mr. POLK did not think the circumstances justified the Senate in making so large an appropriation. Mr. SUTHERLANL) had heard that various estimates had been presented to the Senate, which justified them in increasing the appropriation. The motion of Mr. Polk was negatived. So the House concurred in that amendment. The amendments to increase the appropriation for the erection of piers in the Kennebunk river, from $9,700 to $10,300; to strike out the appropriation for connecting the waters of the river Raisin; to strike out the appropriation of $29,000 for the removal of obstructions in Deep creek, Elizabeth river; to provide that $5,000 of the $29,000 for surveys, should be applied for geological surveys, &c.; and an appropriation of $4,000 for the rebuilding of a monumental beacon at Penobscot, Maine, which had been blown away in a recent storm; and the appropriation of $30,000 sor the removal of obstructions in Cumberland river; were severally concurred in by the House. The House went again into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. CAsky in the chair, on the bill to carry into effect certain Indian treaties, returned with an amendment of the Senate, to provide that an appropriation of $5,600, to defray the expenses of certain delegates from the Cherokees at Washington, should be divided as follows: “To the eight delegates from the Eastern Cherokees $3,400. To the five Western do. $2,200.” Mr. CLAY opposed the amendment, contending that the Secretary of War had notified some of these parties that their expenses at Washington would not be paid, unless they were authorized, by the tribe they represent; to conclude a treaty now pending with the United States. Mr. WILLIAMS said it appeared that the original appropriation proposed by the House went to pay those delegates, who were not duly authorized by the Cherokees to conclude any treaty, whilst the amendment of the Senate went to pay the expenses of those who werc. Under such circumstances, who, he asked, could hesitate to decide as to which of them ought to be paid? Mr. BURGES remarked that, as it appeared there were dissensions amongst thcse Indians, the IIouse ought not to adopt the cause of either, whilst by paying to the delegates from the Eastern as well as the Western tribes, we would be paying the representatives of the whole. After a few remarks from Mr. McKINLEY in opposition, and from Mr. HUNTINGTON in favor of it, the amendment was concurred in. The committee thereupon rose and reported their agreement to the amendments, which were severally concurred in by the House. The Ilouse, on motion of Mr. HEATH, suspended the rule, and took up the bill making appropriations for the erection of a marine hospital at Baltimore, and for other purposes; which was amended and passed to a third reading. The bill to extend the time for issuing military land warrants, and the bill authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to make experiments to prevent explosions by steam, were also taken up, and passed to a third reading. The bill to remit the duty on certain locomotive engines, &c. being on its final passage, Mr. MARTINDALE moved to lay it on the table. Mr. DENNY said the principle involved in the bill was too important to be acted upon so late in the session, and called for the yeas and nays.

[merged small][ocr errors]

The motion to lay the bill on the table having been negatived: Yeas 67, nays 77— Mr. MERCER moved to substitute “one” instead of “three” years, as the limit of the duration of the bill. The amendment prevailed. Mr. DICKERSON, of New Jersey, reiterated the objections previously stated by him to the bill. Mr. MASON supported the bill. Mr. H. EVERETT moved to strike out the second scction of the bill, (which provides that locomotive steam engines intended for railroads, and the parts of such engines, shall and may hereafter be imported free of duty for three years.) Mr. E. desired to say only a word. He considered this section as trenching on the principle of the compromise bill. The principal arguments used in support of it would apply to any other article; and this would be quoted hereafter as a precedent for other cases. He would not countenance the least violation of that compromise. Mr. J. Q. ADAMS called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered. The question being taken on Mr. Even ETT's amondment, it was agreed to: Yeas 76, nays 67. The bill was then ordered to its third reading. The bill to equalize the discriminating duties on American vessels in Havana and Porto Rico having been read a third time, and the question being on the passage of the bill, Mr. McKIM renewed his opposition to its passage. Mr. PINCKNEY spoke in its favor. Mr. McKIM moved to lay it on the table; but the motion was negatived, and the bill ordcred to its third reading. Mr. CLAY endeavored to get the rejection of the bill providing for the passage of railroads and canals through the public lands of the United States reconsidered, that it might be passed, with an amendment; but the House refused to reconsider. The bill authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to have experiments made on the steam engine was read a third time and passed. The bill to remit the duties on locomotive engines was read a third time, and, after a short opposition by Mr. PARKER, was passed. The bill concerning tonnage duty on Spanish vessels was read a third time and passed. Mr. SMITH, of Maine, obtainctl leave to introduce a joint resolution, extending the time of sending new bills from one House to the other, so as to include the above iii, which had been passed by the IIouse. The resolution was agreed to. The House then took a recess until 4 o'clock.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« 上一頁繼續 »