FEB. 26, 1834.] Indian Appropriation Bill. [H. of R. blushed, until it was manned by an American President it but courteous to give gentlemen an opportunity to bring against American citizens. There was another fort which forward their amendments. had been commenced, but had not yet risen above the Mr. POLK said that, if it was intended to go into a dissurface of the water, and he thought no more money cussion of the policy of the system of defence, it would should be expended on it. Fort Moultrie had gained an then be proper to recommit the bill. He reminded the important victory, and had now been put in repair for the House that this bill was only in conformity with the pracpurpose of being used against the city of Charleston. He tice of Congress for many years past; and that it was to adverted to the course of the President under the force complete works which our predecessors had commenced. act, and declared that he would never vote for an appro- The CHAIR reminded the gentleman that he was out priation to erect a fort in Charleston harbor, while that of order. bill remained unrepealed. He asked if the Federal Government could erect a fort in a State without the consent of the State. On the ground that he had stated, he should oppose the appropriation for a new fort in Charleston harbor, which might be used, at the discretion of the President, against the city of Charleston. He wished the bill recommitted, that he might move to strike out the appropriation for fortifications in Charleston harbor. Mr. POLK then went on with his observations; when The CHAIR again called the gentleman to order, and said he could not permit the discussion to proceed. Mr. POLK then said that, if gentlemen wished to recommit the bill, he should make no strenuous opposition to the motion. He afterwards withdrew his opposition, as he would not shrink from the discussion. The motion for the yeas and nays was then withdrawn by unanimous consent. Mr. WAYNE opposed the motion to recommit, and The motion to recommit the bill was then agreed to. The bill making appropriations for the Indian Department for the year 1834 was then taken up, on its third reading. withdraw the motion. The motion being withdrawn, the bill was then read a third time. On the question of its passage, Mr. McKAY asked the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs if it was intended by that committee to introduce any bill to regulate the intercourse with the Indian tribes? Mr. MCKAY wished to recommit the bill, in order to have a more equal distribution of the appropriations. He also desired to impose a check on the practice of expending larger sums than were appropriated. He reviewed Mr. H. EVERETT said he could not speak in the the estimates for Fort Independence in 1831 and 1832, name of the committee, but he would give his opinion that and then compared these with the communication made a bill would be introduced on the subject. to Congress at this session. In 1831, $20,000 was said to be sufficient to repair the fort; in 1832, it was stated that $17,000 would finish the fort; and now, a large sum was again asked. The CHAIR called the member to order, as going too widely into the discussion. Mr. POLK rose, and commenced some remarks. Mr. McDUFFIE expressed a hope that the gentleman from North Carolina would not be silenced. Mr. POLK said he did not wish to say any thing, unless the gentleman from North Carolina yielded the floor. Mr. MCKAY then resumed his reference to the reports which had been made to Congress; when The CHAIR again pronounced him to be out of order. Mr. PARKER was in favor of recommitting the bill, because it had not been sufficiently discussed and consid ered in Committee of the Whole. Mr. VANDERPOEL thought that the motion to recommit was reasonable. As there had been so much of pressure and famine before the House for some time past, it was not to be wondered at that minor subjects should have escaped that critical examination which they demanded. In order to give gentlemen an opportunity to make any amendments they desired, he thought the bill should be recommitted. Mr. McKAY then made a few remarks on the enormous expenditures in this Department, and the necessity which there was for some investigation of the subject, especially into the appointment of agents. Mr. H. EVERETT explained that he acquiesced in the views of the gentleman from North Carolina, and repeated that the subject would be brought before the House in the form of a bill. Mr. POLK explained that this was the customary annual bill, and that it appropriated less than usual, on account of the discontinuance of three sub-agencies. After an interrogatory by a member, as to an item in the bill, Mr. McKAY made some further observations on the incongruities and extravagant appropriations in the bill. Some further discussion took place, in which Mr. ASHLEY, Mr. H. EVERETT, Mr. POLK, and Mr. McKAY took part. Mr. McKAY then moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and, the question being put, the motion was negatived-ayes 70, noes 102. Mr. BROWN, of New York, moved that the House do now adjourn-ayes 120. The House then adjourned. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26. Mr. CHILTON was also in favor of a recommitment of After disposing of some morning business, the House rethe bill, in consequence of the differences of opinion sumed the consideration of the resolution submitted by which exhibited themselves in every part of the House, Mr. MARDIS, on a former day, in relation to the fature concerning particular provisions of the bill. He thought pee of deposite of VOL. X.-175 50129 H. OF R.] The Public Deposites. [FEB. 26, 1834. THE PUBLIC MONEY. strange and inconsistent as it may appear to some gentleMr. CLOWNEY, who had the floor from the pre-men, I am in favor of a restoration of the deposites. vious day, rose and said: The resolution offered by the Why these two questions, so distinct in their characters, honorable gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. MARDIS,] and have been associated together, I am at a loss to underhis arguments in support of it, appear to be predicated stand. If gentlemen mean, by this unnatural connexion, upon the assumption that the public deposites would not that the restoration of the deposites will necessarily sebe restored to the Bank of the United States. Were I cure a recharter of the bank, then I am still at a loss perfectly assured of this fact, I might feel disposed not to perceive the adequacy of the cause to produce the only to consider the resolution in order, but also that it effect. was highly expedient that some such resolution should be It is well known that the principal objections to the immediately acted upon by this House. But I cannot, United States Bank are its unconstitutionality, and its however, concur in opinion with the honorable gentle- capability, by its pecuniary power, of undermining and man, that the vote of the majority of the House, a few destroying the liberties of the country. Those who hondays ago, either for the previous question, or the refer- estly entertain these views now, without an abandonence of the Secretary's letter to the Committee of Ways ment of principle, must remain unchanged until and and Means, finally decided the question of restoration. after the expiration of the bank charter in 1836. The Therefore, I cannot regard the resolution, at this time, in constitutional objection is the one upon which I underany other light than premature. I am glad, however, stand all the gentlemen opposed to the restoration of the that it has been introduced; because it gives me, and deposites rely. It is the leading objection in almost others similarly situated, an opportunity to express our every petition and memorial that has been presented to views upon this all-important subject, before the same this House friendly to the present administration. It is question shall be again presented by the report of the one of the most prominent reasons assigned by the SecCommittee of Ways and Means. When the subject of retary of the Treasury, for his justification in removing the public deposites comes regularly before the House, the deposites. It constitutes the strong ground upon on the report of the committee to whom it has been re- which the President of the United States founded his ferred, if the "gag law" be not again enforced, the floor veto of the bank bill passed by the last Congress, and will then be free to all those who have already expressed in which he and his friends claim to be sustained by the their views; and, from past experience, I could not in-verdict of the people. And it is an objection of such an dulge the hope of obtaining the floor, within any reason- insurmountable nature, that it never can be removed by able time, amidst such competition. any argument of expediency. The capability of the I consider the resolution now under consideration, in bank to do good or to do harm has been at all times the main point of view, the same as the one offered by freely admitted both by its friends and its foes; and there my colleague, [Mr. McDUFFIE,] which has been ex- is nothing which it can do, from now until the end of its cluded from debate by the vote sustaining the call for the existence, that can remove this objection. Why, then, previous question. The future disposition of the pub-do gentlemen insist that to restore the deposites will lic deposites is the general object of both resolutions. The produce the consequence of a renewal of the bank charspecial object of the one offered by my colleague was ter?—or, to recharter the bank, and restore the deposites, the restoration of the deposites to the Bank of the are one and the same thing? Is it for the purpose of United States; while the special object of the resolution alarming the fears of those who are constitutionally opnow on your table proposes an inquiry into the expedi-posed to the bank, and who dread the influence of a ency of depositing the public moneys in the State banks, great moneyed aristocracy in corrupting and controlling under contracts authorized by law. Hence, I conceive the Government, with the view to reconcile them to the the whole question presented by the resolution offered removal of the deposites as a praiseworthy act of the adby my colleague to be fairly and fully presented by the ministration? If such be their object, I cannot esteem resolution offered by the gentleman from Alabama. The the argument otherwise than disingenuous, while I deem arguments, therefore, in favor of the first resolution, may it an indignity offered to those who are in favor of a reswith propriety be used against the resolution now under toration. They who offer it must know it to be incorconsideration. rect, or they must believe that those for whom it is After such a display of research, talents, and elo-intended are capable hereafter to be corrupted and quence, as has been already exhibited upon this subject, changed in their opinions by the bank influence. it would argue extreme vanity in me to propose to offer I, for one, am opposed not only to the recharter of the any thing new. It is not, therefore, with the hope of present bank, but to the establishment of any other by shedding additional light upon this subject, or with the this Government, for reasons which nothing less than an expectation that any thing that I can say, either in matter amendment of the constitution can obviate. As to any or manner, will influence the decision of a single mem-influence which the bank or its friends can exercise over ber of this House, that I claim the privilege and the hon-me in changing my opinions, all has already been done or to be heard. The resolution on your table involves that can be done. The danger of its vast power to considerations of the deepest interest to the whole peo-wield the affairs of Government, and enslave the people, ple of the United States; and they have a right to know, has ceased to excite alarm. Under an able and wise diand they anxiously expect, a full expression of the opin-rection, bidding defiance to the improper interference of ions of their representatives. In the absence of all other those high in political power; correcting and regulating reasons, I would deem this sufficient to claim for a few mo- a spurious and redundant currency; acting as the prompt ments the indulgence of the House. But this is not my and faithful agent of the Government, in receiving and only reason. The position in which I have been placed disbursing, without charge, her millions of revenue, and by the arguments of gentlemen on this floor, and the dispensing with an equal hand her favors to all, without daily publications in the journals of the country, identi- party discriminations, the bank has proved one of the fying the rechartering of the United States Bank with greatest blessings to the community, and is justly entitled the restoration of the public deposites, impose upon me to our warmest gratitude and confidence. The fears of the necessity, in justice to myself and my constituents, what the bank might do, have been happily merged in to assign the reasons of my course of conduct heretofore, what the bank has done. Although I would be unwilland of the vote I expect finally to give upon this ques-ing, apart from any constitutional consideration, to intion. I am amongst the number in this House who are trust the same powers again to a corporation so capable opposed to the renewal of the bank charter, and yet, of doing mischief, yet I fear not the consequences of re FEB. 26, 1834.] The Public Deposites. [H. of R. storing to it the deposites for the two years to come; of It is, however, in order to say that it has been repeatedly which, in my opinion, it has been most unjustly and arbi-announced on this floor that certain hostile political trarily deprived. Determined, therefore, as I am, to vote leaders and their friends have coalesced with the corrupt against a renewal of the bank charter, should this ques-design of raising themselves into power on the ruins of the tion be presented while I have the honor of a seat upon present administration. To this conspiracy is to be atthis floor; yet am I equally determined, at this time, tributed all that distress and deep excitement which at to vote for a restoration of the deposites, with the view this time distract and agitate our country. Let me ask, to preserve the public faith pledged in the bank charter, by what evidence is this grave charge supported? To and to denounce what I honestly conceive to be a dan-dispute the right of the President to seize the public gerous act of usurpation. treasure and to trample under foot the laws and constiIf it were even true, (which I do not admit,) that to tution of the country, has been considered by these gensuffer the deposites to remain where they have been tlemen as a damning proof of disloyalty to the Govern placed would tend to destroy the bank, while to restore ment, of personal hostility to the Executive, and of an them would contribute to its re-establishment; still, with unholy alliance, seeking, reckless of consequences, to all my feelings against such an institution, considering the gratify disappointed ambition. In this alliance all are circumstances of the removal, I would feel myself bound concerned, either through ignorance or design, who disto vote against this act of the administration. In coming approve of the conduct of the President respecting the to this conclusion, I act upon a plain simple principle of Treasury Department, and advocate the restoration of revealed truth—"not to do evil that good may come." the public deposites. Hence, nearly one-half of the The doctrine of expediency at the expense of principle, members of this House, and more than one-half of the I have been early taught to regard as a false doctrine, members of the Senate, many of whom have grown that has done, and is destined to do, incalculable mischief gray in the federal councils, and whose patriotism has to society. It has in all ages of the world been the only never before been suspected, have been held up to pubplea of tyrants and persecutors. It is now, as it ever has lic scorn as base, intriguing, designing politicians. The been, and ever will be, the rule of conduct with those co-ordinate branch of this Legislature, representing the who find a courtly morality convenient. The inquisition sovereignty of the States, composed of venerable fathers referred to it for its vindication in the cruelties it inflicted, and well-tried patriots, to whom men of any age and exand the fires it kindled. "Its general adoption," says perience might well look for the lessons of wisdom, has Dr. Paley, "would be to commit every man's life and been denounced by a gentleman, on his boasted entrance safety to the spleen, fury, and fanaticism of his neigh-into political life, as descending from its high senatorial bor's disposition of affairs, which would soon fill the dignity, and acting the part of "kennel presses and world with misery and confusion, and put an end to so party caucuses in polluting the public mind." ciety." The only sure preventive of all this evil is a rigid adherence to principles founded in truth and justice, leaving the consequences to God. Respect for myself and the dignity of the House restrains me from entering the lists of controversy with these or any other gentlemen differing from me in opinion, in assailing In voting against this measure of the administration, I their motives or in vindicating my own, or the integrity am actuated by a profound sense of duty. My conduct of purpose of those with whom I feel proud on this occaon this occasion is not influenced by considerations of sion to act. The public services of the distinguished inpersonal hostility to the Executive, nor because (as cer- dividuals who have been alluded to as the leaders of a tain letters seem to indicate to be the case with some of faction, seeking their own elevation upon their country's the members of this House) I have been drilled in the ruin, need not the aid of eulogy to secure to them a gloschool of party either here or at home, and feel myself rious immortality in the affectionate remembrance of their bound, regardless of my oath and the public good, to countrymen. oppose or do fealty to any party or individual, right or It is not my intention, in imitation of the example which wrong. So far from this being the case, it is my misfor- has been set me, to argue in favor of one side of the tune to differ, in the views I entertain upon this question, question, and vote in favor of the other. It shall be my enwith some of my warmest and best political friends. As deavor to direct the feeble force of my mind to the main to the present Chief Magistrate, he was the object of my point in issue, and not exhaust my entire strength in choice when he first attained his present high elevation; fiercely combating the opinions and arguments of others and, although his administration has not equalled my who are engaged with me in the same cause and contendhopes or expectations, yet I am frank to confess I have ing for the same result. By pursuing this course, I hope found in it something to admire. His vetoes upon the to avoid the necessity of apologizing for an apparent inMaysville road bill, the bank bill, and the land bill, I re- consistency of conduct, by declaring to the world that, of gard as a wise and judicious exercise of the power with all those engaged with me on the same side of the queswhich he is invested by the constitution, tending in some tion, I alone am "an honest man;" that my motives are degree to check acts of legislative usurpation that were pure and disinterested, while the motives of others are threatening the consolidation of our Government. Would corrupt and designing; that I alone look to the public that I could say, with justice and propriety, that we have good and the glory of the President and his administration, no cause to complain of Executive usurpations. The slightest investigation into the history of the present administration must convince any man, except an infidel in the power of the President to err, that he has on some occasions, and particularly in the instance now under discussion, extended his powers beyond the authority of the laws and the pale of the constitution. while others look to their self-aggrandizement and the destruction of the well-earned fame of the Hero of the West. I hope, by the course I intend to pursue, to be relieved from the necessity, in the close of my remarks, (lest my attachment to the President might be suspected,) of declaring, in the language of Nimrod Wildfire, "most distinctly my friendship for the President, and my prayerIt becomes me, before I proceed to discuss the main ful desires for the honor, glory, and success of his adminquestion, to acknowledge the obligations 1 am under to istration." Nor shall I attempt-what has been done by certain gentlemen for indirectly impugning my motives. others much more competent than myself-to lecture this I regret that it is not in order, according to the decision House, and through the House my constituents, on the of the Chair in the case of the gentleman [Mr. MARDIS] new and interesting subject of collars; lest the knowledge that immediately preceded me, to refer to the particular I might display would subject me to the suspicion that I individuals who used the arguments on the debate now had enjoyed the best means of information, and was degone by, which arguments I feel myself bound to notice, servedly entitled to rank amongst the first order of the |