nullification. The gentleman from Pennsylvania tells us that New Jersey is a loyal State, and thousands of her citizens are in the army. I am proud of all the citizens of New Jersey who are fighting in our army. They are not fighting for New Jersey, nor for the Camden and Amboy monopoly, but for the Union, as against the nullification or rebellion of any State. Patriotic men of New Jersey in the army and at home are groaning under this tyrannical monopoly, and I hold it to be the high right and duty of this body to strike off their fetters.

Congress has done similar work before. It did it in the case of the Wheeling Bridge across the Ohio. There is a still stronger case. A corporation spanned the Ohio River at Steubenville under a charter granted by the State of Virginia, but with conditions appended which could not be fulfilled. The corporation came to Congress, and asked that the bridge might be declared a legal structure and part of a post-road. By solemn law Congress declared it to be a post-road; and no law of the State of Virginia or of the State of Ohio to the contrary can interfere with it. We have used this power hitherto, but we have never before been called upon to exercise it in any case so deserving as that which gave rise to this bill.

1 Mr. Broomall.

CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 26, 1865.

On the 8th of February, 1864, Mr. G. H. Pendleton introduced into the House of Representatives a joint resolution to provide that the heads of the Executive Departments might occupy seats on the floor of that body, which was twice read, and referred to a select committee of seven. April 6, the measure came back from the committee amended, and accompanied by majority and minority reports. Then the subject was recommitted to the committee, and a motion to reconsider the recommitment entered. May 30, the special committee was, by resolution, continued during the present Congress. At the next session, the subject was discussed on the motion to reconsider. The resolution as amended contained these sections :

"That the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Interior, the Attorney-General, and the Postmaster-General, shall be entitled to occupy seats on the floor of the House of Representatives, with the right. to participate in debate upon matters relating to the business of their respective Departments, under such rules as may be prescribed by the House.

"That the said Secretaries, the Attorney-General, and the PostmasterGeneral shall attend the sessions of the House of Representatives, immediately on the opening of the sittings on Mondays and Thursdays of each week, to give information in reply to questions which may be propounded to them under the rules of the House."

The Committee also recommended certain amendments to the Rules of the House, deemed necessary to carry the above provisions into effect (see Congressional Globe, January 25, 1865). The next day Mr. Garfield delivered the following speech, in immediate reply to Mr. S. S. Cox, of Ohio. On March 3, the resolution was laid aside informally, and no action was had.

Μ'

R. SPEAKER, - I will not detain the House long on this subject. I know how difficult it is to get the attention of members to the consideration of a grave measure when they have just attended a place of amusement. I know how ungrateful a task it is to attempt to recall their attention after the exhibition to which the gentleman from Ohio1 has treated them. The gentleman's speech sufficiently proves that he has read his law on the subject from Sergeant Buzfuz, and his constitutional and legislative history from Tittlebat Titmouse, to whom he has just referred; for certainly the history of legislation, as reflected in the Journals of Congress, gives no support to his position.

I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that we can, for once, approach the discussion of a measure on its own merits, uninfluenced by any mere party considerations. I wish we might, in the discussion of this subject, be equally free from that international jealousy, that hereditary hatred, so frequently and unreasonably manifested against Great Britain. I have noticed on the faces of members of the House a smile of satisfaction when any speaker has denounced the proposal to copy any custom of, or borrow any experience from, the government of England. No man on this floor is more desirous than myself to see this republic stand erect among the nations, and grant to and exact from Great Britain equal justice. I fully appreciate how little friendship she has shown us in our great national struggle, yet I will not allow my mind to be so prejudiced as not to see the greatness, the glory, and the excellence of the British constitution. I believe that, next to our own, the constitution of Great Britain stands highest for its wisdom and its security to freedom of all the constitutions of the civilized world; and in some respects it is equal or superior to our own. It does not become us, therefore, to set it aside as unworthy of our study, of our careful observation. Gentlemen should not forget that, in the days of George III., England, as well as America, emancipated herself from the tyranny of kingly prerogative; and it may be well questioned whether the two streams that sprung from that great struggle have not been flowing in parallel channels of equal depth and greatness, one on this continent and the other in the British islands. It may well be doubted whether there is not as much popular freedom in the kingdom of Great Britain as in 1 Mr. Cox.

this republic, and more Parliamentary security. A gentleman who has lately crossed the sea, a man of great ability and a philosophic observer, has said to-day that the British ministry is nothing more or less than "a committee of the House of Commons." I believe that he describes it correctly. I believe that no nation has a ministry so susceptible to the breath of popular opinion, so readily influenced and so completely controlled by popular power, as is the ministry of Great Britain by the House of Commons. Let one decisive vote be given against the plans of that ministry, and it is at once dissolved. It exists by the will of the House of Commons. How does this come about? From the fact that, at the very time that we emancipated ourselves from the kingly prerogatives of George III., Parliamentary reforms in Great Britain emancipated that nation and established Parliamentary liberty in England. It does not, therefore, become gentlemen to appeal to our ancient prejudices, so that we may not learn anything from that great and wise system of government adopted by our neighbors across the sea.

In the consideration of this question I shall touch upon three leading points: first, the precedents from our own history; second, the constitutionality of the proposed measure, as exhibited in the early discussions and laws; and third, the policy of the measure.

No

The precedents cited by the gentleman from Ohio,1 the chairman of the select committee, in his very able report, establish beyond all question that, in the early days of the republic under the Constitution, the heads of Departments did come upon the floor of Congress and make communications. man, I believe, has denied that; I think no gentleman can successfully deny it. My friend from Vermont,2 if I understand him, denies that they did more than to meet the Senate in executive session. I am glad to see that the gentleman assents to my statement of his position. I will now cite two examples where the head of a Department came on the floor of the House and made statements. If the gentleman will turn to the first volume of the Annals of Congress, he will find the following entry under date of August 7, 1789: "The following message was received from the President of the United States by General Knox, the Secretary of War, who delivered therewith sundry 1 Mr. Pendleton.

2 Mr. Morrill.

statements." Some gentlemen may say those statements were in writing. I ask them to listen a little further: "who delivered therewith sundry statements and papers relating to the same." So the Secretary of War came to the House of Representatives and made statements.

MR. MORRILL. I will say to the gentleman from Ohio, that I take that to mean nothing more than what the private secretary of the President now does every day. At that time the President of the United States had no private secretary, but he used the members of the Cabinet for that purpose, and for that purpose here only.

I should like to ask my friend from Vermont whether the private secretary of the President makes any statements except the mere announcement of the message which he delivers?

MR. MORRILL. I take it that that was all that was contemplated then. We daily have communications from the President, containing more than one document, statement, or paper.

He now makes

My friend from Vermont has assisted me. the point that the expression "statements," here referred to, is merely the announcement of a message. I call his attention to the second case which I will cite from the same volume. On the 10th of August, 1789, the President sent in a message by the hands of General Knox, " who delivered the same, together with a statement of the troops in the service of the United States." He made to the House of Representatives statements about troops in the service, so that the statements referred to are not merely statements of the fact that he delivered a message from the President.

2

MR. MORRILL. I do not like to interrupt the gentleman from Ohio, but I must insist that his second instance does not prove the fact which he assumes. He will find, if he will proceed further on in the same volume, that when the question came up distinctly upon allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to come in here for once, and once only, it was then declared that it would be setting a new precedent, one which they could not tolerate, and which they did not tolerate, but voted down after discussion.

The gentleman has helped to pioneer my way handsomely thus far. I shall consider the very example to which he refers, and which I have examined with some care, under my second point, the discussions in the Congress of the United States 2 Page 716.

1 Page 709.