Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

been solemnly disposed of, he hoped it would not be revived. If, however, the reconsideration was carried, he should be in favor of again taking a direct vote on the bill, and not laying it on the table; and, with that view, he moved a call of the House.

Mr. GORHAM demanded the yeas and nays on this motion; which being taken,

The motion of Mr. P. prevailed: yeas, 99; nays 81; and the call of the members proceeded for some time, when it was, on motion, suspended.

[APRIL 15, 1830.

who were here were brave enough, but they wanted some body to head them. As to the present motion, [said Mr. T.] he hoped, if the vote was reconsidered, that the question would be tried on the bill again, and not have it laid on the table.

[Some mutual explanations here took place between Messrs. CROCKETT and TUCKER, in reference to previous remarks.]

Mr. CROCKETT remarked that he had always been in favor of the road, and had exerted himself to have it earried through his district, if the western route should be selected. He never had believed that the bill would pass, if at all, by a great majority. For his part, he had no Mr. CARSON then rose, and said, he understood that opinion of this Government's giving away power to the this motion was made and had been supported by the gen-States. Suppose the States should turn round, and say, tleman from Pennsylvania, expressly on the ground that you shall not make the road. He would vote to go through the vote of yesterday was claimed as a victory by the op- any gentleman's State with a road or a canal, that was for ponents of internal improvements. I, for one, [said Mr. the good of the Union. He did not believe he should ever C.] do claim it as a victory. It was a victory that will re- give up that doctrine. dound to the lasting honor of this House and this nation. Yes, sir, it was a victory over a monster which has been lapping the life-blood of the South. Yesterday, sir, we harpooned the monster, and made his blood spout gloriously. It appears, however, that his last convulsive ago nies have excited the sympathy of some gentlemen, and they are now willing to put him into the hands of political doctors, to have all his wounds healed, and his health, strength, and venom fully restored by next session. Sir, I hope the bill will not be laid on the table. Should it be reconsidered, as I know it will be, (for the arrangement is already made,) I am ready to meet the question again, and dare the friends of the bill to the contest; then let us see who will retreat from that gallant corps who faithfully united their hands, and bravely and successfully contended for the constitution. If the bill shall be reconsidered, and its friends then lay it on the table, we shall again claim the vote as a victory. When I see men flying off from our ranks and deserting to the other side, it does but increase my desire for the fight. Yes, sir, we will try it manfully, hilt to hilt. We have won the victory once we have got the monster down-he is struggling and ready to expire, and I, for one, will keep my foot upon his neck, and hope to witness his expiring gasp.

Mr. SPENCER said, if the member from North Carolina meant to apply his remarks to him, he repelled them. He had not changed his opinion respecting the bill; but he held himself at liberty to do so if he saw fit. He had made the motion, not in consequence of any change of opinion, but from courtesy to the gentleman who requested it. He himself entertained powerful objections to the bill, but he had not thought proper to trouble the House with them. These, however, should not restrain him from performing a customary act of courtesy. He regretted that his motion had given rise to any angry feelings, but these should not induce him to retract it.

Mr. MERCER said, there was one peculiar reason which ought to prevail with the House to reconsider the vote of yesterday. A gentleman, who was very desirous of proposing an amendment to the bill, had, in his hearing, been assured, that, if he would not insist upon offer ing it then, he could have an opportunity of offering it when the bill came into the House. The call for the previous question had cut off all opportunity of amendment, and all further debate, so that the bill had never been subImitted to the test of amendment, which might have put it in such a form as to obviate the objections of some of its opponents, and thus to have insured its passage.

Mr. TUCKER said, he had been here thirteen years, but had never witnessed any thing like what he had heard on this bill, and he prayed God he might never see the like again. He would notice a remark of a gentleman from Tennessee, that, if they had had Tennessee boys here during the war, they would have saved the capitol. Mr. T. admitted that if one from Tennessee had been here, called "Old Hickory," he would have saved the capitol with one-half of the militia which was present. The militia

Mr. WILDE had regretted to see the House falling into a temper but little calculated to advance the public business. He hoped the subject would be considered calmly, and decided without passion. The motion, he observed, was supported on two grounds: First, that the rejection of the bill was claimed as a victory by those opposed to it on principle; and, secondly, as an act of courtesy to the gentleman who had the bill in charge. If the reconsideration were asked merely as an act of courtesy, [said Mr. W.] he would not refuse it. As to the other ground, he said the majority against the bill did not consist altogether of those affirming the principle that the Government has no constitutional right to construct roads; the majority was made up of all parties. But, [said Mr. W.] while it is conceded that the rejection of the bill is not claimed as a victory by those who oppose the power, will not the reconsideration be claimed as a victory for the party which affirms the power? At any rate, the effect of a reconsideration would be to place the bill again on the calendar, where it may be called up again, even during the present session; but if not at this, it will be ready for the next session, when a variety of considerations may have operated on gentlemen to give it increased strength.

Mr. J. S. BARBOUR said, it was not usual with him to consume the time of the House in debate, nor should he now trespass on its patience. I ask, however, [said Mr. B.] that it bear with me for a single moment, while I offer a word of explanation as to the vote I am about to give. My vote stands recorded against this bill in the Journal of yesterday, nor can I conceive any change as likely to oc cur in the condition of things, that will change that vote. But, respectable portions of those who sent me here, have expressed their wishes in favor of this road, and, whilst I cannot vote for the bill, it is an act of justice to others, as well as to myself, that I should lay their wishes before this House, as well as my own reasons for resisting the bill. I had hoped that this opportunity would have been afforded me yesterday, but I was excluded by the demand of the previous question, and the sense of this body sustaining that demand. In the hope that I may still be permitted to do so, I shall now vote to reconsider the question.

Mr. ANGEL said, as the people of New York felt so much on this subject, and had so large a stake in the question, he regretted that the motion for reconsideration had been made by his colleague, who, by his talents and character, standing at the head of the delegation, venerable for his years and respected for his wisdom, gave weight to the motion. His colleagues, therefore, thought hard of it. The object of those who desired the reconsideration was, by reviving the bill, and then letting it lie on the table for the remainder of the session, to make it appear that this Congress was favorable to internal improvements. He spoke for the people of New York, when he said they

[blocks in formation]

looked at this proposed road as an object that was to crush them with taxation.

Mr. MAGEE replied that his colleague was not the sole representative of New York, and could not so speak for the whole State. There were more than a million of the people of New York in favor of internal improvements, and his colleague must not assume the right to represent the whole State, while she had other representatives on this floor.

[H. OF R.

gentlemen before he employed the term. He did hope that gentlemen would have been willing to concede something to the feelings and interests of the South; yet, after the decided vote of yesterday, they wanted the question reconsidered. He repeated the declaration, that he was prepared to meet it. He wished to see whether they could pass that bill or not. As to the figure he had hap pened to employ, and on which the gentleman from Rhode Island had seen fit to animadvert, it was, perhaps, useless for him to say to the House that he had been raised among the mountains, that he had never trodden academic balls or collegiate walks, nor had he studied tropes and figures of rhetoric. It might, perhaps, have been more appro

rifle. He was sorry that barpoon seemed so disagreeable to the gentleman from Rhode Island; and from the knowledge of that gentleman's literary acquirements, and espe cially of his taste for tropes and figures, of which he had given that House so many impressive proofs, he would, if he had had the opportunity, have consulted that gentle. man, and taken his advice before he made his speech; but, as circumstances had not rendered this practicable, the figure was now past recall, and must go for what it was worth.

Mr. ANGEL disclaimed any such assumption. He meant nothing of the sort. He only spoke in reference to the effect of the bill, and the supposed feelings of the people on the subject. Mr. BURGES did not rise to make a speech on the mo-priate if he had spoken of laying the monster low with a tion, but merely to deprecate, not only the feeling evine ed, but the style of the discussions on this floor. Was it come to this, that the motives of gentlemen were called in question, and the balances of interest struck for and against themselves, to establish those motives? Not only this, but an act of high and generous courtesy-an act of comity so fitting to the dignity of the representative office; this even was arraigned and opposed as unworthy. Sorry, indeed, [said Mr. B.] was he to witness such a course of procedure. The motion, he proceeded to remark, is opposed, because its success will be claimed as a victory by the Mr. MARTIN, thinking the House might meet in better friends of the bill, and mar the glory of the victory gain temper to-morrow for the decision of the question, moved ed by one section of the country in its rejection. We ac- an adjournment; but the motion was negatived by a large 1 knowledge, [said Mr. B.] at least in form, that we are majority. conquered; and we merely ask, when at the point of the Mr. ELLSWORTH said that it would have given him sword, a little indulgence. This will not reverse the victo-pleasure to have obliged the friends of the bill, by voting ry. Yes, sir; the victory. The rejection of a bill is term- yesterday in its favor, and he should have done so, if he ed a victory as if we who are met here to consult on the had supposed that it involved the mere abstract principle common weal of our common country, were deadly ene- of the power of the General Government to carry on a jumies; and all the figures of ferocious war and bloodshed dicious system of internal improvements, of a national are brought in to illustrate the triumph; not the imple- character. But, after all the attention he had been able ments of ordinary battle, the sword and the pistol, but the to give to the subject, he had been fully impressed with harpoon is introduced, as if the measure which has been the conviction that it was his duty to vote against the predestroyed, was a monster and a curse, instead of an object sent plan, as unnecessary, inexpedient, and extravagant. of great public utility and beneficence. Sir, this evinces Mr. E. said he was a decided friend to national improvebad taste as well as bad feeling. And the triumph of the ments, if they were of a judicious character. But he would South is claimed in this decision. Have we lost, sir, any ask, what single consideration had been brought forward toof the points of the compass? Over whom and what is this day, to induce the House, after all the discussion which victory achieved? Is it the North or the West? Is it come had led to the vote of yesterday, to revise its decision? He to this, that we hear on this floor, a victory claimed by had been sorry to hear from the very honorable gentleman bone part of the Union over others? Sir, it is not true. of Virginia, [Mr. P. P. BARBOUR] words which seemed to The whole country is interested in this road-there is no show that that gentleman harbored a feeling he must repart which would not feel its beneficial effects. Even gret; and he was yet more sorry to hear the strain of reRhode Island, remote as she will be from it, will be bene-mark which had been indulged in by the gentleman from fited; for by this road the iron of Tennessee will be brought North Carolina, [Mr. CARSON.] What was the reason which to the markets of New England. He hoped the motion had been adduced in favor of reconsideration? The gento reconsider might prevail; that the bill might then be tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BUCHANAN] had declared laid on the table until next session, and in the mean time that he should vote for it, because the decision of yesterbe made a popular question, and, if the sense of the peo- day was claimed as a triumph. Let gentlemen claim what ple be in favor of it, their names might be heard, and the they pleased, so long as the nation and the House had sense · bill become a law. enough to perceive that the general principle of internal improvement was not involved, or compromitted by the bill. He was sorry any gentleman should have claimed a victory on the abstract principle. He did not believe that the decision warranted any such claims. Was any new view of the subject now presented to him, which ought to induce him to reconsider a vote given yesterday, after much reflection, and under a solemn sense of duty? He had then voted according to the lights before him; and, having received no new light, he could not change his vote.

Mr. CARSON said, he wished to address to the House a few words of explanation; and in the first place, he would say to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. SPENCER] that it bad not been his intention to impugn that gentleman's motives in the slightest degree. He had neither affirmed that the gentleman had altered his constitutional opinions, nor that his vote for reconsideration would be evidence of his having done so. He was also perfectly aware that no change had taken place in the sentiments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania; but he had heard it suggested that morn ing, before the House met, that this motion was a political manœuvre, and that the bill was to be got up and laid on the table again, for political effect. He had, certainly, looked upon the vote of yesterday as a victory, and he had called it a victory of the South, because it had a bearing on a question in which the whole southern portion of the Union was not only deeply but vitally interested. He had not originated the word victory-it had been used by other

Mr. P. P. BARBOUR rose, and said, he trusted the House would bear with him for a few moments. I should not have risen, [said Mr. B.] but for two or three allusions which have this morning been made, or which I understood to have been directed, to a remark which fell from me at the close of the debate yesterday. It would be difficult to express my surprise at the information which I received yesterday, for the first time, from the act of the House, and which has been further confirmed to me by several

H. OF R.]

Reconsideration of the Road Bill.

[APRIL 15, 1830. gentlemen this morning, in relation to the excitement pro- | your amendment, and you can offer it in the House." The duced by that remark. Sir, I have been fourteen or fif previous question, in the mean while, had been called, by teen years a member of this House, and I think I may ap- which all amendment was precluded. He would ask, peal to all who have served with me to say whether I have not consulted the decorum of debate to as great an extent as any gentleman who ever had a seat on this floor. Du ring the whole course of the debate on this bill, in which I myself took a part, and in which I felt the deepest and strongest interest, I believe not one solitary word escaped | me, at which criticism itself could take exception, as want ing in respect to the House. I have ever pursued one uniform course on this floor. When the final question was about to be taken ou this bill, without any knowledge what ever on which side of the question there might be most gentlemen absent, I presented a motion for a call of the House, in order that the question might be fully and fairly taken; and when the decision was announced, I felt, I confess, highly gratified. I had scarcely ever in my life made a motion to adjourn, but it was then past three o'clock; and after the intense feeling and strong excitement which had prevailed, the House was left in a state of apathy which, in my judgment, unfitted it to commence upon another great subject which then came up; and, observing that enough had been done for glory for one day, I moved an adjournment. I had not the remotest conception of the imputation that would be attached to the remark. Nor could I so much as conceive that a mere incidental observation, made without a moment's thought, and in a good humored manner, would be urged now as a reason for reconsidering a great national question, which had been gravely decided after mature debate. I do not know if the gentleman from Pennsylvania alluded to me, when stating the reason which induced him to second the motion to reconsider. (I now perceive from the motion of his head, that he did not.)

therefore, as it respected this bill, how had the ends of le gislation been attained? Did any one, for example, be lieve that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. SHEP PERD] would have voted for the bill, if his amendment had prevailed and might not the same be true of others? How easy would it be for the opponents of a bill to destroy any measure whatever, by refusing those amendments which would make it acceptable. The principle of the bill was not settled by the vote. The gentleman from Pennsylvania had said that his objection was founded on the fact that no consent of the States was required. Others were opposed to the bill, because it recommended the western instead of the eastern route. The bill might have been amended so as to leave the route open; and thus that objection would have been removed. If the bill should be taken up, and laid on the table, it would remain open to amendment at the next session, and all that had been done would not be lost. If this was not an argument for reconsideration, he did not know what argument meant.

: Sir, when this House is called upon to reconsider a vote which has passed, it is to be presumed that the reconsideration is for some purpose; that it is to effect some object. But what is to be done in consequence of the reconsideration now asked for? It seems to be avowed, on all hands, that the bill is not to be acted upon at this session, but to be laid upon the the table. Why, then, reconsider it? I can well understand a motive for those gentlemen who are in favor of the bill. They will, by this course, instead of a rejected measure, have it still open as an undecided question. But as to those gentlemen who voted against it, and who tell us that they shall again vote against it, I confess that I cannot perceive why they should go for a reconsideration. It cannot be a satisfactory reason, that one of the opponents of the bill claimed a victory. As far as that is referred to the remark used by me, I again disclaim all intention of manifesting any thing like offensive exultation, or saying any thing intended to be insulting to the feelings of the minority; nor could such an imputation have grown out of the remark which I made, either from the matter or the manner of it, had not the feelings of the House been too highly excited to allow it to judge with coolness on any thing that passed, I think that gentlemen, on reflection, will feel the justice of this remark.

Mr. MERCER, in reply to Mr. ELLSWORTH, observed, that he had understood that gentleman to say that the motion in favor of a reconsideration had not been supported by a single argument; and though Mr. M. confessed himself to be the last person in the House who ought to except to such a statement, because it was possible that the gen'tleman had considered what he had said as no argument at all, yet he must be pardoned for insisting that an argument, and one which he considered as convincing, bad been urged. He would like to know why the bill had been committed to a Committee of the Whole; was it not for the purpose of amendment? Yet when gentlemen were prepared with amendments to offer, it had been whispered to them by others in their neighborhood, "postpone

[ocr errors]

Mr. A. H. SHEPPERD explained the reason for the vote be should give. If the amendment which he offered had been adopted, he would have voted for the bill; but he was not inclined, for the remote contingency of obtaining his amendment, to vote for the reconsideration.

8།།

Mr. ELLSWORTH would detain the House but one moment, while he replied to the gentleman from Virginia. That gentleman had said that Mr. E. had not duly weighed his arguments. He could assure that gentleman that it was not from any want of attention, for he always heard him with great delight; but the honorable gentleman would pardon him for considering the argument not entitled to so much weight as he seemed to suppose. When he said that no arguments had been advanced, he meant that none had been adduced, which, in his opinion, were likely to have weight with the House. The gentleman said there were amendments to the bill, which might render it more acceptable. He put it to the gentleman to say whether, if the vote to reconsider should prevail, it was intended that amendments should be offered. If the House had agreed to the previous question, it was an indication that they wished for no further light. He would ask the gentleman a question. If the House, after argument, had finally disposed of the question, ought it to be urged that the same question should be re-examined? He understood the House as having made up its mind; and as for the claim of victory, it moved him not a whit. If such a claim, on such a vote, gave gentlemen any pleasure, they were entirely welcome to enjoy it.

Mr. STERIGERE was willing to grant the reconsideration if the bill was not to be taken up again during the session; but, from what had fallen from the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. MERCER] there seemed to be an intention to go into its consideration again this session. If so, he could not vote for the motion.

Mr. MERCER certainly believed that if the bill had taken a certain shape, it would have passed; but, as the bill would be taken up next session, where it is left at this, it would be sufficient now to reconsider, and lay it on the table. It was now too late to introduce the amendments which the bill required, and he should be in favor of letting it lie, and at the next session modifying it so as to leave to the President the selection of the route from Buffalo to New Orleans.

Mr. HEMPHILL concurred in the purpose of merely restoring the bill to the calendar, and letting it lie over until the next session. All he desired at present was this; he had no intention of pressing its consideration again during this session.

The question was then taken on the motion for reconsideration, and carried: yeas, 99-nays, 91.

[ocr errors]

APRIL 16 to 20, 1830.] The Army-Death of Alexander Smyth-Tea and Coffee-Salt.

Mr. PEARCE then rose, and said, that, as something had been done "for glory," though not as much as he could desire, he moved that the House now adjourn; but, at the request of several gentlemen round, withdrew the motion. The vote of reconsideration having placed the bill again at its third reading, to cut off any other motion, ... Mr. HUBBARD moved the previous question. Mr. STEPHENS moved to adjourn.

[H. of R.

would be sufficient to pay off the national debt as fast as it became due; and as the article did not come in competi tion with any domestic product, the duty was not necessary for protection. Further, the article was no longer one of luxury, but had become one of general and necessary use, and he for these reasons hoped the duty would be reduced to one cent at the time proposed, and ultimately abolished altogether. Mr. LECOMPTE demanded the yeas and nays on the Mr. BURGES suggested the propriety of fixing the adjournment; which being taken, the motion was negativ-duty at two cents. This would be a very heavy reduction, ed: yeas, 45-nays, 134. and he thought would be sufficient for the present.

The call for the previous question was not seconded, the yeas being 83, the nays 93.

Mr. SUTHERLAND then having obtained the floor, moved to lay the bill on the table; which motion prevailed: yeas, 94-nays, 88; and then (at six o'clock) the House adjourned.

FRIDAY, APRIL 16, 1830.

THE ARMY.

The House resumed the consideration of the resolution proposing a reorganization of the army, with a view to a reduction of the number of officers.

Mr. TUCKER, of South Carolina, made a number of remarks adverse to the West Point Academy, disapproving of its administration, the mode of appointing cadets, &c.; to illustrate which, he referred to the document lately reported from the department on the subject of the academy; which document he had not got through reviewing, when the hour expired.

[ocr errors]

Adjourned to Monday.

[ocr errors]

MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1830.

DEATH OF ALEXANDER SMYTH,

The Journal of Friday having been read, Mr. McCOY, of Virginia, rose, and announced to the House the decease, on Saturday last, of his colleague, [Mr. ALEXANDER SMYTH.] Mr. McČ. said, the character of the deceased was too well known to need any eulogy from him, and he would content himself with offering the following résolution:

**Resolved, That a committee be appointed to take order for superintending the funeral of ALEXANDER SMYTH, deceased, late a member of this House, from the State of Virgínia.

The resolution was unanimously adopted, and Messrs. MCCOY, ROANE, CLAIBORNE, ALEXANDER, TALIAFERRO, GORDON, and CRAIG were appointed the committee.

On motion of Mr. McCOY, it was also

Mr. SEMMES said he would vary his motion, so as to strike out the two and a half cents, and leave the blank to be filled with two or one, as the House might decide.

Mr. INGERSOLL advocated the policy of gradual, not great and sudden reductions of duties. This was the rea son why the Committee of Ways and Means reported in favor of two and a half cents, which was a reduction of one-half the present duty. This alone would proba bly take off a million of revenue, and, with the reduction on tea, would amount to a diminution of two millions of revenue. The best and safest policy, he argued, was a gradual reduction of duties. He feared the amendment, the agitation of the question so long before its passage if pressed, would embarrass, perhaps defeat, the bill; and had already ruined many merchants.

merits of the question, when he offered his amendment, Mr. SEMMES had abstained from going fully into the supposing that every one was ready to vote on the subject. As it was opposed, however, he would offer a few reasons, more at large, in favor of his amendment He did 80, and avowed that he had himself been in favor of total abolition of the duty, for the reasons briefly stated above; but had yielded to the suggestions of some members who were practical merchants, and who thought the total removal of the duty might afford opportunity for frauds, &c., and he had accordingly agreed to keep on a duty of one cent. He was in favor of repealing the duty on all articles which do not come in competition with domestic productions.

The question on striking out two and a half was decided in the negative: yeas, 70-nàys, 81.

Mr. TAYLOR, of New York, then moved to strike out the half cent, so as to leave the duty two cents. This motion prevailed: yeas, 96,

Mr. SEMMES then moved to insert an amendment to reduce the duty to one cent at the expiration of a year after the duty of two cents should go into operation; and, for the first time, asked the yeas and nays. They were ordered; and

The amendment was yeas, 108-nays, 70.

agreed to by the following vote;

Resolved, unanimously, That the members of this House will testify their respect for the memory of ALEXANDER Mr. REED, of Massachusetts, next moved to insert a clause SMYTH, by wearing crape on the left arm for the remain-to reduce the duty on cocoa to one cent per pound. The der of the present session.

Resolved, unanimously, That the members of this House will attend the funeral of the late ALEXANDER SMYTH, this day at twelve o'clock.

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1830,

TEA AND COFFEE.

The House then took up the bill to reduce the duty on tea and coffee, with the amendment reported thereto to the Committee of the Whole.

The amendment respecting tea was concurred in. The amendment fixing the duty on coffee at two and a half cents a pound after the 31st December, 1831, coming up,

present duty is two cents; and [said Mr. R.] there were last year imported five million three hundred and thirty-one thousand pounds. The common price is only five cents a pound, so that the duty was a high one in proportion, and the article entered largely into the consumption of the poorer classes. He would not argue the question, but hoped the amendment would prevail.

Mr. WAYNE, of Georgia, was in favor of the amend ment, for one reason in particular; that as we import cocoa principally from the South American States, the reduction of the duty would tend to increase our commercial intercourse with those countries.

The amendment was agreed to without a division.

SALT.

Mr. SEMMES, of Maryland, moved to amend the amendment, by striking out two and a half cents, and Mr. CONNER, of North Carolina, now renewed the inserting one scent as the duty. This duty [said Mr. S.] motion which he had made in Committee of the Whole, was not necessary for revenue, as, under any modification modified agreeably to the proposition then also made by of the tariff that was likely to take place, the revenue his colleague [Mr. BARRINGER] to reduce the duty on im

H. OF R.J

Organization of the Army.

[[APRIL 20, 1830.

ported salt, first to fifteen cents, and at a stipulated period | gentleman seemed to believe. Mr. T. said, he would ask thereafter to ten cents a bushel; and he demanded the the gentleman from New York to say whether he did or yeas and nays on the question. did not believe that as many as one-third of the cadets who had been admitted into this institution were sons or near relations of the characters embraced in the resolution which called on the Secretary of War for this report; and if not one-third, then to say what proportion he does be

Mr. BARRINGER spoke at considerable length, and with earnestness. in support of the amendment.

[Here Mr. TAYLOR spoke in explanation.]

Mr. GORHAM was opposed to trying this often debated and long contested question of a diminution or abolition of the salt duty on this bill, which was of great im-lieve. portance, had been reported unanimously, and received the general assent of the House, and might be defeated if this amendment prevailed, or was again debated at large. He, therefore, for the first time in his life, moved the previous question; but withdrew it at the request of

Mr. McDUFFIE, who avowed his opposition to the salt duty as one of the most odious and oppressive features of the system by which the South was burdened; but, if the amendment were adopted, it would not only embarrass the bill, but possibly defeat it. He hoped, therefore, the motion would be withdrawn, and not force a resort to the previous question, especially as there was a bill to come up (which he named) on which the motion would be consistent and proper.

Mr. CONNER denied that the motion would embarrass or defeat the bill, because, if there was a majority for the amendment, the same majority would pass the bill. He, therefore, for this and other reasons which he stated, but could not be distinctly heard, insisted on the amendment. Mr. McDUFFIE then moved the previous question, which was seconded by a majority of the House.

Mr. BARRINGER demanded the yeas and nays on the previous question; which were taken, and the main question was ordered: yeas, 107-nays, 75.

The main question was accordingly put, (on the engrossment of the bill,) and carried, and the bill ordered to a third reading.

ORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY.

The House resumed the consideration of the resolution calling on the Secretary of War to report a new organization of the army, with a view to a reduction of the num-pended for the correction of all such abuses as he believes ber of officers.

Mr. TUCKER concluded his remarks. He began by saying he should not have troubled the House at this time, but for the remarks of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. TAYLOR] and for the purpose of adding a few words to what had been said by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. DESHA.]

Mr. T. said, if he understood the gentleman from New York [Mr. TAYLOR] correctly, (and he believed he did, but if he had not, he hoped the gentleman would correct him,) that gentleman said that the report of the Secretary of War was a valuable document, in as much as it proves, conclusively, that out of two thousand some odd hundreds of cadets, who had been admitted into the West Point Academy, there were only fifteen or sixteen who were sons of members of Congress; and it proved, also, that the reports against that institution were groundless. Mr. T. said, if this document proves such to be the fact, it proves that which is false. He did not charge the Secretary of War with stating any thing that he knew to be false; far from it; he believed that the Secretary had given all the information in relation to the subject that he could get; but he was of opinion this document proves that some of the officers of the institution had not done their duty: that is to say, they had not given the Secretary of War as much information in relation to this matter, as they ought to have done, or should have been able to do, at least. But [said he] there are some important facts contained in this report, which, in his judgment, made the document of great value. So, whilst the gentleman from New York [Mr. TAYLOR] believed this document valuable, to answer the purpose he seems to imagine, he [M. TUCKER] be lieved it to be valuable, to prove the reverse of what that

Mr. T. resumed his remarks, and said, if he had not understood the gentleman at first, in every particular, the gentleman's statement now is about the same in substance as he first understood it. But [said be] the gentleman from New York has been a member of Congress longer than he [Mr. T.] had, and he lived in the State where this institution is located, and ought to know more about it than he [Mr. T.] possibly could. Yet, he was bound to believe that the gentleman was grossly mistaken. Mr. T. proceeded to say, that he had made some inquiry in relation to this matter, and, so far as his inquiry extended, it was demonstrable that he could not be mistaken in his views of it. But [said he] the gentleman from New York [Mr. TAYLOR] said, this is not a matter for us to settle; that it is a subject for the people to settle; that they are the proper judges; and that, if there be any thing wrong in it, they will correct it. Mr. T. said that he did most heartily concur with the gentleman from New York, that the people are the proper judges, and that they are much safer and better judges of this matter than a few politicians who are individually interested in it; and what Mr. T. wanted, and what he believed every other gentleman opposed to this institution upon its present principle, and also opposed to the having more officers in the pay of the Government than is really necessary, want to be done, is, for the whole matter connected with this institution to be published, and for every thing in relation to it fairly and plainly presented to the people in its true colors, and for them to judge of it, and decide upon its propriety and justice. It is on the people [Mr. T. observed] that he dethis to be. Mr. T. said, in continuance, that although the report fell far short of giving a full and plain account of this matter, yet, in his judgment, it contained information enough to prove to the satisfaction of the people that this policy was unjust and dangerous in a republican Government; at least, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. DESHA] said that the cadets were educated at the public expense; and what Mr. T. wished to add, was, that they are not only educated at the public expense, but that they are also paid sixteen dollars a month and two rations a day, for obtaining their education, making three hundred and thirtyeight dollars a year that each cadet receives from the Government, in addition to their being educated at the public expense. Some gentlemen [said he] try to do away this fact, by saying that this money goes to pay for their board, clothing, and the like: but they cannot change the fact, for they do get the money, [said he] or the same thing, as if it were paid to them in their own hands, and disposed of by them as they might think proper, in as much as this money goes to pay for those things which the cadets would otherwise have to pay for out of their own pockets, and which, in his judgment they ought to do. Mr. T. said, when this institution was first established, the whole number of cadets and officers, all together, never was to exceed twenty at any one time, and the cadets were to be instructed in the sciences which appertain to the duties of engineers, and not officers to command our armies. And what is it now come to [said he.] The principle is changed; they are not only to discharge the duties of engineers, but they are also to command our armies; and he believed that much more than one half of the cadets who had been admitted into this institution, so soon as they acquired sufficient (education to answer their purposes,

« AnteriorContinuar »