SENATE.]

gentleman consent to do so? Will any man lay his hand upon his heart and say that Mexico still retains and exercises sovereign power over the province of Texas? I cannot bring myself to believe that such will be the decision of the Senate. No; with all those feelings which are natural to honorable men, to American freemen, I trust we shall come up to the mark, and declare what we know to be the fact, that Texas is an independent and sovereign State.

IN SENATE, FEBRUARY 23.

REDUCTION OF THE TARIFF.

Mr. BENTON made a low reply to Mr. Davis, in which he was in part understood to say that the bounties on the fisheries were a reimbursement of so much money as was paid by the fishermen as a duty on salt. Mr. B. had information on this subject as well as the Senator from Massachusetts; and no American citizen, at all acquainted with the affairs of the country and the history of France and England, was ignorant of the value of the fisheries. Yet, Mr. B. had authority in his hands to say that, from the foundation of the Government, the encouragement here to the fisheries was smaller than in Great Britain. At an early stage of the Government here reports were made in Congress for and against the bounty on the fisheries, and the allowance was revoked by Government. At that time the first allowance was made on fish cured and exported; and in the very same clause of the same act the same bounty was granted on exported beef and pork, all resting on the same principle of refunding the duty on the salt used in curing these three articles. In 1789, when the duty on salt was six cents, and afterwards when it was increased to twelve and a half, the drawbacks on salt were increased in the same proportion. Laws to the same effect were afterwards passed, so that fish, beef, and pork, kept company in this respect, till, on the breaking out of the war, the salt tax was retained as a war tax, the fish bounty was continued, while the drawbacks on beef and pork were discontinued. For this gentlemen give a satisfactory reason: that it was not possible to export beef and pork du ring the war. But, when the war was ended, and the compromise to take the tax off salt was disregarded on acCount of the public debt, the fish bounty was still continued, while beef and pork were dropped. The classes were separated, and they made fish of one and flesh of the other. The fisheries draw about $250,000 per annum from the public Treasury, while the constitution requires that taxes should be laid equally; and what is got by taxes on one part of the Union is thus bestowed on another. But let it be; Mr. B. would not oppose it. Still, he would appeal to the friends of the fisheries to say whether this was not an immense money-making business. They ought at least to relieve the West of the burden; and while they got a bounty of $250,000, they ought to allow the salt tax to be taken off. here read an extract from a former speech of his, against the fish bounty. These remarks, he said, were made for the purpose of showing the Senator from Massachusetts that the salt duties rest on one leg only. The fisheries draw back their share of the tax, but the West did not. Mr. B. also alluded to extensive frauds on these drawbacks, said to be discovered by Mr. Ingham.

Mr. B.

But Mr.

Mr. DAVIS said he knew the subject of the fish bounty would interweave with the duty on salt. Mr. Ingham, he said, was hostile to the bounty on the fisheries, and he therefore found it very easy to make out supposed frauds, which might be correct or incorrect. D. wished that frauds might not be stamped on the fisheries without the proper and adequate proof. He thought the Senator from Missouri had made his remarks because he foresaw that the fish bounty would interweave

[FEB. 23, 24, 1837.

with the salt tax; but, when the proper opportunity should come, Mr. D. would show that the fisheries stand upon two legs.

IN SENATE, FEBRUARY 24.

REDUCTION OF THE TARIFF.

Mr. PRESTON observed that what he had meant to say when last up was, that the tariff question, so far as party was concerned, was an open question, on which each individual might hold and advocate his own opinion, without derogation to his standing with his own party; and that, therefore, assurances as to the sentiments of the President elect ought not to have that weight with the Senate to which they would otherwise be entitled. He had said that the Senator from Pennsylvania was a high tariff man, and his State a high tariff State. In making this remark in regard to the honorable gentleman, Mr. P. had had reference to his course in former years. The grounds on which that gentleman had advocated the retaining of the duty on coal were distinctly tariff grounds; and when a man advanced arguments of this description, for a protection duty on such an article as coal, Mr. P. was in the habit of calling him a tariff man. He would not, however, call the Senator from Pennsylvania a tariff man, if that gentleman was indisposed to be so denominated. Mr. P. should certainly consider him as a very great and valuable acquisition to the anti-tariff cause.

Mr. BUCHANAN observed, in reply, that the Senator from South Carolina was at full liberty to call him a tariff man; for such he proposed to be. As to the pres. ent duty on coal, it was not extravagant, amounting, as it did, to less than five cents a bushel, or one dollar per ton. Mr. B. had said, and he still maintained, that, on all the principles of the protection policy, foreign coal should pay a duty for the protection of the home article. The gentleman from South Carolina himself was in favor of the compromise bill, and would vote for this duty though he spoke against it. Mr. B. contended that the repeal of this duty would violate the compromise, while it would go to destroy a branch of business in which there had been invested, within the State of Pennsylvania alone, a capital of more than forty millions of dollars. Yet the gentleman from South Carolina employed the weight of his powerful name for persuading others to vote for this measure, and thus to violate the compromise of 1833; while, at the same time, he professed, for himself and his State, and the whole South, to be bound to observe it. The country was now resting on that compromise; and the "high tariff State," to which the gentleman alluded, had never uttered a murmur against it. Mr. B. had trusted that her reputation might have escaped such commentaries. Pennsylvania loved to do to others as she would have others to do to her. Mr. B. put it to the gentleman, whether, had he risen in his place, and solemnly declared that that gentleman was "permitted" to argue against the compromise while he voted in its favor, whether the honorable Senator would have considered him quite as courteous as he ought to be. Would not such a remark have implied that the gentleman was under an irresistible authority, which governed and controlled all his public actions; but that, on this particular point, that authority had relaxed the leading strings, and allowed him to play the freeman?

Mr. PRESTON regretted that the honorable Senator did not still appear quite to comprehend what had been the scope and meaning of his remarks. The word "permit" had been used by him in its technical meaning, as applied exclusively to party politics. It had been contended, that to support the present administration would be the means to secure the ascendency of the anti-tariff policy. This position Mr. P. did not admit; and,

FEB. 24, 1837.]

to prove that it was unsound, had adverted to the fact that the tariff was an open question with the party, on which members of the party might differ and oppose each other, without forfeiting or disturbing their party relations; just as in England the Catholic question was held to be an open question, on which members of the same political party advocated opposite opinions. There were every day political questions on which gentlemen must vote in one particular way, or not be recognised as members of the same party; while there were other questions on which they were free to vote differently, and still be held as good members of their own party. The party arrangements "permitted" them so to vote. It was in this parliamentary and technical sense alone that Mr. P. had made use of the word. As to the compromise of 1833, the end and purpose of it was a reduction of duties. For this the whole South went as one man. The only question was whether, according to that act, the reduction went on fast enough. The act proposed to continue all duties above twenty per cent. until the year 1842; after which time there was to be a rapid deduction. As there seemed to be an acquiescence, on the part of the South, in this arrangement, Mr. P. supposed that he was not at liberty to depart from it. He had come to the conclusion that the faith of the South was pledged. They had shaken hands with their Northern brethren over this bargain; and he was not for going to war against it. Mr. P. preferred the mode of reduction provided by the act of 1833 to the mode proposed by the bill now before the Senate. He was in favor of all reduction; but he preferred the compromise, because he believed that it would reduce the tariff more certainly. Holding himself bound to adhere to that arrangement, he could not, of course, vote for the present amendment, which would otherwise receive his decided support. The Senator from Pennsylvania had said that the present duty on foreign coal was not enormous. The duty amounted to between forty-five and fifty per cent.; and it struck Mr. P. that this was enormous.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 24.
DISTRIBUTION QUESTION.

[The beginning of this speech is inserted on pages 1926 and 1927; the concluding part having been accidentally omitted, the speech is given in full here.]

Mr. BELL said he rose for the purpose of calling the attention of members to a few facts connected with the subject under consideration, and with the subject of the Treasury, and the expenditures of the Government generally, which he thought were either unknown to many honorable members, or, if known, had not received that attention which, from their extraordinary nature, they were entitled to receive from the representatives of the people and the guardians of the public interest.

The fact that the permanent expenditures of the Government had been doubled in amount within a few years past had been noticed heretofore. I wish (said Mr. B.) to bring to the notice of honorable gentlemen another most improper and unprecedented anomaly in the action of Congress upon the subject of the appropriation and expenditure of the public moneys. The Committee of Ways and Means have given their sanction to appropriations for the service of the present year, amounting to upwards of thirty millions, if I have not made some mistake in the estimate of this amount. Besides these, there are other bills, reported by the standing committees of the House, which will swell them to about thirty-five millions-an amount but little short of the appropriations to the same objects made at the last session of Congress. Do the members of this House know what proportion of the appropriations of the last year remains unexpended? The honorable chairman of the Committee of Ways and

[H. of R.

Means has told us that the present bill appropriates about nine hundred thousand dollars to fortifications; and that he contends ought to be noted, because it does not exceed the usual amount annually appropriated to the same objects. Sir, it is true that this does not exceed the amount usually appropriated; but the honorable gentleman has omitted to inform us that there was, on the 1st of January, a balance of upwards of six hundred thousand dollars remaining in the Treasury of the appropriations of the last year to the same objects, besides between two and three hundred thousand in the hands of the disbursing officers yet unexpended. He has neglected to inform us that, in fact, about nine hundred thousand dollars of the last year's appropriations to fortifications remain to be expended during the present year; for I take it for granted that the work upon the fortifications has not been persisted in to any great extent during the winter. Thus, sir, instead of the amount proposed to be applied to this branch of the public service, during the present year, we propose to apply double that amount. Is there any thing in the present bigh prices of labor and materials, any thing in the great demand for laborers of all kinds, or is there any thing in the present prospect of peace with all nations, which calls for this unusual amount to be applied to fortifications? Are we not pushing these works too rapidly to admit of solid constructions? But, sir, (said Mr. B.,) I do not attach much importance to this view of the subject. Not only double, but treble and quadruple the amount of these appropriations can be expended by the Government, if it is found necessary in order to increase appropriations--if we shall, by our imprudent compliance with the demand of the Executive, encourage a race between appropriations and disbursements--if the appropriations are to be increased according to the ability of the Government to expend, or rather waste, as much as this House shall, from year to year, be found willing to appropriate. I repeat, if this shall be the measure of our appropriations, we need not care how large they are, they will all be expended.

But it is a practice exactly the opposite of this which I wish to bring to the notice of the members of this House. It appears, from the executive reports which have been laid on our tables, that there were in the Treasury unexpended balances of the appropriations of the year 1836, on the first day of the present year, of nearly $14,000,000, besides the large amount drawn from the Treasury in advance of the actual demands of the public service, and now in the hands of the disbursing officers. The official organ of the Government (the Globe) has informed us that the amount thus withdrawn from the Treasury by requisitions, and remaining in the hands of the disbursing agents in the beginning of the year, is six millions. I have but little doubt, if the whole truth were known, that the amount thus withdrawn from the Treasury at the close of the year was nearer twelve millions, but, taking the statement of the Globe to be true, it shows, on the first day of the year, there were $20,000,000 remaining unexpended of the appropriations of the year 1836. It is thus manifest that we are a year in advance of the actual demands of the public service in our appropriations. I call upon the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CAMBRELENG,] who is at the head of the Committee of Ways and Means, to explain and justify this extraordinary practice. How is it that we are called upon to make increased appropriations for the present year, when twenty millions or upwards remain unexpended of the last year's appropriations? This state of things certainly demands an explanation. The average balances in the Treasury, until within the last two years, have never exceeded five millions; I believe I might say four. Whence is it that we have this sum quadrupled? Let it not be said that the appropriations

H. OF R.]

for the last year were not made until half the year had elapsed; and that that is a sufficient explanation. The amount in the Treasury unexpended on the first day of the year 1836 was, if I do not forget, more than double the usual average; and when we were voting the appropriations of the last year, the House was repeatedly reminded that the year was so far advanced that it was not possible to expend the large sums which were demanded by the Government; yet, sir, they were voted. The true explanation is, that we then had a large surplus in the Treasury. We anticipated a still greater one, and the majority of Congress were determined to keep pace with the increased revenue by increased appropriations. If the surplus could not thus be actually exhausted, it was intended that it should be so apparently. The same policy directs the same course at the present session. Whether the land bill shall pass or not, it is now certain that we shall have a considerable surplus in the Treasury at the end of the year. Under any probable contingency, it cannot be less than ten millions; it will probably be much larger. To diminish the amount of surplus at the beginning of the present year, the device of withdrawing large amounts from the Treasury, and placing them in the hands of disbursing agents, was fallen upon. This practice, however unsafe, will be continued; and, in

[FEB. 24, 1837.

stead of six millions at the end of the present year, we may have twenty millions so disposed of, if there shall be no interest created to counteract it. Again, sir: some remedy is imperiously demanded, by the most sacred and vital considerations, against the perpetual temptation which, under the present state of things, is held out to increased, unnecessary, and prodigal expenditures by the Federal Government. I can think of none better at present than the one which I now propose, and will send to the Chair. I do not intend to enter into an elaborate argument upon the proposition I shall submit. It is too late in the session for such a course. Besides, I consider the argument is already before the House and country, and I entreat gentlemen who are favorable to the measure to forbear discussion.

Mr. B. concluded by moving to amend the bill by adding thereto the following:

Be it enacted, That the money which shall be in the Treasury of the United States on the 1st day of January, 1838, reserving a sum of five millions of dollars, shall be deposited with the several States, on the terms of the 13th, 14th, and 15th provisoes of the act regulating the deposites of the public money, approved the 23d of June, 1836.