in all its parts, to effect the powers contained in the constitution, it is necessary that it should have a speaker, a clerk, (not of its own body,) a sergeant-at-arms, a doorkeeper, a deputy doorkeeper, pages, librarian, assistant clerks, messengers, &c. These perfect the organ for the work laid out to be done. Now, it would seem, if it be true the people are deeply concerned to know how their Representatives vote for these officers, that concern will apply just as much to one officer as another, to the lowest as well as the highest. Imagine, then, this great viva voce principle--this principle that is to do so much for the liberties of the people, that is so dear to democracy, and all that is to be employed in the appointment of these officers, where would you stop? Would you say, after the speaker and clerk were elected, it would be unnecessary to carry it any farther? And why? Would not the people wish to know how your doorkeeper acted, as well as your clerk? How your water-bearers supplied you, as well as how your clerk read your bills and mended your pens? If you stopped the great viva voce principle, this great conservative of liberty, at the clerk, then you make it to depend not so much upon its intrinsic virtue, as upon the character, degree, and amount of service to be performed by the officer on which it is to operate! Can any thing be more unreasonable? The people, then, would not feel any interest in your arrangements to commence, with effect, the objects of your mission; but (Mr. C. said) he would tell the House when their concern would begin: so soon as you commenced to carry into effect the powers of the constitution; so soon as you begin to send out the measures intended to act upon their great interests; then they would want to know, and ought to know, how you voted, that they might settle with you for good or for evil. Whenever your rule of action related to the control of their rights, it would become a matter of jealous and watchful solicitude; but when your rule of action referred to the mere provision of a suitable instru mentality by which you were to work, it could not be a consideration of the least possible moment.

Mr. C. said he would make an assertion which he called upon members to contradict if it be untrue-for the fact was within their knowledge, and therefore susceptible of contradiction: Out of the twenty-four States in the Union, at least eighteen, and indeed he believed more, used the ballot in their elections. What did this argue? If, at the fountain head, the source of all power, the people, (and God knows they are often enough told of their omnipotence,) you find the ballot is the favorite mode of designating their choice, what right have we to expect that they desire of us what they do not practise themselves?

Sir, admitting for a moment that the viva voce principle is correct-and, as for himself, Mr. C. said it was perfectly immaterial what mode was adopted, for he would as lief the rule should be, that each member should march up to the polls with an open ticket wafered upon his forehead as any other way-but, if a correct rule is about to be inverted, and used for an improper object, that is reason sufficient to oppose it. If the Bible itself were perverted to a wicked purpose, he should reject it, at least so far as that purpose was concerned. While the gentleman from New York was complimenting the independence and decided character of western members, it would have been well for him, because equally true, if he had come round by the South, and paid the same tribute to southern openness. When, with but a few dishonorable exceptions, have southern members ever shrunk from any question?

The arguments used by both of the gentlemen from New York are extremely fallacious, and the examination of a few of them, by way of example, will eminently support this assertion. For instance, the first gentle

VOL. XI.-€9

[H. OF R.

man stated, by way of showing that the election of printer was not the exclusive object of the resolution, that you, Mr. Speaker, had not a lease of your life; that you were not immortal, and that in five weeks we might have to elect a Speaker. In passing, if this is the only expectation of getting your seat from you, it is to be hoped it will not be shortly realized. Now, sir, the right way to test the strength of an argument is to make whatever is to be proved by it depend alone on that argument. Suppose a resolution had been introduced containing a preamble, that, whereas the Speaker has not a lease of his life, is not immortal, and may die before the end of the session: Therefore, Resolved, That his successor shall be chosen viva voce: does any man believe such a resolution would, for a single moment, be entertained by a body claiming to be enlightened, or acting under the slightest sense of self-respect? What, then, becomes of the argument? It lends no support to the proposition it was intended to aid; and, if it does not, then its defence falls to the ground.

The second gentleman advanced this argument, to sustain the idea that the viva voce vote was necessary to the acquisition of responsible officers, and instanced the case of the delinquent sergeant-at-arms, who ran off a few years ago with the pay of the members of Congress. Now, can it be possible that it is not perceived that an officer would be just as apt to run away with money who was elected by viva voce as by ballot? Is there any thing in the mode that makes men honest? Surely, this will not be seriously contended for. Sir, these are ad captandum arguments; they are assumptions somewhat plausible; and, being addressed to the fears, it is expected they will be taken without examination, as the mind naturally shrinks from investigation, and that the conclusion to which they point will be seized at once.

The first gentleman also stated, towards the conclusion of his remarks, that the viva voce mode of election would save time; but before he concluded the argument it became very evident he lost confidence in it himself, for he lost the animation which equally sustains unwavering conviction, and said his chief reliance was not so much upon the expediency of the change as the great principle of liberty and democracy involved in the ques

tion.

Sir, this argument of time was an unfortunate one; for, if there is one thing more than another, in which our constituents are fully satisfied, it is that the more time we take up in doing nothing, the better they fare. Indeed, it is the common law of this House to adjourn whenever the motion is made, sometimes from Thursday, and very frequently from Friday to Monday, upon the express understanding that when we are not in session the people have a respite from our filching legislation.

Mr. C. said he would promise the House one thing, that he should not follow the example of those who had gone before him in the length of his speech, unless, indeed, the warmth of his feelings had already betrayed him into such an infliction. He would therefore conclude by saying that, as he believed the resolution would change a wholesome practice, from which not a solitary evil had resulted; that it was designed for a particular party purpose; and would, when that purpose was fully served, be repealed, it should have his most decided opposition.

Mr. JONES, of Georgia, had risen to offer a few remarks, and was prepared to proceed, but, hearing from several gentlemen around him, the call "adjourn," for the purpose of gratifying those gentlemen, and ascertaining whether it was the wish of the House he should proceed at this time, he would move to adjourn.

[Mr. J. accordingly moved that the House adjourn; but the yeas and nays being demanded on the question, Mr. J. said that, believing unnecessary time would be

consumed in taking the yeas and nays, he would withdraw his motion for adjournment, and proceed with his remarks.] Mr. JONES then resumed as follows: It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to go at large into the inquiry as to which is the most independent mode of voting-by ballot or "viva voce." It is my purpose to call the attention of the House to the constitutional provision upon this subject, and to show that this House cannot properly take any action upon the resolution, and that it is, to say the least of it, nugatory and useless.

The original resolution proposes that the officers of the House shall be elected "viva voce."

The last clause of the 2d section of the 1st article of the constitution provides, "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers."

Does this give power to the House of Representatives of this Congress to choose the Speaker and other offi cers of the House of Representatives of the next Congress? I trust not. This has never been, and I presume never will be, contended. No member will say that we have the power at this session to elect the Speaker for the next Congress: and if we have not the right to choose him we certainly have not the right to elect any other officer; and the next Congress might and would regard the exercise of such a power as an improper interference with their constitutional powers.

Having, then, no right to choose their officers, can we prescribe the mode of election which would be obligatory on the next Congress? Let us test this by an illus tration: suppose the resolution has passed, and the members have assembled, for the purpose of forming and organizing a House. The Clerk, as is customary, takes the chair, and some gentleman rises and makes a motion, "that the members present do proceed to elect their Speaker by ballot." Would any man be silly enough to rise and oppose that motion, upon the ground that this House had directed the election should be by viva voce? Or, is there any man here so foolish as to believe it would be a good and valid objection? I cannot believe there is. Not only so, but the rules of this House would not be binding upon the next Congress till they had been formally adopted. The same reasoning must apply with equal force to the other officers, for they are all provided for in the same clause of the

constitution.

This resolution, then, cannot have any authoritative obligation upon the next Congress, and there is no necessity for it in this. All the officers of this Congress have already been chosen by us, and are now discharging their duties, unless the printer is included among the officers. He was chosen by the last Congress, and to this day we have acquiesced in that choice. It has been declared that the sole object of this resolution was to provide for his election. I will not make the charge, and I consider the denial unimportant. If he is an officer of this House, the election by the last Congress was improper, and we ought not to follow such an erroneous example. If he is not an officer, this resolution does

not extend to him.

But it has been urged that it is proper to pass this resolution; if it is not obligatory, it will show to the next Congress our opinions upon this important subject. Sir, it is not proper and would be indelicate to pass a resolution merely advisory, to a body equal to and certainly independent of this House. We have no right to prescribe or advise how or whom they shall elect as their presiding officer. If any gentleman at the close of this session were to offer a resolution expressing the thanks of this House for the able manner in which you have discharged the duties of that distinguished office, alike honorable to yourself and useful to the country, and were to add to it a recommendation to the next Congress

[JAN. 26, 1835.

to elect you as their presiding officer, would any gentleman in this House approve the measure? Would it not be considered by every one improper and indelicate? And, sir, the next Congress is as competent to determine the one as the other, and it is improper to interfere with either. It has been urged by some gentlemen that this resolution provides for the election of all the officers, and although they have been elected, yet some may die. To this it will be sufficient to reply, "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." When that contingency may arise we will provide for it, and proceed to fill any vacancy which may happen.

Mr. Speaker, before I close I will notice the remarks of those gentlemen who have charged my colleague, [Mr. GILMER,] who addressed the House on Saturday, as mistaken in supposing the election by ballot was more independent than that of viva voce, and that the latter was calculated to destroy the independence of this House. I will not attempt to determine between those gentlemen-" tantas componere lites." But if they will recall their historical recollections, they will find his opinion supported by the opinion and experience of able men. A great object in the reformation with the liberals and the opposition to the ministry for years has been to obtain the voting by ballot. The ministerial party, the tories, have successfully opposed them, and have retained in the House of Commons the mode of electing viva voce. A distinguished historian of that country has remarked, that the King has gained more in influence than he has lost in prerogative. The ministers know well the importance of this influence, and the managers of the House of Commons how to retain and use it beneficially. They know that, however well the recruits may be drilled out of the House, they may not follow the motions of the fugleman in the House, unless they are well haltered, bridled, and bitted. And they have desired no better bridles and bits than the voting viva roce. They are men of great experience and great knowledge of mankind, and their opinion and practice doubtless had great weight with my colleague, and has great weight with me in inducing the belief that the electing viva voce is less independent, and better calculated to subserve the purpose of corrupting the Representatives of the people. But it has been said, we are too young, and it cannot be believed the members are so corrupt as to be thus influenced. Sir, I will neither charge corruption in the members of this House or of the executive Government, nor will I charge this mode of voting as desirable for a more complete party organization. But the resolution itself carries upon its face a strong insinuation of dishonesty in the members of this House, in voting contrary to the wishes of their constituents, and concealing from them for whom that vote is given. We have, then, corruption on one side and dishonesty on the other, and it is difficult to choose between them. I am disposed to take neither as the reason for my vote on this occasion; but I cannot avoid the conclusion that, when the Repre sentative is so dishonest as to vote against the wishes of his constituents, and to conceal that vote, he is clearly in the market, and corrupt enough to subserve the purpose of any set of men who are base enough to purchase and willing to pay the price of his subserviency. Believing, then, sir, that this resolution can answer no use. ful purpose, that it is improper and indelicate to pass one which has no authoritative obligation, and must be admitted to be only advisory, I cannot consent to give my vote for its passage.

Mr. HAWES said, it must be evident to every mem ber that this discussion was interrupting all the regular business of the House, and the elaborate debate that had already taken place had elicited the opinion of both parties, he thought, sufficiently: he therefore moved the previous question.

JAN. 27, 1835.]

The House refused to sustain the call: Ayes 76, noes 99.

The House then adjourned.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 27.

GOLD MEDAL, &c., TO COLONEL CROGHAN. Mr. SPEIGHT, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported a joint resolution, which had been referred to that committee, with (an amendment, authorizing the President to present a gold medal to Colonel Croghan, and swords to several officers under his command, for their gallant conduct in the defence of Fort Stephenson, during the late war.

Mr. S. said, as he believed no opposition would be offered to the resolution, he would move its third reading.

Mr. PARKER, of New Jersey, said he had no doubt as to the gallantry of these officers; not the least; but if they conferred these distinctions in the present case, why not in others, it would be asked, which occurred during the last war? It was his impression, also, that some acknowledgment had been already made to these

officers.

Mr. MERCER said such was not the case. Mr. M. briefly explained the nature and importance of the services rendered by these officers.

The joint resolution, as amended, was read a third time and passed.

Mr. WATMOUGH said, if the House would pardon him, he wished to say a few words on a subject connected with the resolution just passed. Some years

ago he had offered a resolution, proposing to collect the bones of the brave men who fell on our northwestern frontier, but it was not listened to. As Congress had now been induced to do justice towards a portion of the gallant men engaged in that perilous and important service, he hoped that, when he or any other member of that House should submit a proposition to do that which he had above intimated, it would at least be listened to.

INDIAN RESERVATIONS.

Mr. LOVE, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the resolution offered by Mr. McCANTY on the 23d instant, reported the following amendment, viz:

Strike out, after the word "correspondence," the words "of all Indian agents, sub-agents, and other persons connected with the Indian department," and insert, after the word "office," the words "of all Indian agents, sub-agents, and other persons;" and insert, after the word "land," the words "east of the Mississippi river," so as to make the resolution read as follows, viz:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to transmit to this House copies of all letters and correspondence now in the executive or War Departments, or in the office of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, of all Indian agents, sub agents, and other persons connected with, or relating to, the survey, location, sale, and transfer of all Indian reserves of lands east of the Mississippi river, since the year 1825, up to this time; and also all the orders and communications from the Executive of the United States through the War Department or General Land Office, or otherwise, in reference to said surveys, locations, sales, and transfer of Indian reserves; together with maps and plats of said surveys, and of the tracts approved and confirmed by the President under said transfers and sales, and what remains unapproved that have been reported and submitted for his approval, together with the evidence of title.

[H. OF R.

Mr. LOVE stated that the only alteration in the resolution proposed by the committee was to limit the investigation to the eastern side of the Mississippi. The committee were anxious to avoid any unnecessary expense in the investigation, but it was thought invidious to confine the investigation to any particular State or Territory. In the treaties which gave rise to Indian reservations, there were, he said, two stipulations in respect to the lands reserved. The first was, that the President should approve their transfer and sale before the title became vested in the hands of the purchaser; and the second, that the Indian agents should see that the Indians got fair consideration for their lands, and that no frauds should be committed upon them, nor upon the Government. The object was to protect the Indians; and, to effect this, it was provided that the agents should certify to the President that the lands were sold for a proper consideration, and in a proper manner. As the Government acted upon the certificates, it was utterly impossible that any branch of the executive departments could have any knowledge of the frauds which were committed. The charge was that the agents had committed frauds by combining with speculators in the purchase of reservations, and cheating the Indians in the purchase, and cheating the Government by certifying that the lands were sold for a fair consideration. Another fraud which was alleged to have been practised chasers, and certifying them to the Government for apwas in forging transfers from Indian orphans to purproval.

Many of the reservations belonged to orphans, and it was alleged that the agents had certified transfers from them which they knew nothing about. The investigation did not in any way affect the executive departments, but it would let the House and the country know whether the allegations of fraud were true, and by whom they had been practised, and what contracts had been made with sufficient consideration, and what without. The committee only asked to have the correspondence furnished. From it the House would select such parts for publication as would furnish the information which was required, and reject the others. It was due to the Indians, due to the nation, and due to the Executive, that the whole matter should be investigated, in order that, if any frauds had been committed, they might be exposed, and, in future, prevented. The consideration of expense, which was urged as an objection to the investigation, ought not to enter into a question of this character, however great the expense might be; but he was satisfied that the time occupied in procuring the information would not be so long nor the cost so great as had been stated.

Mr. CLAY said his principal objection to this resolution was not the expense attending the investigation it proposed. It was the imposition of heavy, and, as he thought, useless labor on officers of the Departments, who are already burdened with other and important duties, which formed one great objection to the resolution. It threw upon the land office the labor of copying this whole correspondence, though it was the daily complaint in that office that it was deficient in labor for the performance of its ordinary duties; and, by way of example, he remarked that, in issuing patents for land only, it was one hundred thousand in arrears, according to the commissioner's report. This call for a mass of documents, not one tenth part of which would ever be of any use to the country or the House, was, he thought, wholly unnecessary. It would also involve the expenditure of a large amount of money in printing. Why should the House, he said, call for information which will be attended with so much labor and expense, and the printing of a volume of seven or eight hundred pages, unless it was certain that the information would be of use? He did