Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

posed by the Senator from Kentucky was equally objectionable.

Mr. WEBSTER could not go for the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. EWING.] It resolved itself into a question of constitutional power. Seeing a practice of the Government for a period of twenty years, we should be cautious, said Mr. W., in hazarding an opinion against it. How did it happen that bills in 1803, in 1804, and 1820, of similar tenor, passed Congress, and the question of unconstitutionality had not been discovered till this time? Was this a law to regulate revenue, because it finds certain debtors to the Government, and gives them time? Was that a regulation of the revenue of the Government? The constitution goes on, said Mr. W., enumerating certain powers and restrictions. Congress had a right to regulate commerce with foreign Powers. It conferred no power to give a preference to importations in one State over another. In this provision it had clearly a prospective view. A man has a bond to pay, and Congress gives him time. Was this regulating the revenue of the country? On the ground of prudence, he thought the bill cught to be passed. It was an act of prudence for the Government to give relief, as a prudent creditor. A prudent creditor would always give time, rather than incur the risk of losing his debt. With respect to the proposition intended to be introduced in place of this bill, first, it provides for a return of duties, and an appropriation of a million and a half of dollars. That law must find out the loss. Here is a man, said he, who has received the amount of ensurance on his goods; should he receive the relief? He did not say that was a case that might not be provided for; but it was a case that was not provided for. It was said that the original bill was unequal in its operations. He did not consider it a case of right; and it was, therefore, not necessary that an exact amount should be given to each, according to his loss. If it should be more favora ble to some than to others, no one had a right to complain. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] seemed to regard this matter as a release. He thought the true state of the case had been stated by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. WRIGHT.] It was not a release, but an indulgence.

Mr. KING, of Georgia, had no hesitation in saying that if there was any seaport of this Union deserving the special favor of Congress, it was the port of New York. But on this as well as on all other occasions, we should, said he, act on principle. The principle they should act on with regard to this bill was one which should govern them on all subsequent occasions of the like nature. The danger was of establishing a precedent which they might hereafter be called on to follow. On the subject of constitutional power alone, he confessed he had no difficulties. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WEBSTER] bad put that question on its true grounds. We are, said he, dealing a creditor with our debtors, and we have the power to grant them the indulgence contemplated in the bill. But, said Mr. K., we should not on all occasions use the power we possess without due caution, lest we abuse it. The second section of the bill was liable to serious objections. It provided not only to extend the credit on the bonds of those who had suffered by the fire in New York, but on all other bonds. It might be carried over the whole continent. The credit might be extended to Liverpool, to Lyons, and to Leeds. The great difficulty was to extend the bounty of the Government to those who were the proper objects of its bounty, and not to those who had no claims on it. Now, as far as New York was concerned, he ventured to say that not one in a hundred would be the actual losers by the fire. Do we not know, said he, that the abstraction of so many goods from the market will raise the value of the rest? The

[SENATE.

value of the goods remaining on hand, then, will be enhanced, and though some few may suffer bankruptcy, the mass will be benefited by their speculations. These results operated against the second section of the bill, and supported the proposition of the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] to strike out that sec tion. The Senator from Massachusetts agreed that it would be a matter of prudence in Congress, as creditors, to extend the credit on the debts due them; but by what stretch of argument could the Senator make this apply to the provision in the first section of the bill, which renews bonds already paid. The arrangement that gentlemen contended for, was, as that of a prudent creditor to secure his debt. The first section was as follows: "Provided, that those who are in the provision of this section, but who may have paid their bonds subsequent to the late fire, should also be entitled to the benefit of this section, and that the said bonds shall be renewed from the day when the same were paid, and said payments refunded;" that is to say, said Mr. K., that we are to take money out of our pockets, and lend it for four or five years without interest, for the purpose of secu ring our debt. He admitted that the Senator from Massachusetts was perfectly correct in his constitutional argument, but he thought there should be some reasonable affinity between the measures to be adopted, and the end to be attained. He asked, therefore, if the bill was the prudent measure of a prudent creditor to secure his debt. He should vote against the second section, which extended the credit on the bonds of those who had not suffered by the fire, and should also move to strike out that provision of the first section which refunds the money and renews the bonds already paid. With these changes, he would vote for the bill.

Mr. MANGUM was decidedly against the propositions to amend the bill. There was no gentleman there prepared to say what would be the scope of its influence, or the amount of money necessary to meet the cases that would occur. Both the gentlemen who had proposed amendments assumed the constitutional power of releasing entirely. The honorable chairman of the Committee on Commerce had announced that if the power to release the whole could be assumed, we are well warranted in assuming the fact, that for the safety of the debt, we are justified in giving an extension of time. In a conference of the Committee on Finance, they had come to that conclusion. This Government had one precedent much stronger than any one that had been referred to. It was the case of the earthquake in Virginia, in the days of her greatness. He should vote for it, on the ground that it was to afford present and immediate relief to the whole commercial community in the city of New York, and to others in different parts of the country. The relief would be afforded to the whole community. Was it not compatible with the beneficence of the Government to extend relief wherever it could be done constitutionally? He thought relief could be best administered according to the opinion of those who best understood the nature and extent of the calamity; and he would vote against every amendment that was offer ed. Did the constitution justify it? He did not doubt it. Did the finances of the country justify it? They did, French war or no French war.

Mr. LEIGH rose to state his impressions on the constitutional question that had been presented. It was of no importance to any body but himself, but he wished that his opinion should be understood, or rather that it should not be misunderstood. The constitution provided that "no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another." And it was objected to this bill, and especially to the second section, that it made a regulation of revenue favorable to the merchants of New

SENATE.]

[ocr errors]

Sufferers by Fire in New York.

York, and not applicable to any other port. Now, the word "regulation," the phrase "regulation of commerce or revenue,' meant general provision of law applicable to all cases of the like kind. The gentleman from Kentucky, sensible that generality of provision is essential to the idea of regulation by law, said that there was such generality here; that the provisions of this bill applied to all the merchants of New York. [Mr. CLAY explained. He had said that they applied to all the importers of New York.] Mr. L. said the difference, in his view of the question, was not material. The bill proposed to relieve the importers who suffered directly by the late fire, and the other importers, as consequentially implicated with those who suffered directly; it was probable, almost inevitable, that the other importers were implicated in so extensive and heavy a calamity. The relief was to be given by an extension of credit for the duties. This, he thought, was not the more a regulation of commerce or revenue, because of the number of persons to whom the relief was extended. If that were so, the importers of New York would, in consequence of their vast numbers, be least of all importers entitled to such relief.

He thought that if this bill, instead of being confined to relief on account of the particular calamity that had befallen New York, had been extended to all cases of the like kind that should hereafter occur there, as well as that which had occurred, this would have been such a regulation of commerce or revenue, partial to that city, as the constitution interdicted. But this bill provided relief for a particular case of calamity, though that calamity involved very many. Therefore, in his judgment, the bill was not obnoxious to the constitutional objection. The gentleman from Kentucky had made some very imposing observations, which had made no slight impression on his mind, as to the unequal operation of the provisions of the bill; but Mr. L. apprehended it would be found impossible to frame any provisions for such a purpose, which would not operate unequally; and he doubted very much whether any could be devised that would operate more equally and fairly than those proposed by this bill.

Mr. DAVIS believed there was a uniform desire in the Senate to afford relief, provided it could be done consistently with other duties. The bill purported to be a bill for the relief of sufferers by fire. He had some objections to the bill, but he would not say that he would vote against it. It was his purpose at present to throw out some objections that had occurred to him. Gentlemen argued that the bill was not to relieve sufferers by fire, but to relieve the commercial community. If so, then the title was wrong. Do you, said he, propose that persons who have lost merchandise and property shall receive an extension of credit on bonds for duties? We had lately introduced a more speedy method for the collection of duties. But by this bill the time of collection was to be extended for four or five years, without paying interest. Who were those gentlemen to be benefited? The object all suppose to be for the relief of citizens of the city of New York. But a great amount of these goods were imported by foreigners. Suppose a man has his goods ensured in Liverpool, is he entitled to your beneficence? He would ask what proportion of this property was of foreign manufacture, and what proportion of American? You do not, said he, propose to give relief to the American manufacturer. You extend it to a class of persons who have not asked it. It was not the principle he complained of, it was the great inequality of distributing the relief. You place (said Mr. D.) a fund in the hands of individuals who have not suffered, and to whom it is clear gain. As to the proposition of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. EwING,] to extend this re

[JAN. 13, 1836.

lief to the whole country, it was more objectionable than the other. Here was a great suffering they all knew of. Among those sufferers a large proportion were Americans. By adopting the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. EWING,] you propose to throw into the hands of foreign persons a large amount to inundate the country with goods.

Mr. WEBSTER said a few words in reply to his colleague, [Mr. DAVIS.] The suffering of the commercial community was great and was general, and his colleague well understood how, in such a community, the losses of one affected another. In a large community, mixed up of buyers and venders, importers and retailers, all must have suffered more or less in such a calamity as that at New York. Were those alone who came there the actual sufferers by this fire? The Senate would see that if the actual sufferers alone were interested, they would be debating about returning the duties on the burnt goods, whereas they were discussing a bill to relieve the commercial community. The application was in behalf of the whole commercial community; those who were scorched, as well as those who were not. Did any man doubt that there were hundreds of sufferers, who did not lose a bale of goods, or the most inconsiderable tenement? While his colleague objected to this bill, he had not pointed out a more appropriate mode of relief. This bill was a mode of relief which operated on the whole community, though perhaps more on some than on others. It extended to those who had domestic goods, and to those who had suffered by the fire; and those whose warehouses were full of domestic goods would be among the most anxious to get this bill passed, in order to sustain the credit of those with whom they are connected in trade.

Mr. NILES rose to say that he had prepared an amendment, which he intended to offer if the several amendments then under consideration should not be adopted. He had listened with attention and with profit, so far as his own action on the bill might be concerned, to this discussion; he felt that there was much weight in some of the objections which had been urged against the bill by the honorable gentlemen from Kentucky and Massachusetts, [Mr. CLAY and Mr. DAVIS,] and the amendment which he had prepared would, he thought, remove some of those objections.

[Mr. N. here read his amendment, which was a proviso to the bill to secure the payment of interest on the bonds, the payment of which was to be extended.]

He

There are two questions arising upon this bill: one, whether the relief it provides is reasonable, and adapted to the case; and whether it is equitable and just in its distribution, so far as it is to benefit individuals. thought there were objections to this part of the bill, and its benefits would probably be very unequally distributed; and what gave more force to this objection was the fact, that the greatest benefit would be shared by those least entitled to it, by the large and wealthy importers. What is the object of this bill, and the nature of the relief it provides for? It is the extension of credit to the merchants who are the debtors of the United States for duties. It is not, as I understood, the object of the bill to remit any part of them. It seems not to be designed to afford any pecuniary relief, further than by the extension of credit. This being the object of the bill, he was not willing to give it an operation by which it might put large sums of money into the pockets of merchants. All who have sustained a loss

to the amount of $1,000 will be entitled to an extension of three, four, and five years' credit, on their bonds, without interest, so that a merchant having bonds to the amount of $50,000, and having lost 1,000, would by this bill be a gainer to the amount of several thousand dollars.

[blocks in formation]

There was another question in relation to this bill, which was, whether there was any constitutional or other general principle which stood in its way.

He had no difficulty as to the constitutional question which had been raised; he had felt no doubts at first on this point, and if he had they would have been removed by the lucid, and, to his mind, conclusive argument of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. WEBSTER.] But this bill was by no means free from objec tion in regard to the principle on which it rests. This bill is a case of special or partial legislation to which I have a strong objection, as all special laws conferring either rights or immunities, or other benefits, on particular individuals, must operate in derogation of the common rights and interests of the community. The law will, as has been observed, act on the debtors of the United States, yet not upon any general principle; it will not operate on all the public debtors, nor on all of any general class, as the debtors for the purchase of the public lands, or the debtors for duties on imported goods; but its operation will be local, and confined to a particular description of debtors in a single seaport. This is, therefore, a clear case of partial legislation, and objectionable in principle. The question in my mind is, whether the extraordinary circumstances of this case are such as to form an exception to a sound general principle. If there can be any exception to this principle, (and I am not prepared to say there cannot be,) this case must be one. It is not necessary to enlarge on that terrible calamity, or the consequences of it, which in one night laid in desolation a large portion of our greatest commercial city. I consider this, sir, an extraordinary case, and I am therefore prepared to vote for this bill, although it will require a departure from a sourd principle which I am extremely unwilling to disregard. Mr. BUCHANAN said it had not been his intention to say a single word upon this question. He would not do so now, but he distinctly perceived, if the friends of the bill yielded to any one of the amendments which had been proposed, the bill was lost. We must take the bill as it now is, or none. For his own part, he took a much more liberal view of the question than some of those gentlemen who had addressed the Senate. What was the state of the case? On the 16th of December last, a capital of between seventeen and eighteen millions of dollars had been in one day annihilated by fire, in our greatest commercial emporium. Notwithstanding this calamity, not a single failure had since taken place among the merchants of that city. He would say that he did not believe the history of the commercial world presented an example of such punctuality, and such ability to comply with all engagements, in the midst of such distress. It was highly honorable, not only to New York, but to the American character. At the time of this destructive fire, the merchants of that city were indebted to the United States about $3,600,000. And what does this bill, first and second sections and all, propose? To give them this amount, or any part of it? No, sir. All that is asked is, that you shall not, in the midst of their distress, extort this sum from them; which, at this moment, may save them from insolvency and ruin, for the purpose of placing it in an overflowing treasury, where it is not wanted. You are only asked to grant these suffering merchants time to pay this money, provided they give you ample security that the money shall be paid. Is there a single Senator who would not most cheerfully comply with this re quest, if he did not believe the constitution to be in his way? Not one. He certainly should not go into the argument of the constitutional question, after what had already been said. He felt confident that a large majority of the Senate were already convinced that the constitution had nothing to do with the question.

[SENATE.

After the merchant had entered his goods at the customhouse, and given bonds for the payment of the duties, he became a debtor to the Government, with whom we might make any fair and reasonable terms, as we may do, and have done, with our other debtors. This, he was very clearly of opinion, would not be giving any preference, by any regulation of commerce or revenue, to the ports of one State over those of another. What is the present condition of the mercantile community of New York? He had observed in the late pub. lic journals that money was now worth one, one and a half, and two per cent. a month. The pressure was very great. The present state of tension could not long endure. Without some relief, some speedy relief, it was probable the merchants must yield. Let a single failure take place to the amount of a million, half a million, or a quarter of a million, and, in its consequences, it would produce such ruin in New York as would be felt to the very extremities of the Union. We might then see that the forbearance which the bill proposes to extend to the merchants is the very best bargain for ourselves which we can make.

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] has proposed, as a substitute for this bill, the remission of the duties upon the goods destroyed by fire. In this proposition he entirely concurred. He had always been of opinion that, when merchandise had been destroyed by fire before it had gone into the consumption of the country, the Government ought not to exact the duties. He certainly, however, could not vote that the gentleman's amendment should take the place of the bill; and more especially, as a remission of duties on goods destroyed by fire was a distinct mode of relief, asked for by the citizens of New York, which would yet come before the Senate.

To the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DAVIS] he would say that he felt as friendly to American manufactures and American manufacturers as he or any other gentleman could do, and would go as far to relieve them. But what can we do for them on the present occasion? We have not the power to do any thing. And shall we, because we cannot do all the good we desire, do nothing at all? He trusted this bill would pass without any amendment.

Mr. CLAY said he perceived, what he was not aware of when he offered his amendment; [Mr. C. here mentioned some new light in which the matter had presented itself to his mind, not distinctly heard or understood by the reporter;] and as there seemed to be a general disposition to grant the relief asked for, he would withdraw the amendment he had offered.

Mr. TYLER considered it rather supererogatory to extend this discussion further. But, as a member of the Committee on Finance, he had found in investigating the matter that it had been the uniform practice of the Government to extend indulgence to its debtors. He found, in the year 1803, an act for the relief of the sufferers by fire in Norfolk, and the first section of this bill was like it. He could not go against this bill, when his own fellow-citizens of Virginia had been relieved in precisely the same case. Mr. T. mentioned the names of the committee to whom it had been referred in the Senate; and, said he, in the House of Representatives, Mr. Randolph was chairman of the committee who reported it, who was always attached to strict construction of the constitution, and it was approved by Thomas Jefferson; with these precedents before him, added to the convictions produced by the arguments of the gentlemen who had advocated the passage of the bill, he could not vote against it. Mr. T. spoke of the respective merits of the first and second sections of the bill. It afforded relief to the whole commercial community involved in this sweeping calamity; said he, it is not alone

[blocks in formation]

the drawer, it is the endorser, who stands in danger of losing the amount. The effect reached, to a great extent, every person in the commercial community. There was one difference between the precedent he had cited and this bill. There it was not limited as this was. In this bill they had extended a guard over it, and, as it now stood, it was better guarded than the bill granting relief to the sufferers at Portsmouth and Norfolk.

Mr. HENDRICKS observed that it was obvious that the bill would be reported to the Senate without amendment, and that he was prepared to vote for it as it was. He would resist all amendments that might be offered, believing that they would only tend to prolong discussion and embarrass the passage of the bill.

[JAN. 13, 1836.

he must vote against the bill, unless his objections to the second section were removed.

Mr. KING, of Alabama, was entirely at a loss to see what it was that caused the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] to deprecate the principle of the Government extending relief to sufferers by fire or earthquakes. Had they not a constitutional power of extending relief to them? He had no constitutional dif ficulties in his way, and would not for his part inquire whether the right to legislate upon the subject had been established by precedent or not. He consulted his own common sense upon the subject. He had no doubt that granting the relief asked for was a duty they owed to themselves, to the country, and to the sufferers in this great calamity that had befallen that noble city. He would go as far as any one in support of the measure. He would not withhold the relief under technical objections. It was true he would prefer confining the relief to American citizens alone; and the objections sug

VIS,] had some weight with him. But he was not going to oppose the bill because he did not see its operations in all its complex and intricate bearings. The commercial connexion was ramified and extensive in its character. Touch one single street in this great commercial emporium-touch Wall street--and you give a shock to the whole country. He should vote for the bill.

Mr. EWING thought it necessary to say a word or two in relation to the first section, before taking the question on his amendment, as it was supposed there might be some discrepancy between them which might be removed by another amendment he would then suggested by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. DA gest. The first section of the bill provided that the collector of the port of New York should be authorized to extend the credit on the bonds, payable in New York, of those who had suffered by the fire. Now, he proposed that each collector, in the different ports of the United States, should have the same authority given him. It would have this effect. It would operate in favor of none who had not suffered by the fire, and it would not give a preference to one port over another. To illustrate this, he would state a case. A and B are sufferers by the fire in New York, and both have bonds becoming due; the one resides in New York and the other in Philadelphia, so that the bill extends relief to the first and not to the last. Now, he would ask, what good reason there was for making this distinction? The amendments he had suggested would remove all his constitutional objections to the bill, and, if made, it would give him pleasure to vote for it.

Mr. CALHOUN said he had listened with great attention to those gentlemen who had taken part in this debate, but his objections to the second section still remained unchanged. It was admitted on all hands that this second section contained a novel principle, and that no precedent for it was to be found on our statute books. Here indulgence was extended to those who bad not suffered by the fire, and the argument in support of it was that it was not a regulation as to revenue, but that we were as creditors dealing with our debtors. But might not this apply as well when the commercial community of a city had suffered by any other calamity, by the breakage of banks, or by shipwrecks? You may at no time (said Mr. C.) say that this particular city has suffered and we must extend relief to it. Let it be recollected that it was not for the misfortunes of small towns that so much sympathy was excited; but that the calamities of large cities create an excitement which is apt to cause the constitution to be overlooked, and a dangerous precedent established by giving a preference to that city over the other ports of the Union. You must (said Mr. C.) extend relief only to those who have suffered, or you will establish, a dangerous precedent. He felt deeply for the losses sustained by this great commercial city, and he would with the greatest pleasure vote for the bill if its objectionable features were removed; but principle with him was stronger than feeling, and he was compelled to oppose it. He was not sent there to exercise his sympathies, but for a higher purpose. He would much prefer leaving this money in the hands of the merchants to placing it in the monopolizing banks, which made such great profits by the use of it; for he believed the merchants would make a better use of it. He would vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, but even if that prevailed

The question was then taken on Mr. EwING's amend ment, and lost, without a division.

Mr. WHITE had intended to vote for this bill, and as the yeas and nays were called on the amendment by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] he would state the reasons why he should vote against it. The first section provided relief for those who had actually suffered by the fire, and the second section gave relief to those who had suffered a consequential loss. Now, was it possible that they had the power to indulge their debtors in the first case and not in the second? Here a great calamity had befallen a great city, and they were asked not to forgive the debts of those indebted to them, but to grant indulgence by extending the time of payment to those who had actually suffered by this great calamity. This was proposed to be done by the first section. There was another class of debtors, said Mr. W., not immediately sufferers, and we apply to them for payment; they answer that they have lost by those who have suffered by the fire, and that if we do not indulge them also, they would be put to great inconvenience and distress. The loss of the one class as much deserved relief as the other; for, in such a calamity, no man could tell how far the losses extended. confessed he had no hesitation in extending relief in both cases, and he had no constitutional scruples as to the bill. Suppose the case of the commercial community suffering by the breaking out of a war, or great losses have been occasioned by inundations of the Mississippi. One half of your debtors under such circumstances apply for relief, and you grant it; the other half tell you that they have suffered as much in consequence of the losses sustained by those to whom you have granted relief; how would you make the distinction between them? As there was a direct loss, and also a probable loss in consequence of it, they had a right to grant the relief, and he was prepared to vote for the bill, and against the amendment.

He

Mr. PRESTON said the second section of the bill was virtually a regulation of commerce, and gave a preference over the port of New York. It was, therefore, to his mind, unconstitutional, and he could not vote for it. Mr. P. read the clause of the constitution on that subject, which says, "no preference shall be given by any regulations of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another."

JAN. 14, 1836.]

Sufferers by Fire in New York-National Defence.

The question was here taken on Mr. CALHOUN's motion, and it was lost: Yeas 9, nays 34, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Calhoun, Clay, Cuthbert, Davis, Ewing, King of Georgia, Moore, Preston--9. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Buchanan, Clayton, Crittenden, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, Knight, Leigh, Linn, McKean, Mangum, Morris, Naudain, Niles, Porter, Prentiss, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Swift, Tallmadge, Tomlinson, Tyler, Wall, Webster, White, Wright-S4.

Mr. KING, of Georgia, said it was perfectly apparent that the Senate intended to pass this bill without any amendment. With all his heart would he make up this whole loss of seventeen millions to the city of New York, if it could be done without any dangerous consequences. It had been said that this bill was intended to extend relief to those who had suffered by the fire, and not to operate as a bounty to those who had sustained no loss. It had been stated that the capital of New York was increased in value; that was one argument used to hurry the passage of the bill. It was admitted on all hands that the rate of interest had increased, in addition to the enhanced value of goods. This, however, was not what he rose to speak of. He rose to fulfil his promise, to submit an amendment striking out the proviso in the first section to which he had before referred.

Mr. K. here read the proviso, as follows:

"Provided, That those who are within the provision of this section, but who may have paid their bonds subsequent to the late fire, shall also be entitled to the benefit of this section, and that the said bonds shall be renewed from the day when the same were paid, and said payments refunded."

This was taking money out of the treasury to lend for three, four, and five years, without interest, and had been characterized by a Senator from Massachusetts as the measure of a prudent creditor to secure his debt. Now, he asked, did not this debt lose its character eo instanti, from the very moment it was paid. So soon as the debt came into the treasury, it was the property of the United States, and they had just about as much right to lend it as to lend the whole seventeen millions that had been lost by the fire.

Mr. K. then moved to amend the bill by striking out the proviso in the first section above quoted.

Mr. BUCHANAN said he had but a single remark to make. To adopt this amendment would be to punish those merchants who had paid their bonds punctually notwithstanding the distress, and to place them in a worse situation than others who had been either unable or unwilling to pay. This he could never consent to do. The question being taken on Mr. KING's motion, it was lost without a division.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

On motion of Mr. WEBSTER, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business; and, after remaining a short time with doors closed, The Senate adjourned.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 14.

SUFFERERS BY FIRE IN NEW YORK. On motion of Mr. WRIGHT, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill for the relief of the sufferers by fire in New York, which yesterday passed to its third reading. The bill was read a third time, and passed, and sent to the House of Representatives for concurrence.

COMMITTEE ON ENROLLED BILLS.

[SENATE.

atives, announcing that the House had appointed a Committee on Enrolled Bills on the part of the House.

The Senate concurred, and the Chair was directed to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate; whereupon, Mr. NAUDAIN and Mr. NILES were apppointed.

ANTI-SLAVERY PETITIONS.

The motion of Mr. CALHOUN, that the petitions from Ohio praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia be not received, was taken up.

Mr. RUGGLES suggested the propriety of dividing the question on the petitions, and taking the vote separately upon them.

Mr. WEBSTER, in reference to the time of day, said it would, in a few minutes, be time to pass to the unfinished business, which was the special order of the day, and expressed a hope that this course would be adopted by unanimous consent.

Mr. LEIGH expressed a wish to know at what precise time this subject would be again taken up, as he was desirous to make some remarks on the subject.

The CHAIR said it would stand the first in the ordinary business of the morning.

The subject was, by unanimous consent, passed over.

NATIONAL DEFENCE.

The Senate took up Mr. BENTON's resolution to appropriate the surplus revenues for purposes of national defence.

Mr. EWING, of Ohio, rose and addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. President, the resolutions which gave rise to the discussion a day or two since, and which are now before the Senate, have been almost wholly lost sight of, and the debate has turned upon matters relating to them but incidentally. Those matters I shall not overlook in the remarks which I propose to offer to the Senate; but I will in the first place give my views of the resolutions themselves, or rather of the resolution; for I deem the first only of importance, and shall consider that only.

This resolution proposes to set apart the surplus revenue now on hand, and, as I understand it-for it is not very definite in its language-the accruing surplus for the future, to be applied to the purposes of national defence. Now, before I vote for this resolution, I wish to have a definite idea of its meaning-not a vague, confused notion of something about it that may or may not be well enough; but I must understand it, especially the important words which are the substance, the very body and soul, of the resolution; that is, the surplus revenue;

what is it?

It certainly is not any thing that is wanted for the purposes of Government, which are, I believe, generally, the civil list, foreign intercourse, military service, including the building and arming fortresses, &c., and the naval service, including the gradual improvement of the navy. These, if not all, are some of the ordinary expenditures of the Government; and so long as any money is wanting for these, there can be no surplus revenue; and if an extraordinary occasion should arise when it was necessary to summon and concentrate all our energies upon any of these objects of expenditure, there could be no "surplus revenue" until that necessity was met and satisfied. This, then, seems to me to be the interpretation of the resolution: After we have expended all the money that it is necessary to expend, or which can be expended upon our fortifications and our navy, we will set apart all the residue of our available means, to be applied to the same objects.

Mr. President, I am in favor of making as perfect as possible our national defences, and will go as far as any gentleman to effect that object; but I must go about it,

A message was received from the House of Represent- | if at all, in the ordinary and legitimate mode of legislaVOL. XII.--9

« AnteriorContinuar »