When these amendments came from the House, and were read at our table, though they caused a smile, they were yet adopted, and the law passed, almost with the rapidity of a comet, and with something like the same length of tail.

[JAN. 14, 1836.

my mind, and felt some solicitude about it, seeing that the session was drawing so near to a close. I took it for granted, however, as I had not heard any thing to the contrary, that the amendments of the Senate would not be objected to, and that when a convenient time should arrive for taking up the bill in the House, it would be passed at once into a law, and we should hear no more about it. Not the slightest intimation was given, either that the Executive wished for any larger appropriation, or that it was intended in the House to insert such larger appropriation. Not a syllable escaped from any body and came to our knowledge, that any further alteration whatever was intended in the bill.

Now, sir, not one of these irregularities or incongruities, no part of this jumbling together of distinct and different subjects was, in the slightest degree, occasioned by any thing done, or omitted to be done, on the part of the Senate. Their proceedings were all regular, their decision prompt, their despatch of the public business correct and seasonable. There was nothing of disorganization, nothing of procrastination, nothing evincive of a temper to embarrass or obstruct the public At three o'clock in the afternoon of the 3d of March business. If the history which I have now truly given the Senate took its recess, as is usual in that period of shows that one thing was amended by another which the session, until five. At five we again assembled, and had no sort of connexion with it, that unusual expedients proceeded with the business of the Senate until eight were resorted to, and that the laws, instead of arrange- o'clock in the evening; and, at eight o'clock in the ment and symmetry, exhibit anomaly, confusion, and evening, and not before, the Clerk of the House appearthe most grotesque associations, it is nevertheless true ed at our door, and announced that the House of Rep. that no part of all this was made necessary by us. We resentatives had disagreed to one of the Senate's amenddeviated from the accustomed modes of legislation only ments, agreed to others, and to two of those amend. when we were supplicated to do so, in order to supply ments, viz: the fourth and fifth, it had agreed, with an bald and glaring deficiencies in measures which were be- amendment of its own. fore us.

Now, sir, these fourth and fifth amendments of ours were-one a vote of $75,000 for the castle in Boston harbor, and the other a vote of $100,000 for certain de. fences in Maryland. And what, sir, was the addition which the House of Representatives proposed to make, by way of "amendment," to a vote of $75,000 for repairing the works in Boston harbor? Here, sir, it is:

"And be it further enacted, That the sum of three millions of dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended, in whole or in part, under the direction of the President of the United States, for the military and naval service, including fortifications and ordnance, and increase of the navy: Provided, Such expenditures shall be rendered necessary for the defence of the country prior to the next meeting of Congress."

But now, Mr. President, let me come to the fortification bill, the lost bill, which not only now, but on a graver occasion, has been lamented like the lost Pleiad. This bill, sir, came from the House of Representatives to the Senate, in the usual way, and was referred to the Committee on Finance. Its appropriations were not large. Indeed, they appeared to the committee to be quite too small. It struck a majority of the committee, at once, that there were several fortifications on the coast either not provided for at all, or not adequately provided for by this bill. The whole amount of its appropriations was $400,000 or $430,000. It contained no grant of three millions, and if the Senate had passed it, the very day it came from the House, not only would there have been no appropriation of the three millions, but, sir, none of those other sums which the Senate did insert in the bill. Others, besides ourselves, saw the This proposition, sir, was thus unexpectedly and suddeficiencies of this bill. We had communications with denly put to us, at eight o'clock in the evening of the and from the Departments, and we inserted in the bill last day of the session. Unusual, unprecedented, exevery thing which any Department recommended to us. traordinary, as it obviously is, on the face of it, the We took care to await the proper period, to be sure that manner of presenting it was still more extraordinary. nothing else was coming; and we then reported the bill The President had asked for no such grant of money; to the Senate with our proposed amendments. Among no Department had recommended it; no estimate had these amendments, there was a sum of $75,000 for Castle suggested it; no reason whatever was given for it. No Island, in Boston harbor, $100,000 for defences in Mary-emergency had happened, and nothing new had ocland, &c. These amendments were agreed to by the Senate, and one or two others added, on the motion of members; and the bill, being thus amended, was returned to the House.

And now, sir, it becomes important to ask when was this bill, thus amended, returned to the House of Representatives? Was it unduly detained here, so that the House was obliged afterwards to act upon it suddenly? This question is material to be asked, and material to be answered, too, and the journal does satisfactorily answer it; for it appears by the journal that the bill was returned to the House of Representatives on Tuesday, the 24th of February, one whole week before the close of the session. And from Tuesday, the 24th of February, to Tuesday, the 3d of March, we heard not one word from this bill. Tuesday, the 3d of March, was, of course, the last day of the session. We assembled here at 10 or 11 o'clock in the morning of that day, and sat until three in the afternoon, and still we were not informed whether the House had finally passed the bill. As it was an important matter, and belonging to that part of the public business which usually receives particular attention from the Committee on Finance, I bore the subject in

curred; every thing known to the administration at that hour, respecting our foreign relations, had certainly been known to it for days and for weeks before.

With what propriety, then, could the Senate be called on to sanction a proceeding so entirely irregular and anomalous? Sir, I recollect the occurrences of the moment very well, and I remember the impression which this vote of the House seemed to make all around the Senate. We had just come out of executive session; the doors were but just opened; and I hardly remember whether there was a single spectator in the hall or the galleries. I had been been at the Clerk's table, and had not reached my seat when the message was read. All the Senators were in the chamber. I heard the message certainly with great surprise and astonishment; and I immediately moved the Senate to disagree to this vote of the House. My relation to the subject, in consequence of my connexion with the Committee on Finance, made it my duty to propose some course, and I had not a moment's doubt or hesitation what that

course ought to be. I took upon myself, then, sir, the responsibility of moving that the Senate should disagree to this vote, and I now acknowledge that responsibility.

SENATE.]

National Defence.

happened in the recess of Congress. The vote of the Senate, indefinitely postponing this nomination, was carried to the President's room by the Secretary of the Senate. The President told the Secretary that it was more than an hour past twelve o'clock, and that he could receive no further communications from the Senate, and immediately after, as I have understood, left the Capitol. The Secretary brought back the paper containing the certified copy of the vote of the Senate, and endorsed thereon the substance of the President's answer; and also added that, according to his own watch, it was a quarter past one o'clock.

[JAN. 14, 1836.

ment of each successive term; but no hour is fixed by law or practice. The true rule is, as I think, most undoubtedly, that the session holden on the last day constitutes the last day, for all legislative and legal purposes. While the session commenced on that day continues, the day itself continues, according to the estab lished practice both of legislative and judicial bodies. This could not well be otherwise. If the precise moment of actual time were to settle such a matter, it would be material to ask, who shall settle the time? Shall it be done by public authority, or shall every man observe the tick of his own watch? If absolute time is There are two views, sir, in which this occurrence to furnish a precise rule, the excess of a minute, it is may well deserve to be noticed. One is, a connexion obvious, would be as fatal as the excess of an hour. Sir, which it may perhaps have with the loss of the fortifica- no bodies, judicial or legislative, have ever been so tion bill; the other is its general importance, as intro-hypercritical, so astute to no purpose, so much more ducing a new rule, or a new practice, respecting the nice than wise, as to govern themselves by any such intercourse between the President and the Houses of ideas. The session for the day, at whatever hour it Congress, on the last day of the session. commences, or at whatever hour it breaks up, is the legislative day. Every thing has reference to the commencement of that diurnal session. For instance, this is the 14th day of January; we assembled here today at 12 o'clock; our journal is dated January 14th, and if we should remain here until five o'clock to-morrow morning, (and the Senate has sometimes sat so late,) our proceedings would still all bear date of the 14th of January; they would be so stated upon the journal, and the journal is a record, and is a conclusive record, so far as respects the proceedings of the body.

On the first point I shall only observe that the fact of the President's having declined to receive this communication from the Senate, and of his having left the Capitol, was immediately known in the House of Representatives; that it was quite obvious that if he could not receive a communication from the Senate, neither could he receive a bill from the House of Representatives for his signature. It was equally obvious that if, under these circumstances, the House of Representatives should agree to the report of the committees of conference, so that the bill should pass, it must nevertheless fail to become a law, for want of the President's signature; and that, in that case, the blame of losing the bill, on whomsoever else it might fall, could not be laid upon the Senate.

On the more general point I must say, sir, that this decision of the President, not to hold communication with the Houses of Congress after 12 o'clock on the 3d of March, is quite new. No such objection has ever been made before, by any President. No one of them has ever declined communicating with either House at any time during the continuance of its session on that day. All Presidents, heretofore, have left it with the Houses themselves to fix their hour of adjournment, and to bring their session, for the day, to a close whenever they saw fit.

It is notorious, in point of fact, that nothing is more common than for both Houses to sit later than 12 o'clock, for the purpose of completing measures which are in the last stages of their progress. Amendments are proposed and agreed to, bills passed, enrolled bills signed by the presiding officers, and other important legislative acts performed, often at two or three o'clock in the morning. All this is very well known to gentlemen who have been for any considerable time members of Congress. And all Presidents have signed bills, and have also made nominations to the Senate, without objection as to time, whenever bills have been presented for signature, or whenever it became necessary to make nominations to the Senate, at any time during the session of the respective Houses for that day.

It is so in judicial proceedings. If a man were on trial for his life, at a late hour on the last day allowed by law for the holding of the court, and the jury acquitted him, but happened to remain so long in deliberation that they did not bring in their verdict till after 12 o'clock, is it all to be held for naught, and the man to be tried over again? Are all verdicts, judgments, and orders of courts, null and void if made after midnight on the day which the law prescribes as the last day? It would be easy to show by authority, if authority could be wanted for a thing the reason of which is so clear, that the day lasts while the daily session lasts. When the court or the legislative body adjourns for that day, the day is over, and not before.

I am told, indeed, sir, that it is true that, on this same 3d day of March last, not only were other things transacted, but that the bill for the repair of the Cumberland road, an important and much-litigated measure, actually received the signature of our presiding officer after 12 o'clock, was then sent to the President, and signed by him. I do not affirm this, because I took no notice of the time, or do not remember it if I did; but I have heard the matter so stated.

I see no reason, sir, for the introduction of this new practice; no principle on which it can be justified, no necessity for it, no propriety in it. As yet, it has been applied only to the President's intercourse with the Senate. Certainly it is equally applicable to his intercourse with both Houses in legislative matters; and if it is to prevail hereafter, it is of much importance that it should be known.

The President of the United States, sir, has alluded to this loss of the fortification bill in his message at the opening of the session, and he has alluded, also, in the same message, to the rejection of the vote of the three millions. On the first point, that is, the loss of the whole bill, and the cause of that loss, this is his language:

And all this, sir, I suppose to be perfectly right, correct, and legal. There is no clause of the constitution, nor is there any law, which declares that the term of office of members of the House of Representatives shall expire at 12 o'clock at night on the 3d of March. They are to hold for two years, but the precise hour for the commencement of that term of two years is nowhere fixed by constitutional or legal provision. It has been established by usage and by inference, and very prop- | erly established, that, since the first Congress commenced its existence on the first Wednesday in March, 1789, which happened to be the 4th day of that month, If the President intended to say that the bill, having therefore the 4th of March is the day of the commence-originated in the House of Representatives, passed the

"Much loss and inconvenience have been experienced in consequence of the failure of the bill containing the ordinary appropriations for fortifications, which passed one branch of the national Legislature at the last session, but was lost in the other."

SENATE.]

National Defence.

taken to speak in his behalf. No man got up to say, "The President desires this; he thinks it necessary, expedient, and proper." But, sir, if any gentleman had risen to say this, it would not have answered the requisition of the constitution. Not at all. It is not a hint, an intimation, the suggestion of a friend, by which the executive duty in this respect is to be fulfilled. By no means. The President is to make a recommendation, a public recommendation, an official recommendation, a responsible recommendation; not to one House, but to both Houses; it is to be a recommendation to Congress. If, on receiving such recommendation, Congress fail to pay it proper respect, the fault is theirs. If, deeming the measure necessary and expedient, the President fail to recommend it, the fault is his; clearly, distinctly, and exclusively his. This, sir, is the constitution of the United States, or else I do not understand the constitu- | tion of the United States. Does not every man see how perfectly unconstitutional it is that the President should communicate his opinions or wishes to Congress on such grave and important subjects, otherwise than by a direct and responsible recommendation; a public and open recommendation, equally addressed and equally known to all whose duty calls upon them to act on the subject? What would be the state of things if he might communicate his wishes or opinions privately to members of one House, and make no such communication to members of the other? Would not the two Houses be necessarily put in immediate collision? Would they stand on equal footing? Would they have equal information? What could ensue from such a manner of conducting the public business but quarrel, confusion, and conflict? A member rises in the House of Representatives, and moves a very large appropriation of money for military purposes. If he says he does it upon executive recommendation, where is his voucher? The President is not like the British King, whose ministers and secretaries are in the House of Commons, and who are authorized, in certain cases, to express the opinions and wishes of their sovereign. We have no King's servants; at least we have none known to the constitution. Congress can know the opinions of the President only as he officially communicates them. It would be a curious inquiry in either House, when a large appropriation is moved, if it were necessary to ask whether the mover represented the President, spoke his sentiments, or, in other words, whether what he proposed were "in accordance with the views of the Executive?" How could that be judged of? By the party he belongs to Party is not quite unique enough for that. By the airs he gives himself? Many might assume airs, if thereby they could give themselves such importance as to be esteemed authentic expositors of the executive will. Or is this will to be circulated in whispers? made known to meetings of party men? intimated through the press? or communicated in any other form, which still leaves the Executive completely irresponsible? So that while executive purposes or wishes pervade the ranks of party friends, influence their conduct, and unite their efforts, the open, direct, and constitutional responsibility is wholly avoided. Sir, this is not the constitution of the United States, nor can it be consistent with any constitu. tion which professes to maintain separate departments in the Government.

[JAN. 14, 1836.

a question that cannot be settled by any precise rule. But "specific appropriation," that is to say, the designation of every object for which money is voted, as far as such designation is practicable, has been thought to be a most important republican principle. In times past, popular parties have claimed great merit from professing to carry this doctrine much farther, and to adhere to it much more strictly, than their adversaries. Mr. Jefferson, especially, was a great advocate for it, and held it to be indispensable to a safe and economical administration and disbursement of the public revenues. But what have the friends and admirers of Mr. Jeffer. son to say to this appropriation. Where do they find, in this proposed grant of three millions, designation of object, and particular and specific application of money? Have they forgotten, all forgotten, and wholly abandoned, even all pretence for specific appropriation? If not, how could they sanction such a vote as this? Let me recall its terms. They are, that "the sum of three millions of dollars be, and the same hereby is, appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended, in whole or in part, under the direction of the President of the United States, for the military and naval service, including fortifications and ordnance, and to increase the navy: provided such expenditure shall be rendered necessary for the defence of the country prior to the next meeting of Congress."

In the first place it is to be observed, that whether the money shall be used at all or not, is made to depend on the discretion of the President. This is sufficiently liberal. It carries confidence far enough. But, if there had been no other objections, if the objects of the appropriation had been sufficiently described, so that the President, if he expended the money at all, must have expended it for purposes authorized by the Legislature, and nothing had been left to his discretion but the question, whether an emergency had arisen in which the authority ought to be exercised, I might not have felt bound to reject the vote. There are some precedents which might favor such a contingent provision, though the practice is dangerous, and ought not to be followed except in cases of clear necessity.

But the insurmountable objection to the proposed grant was, that it specified no objects. It was as general as language could make it. It embraced every expenditure that could be called either military or naval. It was to include "fortifications, ordnance, and increase of the navy;" but it was not confined to these. It embraced the whole general subject of military service. Under the authority of such a law, the President might repair ships, build ships, buy ships, enlist seamen, and do any thing and every thing else touching the naval service,

without restraint or control.

He might repair such fortifications as he saw fit, and neglect the rest; arm such as he saw fit, and neglect the arming of others; or build new fortifications wherever he chose. And yet these unlimited powers over the fortifications and the navy constitute, by no means, the most dangerous part of the proposed authority; because, under that authority, his power to raise and employ land forces was equally absolute and uncontrolled. He might levy troops, imbody a new army, call out the militia in numbers to suit his own discretion, and employ them as he saw fit.

Now, sir, does our legislation, under our constitution, furnish any precedent for all this?

Here, then, sir, is abundant ground, in my judgment, for the vote of the Senate, and here I might rest it. But there is also another ground. The constitution declares that no money shall be drawn from the treasury We make appropriations for the army, and we underbut in consequence of appropriations made by law. stand what we are doing, because it is "the army," that What is meant by "appropriations?" Does this lan- is to say, the army established by law. We make apguage not mean that particular sums shall be assigned, propriations for the navy; they, too, are for "the navy,' by law, to particular objects? How far this pointing as provided for and established by law. We make apout and fixing the particular objects shall be carried, ispropriations for fortifications, but we say what fortifica