desire that a different course should be adopted by the Senate, I prefer to urge that course with the memorial of my constituents, rather than to interfere with the course proposed by him; for, however the motions of the two honorable Senators may differ in form, they, in my opinion, amount in substance to the same thing; the one denies the right of petition, while the other, though it admits the right, denies the ordinary investigation into the merits of the petition, and refuses to grant what is prayed for. Such right is of little value in the estimation of my constituents. Sir, as I intend to present this memorial, and ask that it may take the usual course of memorials presented to the Senate, as I believe some Senators on this floor have mistaken the opinions and motives of those who have petitioned Congress on this subject, I desire to say a few words as to the opinions and motives of my constituents. I do not, however, intend to discuss at this time the correctness of these opinions, or to express opinions of my own, for it is not, as I believe, the proper time to discuss either the constitutional power of Congress over the subjects presented by the memorial, or the expediency of exercising that power if they possess it; for, however ingenious arguments may be, (and I have listened to some of great ingenuity,) whether made on this floor or elsewhere, while the ordinary course of legislation is denied to the petitioners, they will not be convincing; and decisions of the Senate, made by the extraordinary course of legislation proposed, will not be satisfactory, but will tend to increase, rather than to allay, excitement, which gentlemen so much deprecate, as injurious to slaveholding States. Sir, the language used by the memorialists is, I admit, very strong; it is, however, dictated, I have no doubt, by the honest opinions and feelings of the memorialists, and with them it is the language of truth; and though they speak without disguise of the evils of slavery and of the slave trade within this District, yet they say nothing of slavery elsewhere, excepting to enter a disclaimer of any intention or wish to interfere in any manner with slavery in the different States; and there is nothing in the memorial disrespectful to this body. But, as I intend to ask for the reading of the memorial by the Secretary, to give gentlemen an opportunity to make such motion as they think proper in relation to it, I will not detain the Senate by stating the contents. Not only the memorialists, but a very considerable portion, to say the least, of the citizens of the State which I have the honor in part to represent, believe that Congress have power to abolish slavery within the District, and that it is expedient that Congress exercise the power of legislating on the subject, and either abolish slavery immediately, or make provision for its future abolition; or, by some provisions of law, mitigate some of the existing evils of slavery, and especially of the slave trade, within this District. They believe, also, that, by the relationship existing between the several States and this District, that each State is implicated in the evils of slavery, and that the charge that our Government is a slaveholding Government is not without the appearance of foundation. With these opinions, the memorialists respectfully ask the Senate that their memorial may be received, that it may be submitted to the thorough investigation of some standing or select committee of the Senate, and that it may so far receive the attention of such committee as to obtain from it a full, fair, and candid report, which course will greatly tend, in my opinion, to allay the tempest of feeling which exists on this subject. If they are mistaken in their opinions, they desire to be convinced of it, and, when so convinced, they will desist from all further proceedings on the subject; but until convinced that [SENATE. they are wrong, they will continue not only to think, but to speak and act on the subject, and no earthly power can prevent them from doing so. And Sir, let me tell gentlemen that those of my constituents who entertain these opinions are neither incendiaries nor fanatics, unless those who have signed this memorial have, by so doing, rendered themselves obnoxious to such charge, but they are amongst the most intelligent and peaceable citizens. Whether the memo-. rialists do or do not belong to any anti-slavery society I do not know, but I do know that these opinions do not belong exclusively to those who are members of such societies; indeed, many entertain these opinions who are opposed to the measures of those societies. They are men who value too highly the freedom of opinion and of speech to surrender them through fear of any consequences which can affect only themselves. let me also tell these honorable gentlemen that, while they deprecate the excitement at the North on the subject of slavery, as injurious to their best interests, their course is not the best calculated to allay that excitement; indeed, unless I am much mistaken as to the feelings and temper of the people of the North, their course in relation to these petitions will tend to increase the excitement which they so much deprecate. I now, move that the memorial be read by the Secretary, and referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia, and I shall regret to find that, in the opinion of the Senate, the memorialists have used any language unsuitable to the occasion, or that has been dictated by any improper feelings. I must, however, believe that they have not intended to use language any stronger than was necessary to express their opinions of the evils. of slavery existing within the District. Mr. KING, of Alabama, said that, before the reading of the petition, he desired to know of the gentleman who presented it if it was entirely respectful to that body. Parliamentary usage required that, before a gentleman presented a petition or paper of any kind to a deliberative body, he should satisfy himself that it contained nothing disrespectful to those to whom it was addressed. Mr. CALHOUN desired to know if the language of the petition was respectful to those who had sent them there. He therefore wished to hear the petition read. [Here the petition was read by the Secretary.] Mr. C. demanded the preliminary question on receiving the petition. The Senator from Vermont, he said, objected to the calling these petitioners incendiaries, and yet (said Mr. C.) he does not object to the language used by them towards those who sent us here. Mr. SWIFT had only said that gentlemen could judge of the language of the petition for themselves. The petitioners, he had said, were entirely respectable, were influenced by the purest motives, and believed themselves justified in speaking of evils as they suppos ed them to exist. Mr. CALHOUN cared not what their motives were; he cared not whether they acted from ignorance or design; he only judged of the effect. Those persons who presented this petition knew of the existence of the Southern institutions, and yet they spoke of them as unjust, wicked, aed diabolical. Whatever might be the design of these men, the course they were pursuing was calculated to destroy this Union and subvert its institutions. He did not mean to enter into any argument with the gentleman from Vermont, but he demanded the preliminary question, and on it he asked for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were accordingly ordered. Mr. BUCHANAN was not only willing, but anxious, that the question should be distinctly taken before the Senate of the United States, and as far as it was in his power to put it to rest, he was prepared to go. It would seem that, on one morning, the Senate were to have a dish of Mr. BENTON's resolutions served up, and the next morning the abolition question. He hoped they would dispose of one thing at a time, and would therefore move to lay the question on the table. He made this motion with a view that it might be called up hereafter, when the Senate were prepared to make a final disposition of it. Mr. LEIGH read parts of the petition, from which he inferred that there was a design in the petitioners to act not only upon the rights of the people of the District of Columbia, but upon the rights of the slaveholding States generally, as it argued generally against slaveholders. Mr. SWIFT said it was difficult to find expressions in any memorial to which some exception might not be taken. Let me, said he, illustrate this by calling the attention of gentlemen to another question. Suppose a petition presented there to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets in this District, calling the practice immoral, gambling, &c., would gentlemen consider this language improper, because the sale of lottery tickets was tolerated elsewhere. This case was perfectly similar to the one treated of in the petition he had just presented. After some additional remarks from Mr. CALHOUN, Mr. BUCHANAN moved to lay the question on the table, and it was agreed to. PUBLIC LANDS. Mr. EWING, from the Committee on Public Lands, moved that the committee be discharged from the further consideration of various memorials and petitions, asking for rights of pre-emption, or grants of land, from Alabama, Indiana, Ohio, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Mr. PORTER said he was greatly surprised at the report just made by the honorable chairman of the Committee on Public Lands, and he could not help thinking that it was done without due consideration. He hoped, on due reflection, they would find reason to change their conclusion. At all events, he could not permit it to pass without opposition; and he was determined to take the sense of the Senate on the adoption of the report. He was aware that objections existed to the grants of land to new States, not so much on the principle, for there seemed to be little discrepancy of opinion on the propriety of making such a grant, but from a difference of opinion as to the mode of giving it. Many of the representatives from the old States were willing to assent to the donations asked for, provided that with them a distribution of the money now in the Treasury, arising from the sales of public lands, could be made according to the principles contained in the bill introduced by the Senator from Kentucky; while others, who were opposed to that bill, wished to have these donations acted on singly, without being coupled with another measure which, in their opinion, endan gered their passage. Waiving all observation on this point for the present, he wished to call the attention of the Senate to one of the memorials from the Legislature of Louisiana, which had just been rejected by the Com. mittee on Public Lands. That memorial stated there were obstructions in the Atchafalaya river, which were being removed by the labor and at the expense of the State of Louisiana, and asked for a donation of land proportioned to the advantages accruing to the United States, in consequence of the improvements so made. Sir, (said Mr. P.,) this request of the State I represent here asks for no favor from the general Government. It demands a matter of strict justice. The consequence of the obstruction heretofore existing in that river was an impediment to the free course of the water, which caused it to overflow the circumjacent country, and [JAN. 28, 1836. render of no value some of the richest and finest land in the State or the world. The United States are the owners of nearly all the soil on the banks of this river, and their property would be increased in value one hundred fold by the measures which the State of Louisiana was pursuing, and the money expended by her. Under such circumstances, was it not a matter of surpassing astonishment that the committee should move to be discharged from all further consideration of the subject? What, sir, (said Mr. P.,) do they propose that their lands shall be brought from no value to an immense importance by our labors, and refuse all participation in the expense of doing so? Are we to understand that, because they think we are obliged to open this river for purposes of navigation, they are ready to profit by our labors, because they are indirectly benefited? Sir, this might be a good plea for an avaricious and selfish man in a court of justice, but it is unworthy a rich and powerful country. It has no justice, it has no equity, in it. Mr. P. said, another opportunity would be afforded him to express his opinions on this subject, and he would not at this time trespass further on the time of the Senate. He did not wish to interrupt the business which was generally expected to come up this morning; his present object was to postpone the consideration of the matter to another day, but, in doing so, he wished to express his strong dissent to the report just made from the chairman of the committee. After some remarks from Mr. BENTON and Mr. MOORE, the motion to discharge the committee was laid on the table. Mr. BUCHANAN, who was entitled to the floor, at the request of Mr. GRUNDY, yielded this privilege; and Mr. GRUNDY rose and addressed the Senate as follows: Mr. President: Notwithstanding the indisposition under which I labor, I hope to be able to make myself understood, although I am aware that the manner in which I shall discharge the duty before me will be less acceptable than that of others, or than it could be performed even by myself, under more favorable circumstances. When I moved the modification of the resolution which my friend from Missouri was kind enough to accept, accompanied by the brief explanation I then made, I did suppose that I could scarcely be misunderstood by any one; but I find I was mistaken, as the resolution is now deemed by some Senators more exceptionable than it was in its original form; it therefore becomes necessary and proper that I should explain, more fully and at large, my views and objects. That the United States are exposed, and in too great a degree defenceles, is admitted by every intelligent man. On this account the country suffered much in the late war with Great Britain. Our large cities on the seaboard were constantly exposed to the approaches of the enemy, and this city became the theatre of their actions. Even this Capitol, containing the sacred halls of the legislation of freemen, was burnt and destroyed. Since that time, our means of defence have not been so improved as to prevent similar occurrences and sufferings in the event of another war with any powerful nation. This condition of things has been heretofore the result of necessity, not of choice. The remainder of the public debt incurred in the revolutionary war, and the whole of the debt occasioned by the last war, had to be paid; and the payments to be made in discharge JAN. 28, 1836.] National Defence. of them, and the ordinary current expenses of the Government required all the money accruing from every source of revenue. [SENATE. I have stated that the want of money was the reason why this subject had not heretofore been effectually attended to. We now have the money; it has accumu. cannot prevent it. We are driven, by a kind of necessity or destiny, to the discharge of the high duty of preparing to protect and defend our country against every enemy who may approach our shores. I am solicitous that these defences should be made or provided out of that surplus revenue which you cannot materially reduce or diminish, and before the pe. riod arrives when your revenue, under the operation of the tariff compromise act, may not be more than sufficient to defray the ordinary expenditures of the Government. If the surplus, of which I have spoken, be applied to other objects, for which Congress is under no constitutional obligation to provide, the conse quence will be, that the people must be taxed in order to raise the money necessary to protect the country. I therefore cast no blame upon those who have pre-lated, and is still accumulating, upon our hands, and we ceded us. There has been no period in the history of the Government, when the proper defences for the country could have been provided without resorting to a system of taxation which would have been oppressive. An unwillingness, very properly felt, to increase the public burdens, combined with a desire to discharge our public engagements with punctuality, accounts for the present defenceless condition of the country. But what is the state of things now? You have, or will shortly have, about thirty millions in the treasury, a large portion of which is not, nor can be, needed for the ordinary purposes of the Government; and you cannot, if you act in good faith, and in fulfilment of the pledge given at the time, and by the passage of the compromise tariff act, so reduce or diminish the revenue as to prevent an accumulation of the surplus. Gentlemen are constantly engaged in devising ways and means to dispose of this surplus money; for none of us are willing that it shall remain in the public treasury unexpended. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] proposes an amendment of the constitution, to enable Congress to make a disposition of it, while the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] makes a proposition to divide, by an act of Congress, a considerable portion of it, which has arisen or may arise from the the sale of the public lands, among the several States. My opinion is, that we should first discharge our own duties, by fulfilling all the trusts committed to us, with the means which the constitution and laws have placed in our hands, before we go abroad in search of objects of munificence or bounty. To protect and defend the States was one of the great objects which led to the formation of the constitution; not to provide for their proper defence, when the means are within our hands, is to fail in the performance of one of the highest trusts confided to the federal Government; and we are left without excuse if we squander or give away the money, for purposes respecting which there is no constitutional obligation upon us, and thereby disable ourselves from defending the country against its enemies. What, then, is our duty? My answer is, prepare the country, whether there is to be peace or war; so, if war shall come, the pride of our citizens may not again be humbled, by witnessing the scenes of the late war. My object in offering the proposition to amend or modify the original resolution was, and now is, to set apart from all other uses so much of the surplus revenue which has accrued or may accrue, as will be sufficient to provide the proper defences of the country, and to enable Congress to form a proper estimate of how much should be set apart for this purpose; the other resolutions ask information of the proper departments, what sums of money will be necessary for the different objects specified. When an answer shall be received from the Executive, then Congress can decide whether it will adopt the scheme proposed by that department, or whether it will increase or diminish the means of defence recommended. In this way we shall act understandingly. We can, after the information is obtained, determine what we ought to do. We shall then know the probable amount of the cost, and set apart a sum of money out of the present and accruing surplus suffi. cient to accomplish the objects contemplated, whatever they may be. It certainly was not, and is not, my in. tention that this great work of fortifying and defending the country should progress in the tardy manner heretofore pursued, but as rapidly as labor and materials can be procured. VOL. XII.-20 Having made this explanation of my views in reference to the resolutions on your table, I will now proceed to the investigation of other topics which have been introduced into this debate. I have no accusations to make against any one. I am too imperfect myself, and I know it, to assume the station of a censor of the conduct of others; but gentlemen should recollect, while they are denouncing, in no measured terms, the proposed appropriation of three millions at the last session, that some of us voted for it; and we have the same motives and the same influences which operate on them to vindicate ourselves from the charge, indirectly made, to be sure, of being infractors or violators of the constitution, and of having voted for a measure, for which they would not have voted even to save the Capitol from the enemies of the country. These are hard sayings, and, when their application falls on us, merit a serious examination. In making this examination, I shall exhibit facts and arguments in support of the course adopted by the minority of this body; and this will fill up the whole circle of my duties here. I shall not assume upon myself the right of judging and condemning others-that belongs to another forum, the great tribunal of public opinion, by whose decision I am willing in this, as in all other cases, to abide. I ask, what part of the constitution of the United States would have been violated by this ap propriation of three millions? None, according to my reading and understanding of that instrument. It provides that "no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law." The manner of making the appropriation is left to Congress. How far they shall be general or specific is to be determined by the House of Representatives and Senate, at the time they are passing acts making the appropriations. The right to appropriate money for constitutional purposes or objects being given to Congress, and that instrument (I mean the constitution) being silent as to the mode or manner of making the appropriation, it follows that the department of the Government to which is confided the right to appropriate must exercise its discretion and judgment as to the mode or manner of making them; and whether the mode be as general as that practised under the first two administrations, or as specific as the practice recommended and introduced by Mr. Jefferson, in neither case is the constitution violated. To secure a rightful application of the public money, and a strict accountability in the officers disbursing it, were the motives which induced Mr. Jefferson to recommend that specific appropriations should be made. This was wise and salutary, and gave rise to the practice that now generally prevails. I now proceed to show that a greater latitude of discretion was vested in General Washington, by the act of the 20th of March, 1794, than was proposed by this SENATE.] National Defence. three million appropriation. That act provides "that a sum of one million of dollars, in addition to the provision heretofore made, be appropriated to defray any expenses which may be incurred in relation to the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, to be paid out of any moneys which may be in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, and to be applied under the direction of the President of the United States, who is hereby authorized to borrow the whole or any part of said sum of one million of dollars, an account of the expenditure whereof, as soon as may be, shall be laid before Congress." Here one million of dollars was placed entirely at the discretion and "under the direction of the President of the United States;" and I would ask gentlemen for what specific object or purpose was this appropriation made? The act declares that it is "to defray any expenses which may be incurred in relation to the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations." All the nations of the earth, civilized and savage, are laid open to the President as a theatre for his operations. There is no limitation or restriction imposed upon his discretion. He was to select the nations with whom the intercourse was to take place, and the purposes and mode of expenditure. All this discretionary power was vested in the President by the Congress of 1794, and sanctioned by General Washington himself by his approval of the act. I am aware that it may be said that more discretion must be confided to the Chief Magistrate, in his intercourse with foreign nations, than is proper in our domestic concerns. This is true in most cases in point of policy and expediency; but the constitution makes no difference. I therefore feel authorized in saying that the proposed three million appropriation would not have been unconstitutional, unless the Congress of 1794 and General Washington violated the constitution in the passage of the act containing the appropriation I have read. In 1806, during the administration of Mr. Jefferson, who has been justly styled the great apostle of civil liberty, an act passed, and received his sanction, confer. ring on him greater and broader discretionary powers than were contained in the proposition for the three million appropriation. The act of 1806 provides that a sum of two millions of dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated towards defraying any extraordinary expenses which may be incurred in the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, and to be applied under the direction of the President of the United States, who shall cause an account to be laid before Congress as soon as may be." It should be recollected that our intercourse with foreign nations is carried on by the executive branch of the Government, and by this act two millions of dollars are placed in the hands of Mr. Jefferson, then President of the United States, to cover any extraordinary expenses which he might, in the exercise of his discretion, create in our intercourse, not with any particular nation or nations designated by Congress, but with the whole world; and this sum of two millions is placed in the hands of the Executive, over and above the sum required for the ordinary and established intercourse then existing between the United States and foreign nations. Let us compare the proposed appropriation of three millions with the act I have just read. The proposed appropriation reads as follows: "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, ordnance, and increase of the navy; [JAN. 28, 1836. provided such expenditures shall be rendered necessary for the defence of the country prior to the next meeting of Congress." The appropriation made by the act of 1806 was absolute and unconditional. The proposed appropriation of three millions of dollars was conditional, and to depend upon the happening of the contingency that the expenditures shall be rendered necessary for the defence of the country prior to the next meeting of Congress. In that event, and in no other, could the President of the United States have used one dollar of the money. The necessity contemplated by the proviso could only have arisen upon France committing acts of hostility, or assuming such an attitude as must, in the opinion of the President, have inevitably led to war. By the act of 1806, there is nothing definite or specific. By the proposed appropriation, the objects upon which the money was to be expended are enumerated and specified. By an act of April, 1806, Mr. Jefferson was authorized to exercise, without specification of object, an unlimited control over one hundred thousand militia of the United States, and two millions of dollars. The first section of that act declares "that the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized, at such time as he may deem necessary, to require of the Executives of the serveral States to take effectual measures to organize, arm, and equip, according to law, and hold in readiness to march in a moment's warning, their respective proportions of one hundred thousand militia, officers to be included; to be apportioned by the President of the United States, by the militia returns of last year, in cases where such returns were made; and, in cases where such returns were not made the last year, by such other date as he shall judge equitable." The fifth section provides "that the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to call into active service any part or the whole of the said detachment, when he shall judge the exigencies of the United States require it. If a part of the said detachment only shall be called into active service, they shall be taken from such part thereof as the President, in his discretion, shall deem most proper." The sixth section is, "That two millions of dollars be, and are hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the pay and subsistence of such part of said detachment as may be called into service." By this act a hundred thousand militia are to be raised at the discretion of the President, and two millions of dollars are appropriated for their pay and subsistence, and this is all to be done when he shall judge the exigencies of the United States require it. This act expired, by its own limitation, at the end of two years, and was re-enacted on the 30th of March, 1808. Having shown satisfactorily, as I trust, that no violation of the constitution was involved in the proposed appropriation, nor any departure from the legislative usages of the country, and that more discretion has been vested in former Presidents of the United States, the next inquiry is, did such a state of things exist as to justify the appropriation? The French Government owed a debt of $5,000,000 to citizens of the United States, which by solemn treaty it had stipulated to pay. It had paid no part of it. This Government had promptly and in good faith performed every stipulation on its part, and still delay and procrastination were practiced by the French Govern ment. A majority in the Chamber of Deputies had at a preceding session actually rejected an appropriation of the money. The Senate of the United States had resolved that no legislative measure should be adopted at the last session; but the Committee on Foreign Relations, who recommended the adoption of the resolution, in their report fully concur with the President of the United States when he remarks, in his message, that "the idea of acquiescing in the refusal of the execution of the treaty will not, for a moment, be entertained by any branch of the American Government. The United States can never abandon the pursuit of claims founded on the most aggravated wrongs." The House of Representatives had adopted a resolution declaring that the fulfilment of the treaty would be insisted on. The French Government had recalled its minister; and the President of the United States had directed our minister to return to this country, in case the appropriation was not made by the Chamber of Deputies at its then session. The By his message to Congress of the 26th of February he communicated all the facts within his knowledge, and submitted to them what measures were proper to be adopted, in the following language: "It will be seen that I have deemed it my duty to instruct Mr. Livingston to quit France with his legation, and return to the United States, if an appropriaton for the fulfilment of the convention shall be refused by the Chambers. subject being now in all its present aspects before Congress, whose right it is to decide what measures ought to be pursued on that event, I deem it unnecessary to make further recommendation, being confident that, on their part, every thing will be done to maintain the rights and honor of the country which the occasion requires." From the message, it is evident that the President wished and expected Congress would adopt such measures as it might deem proper, to meet any contingency which might occur. To place the country in a position to defend itself would have been a measure of prudence, and at the same time could have given no cause of umbrage whatever to France. Had the President, by his message, recommended these preparations, and assigned to Congress, as a reason for so doing, the probability of a rupture or hostilities, the sensibilities of that Government would have been more excited than they were by his annual communication. In this posture of affairs, was it not reasonable to entertain apprehensions that France might adopt measures which would require this country to defend itself? In that view of the subject, the three million appropriation should have been made; and the supposition is not unreasonable that the repeated denunciations which we had heard against executive power and patronage, combined with that distrust which some gentlemen entertained in the present Chief Magistrate, contributed mainly to its defeat, although gentlemen might not have been conscious of the influences operating upon them. It is true that, in general, appropriations for the defence of the country should be specific, and founded on estimates previously made by the executive departments of the Government. It is impossible that members of Congress can so well understand the various provisions that should be made for the defence of the country as that branch of the Government which has the subject of our national defence under its particular care and management; but in this case there was no opportunity, after our relations with France were fully understood, to make the necessary estimates, and submit them to the consideration of Congress; and therefore it was that the appropriation of three millions was proposed, and the President was left to exercise his judgment how much of the $3,000,000 was to be applied to each of the different objects specified. There was no other practicable way by which additional means could be provided to defend the country, in the event of the approach of danger. When it is recollected that Congress was about to adjourn, by the termination of its constitutional existence, and that it could not be convened at an early day, by reason of the election of members for the new [SENATE. Congress in many of the States not having taken place, it seems to me quite reasonable that some means of defence should have been placed in the hands of the Executive, to be used in case it became necessary. It should still be remembered that the President had no right to use one dollar of this three millions, unless "the expenditure should be rendered necessary for the defence of the country prior to the next meeting of Congress." I will now say a few words upon the loss of the ordinary appropriation bill at the last session. I will take it for granted, until conclusive evidence shall fasten upon my mind a contrary conviction, that no committee, no member of either House, acted unworthy of his station, or used any unfair or disreputable means to defeat the passage of that bill. The remark of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. WEBSTER,] that its bones are to be searched for in the other House, is true to the letter; but that is not the material inquiry. Where was the fatal blow; where was the mortal wound inflicted? If it were inflicted in this body it is of no consequence that the bill was carried to the other House, and there lingered for a short time, and died in the place of its nativity and origin. But even if the mortal wound were received in this body, and it was inflicted in defence of the constitution, all men, both here and elsewhere, would pronounce the act justifiable. Let us now examine how this bill was lost. I insist its loss is wholly attributable to the disagreement which grew up between the two Houses upon the subject of the three million appropriation. But for the disagreement between the two Houses upon that subject, the bill would have passed both Houses of Congress, and have become the law of the land. If the Senate had not rejected the three millions, no difficulty would have occurred. The House had passed the appropriation bill, and it came to this body. The Senate concurred in all the House had done, and inserted by way of amendments additional appropriations. The bill was then returned to the House, and it agreed to all the amendments of the Senate, and ingrafted upon them the appropriation of three millions. Each House had agreed to every appropriation contained in the bill, except the amend ment made by the House proposing the appropriation for the three millions. To this the Senate disagreed, and the loss of the bill cannot rightfully be imputed to any other cause than the difference of opinion which existed between the two Houses upon this subject. Gentlemen may argue as long as they please; they may give lengthy historical accounts of the progress of the bill through committees and the two Houses; they may labor to fix the blame where they may, and it at last resolves itself into this, that the House of Representatives wanted the appropriation of three millions; the Senate would not agree to it; and on that account, and that only, the fortification bill failed. It has been objected that the President had not asked, by a message, for this appropriation. Can Congress do nothing for the defence of the country, when all the facts are before them, without being stimulated by a message from the Chief Magistrate? If he had sent a message recommending the appropriation, would he not have been charged with dictating to Congress the measures they should adopt? Now, when he has placed all the facts in relation to our intercourse with France before Congress, and leaves the whole matter to them, with a confident reliance that, "on their part, every thing will be done to maintain the rights and honor of the country which the occasion requires," it is said he has been guilty of an omission of duty. A serious question seems now to be made, as to what time Congress constitutionally terminates. Until lately, i have not heard it seriously urged that twelve o'clock, |