Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

SENATE.]

Expunging Resolution.

[MARCH 28, 1836.

of the preceding day should be expunged, which was ordered, and accordingly done. Now, sir, if the extreme, and, I might well call it, superstitious strictness which is now inculcated in regard to the sanctity and inviolability of entries once made on our journals had prevailed then, this expunction, however simple and proper in itself, could not have been made. It will be remarked that there was no mistake in the entry made on the journal. The entry was not of Mr. Pinckney's death, but of the fact that Mr. Randolph on a given day an

It recited truly, and in compliance with a positive injunction of the rules of the Senate, the substance of the memorials presented, and the proceeding of the Senate on their presentation. There was and could be no allegation of any error in these respects. The entry was ordered to be expunged, not because of any mistake in it, but because the matter of it was unjust and wrong; because it went to criminate the executive administration of the country, without proof or probability; and for that reason ought not to stand upon the journal of a coordinate department. It is in vain, therefore, to endeav-nounced to the House that Mr. P. was dead, and then or to resolve the precedent of 1806 into the ordinary moved an adjournment. That fact was truly entered, power of revising and correcting the journal before it is precisely as it occurred. If there had been a mistake finally made up. It was a far different thing. It was in the entry, the motion would have been the ordinary no process of correcting mistakes in entries on the jour-one to correct, and not the extraordinary one to exnal, which is ordinarily done the morning after the en- punge it. If, moreover, the doctrine now so earnestly tries are made, and without the formality of an order or contended for by gentlemen were well founded, that resolution. It was the exercise, on the part of this body, a transaction or proceeding in either House once truly of a higher and more important power--a power not to entered on its journal, the entry must stand there to all correct mistake, (for there was none,) but to redress future time, and cannot be touched or changed in a letwrong to purge its journal, not of erroneous entries, ter or a comma, without a violation of the constitution, but of improper matter, in the entry of which there had then Mr. Randolph, instead of the short and obvious been no error or mistake; a power which, from the na- remedy of an expunction of the entry of the preceding ture of it, and the principles on which it is founded, day, could have constitutionally attained his object only must exist in as full force the next year as the next morn- by a distinct entry of his explanation on the journal of ing after the objectionable entry has been made. the succeeding day.

No ingenuity, Mr. President, however great, no effort But, sir, the Senator from Louisiana, ev even conceding of mind, however gigantic, can ever succeed in the at- the power of each House over entries previously made tempt which is made to reconcile the senatorial prece- on its journal, contends that this power is limited to the dent of 1806 with the doctrines of gentlemen who op- current Congress, and that the Senate or House of Reppose the resolution now under consideration. On what, resentatives of a succeeding Congress has no control sir, is their whole argument built? Is it not the assump. whatever over the journal of the Senate or House of tion that each House of Congress, in being required to Representatives of a preceding Congress. Without "keep a journal of their proceedings,” is bound to pre- stopping to show that this argument, even if correct in serve to all future time the record of each and all of its principle, would be wholly inapplicable to the Sentheir proceedings; that every act or proceeding of either ate, which, from the successive partial renewals of its House should be entered on the journal; and once truly members, (ope third of the whole being replaced by entered there, that entry can never thereafter be touch- new elections every second year,) is a perpetual body, ed, altered, or removed, but must remain as it is, with. I choose rather to meet the principles of the objection out the change of a letter or a comma, to the "last syl- at once, by demonstrating its utter incompatibility with lable of recorded time?" Now, sir, can it be contended the nature of the legislative trust. It is a fundamental that the presentation of the memorials of Messrs. Smith principle in regard to legislative bodies, that, in their and Ogden by a member of the Senate, the reading of ordained succession by virtue of periodical elections, one those memorials, the action taken upon them by the Legislature has precisely as much and the same power Senate, were not proceedings of which the constitution as another; a law enacted by one Legislature, or in one requires a journal to be kept? We have already seen session of a Legislature, may be repealed by another or that the rules of the Senate, adopted for the purpose of during a subsequent session. What one resolves, anothfulfilling the injunction of the constitution, expressly re- er may rescind; and, in like manner, and on the same quire all these things to be entered on the journal. Can | principle, one Legislature has as much and the same it be pretended that these matters were not truly enter-power over the legislative records as another. In this ed? By no means. In every possible aspect, then, in respect, there is an obvious and important distinction which the proceedings of this body, in 1806, can be between legislative and judicial bodies; a supposed viewed, it utterly prostrates the whole fabric of techni- analogy in whose functions and proceedings has, doubtcal refinement on which the arguments of gentlemen less, misled the honorable Senator. After the adjournagainst the power to expunge have been raised. ment or close of the term of a court, its proceedings, its A case of expunging, involving precisely the same orders, its judgments, its decrees, are final and irrevocaprinciples, and leading to the same consequence, occur. ble, so far as it depends on its own action. It has no red in the House of Representatives not many years ago. power, as legislative bodies have, at a subsequent term On the 25th of February, 1822, Mr. Randolph, of Vir- or session, to revoke, change, or set aside, any thing ginia, being informed that Mr. Pinckney had just died done by it at a preceding term or session. If error in this city, (where he then was,) rose and announced has been committed, that error can be corrected after the event to the House, with the impressive eloquence the expiration of the term only by a higher tribunal, and which the loss of such a man naturally drew from a ge- certain limitations of time are prescribed within which nius of kindred inspiration, and moved an immediate ad- even these appeals to higher tribunals must be prosecujournment of the House. It afterwards appeared that ted. So imperative is the maxim, "interest reipublicæ Mr. Pinckney was not dead at the time that Mr. Ran- ut sit finis litium," the public repose requires a limit to dolph communicated the event to the House, though he be fixed to judicial controversies. The nature of the died some few hours after. The fact, however, of Mr. legislative trust, however, being altogether different, Randolph's having announced the event, and the conse- and requiring that the exercise and expression of the quent adjournment of the House, were necessarily en- public will should be at all times unfettered in matters of tered on the journal as a part of its proceedings; and the general concern, every Legislature, or session of a Legisfollowing day, Mr. Randolph, after an explanation of lature, has an unlimited control over the acts, proceedthe circumstances, moved that the entry on the journalings, or resolutions, of a preceding Legislature or session.

[blocks in formation]

Gentlemen have been misled, as it seems to me, through the whole course of this discussion, by a supposed analogy between legislative and judicial proceedings, when, in fact, none exists. Either from the force

of professional habits, or from a hasty consideration of the subject, we have heard legislative journals and judicial records constantly confounded, when no two things can be more distinct. The security of private rights, titles to property, real and personal, repose on the judicial records of the country; and hence those records are everywhere guarded by proper penal enactments against unauthorized interference, or any alteration whatever. But in regard to legislative journals, while they are necessarily confided to the sound discretion of the respective bodies whose duty it is to keep them, private rights and the security of property can never depend upon them. Important rights and interests may sometimes be claimed or acquired, I know, under legislative acts; but those acts, if laws, are never spread upon the journal, or, if joint resolutions, they are enrolled and preserved, like the laws, out of, and independent of, the journal, and both are included in annual and authorized publications of the acts of Congress, which are received in evidence in all the courts, without further proof or authenticity.

[SENATE.

have run thus: "Whereas Andrew Jackson, the Presi-
dent of the United States, has, in the late executive pro-
ceedings in relation to the public revenue, assumed upon
himself authority and power not conferred by the con-
stitution and laws, but in derogation of both, and has
thereby proved himself unworthy of the confidence of
a free people: Resolved, therefore, as the opinion
of the Senate, that
- be, and is hereby, rec-
ommended to the good people of the United States as the
most fit and proper person to replace the said Andrew
Jackson in the office of President," &c.

Suppose, Mr. President, that such a resolution had been adopted by the Senate, organized as it is at this moment, yourself in the chair, all the Senators in their seats, the Secretary at his table, the yeas and nays called upon it, and the resolution finally entered on the journal; could such a resolution, notwithstanding all the senatorial forms which might have accompanied it, be considered as a proceeding of the Senate, within the meaning of the constitution? Can any one doubt that there would be full authority in this body, when it should see the error and evil tendency of its act, to expunge such a resolution from its journal? If so, the question of power is settled, and the propriety only of its exercise would then depend upon a question, Dismissing, for the present, Mr. President, the author- which I will not anticipate the discussion of, but which ity of precedents, there are cases in which, upon the it may be well to suggest for the consideration of genmere reason of the thing, I think all would agree that tlemen, whether the resolution actually adopted on the the right of this body to expunge an entry from its jour-occasion referred to had more relation to the functions, nal would be unquestionable. The constitution requires legislative, executive, or judiciary, intrusted by the each House to keep a journal of its "proceedings;" that constitution to this body, than the resolution supposed is, I presume, its proceedings as a constitutional body, acting in discharge of its appropriate constitutional functions. On this point, I beg leave to read a passage from Mr. Jefferson's Manual, the authority which especially governs our proceedings in this body-a passage which seems to me to have an important bearing on the question we have been considering.

He says: "Where the constitution authorizes each House to determine the rules of its proceedings, it must mean, in those cases, legislative, executive, or judiciary, submitted to them by the constitution, or in something relating to these, and necessary towards their execution. But orders and resolutions are sometimes entered in the journals, having no relation to these, such as accept ances of invitations to attend orations, to take part in processions, &c. These must be understood to be merely conventional among those who are willing to participate in the ceremony, and are, therefore, perhaps, improperly placed among the records of the House."

The result of this, as it seems to me, very clear and just distinction is, that nothing is to be regarded as properly a proceeding of either House, of which a journal is required to be kept, but such acts as are done in discharge of the legislative, executive, or judicial functions, respectively committed to them by the constitution. If any act be done by either House, not appertaining to the discharge of its constitutional functions, that act ought to be considered as extra-official, or, as Mr. Jefferson expresses it, as merely conventional among the members participating in it, consequently, not as a proceeding of the body to be entered on the journal, and, if improperly placed there, may be, and ought to be, taken off. With this distinction as my guide, let me suppose a case. Let us suppose that this body, imitating the irregular practice which has obtained in some of the State Legislatures, should, while still organized as a Senate, proceed to the nomination of a President of the United States; let us suppose that the very resolution which is now proposed to be expunged had been used, as it well might, as a preamble to such a nomination; let us suppose that the President had been in his first term, and then the preamble and nomination would VOL. XII.-63

would have had?

But it

While, therefore, Mr. President, I cannot doubt that there are cases in which an entry, improperly placed upon our journals, may be removed or expunged therefrom by actual erasure or obliteration, it must yet be borne in mind that no such obliteration or erasure is contemplated or required by the resolution now under consideration. It contemplates a moral, not a physical, expunction-an expunction of the act, without expunging the record. It seeks to deprive that act of all legal force and validity, by applying to it the appropriate and significant language of parliamentary condemnation; and, without erasing or obliterating the original entry of it on the journal, to affix to that entry a visible mark, which shall show, in all time, that the act there recorded had been revoked, annulled, and repudiated, by the solemn judgment of the Senate and the nation; so that if, in any future search for precedent, the act be found, its condemnation will be found inseparably associated with it. That this is the meaning and intention of the resolution, is shown by its own express declaration. is objected that, in that sense, the term expunged cannot be properly used. The question, then, becomes one of mere verbal criticism; and surely gentlemen will admit that it is the privilege of public bodies, as well as private individuals, to define the sense in which they use terms susceptible of a difference of signification. This is explicitly done by the resolution under consideration; and all objections founded on the assumption of a meaning different from that in which the resolution interprets and defines its own language, must, of necessity, fall to the ground. But I willingly meet gentlemen on the question they have made, and maintain that the use of the word expunge, in the sense in which it is employed on the present occasion, is perfectly correct and consistent in itself, and justified by numerous parallel examples in the usage of language, both in judicial and parliamentary proceedings. I will call the attention of my learned colleague especially [Mr. LEIGH] to a striking illustration, furnished by the decisions of the highest courts in our own State, with which he is far more familiar than I can pretend to be. We all know, Mr.

SENATE.]

Expunging Resolution.

[MARCH 28, 1836.

From its frequent recurrence in the same application, in Yates's report of the proceedings of the convention which formed the constitution, we are authorized to infer that its use in the same sense was also familiar among the learned statesmen who composed that illustrious assembly.

But there is an example of its use which I cannot forbear to mention.

President, that, in law, a deed is an instrument signed, sealed; and delivered; that it is an essential and indispensable element in its legal character that it should be sealed, and that a seal, in the common understanding of the word, and as defined, I believe, by Lord Coke himself, is an impression made on wax or wafer; and yet the court of appeals in Virginia, as have more recently, I believe, the courts in a majority of the other States, decided, on principles of common sense and common law, independently of any statutory provision on the subject, that a scroll or black lines, drawn in any shape to suit the fancy of the drawer, when declared to be intended for a seal, does, in fact, constitute a seal, and makes the paper to which it is attached, to all intents and purposes, a sealed instrument. Now, sir, if black lines can thus be made to constitute a seal, a thing which, in its ordinary sense, is formed of wholly differ-evils are sufferable, than to abolish the forms to which ent materials, surely they can be made to stand for expunging, which, in its strictest and most literal sense, demands only the use of the same materials. In either case the declared intention stands in place of, and is equivalent to, the thing itself.

Again, sir, the term cancel, if not of precisely the same, is certainly of very analogous import to the word expunge. Its etymological meaning, as well as that which is given to it in the legal definition, is to destroy a deed or other writing by drawing lines across it in the form of lattice work. It is a principal branch of the common law jurisdiction of the court of chancery in England to cancel letters patent, (which are records,) obtained from the King upon false suggestions, or otherwise void. In both legal and popular phraseology we speak of a deed or will (also matters of record) being cancelled by the decree of a court. Now, sir, in these cases, I presume the Lord Chancellor does not actually draw lines in the form of lattice work on the letters patent which he cancels; nor does the court run the pen across the will or deed which is cancelled and set aside by its decision. On the contrary, it is the decision of the chancellor, or the decree of the court pronouncing the patent, will, or deed, to be fraudulent and void, which, per se, cancels it; that is, destroys its legal validity and effect, while leaving the record of its material existence unimpaired. In like manner, the word expunge, in the present instance, exerts its whole force on the legal act or precedent itself, without impairing the written entry of it upon our journal.

The illustrations furnished by familiar parliamentary proceedings are not less forcible, while they have the advantage of coming still nearer home to us. When a motion is made and carried to strike out a clause or section in a bill, it is not, as I understand, actually stricken out or erased with the pen, but the portion voted to be stricken out is indicated by suitable marks, with a corresponding notation on the margin of the bill, or on a separate paper, and is considered as stricken out by the mere force of the vote. What is directed to be done, is, by a parliamentary fiction, if you choose, considered as actually done. It is a singular coincidence that, in the earlier period of our parliamentary history, this very word expunge, which has of late furnished such a fruitful theme of commentary, was habitually used instead of the phrase to strike out, in reference to amendments, and in the sense in which the latter phrase has just been explained. During the first two Congresses under the present constitution, I find that, in the journal of this body especially, the word expunge is of constant recurrence; and that, in proposing amendments to bills, the motion was to expunge, instead of strike out; and when carried, the clause or section which was the subject of the motion was said to be expunged, though, as in the case of striking out, there was no actual erasure, which it is now contended the word necessarily imports.

In the draught of the declaration of independence, this significant word is used in the very sense which is assigned to it on the present occasion. After stating the fundamental principle of the right of the people to alter or abolish their institutions, a right which prudence requires should not be exercised for light and transient causes, and, accordingly, that all experience hath shown mankind more disposed to suffer, while they are accustomed, the following pregnant sentence occurs: "Such has been the patient endurance of these colonies, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge their former systems of government."

Now, sir, as Mr. Jefferson was what Lord Clarendon, I think, called John Hampden, a root and branch man, he might be considered, perhaps, both in temperament and principle, as an expunger. It may not, therefore, be improper to add that this word stood in the declaration of independence, not only as it came from the pen of Mr. Jefferson, but as it was reported to Congress, and sanctioned by the rest of the committee, by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman. What, sir, did these great men and illustrious patriots mean by expunging our " former systems of government?" Did they mean that the royal char. ters, in which those systems of government existed and were delineated, were to be erased and obliterated with the pen, as modern commentators would have us believe the word expunge can only mean? No, sir, they meant, as we mean on the present occasion, that the institution, the act, should be expunged, leaving the record of it unimpaired.

Having thus, sir, I hope, satisfactorily established the true parliamentary sense of expunging, permit me to say something of the thing itself. Attempts have been made here and elsewhere to represent it as something very odious and iniquitous. Now, sir, I take upon myself to say that, from the nature of the thing, implying necessarily a deliberate change in the public councils, it never can be resorted to in a representative Government, but with the sanction and under the authority of the people, and in their hands will never be used but for the vindication of their rights and of the principles of their fundamental law. In the history of our British ancestors, sir, it comes down to us through a long line of glorious traditions. In that country it has been the instrument by which every great principle of civil and political liberty has been successfully vindicated and established. How was expunging used, sir, in the celebrated case of John Hampden and ship-money in 1640? We all know, sir, that in that case the King claimed an arbitrary power to levy upon the people, at his own discretion, whatever imposition he might deem necessary for the support of the Government and the defence of the kingdom. This enormous usurpation was sanctioned by the judges, not merely in an extra-judicial opinion, irregularly obtained from them, but in their solemn judgment rendered in the Exchequer Chamber against John Hampden, for his refusal to pay the odious tribute exacted of him. These iniquitous proceedings were afterwards expunged in the high court of Parliament; and by that expunction the great principle of free government, that the people can be taxed only with their consent given through their representatives, that principle which gave birth to our own

[blocks in formation]

In the case of the protest of the tory lords, in 1690, to which I have also had occasion to refer, the principle involved and finally vindicated by this odious process of expunging was even of a deeper and more vital character. The Senate will recollect that the clause in the recognition bill to which the tory lords objected, and against which they entered their protest, was one asserting the validity of the acts of the convention Parliament; that Parliament under whose auspices the glorious Revolution of 1688 had just been achieved. The tory lords were unwilling to recognise the validity of its acts, because it was called together in the emergency of a great crisis, by the voice of the nation itself, speaking in the person of the Prince of Orange, and without the formali. ty of the King's writ, which these lords held was indispensable, under all circumstances, to constitute a lawful Parliament. This objection, formerly recorded in their protest, struck at the vital principle of the Revolution which had just been accomplished-the sovereign right of the people to alter or abolish their institutions without a slavish submission to pre-existing forms. The House, therefore, ordered their protest, which had been regularly entered on the journal, to be expunged, and, in doing so, worthily vindicated the vital principle of the right of the people to change, modify, or abolish, their institutions, whenever it shall seem to them good-a principle which stands in the very front of the declaration of American independence, and is even more essential to American than British liberty.

[SENATE.

glorious Revolution, was, for the first time, successfully the deliberate sanction, and under the formal authority, and irrevocably established. In the case of Skinner and of the people. Expunging is, in fact, the imbodied the East India Company, in 1669, to which I have here- and potential voice of the people, bursting, by its legititofore referred, what was the great principle involved? mate power, the doors of legislative assemblies, and corIn addition to that ultimate appellate jurisdiction in ques-recting, in the most solemn form, the deviations and tions of law, of which the House of Lords in England assumptions of their servants. It necessarily implies a has been long possessed, it claimed on that occasion cog- change in the public councils by the operation of the nizance of original suits, in utter subversion of the trial public will; for the body, which has committed an error by jury. By being forced at last, by the noble resist- or been guilty of a usurpation, remaining constituted as ance of the House of Commons, to expunge the judg- it was, will not be the willing instrument of correcting ment they had pronounced, and their other proceedings or expunging its own wrong. Accordingly, in every in that memorable case, they renounced, finally, this one of the cases which I have mentioned, the final pardangerous claim of original jurisdiction, and the glorious liamentary action has been preceded by the matured, institution of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors, the great bul- the settled, the irreversible, judgment of the public wark of British and American freedom, the trial by jury, mind. In the case of Hampden and the ship-money, was thus triumphantly rescued and maintained. the proceedings which were expunged took place in 1637; the expunction followed three years after, in 1640. In the mean time, the public mind had been anxiously and intensely exercised on the subject; the question had been publicly and solemnly argued before all the judges in the Exchequer Chamber, from time to time, through a period of six months. After their decision was pronounced, the merits of that decision continued to furnish the theme of able and earnest discussion at the bar of public opinion, and, finally, the settled judgment of the nation was carried into execution, by the order of the high court of Parliament, for expunging the rolls of the obnoxious proceedings. In the case of Skinner and the East India Company, in like manner, the question between the two Houses was pending, and earnestly debated before the nation for eighteen months; and the House of Commons was but the organ of the settled public opinion of the country, in finally wresting from the Lords the expunction of their dangerous and illegal proceedings. In the case of the protest of the tory lords, in 1690, the great principles involved had been kept constantly before the public mind, by the profound interest awakened by the Revolution of 1688, and the faithful and patriotic whigs of that day but acted out a deliberate and foregone conclusion in the public judg ment, by expunging a protest which assailed the vital principle of popular sovereignty. In the case of the Middlesex election, the question had been pending before the nation for fourteen long years; during which time it had been the subject of public discussion in every possible form-popular, parliamentary, and legal--in meetings of the people, in both Houses of Parliament, and incidentally before the judicial tribunals of the country. Public opinion was never more maturely formed, more fully expressed, or more faithfully represented, than in the order for expunging the unconstitutional and obnoxious resolution in that case. So it is, sir, on the present occasion. It is this day precisely two years since the resolution now proposed to be expunged was adopted by this body. During the whole of that period, the public attention has been constantly recalled to it by able and eloquent debates here--by the searching discussions of the press-by the calm and self-directed inquiries of the public mind. This subject has been constantly under the consideration of the people, in one form or another. Every temporary and artificial excitement has passed by, and the public judgment has been left to its own self-balanced wisdom to pronounce on the issue joined before it. Its decision, I believe, sir, has been made up, and, in great part pronounced. Eleven of the sovereign States of this Union have spoken, and spoken authoritatively, demanding the expunction of this resolution from our journals. There can be but little hazard in saying that four or five more desire and would approve it, though they have not yet spoken in an authoritative form, probably because they have supposed it to be unnecessary to do so. The judgment of our constituents, then, of the people, and

The case of the Middlesex election, which gave rise to another instance of expunging in 1782, is perfectly familiar to the minds of the Senate. There the great right of the people freely to choose their own represent atives was vindicated and established by expunging a resolution of the House of Commons, adopted fourteen years before, and which was justly described as "subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors in the kingdom." We have seen, then, this denounced and calumniated process of expunging, through two centuries of British freedom, used as the efficacious instrument by which every great constitutional right, every cardinal principle of popular liberty dear to the hearts of freemen, has been successfully vindicated and redeemed: in 1640, the right of the people to be taxed only with their own consent; in 1769, the right to jury trial; in 1690, that right which is the mother of all others, the right of the people to organize, modify, or abolish, their political institutions at their own pleasure; in 1682, that right which forms the practical security for the rest, the right of the people freely to choose their own representatives. In view of these facts, it is no exaggeration to say that every cardinal principle of British and American freedom has, at one period or another, been vindicated and established by this remedial but calumniated process of expunging. I have already remarked, Mr. President, that this remedy for the abuse of delegated power can never be resorted to, in a representative Government, but with

|

[blocks in formation]

of the States, has passed on this transaction- I believe irrevocably passed upon it. They consider the resolution adopted by this body on the 28th March, 1834, as irregular, as illegal, as unjust, as unconstitutional; and the more alarming, as proceeding from that branch of the federal Legislature which is the most irresponsible, and as tending dangerously to increase its power, alrea dy sufficiently great. On these grounds, they demand that that resolution be expunged from our journal; and seeing not the slightest constitutional impediment to the remedial process for which they have indicated their preference, I, for one, Mr. President, will cheerfully obey their voice.

When Mr. RIVES sat down,

Mr. LEIGH said he would reply to his colleague; and unless any other gentleman wished to proceed, he would move that the resolution, the discussion of which he had not anticipated as likely to come up during his absence from his seat, should be laid on the table, promising to call it up as soon as he should have had time to examine the authorities.

The resolution was then laid on the table.

SPECIE PAYMENTS.

The bill for the payment of the revolutionary and other pensioners of the United States being under consideration, Mr. BENTON offered the following amendment:

SEC.. And be it further enacted, That no bank note of less denomination than twenty dollars shall hereafter be offered in payment in any case whatsoever, in which money is to be paid by the United States or the Post Office Department; nor shall any bank note of any other denomination be so offered, unless the same shall be payable and paid on demand, in gold or silver coin, at the place where issued, and which shall not be equivalent to specie at the place where offered and convertible into gold or silver upon the spot, at the will of the holder, and without delay or loss to him.

Mr. GRUNDY thought the word "instantly" would perhaps answer as well as the words "on the spot." He made no motion, but suggested that the phraseology would be improved by it.

Mr. BENTON said this was a bill for the relief of old soldiers, and he was inclined to adhere to the word spot. He wanted them to have the gold standing in their tracks.

Mr. KNIGHT was in favor of substituting the word received for the word offered.

Mr. TALLMADGE thought it better to make the amendment a distinct proposition from the bill under consideration. He did not like to embarrass it with a matter on which there was evidently a division of sentiment in the Senate, and which would lead to discussion, and necessarily delay the bill.

Mr. CLAYTON was opposed to putting riders on the bill. To attach this amendment to it, the bill might not get through.

Mr. BENTON thought this an appropriate subject to attach the amendment to, and spoke of the extent of mischief he had seen in shaving bank notes in the hands of old soldiers, and after thus seeing it, he had so much anxiety about it that his feelings would not permit him to waive the amendment he had offered, which was so applicable to this and all other appropriation bills.

After some remarks from Mr. NILES,

Mr. WRIGHT said the object of the mover of the amendment, to restrain the excesses of the present paper system of the country, and to infuse into our circulation a greater proportion of gold and silver, met his cordial and sincere approbation. He had labored, and was willing to labor in that cause, with that powerful and worthy leader; but he must say he was sorry that he had felt it to be his duty to make the bill now before the Senate the one upon which the principle of his

[MARCH 28, 1836.

amendment was to be tried. He was sorry, also, that the Senate was called upon to act upon this proposition until another bill which was now before the House, and which he soon hoped to see here, should have been acted upon by this body. He referred to the bill to repeal that provision in the charter of the Bank of the United States which compelled all the receivers of money due to the Government, for any consideration whatsoever, to receive the bills of that bank. The charter of the institution expired, by its own limitation, on the fourth day of the present month; but two years are allowed by the charter, after that day, to enable it to close its business; and a question has arisen whether the clause of the charter making its bills receivable for debts due to the Government, expired with the expiration of the charter, or extended itself through the two years given to close the concerns of the bank. The head of the Treasury Department has applied to Congress to solve the doubts by a repeal of that section of the charter, and a bill had been under the consideration of the House containing the desired provision. But, Mr. W. asked, would it be just to the deposite banks, or proper in itself, to impose upon them this restriction in paying our appropriations, while we compel them, by an express provision of law, to receive all the notes, of all denominations, of a particular institution, and that, too, after the charter of that institution has expired, and while the measures taking by those who have the management of its affairs, are directly calculated to make the notes in circulation of a less value than par at every point but one in the whole country? He presumed his honorable friend from Missouri [Mr. BENTON] was not aware of the course of policy adopted and adopting by the late Bank of the United States, to continue the notes of that institution in circulation throughout the country, and to press them into the hands of the agents of the Government, and consequently into the deposite banks, by the force of this legal privilege extended to those notes, to the exclusion of all other notes of any bank in the country. It was his present object to inform the Senate and the country as to the policy pursuing in this matter; and to do so he would read parts of a correspondence with the Secretary of the Treasury, which had been put into his hands as a member of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, to show the neces sity of the speedy passage of the bill to which he had referred.

The officer in charge of the deposite bank at Boston wrote to the Secretary to know whether he was considered legally bound to receive these bills in payment of dues to the Government, after the expiration of the charter of the bank. The Secretary, in his answer, inquired of the officer of the deposite bank, how and in what case the question could arise and become important to the institution under his charge, telling him he presumed the payments for duties there had been and would continue to be made, chiefly, if not entirely, by checks on his own and the other banks of the city. To that suggestion the officer replied as follows:

"Heretofore, the branch bank in this city has redeemed the bills of the United States Bank, drawn here by regular course of business; consequently making them equal to the city bank bills, being, therefore, no difference in value; the payments to Government have been made generally in checks and bills of the city banks. But this branch of the United States Bank now refuses to redeem any bills but of their own issue, and, consequently, every other city bank rufuses to receive them. This depreciates in value all the United States Bank bills issued elsewhere, and they must be negotiated by brokers, and purchased for the purpose of paying debts due the Government; the rate of exchange will probably cause them to be remitted from one city to another,

« AnteriorContinuar »