H. OF R.] Claim of James Monroe. [FEB. 1, 1831. law, no gentleman here can tell. We endorse the claim power of eulogy has been exhausted in portraying the in blank, and hand it over to the party, and to agents of virtues and character of the man. Far be it from me, sir, remote responsibility, to fill up. to detract from his merit. I acknowledge the high chaSir, I see no necessity for this reference. The claim, racter that has been assigned him. I acknowledge his agreeably to the statement of the gentleman from Vir- patriotism, his services, and the debt of gratitude we owe ginia, [Mr. MERCER,] consists of only nine items. It is not him. If he be poor, and in want, he has my sympathies; a long account, requiring a tedious examination, or a so- and, were it in my power, consistently with the duties I lution of intricate or embarrassing questions: the facts owe to the station I hold, I should cheerfully aid in his are all comprised within a narrow compass. They are relief; but, in the discharge of my duty to the public, I detailed at length in the report of the committee, and may must be governed by my judgment, not by my sympathies. be examined and understood in two hours, by any gentle-] In addition to what has passed upon this floor, an exman who will devote his attention to them for that length traneous influence has been put in motion, with a view to of time. They have been a long time before Congress, operate upon the members of this body. Public meetings and I have no hesitation in saying that they are under- have been held in different places, and resolutions have stood by the members of this House, as well as they can been passed expressive of their sense of the justice and be by gentlemen in the Executive Department. To this equity of this claim. These resolutions have been usherHouse the settlement of the question belongs, and, for ed upon us as the evidence of public sentiment, and unione, I will not attempt to evade the responsibility of set-versal anxiety of the people for the relief of Mr. Monroe. tling it. From the high character of the claimant, the When it is alleged that, from the complicated nature of decision of this claim will unavoidably be drawn into fu- this claim, the members of this House, who have examined ture precedent. It is not the amount which Mr. Monroe it, and whose duty it has been to investigate and underalone may draw, that I fear. The appropriation of mil-stand it, are incompetent to decide it, and that it is, therelions to other individuals, for similar claims, may be made fore, necessary to send it to the Executive Department to under the rule which this case may establish. This is a be settled, shall we take the expressions of those meetclaim of dollars and cents, asked as a remuneration for ings as the rule of our action? Probably not one in a services rendered, and moneys disbursed for the benefit hundred who attended them, had ever looked into the of the Government. The rule established for its allow-documents relating to it, or could assign any reason for its ance must serve as a governing principle in all future allowance, other than that Mr. Monroe deserves well of cases of claims for like services, and like disbursements. the country. Under this Government, we cannot establish a criterion of The only ground on which this claim could be sustainpartial application. That which is " equity and justice" ed for a moment, is, that of a pecuniary indebtedness by when applied to the claim of Mr. Monroe, must be equity the Government. Mr. Monroe does not ask us to bestow ty, or city meeting? These are designed to express the general judgment on subjects of policy; but they are unfit tribunals to prescribe rules for the legal adjustment of pecuniary demands, and it savors somewhat of the demagogue to apply them in such cases. and justice when applied to every other claim of similar it upon him as a gift; and should we be so regardless of character. our duty as to abandon the well established rules of legal From the peculiar character of this claim, and from its adjudication, and, instead of awarding him a debt actually general notoriety, I feel extremely desirous that it should his due, should insult him with the offer of a gift, has he be settled by the appropriate tribunal-by the public not too much of the American in him to accept it? It is agents, under an immediate responsibility to the people, a debt that he claims, and Congress is both court and jury who feel the weight of that responsibility, and who can be to try the question, and assess his damages. Now, sir, most readily brought to account for their discharge of what would be said of a court or jury who, in forming a this duty. judgment on a claim for money, should look at, hear, or My objection to sending the claim to the Executive De-regard the decisions or recommendations of a town, counpartment for settlement and liquidation, does not arise from a want of confidence in that department. For the President, and his cabinet, I entertain a high regard; but, great as is my confidence in them, I desire that they should not be required to execute a duty not properly devolving upon them. am also averse to embarrassing Letter writers at Washington have furnished the editors them with this question. Let the appropriate duties of of papers with statements reflecting upon the conduct of each branch of the Government be kept separate, and let members of this House, some for voting against, and each stand responsible for its action. I consider it ungene- others for their inattention to this claim. These letters rous, on the part of this House, to attempt to shift its have been published, and the papers sent here; and is it unresponsibility to the President of the United States. I charitable to suppose that the design was to influence the have no doubt but that he would do justice; and let him final vote upon this question? Now, sir, in the discharge be ever so just, there are those who will endeavor to tor-of my duty as a member of this House, I cannot permit ture his acts to his prejudice. myself to be seduced by any art of persuasion, or intimidated through fear of popular denunciation, to act counter to my views of justice and propriety. Sir, it was with great reluctance that I was impelled to say any thing upon this subject; but, from the course which the debate upon the question has taken, and from Sir, if it be now in order to advert to the merits of this the remarks which have fallen from the advocates of the claim, I will take the liberty to express my opinion upon claim, I should have been wanting in duty and respect to them. I am aware of the ungracious office I have to permyself, had I given a silent vote, without repelling the form in opposing this claim. A claim identified with the charges of illiberality and ingratitude made against those name, and services, and sufferings of James Monroe, is who vote against the claim. I am not content to be calculated to draw to it a generous feeling, and to inspire branded with illiberality or ingratitude, and yield a seem-a confidence in its merit. ing assent by passive silence. In 1826, a portion of this claim, together with other In doors, and out of doors, every thing that could be items, was pending before Congress. The subject elicited put in requisition, has been brought to bear upon this great interest, and underwent a thorough investigation claim. Gentlemen upon this floor have addressed us in by the members of this House at that time. I then had the most feeling and pathetic manner, in behalf of the the honor of a seat here; it became my duty to act upon claimant. We have been told of his early, constant, and it, and I bestowed great attention upon its merits. devoted patriotism; of his long, arduous, and valuable ser- down to an examination with feelings of strong predilecvices; of his sufferings, his wants, and his distresses: the tion in its favor. I had a high veneration, and boundless I sat FEB. 1, 1831.] Claim of James Monroe. [H. OF R. regard, for the character and services of the man. I felt shall not draw interest, though the creditor may omit to an earnest desire to find proofs which would authorize make his demand for years. This rule prevails both in me to give it my support. I will not say that I examined law and equity, and the allowance of this interest would it impartially; for my feelings strongly preponderated in be a perversion of the established rule of each. Sir, I favor of the claimant. I was reconciled, then, to an allow-object to its allowance in this case, for the reason that it ance of a portion of the thirty thousand dollars then allow-would be a manifestation of fickleness on the part of the ed him; but such was the result of my examination, that I Government. It would be an innovation upon its fixed was compelled to vote against the allowance of the whole and established rules; those rules to which the claims of all its creditors are subject. Adopt this principle in your amount. Previous to presenting the claim to Congress, Mr. Mon- settlements, and there are claims enough of this descriproe had applied to the proper department for its allow- tion, to draw from your treasury many millions of dollars. ance. It had undergone the examination and decision of Give notice, by the establishment of this precedent, that gentlemen who were then in the administration. The such claims are allowable, and you will be overwhelmed examination by the department took place at a period with them. Suppose you relax the rule in this particular when the facts and the circumstances connected with the case only, what will the next claimant say to you when claim were fresh in the recollection, and clearly within you reject his claim, predicated upon the identical printhe knowledge of those whose duty it then was to pass ciple with this? Will he not have a right to demand of upon it. The gentlemen of the department, who then you even-handed justice? and will he not have just audited and liquidated Mr. Monroe's claims, were his con- grounds for murmur and complaint, if you try his claim by temporaries in service, and were his personal and political one rule, and Mr. Monroe's by another? friends. Not satisfied with their rejection of certain items Sir, it is our pride, and our every day's boast, that our for extra expenses, and for interest, he presented the citizens all enjoy equal rights, and are all entitled to equal question to Congress, and asked that those items might privileges. What room for comment upon your boasted be settled by that body, upon principles of justice and equality would not the allowance of this claim afford? equity. After a lapse of more than fifteen years from the In 1826, the items exhibited for services and disbursetime the subject was passed upon by the department,ments amounted to about eighteen thousand dollars. The Congress was induced to pass a bill allowing, in addition excess then claimed over that sum was exclusively for to the allowances by the department, the sum of twenty-interest accrued upon it. The principal was reduced by nine thousand five hundred dollars, which was then deem- deducting from it the three thousand dollars before mened and considered by the majority of Congress who voted tioned, and Mr. Monroe was allowed, by the bill passed the allowance, to be an ample and liberal liquidation and at that session, above fifteen thousand dollars of the prinpayment of all that was due to Mr. Monroe, upon princi- cipal of his alleged demand, with the interest on the same ples of law, justice, and equity; and inserted a clause in from December, 1810, up to the passage of that act; which the bill, declaratory of its being in full of all his claims interest amounted to more than fourteen thousand dollars. upon the Government. It seems that further justice and Should we now allow the twenty-four thousand dollars equity is now called for. If the bill of 1826 was a satis-then rejected, we should pay to Mr. Monroe the eighteen faction in full of all his claims, the appropriation to be thousand dollars of principal he then claimed, with upmade by the present bill, if it became a law, must be a wards of thirty-five thousand dollars interest upon the donation, and not a payment. The Congress of 1826 be- same. No such claim ever was, or ever should be, allowcame the arbiters between Mr. Monroe and the Treasury ed by this Government. Since 1826, several additional Department. Their award was obligatory upon the trea- items have been annexed to those then claimed. The sury to pay; and, under the terms of the act, the accept- merits of these items have been canvassed, and clearly ance of the money by Mr. Monroe cannot but be con- explained upon this floor, by gentlemen who have presidered as obligatory upon him. Reciprocity of obligation ceded me in opposition to this bill. I will not say that these upon the parties must be irresistibly implied. additional items have since been hunted up, as an apology In looking into the report of the committee of last ses- for allowing to Mr. Monroe a sum of money; but I will say, sion, who reported the bill under consideration, it will be that it appears to me extraordinary that they should have seen that upwards of twenty-four thousand dollars now been omitted when the claim was before presented. I reported as being due to Mr. Monroe, and incorporated in have examined them, and I concur with the gentlemen the bill, consists of items rejected by the Congress of who have represented their utter groundlessness. It is 1826. Three thousand dollars and upwards, of this latter unnecessary to repeat their arguments, and I will not desum, is for contingent expenses, alleged to have accrued tain the House by doing so. in England and France during his mission to those coun We have heard it alleged in this debate that the people tries. In 1826, when his claim for contingent expenses of this country desire the allowance of this claim, and was before the committee, they allowed him for those ex- that, should its decision be submitted to them, they would penses a sum equal to the average allowed to other min- be nearly unanimous in its favor. Sir, it is possible that, isters in like cases. His charge for those expenses was if it should go to them under the partial representations not backed by vouchers, but exhibited in gross. The of its friends in this House, they would declare in favor of charge was found to exceed the average allowed to other its justice; but should the other side of the story be told ministers by upwards of three thousand dollars, and the them--should they be told, as is the fact, that Mr. Monroe excess was therefore rejected by that committee. The had, within the last thirty-four years, received the sum of balance of this twenty-four thousand dollars is made up of about four hundred thousand dollars for his services and interest alleged to have accrued upon his claims against expenses, which amounts to an allowance of over thirty the Government previous to December, 1810, at which dollars a day for all that time; that, in addition to this allowtime he exhibited his accounts, and settled with the de- ance, we voted him money enough in 1826 to load a wagon partment. The committee of 1826 rejected this interest, with Spanish milled dollars, and that we were now called on the ground that its allowance would be contrary to the upon to give him sufficient to load two other wagons, it usage of the Government in all other cases. It was upon is not so clear to me that they would call us illiberal or the principle that no laches were imputable to the Govern- ungrateful for withholding it. ment; that it was always ready to pay its creditors when Sir, a pecuniary debt to an individual for services renderthey should exhibit their accounts, and demand payment. This principle is in consonance with the principles of the common law, which declares that an unliquidated demand ed, and moneys disbursed, is one thing: a debt of gratitude for his patriotic devotion and unyielding fidelity to the cause of our country, is another. Could I find, amongst the proofs H. OF R.] Salt Springs in Illinois. [FEB. 2, 1831. exhibited, the evidence of a pecuniary indebtedness to vey, Hawkins, Haynes, Holland, Hoffman, Hubbard, Mr. Monroe, I would be amongst the first to vote its pay- Hunt, Huntington, Ihrie, Thomas Irwin, Jarvis, R. M. ment. That we owe him a debt of gratitude, I most cheer-Johnson, Cave Johnson, Perkins King, Adam King, Leafully acknowledge; and when a proposition shall be made vitt, Lewis, Lyon, Magee, Thomas Maxwell, McCoy, to grant him a sum of money as a donation, or pension, IMcIntire, Miller, Muhlenberg, Nuckolls, Pierson, Polk, shall be prepared to act upon it. How I should act, is Potter, Roane, Sanford, Aug. H. Shepperd, Shields, now unnecessary to say. "Sufficient for the day is the Speight, Richard Spencer, James Standefer, Sterigere, evil thereof." I cannot reconcile my judgment to voting Wm. L. Storrs, Sutherland, Swann, Swift, Taylor, Test, a donation, under color of paying off a pecuniary demand. John Thomson, Tucker, Vinton, Weeks, Whittlesey, Mr. CROCKETT remarked, that the talking of gentle-Williams, Yancey.-88. men would not change a single vote, and he therefore demanded the previous question; but withdrew the demand on being informed of its effect. Mr. HAMMONS renewed the demand. Mr. MERCER and Mr. WILLIAMS both rose to inquire the effect of the previous question. If sustained, it would do away both the amendments, and the question would recur on the original bill. NAYS.-Messrs. Alexander, Alston, Archer, Arnold, J. S. Barbour, Barnwell, Beekman, Bouldin, Brodhead, Brown, Buchanan, Cambreleng, Carson, Childs, Claiborne, Clark, Coke, Coleman, Crawford, Crockett, Crocheron, Crowninshield, Daniel, John Davis, Deberry, Desha, Draper, Drayton, Duncan, Dwight, Eager, George Evans, Joshua Evans, Edward Everett, Horace Everett, Forward, Gilmore, Gurley, Hemphill, Hodges, Howard, Hughes, Ingersoll, William W. Irvin, Isacks, Johns, Ken Mr. HAMMONS would not withdraw his demand. Mr. WILLIAMS was perfectly willing that the pre-dall, Lamar, Lea, Lecompte, Lent, Letcher, Loyall, vious question should be sustained. The demand for the previous question was not sustained by the House. Mr. WILLIAMS then called for the yeas and nays on his amendment. Lumpkin, Mallary, Martindale, Martin, McCreery, McDuf fie, Mercer, Mitchell, Norton, Patton, Pierce, Pettis, Randolph, Reed, Richardson, Rose, Russel, Scott, Wm. B. Shepard, Sill, Ambrose Spencer, Stephens, Henry R. Storrs, Strong, Taliaferro, Wiley Thompson, Tracy, Mr. MERCER, in a few words, replied to those gen-Trezvant, Varnum, Verplanck, Washington, Wayne, tlemen who had spoken in favor of the amendment of the C. P. White, E. D. White, Wickliffe, Wilde, Wilson, member from North Carolina, and referred to the statute Wingate, Young.--92. book to show that seventy-seven cases had been settled on the principles of justice and equity, since the establishment of the present Government.. After a short explanation by Mr. WILLIAMS, the question was put on the amendment offered by him to Mr. MERCER'S amendment, and decided in the affirmative-yeas 109, nays 81. The question then occurring on the amendment of Mr. MERCER, as amended by the amendment of Mr. WIL LIAMS, Mr. HEMPHILL inquired if it would be in order for him to offer an amendment, to supersede that now before the House. The SPEAKER said it would not be in order; but if the House refused to agree to the amendment now under consideration, the gentleman would then have an opportunity to offer his proposition. Mr. HEMPHILL desired that the amendment he held in his hand should be read, and it was read by the Clerk, as follows: So the amendment as amended was rejected. The question then recurred on ordering the original bill to be engrossed for a third reading. On this question Mr. HAYNES demanded the previous question; pending which demand, Mr. McCOY moved an adjournment; which prevailed. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2. SALT SPRINGS IN ILLINOIS. Mr. IRVIN, of Ohio, from the Committee on the Public Lands, reported a bill for the sale of lands in the State of Illinois, reserved for the use of the salt springs on Vermillion river, in that State; which was twice read. Mr. I. moved that it be made the special order of the day for Monday next; but the motion did not prevail. Mr. I. then moved the third reading of the bill. Mr. McCOY said that the practice of the House was not what it ought to be. He was tired of hearing the "Whereas James Monroe has repeatedly memorialized many motions submitted to make bills the special order of Congress, concerning certain claims: and whereas several the day-thus giving one subject a preference over others. committees of the House of Representatives have reported He moved the commitment of the bill. favorably thereon: and whereas, from the lapse of time, Mr. IRVIN, of Ohio, explained the object of the bill. and other causes, an accurate opinion cannot be formed It provided for the sale of certain lands in Illinois, reservas to the amount, leaving a compromise as the only altered for the use of salt springs. The sales of similar lands native: therefore, had taken place in Ohio and other States, for the use of "Be it enacted, &c. That, for public services, losses, those States; and he could see no good reason why the and sacrifices, the sum of thirty-six thousand dollars is same course should not be pursued towards Illinois. hereby appropriated, to be paid to James Monroe, imme- Mr. DUNCAN hoped that the gentleman from Virgidiately after the passing of this act, out of any money in nia [Mr. McCor] would not urge his motion to refer the the treasury not otherwise appropriated; which shall be bill to a committee, as such a disposition of it would be equiin full of all demands of the said James Monroc for his claims as aforesaid." The yeas and nays were then ordered on agreeing to Mr. MERCER's amendment as amended; and, The question being finally put thereon, it was decided in the negative, as follows: valent to its rejection. He said that the bill had been YEAS--Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Angel, Armstrong, FEB. 2, 1831.] Surplus Revenue.Claim of James Monroe. [H. OF R. however, to strike out $36,000, and insert $52,000, as the proper sum to be allowed to quiet Mr. Monroe's claim. This motion was promptly negatived. JAMES MONROE. Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, for reasons which he stated, moved the reconsideration of the vote by which the House yesterday rejected the amendment to the bill The question was then put on the amendment of Mr. for the relief of James Monroe. He said, if he could HEMPHILL, and determined in the negative--yeas 93, possibly see a semblance of correctness in the claim pre-nays 99. ferred to the House, he would cheerfully vote for it. His Mr. HEMPHILL then renewed his amendment, reducobject was again to get the amendment back again before ing the sum to be appropriated to $30,000. the House; if that amendment, as amended on the motion of the gentleman from North Carolina, should pass, he would prefer it as less questionable than any other shape that could be given to the bill. He called for the yeas and nays on his motion, and they were ordered by the House. Mr. MERCER assigned his reasons for voting against the reconsideration. The question being put on the motion for reconsideration, it was decided in the negative-yeas 98, nays 101. SURPLUS REVENUE. The resolution for printing 6,000 copies of the report of the committee to which was referred so much of the message of the President as relates to the surplus revenue of the Government, next came up; but the hour for the consideration of resolutions having nearly clapsed, the subject was further postponed till to-morrow. JAMES MONROE. "For public services, losses, and sacrifices, the sum of thirty-six thousand dollars is hereby appropriated, to be paid to James Monroe, immediately after the passing of this act, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated; which shall be in full of all demands of the said James Monroe for his claims aforesaid." Mr. HAYNES demanded the previous question; but the House refused to sustain the demand. Mr. ELLSWORTH submitted an amendment; but the SPEAKER declared it to be out of order, the House having yesterday rejected a similar amendment. Mr. POTTER then submitted the following amendment, to come in after the word "sacrifices:" "In addition to the sum of four hundred thousand dollars, heretofore paid to said James Monroe, for the same consideration.". could have wished the amendment had not been offered; Mr. CARSON was sorry to differ with his colleague: he but, if it prevailed, it could do no harm to Mr. Monroe. He then commented upon what fell from the gentleman from New York, [Mr. ANGEL,] yesterday. Mr. ANGEL explained, and vindicated himself. Mr. BUCHANAN remarked upon the short time that was left, before the close of the session, to attend to the public business. He hoped the claim would be decided on to-day. Mr. B. said that, before he resumed his seat, he would take this occasion to remark, that, after the present generation had been gathered to their fathers, and when the men of other times came to review the proceedings of this day, it would be a stain upon the character of the nation, if we should suffer the illustrious individual who preferred this claim to go to his grave without its adjustment. Such conduct towards an individual, now in poverty and old age, who had rendered most important services, both in peace and in war, to his country, would be blazoned to the world by the enemies of our free institutions, as another proof of the ingratitude of republics. Mr. POLK said he would be the last man to inflict a stain on the country. He entered into an argument to show that the individual referred to had no claim on the Mr. HEMPHILL declined entering into any argument nation. He remarked upon the character of the debatein favor of his amendment. Various sums had been sug- sometimes gentlemen in favor of the bill argued as if there gested as proper to be appropriated: he had fixed, after was a claim, at other times they appealed to the feelings some attention to the matter, on that proposed in his of members. Some gentlemen thought there was a claim amendment. upon Congress-others viewed the matter in the light of a gratuity. If he believed there was any thing due Mr. Monroe, he would provide for his payment; but he did not believe there was one dollar due him. Mr. HAYNES said that, if for no other reason, he should oppose the amendment, because the claim seemed to be put up to the lowest bidder. He had given the subject some attention, and was convinced there was not a dollar due Mr. Monroe. Mr. CHILTON said he would make one more attempt to get rid of the subject, and with that view he moved to lay the bill and amendment on the table. Negatived-yeas 84, nays 111. The question recurring on the amendment of Mr. HEMPHILL, Mr. TUCKER opposed the amendment. He said he had examined the matter with considerable attention, and could not discover that Mr. Monroe had any claim upon the Government. He viewed the whole concern in the light of a donation. Mr. CLAIBORNE called for the yeas and nays on the amendment, and they were ordered by the House. Mr. WILLIAMS referred to the concluding clause of the amendment, and asked if it would be of any avail. The act formerly passed for the relief of James Monroe contained a similar provision, but it had not prevented the introduction of the present bill. Mr. MERCER stated, in reference to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from North Carolina, on his own authority, and as a member of the Hous, that Mr. Monroe had not received 400,000 dollars from the Government for his services. Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, considered it a solemn duty on his part to oppose the claim, and he should be compelled to vote against it. Mr. POTTER hoped the gentleman from Virginia would excuse him if he thought that gentleman was not altogether accurate on the subject. He [Mr. P.] had taken some pains to examine into it, and was satisfied that the sum named in his amendment was not far from the truth. He remarked upon what had fallen from the gentleman from Pennsylvania on the score of ingratitude, and expressed his opinion that any man who had filled the Presidential chair, and had been commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, had been fully compensated for all his devotion to the interests of his country. Mr. PATTON said he did not like the form of the Mr. WAYNE was of opinion that there was a large sum amendment, yet, as he was diposed to go for the substance, due to Mr. Monroe, and that it should be paid. he should not take exception to forms. Mr. DORSEY opposed the claim, in a speech of some He would move, H. OF R.] Duty on Salt. [FEB. 3, 1831. length; in the course of which he examined the grounds to a reduction of the duties on sugar; was this bill intended upon which the claim was founded, and replied to gentle- to have any effect upon that measure? Mr. T. hoped men who had spoken on the other side. Mr. MERCER made an energetic reply, and repelled some of the assertions made by Mr. D. Mr. DORSEY rejoined with equal warmth. Mr. POLK replied to some of the remarks of Mr. MER that every gentleman on the floor, who desired the prosperity of his country, would promptly vote for the rejec tion of the bill reported from the Committee on Manufactures. Mr. T. defended the vote he gave the other day against the rejection of a bill; he did it with a view to allow an opportunity for discussion. Mr. MALLARY said, there was nothing unusual in reporting the bill now before the House. The Committee on Manufactures had considered the subject; it was an interesting one; and they had very fully given their views Mr. POTTER now modified his amendment by insert-upon it in the report which accompanied the bill. If the ing 354,000 dollars, instead of 400,000. The question being then put on the amendment of Mr. POTTER, it was negatived, by a large majority. Mr. RENCHER then submitted the following proviso, to come in at the end of the amendment offered by Mr. HEMPHILL; and stated that, if it was adopted, he should vote for the amendment: 66 Provided, The accounting officer of the Treasury Department shall, upon an examination of his accounts, believe so much is due him upon principles of equity and justice." On motion of Mr. ELLSWORTH, the yeas and nays were ordered on the amendment proposed. Mr. HEMPHILL, to save the time of the House, said he would accept of the amendment as a modification of his own motion. Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, moved an adjournment; the motion was negatived-87 to 96. The question then recurring on the amendment of Mr. HEMPHILL, as modified, Mr. HOFFMAN moved the previous question; the ef fect of which would have been to take the question on engrossing the original bill. The House refused to sustain the demand. gentleman who had just taken his seat, felt irritated at the course pursued by the committee, he could not help it; he claimed the right to present his views to the House, and so did the committee." He was not disposed to go into an argument upon the subject at this time; he should prefer that the bill should lie on the table, and the report be printed, so that gentlemen might have time to reflect upon and understand the question for themselves. He was desirous that the bill should take the usual course—be read a second time, and committed. He assured the gentleman from South Carolina that he had no idea that this measure should have any effect on the sugar bill; nor would the effect of its passage be to operate upon the poor--it was rather intended to relieve the poor. gentleman had said that the object of his vote the other day was to admit of discussion--his object now was to prevent it, by strangling the bill. If the House chose to reject the bill, he had nothing to say against it, but, before doing so, he should be pleased to have the views of the Committee on Manufactures read. The Mr. SPEIGHT said he had been unprepared for the introduction of a measure of the nature of that now before the House. There had been a full discussion on the subject at the last session, and the House, by a considerable Mr. WILLIAMS then demanded the yeas and nays on majority, had passed a bill to repeal the tax on salt, now the amendment, and they were ordered by the House. proposed to be continued. In the debate on that occasion, Mr. HAYNES moved that the House do now adjourn; it was declared to be one of the most grievous and oppres which motion was negatived-yeas 81, nays 102. sive taxes to which any people were subjected. Neither The question was then put on the amendment of Mr. the poor nor the rich, said Mr. P., should be burdened HEMPHILL, as modified, and decided in the affirmative-with a tax on an article that entered into the necessary yeas 106, nays 83. The question then occurred on the engrossment of the bill, as amended, for a third reading, and the yeas and nays were ordered on the question. The House then adjourned. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3. DUTY ON SALT. Mr. MALLARY, from the Committee on Manufactures, reported the following bill: "Be it enacted, &c. That so much of an act entitled 'An act to reduce the duty on salt,' approved, May 29, 1830, as will take effect on and after the 31st of December next, be, and the same is hereby, repealed; and that the duty on salt imported into the United States be and remain at fifteen cents per bushel." A very long report accompanied the bill. The bill having been read the first time, Mr. LAMAR moved its rejection. Mr. TUCKER objected to the second reading of the bill, and hoped it would be rejected. He regretted that it had been introduced. The tax on salt was complained of, and justly complained of, by the greater part of the American people; it was a tax that operated with great severity on the poor. The tax was laid for war purposes, and should not be continued in a state of peace. An act to repeal the tax passed at the last session, after full discussion, and it was but just that the repeal should take place. We have a bill on the tables of the House, relative consumption of every family. Pass this bill, and what would gentlemen have to tell their constituents when they went home, this measure following directly upon the act of the last session? Mr. S. then spoke of the effects which the measure would have upon the people of the South, and said he warned gentlemen to be cautious in their repeated attempts to keep them down. He denounced the vengeance of the South on the majority of this House, if they persisted in a course of measures like those pursued for some years past. Last year, he said, the lords proprietaries of the United States had been petitioned to reduce the duties on salt, and their prayer was granted. Now it was proposed to restore the duties. Would not such legislation create excitement? Yes, said Mr. S., such a system of robbery and plunder will create excitement. Was the South to have no redress of grievances? And when she had thrown herself on the liberality of her sovereigns, and obtained some partial relief, was she to be again subjected to the same burdens? The day was coming when the South would be heard. The oppressive measures under which she labored must be repealed-it will be done--and shall be done. The South was on the eve of a rebellion. Yes, sir, the day is fast approaching, when the people of the South will rise in their majesty, and stalk the avenues of this House, and take vengeance on their oppressors. Yes, sir, and I fear this Government, under which they claim the right to tax us, will be made "to reel to and fro like a drunken man." Sir, I am done. |
