make all those measures relating to harbors and rivers stand as much as possible each upon its own merits, so that the meritorious and unmeritorious will not be thrown together and the whole be defeated. The gentleman from New York took occasion the other day to remark, that so far as he had examined, it had been the uniform practice to refer these matters to the Committee on Commerce. In this he was mistaken, as it is a very modern practice. And if he will examine the resolutions parcelling out the President's message back seven, eight, or ten years, he will find, that no resolutions have been reported by the Committee of Ways and Means, referring the subject of the navigation of rivers to the Committee on Commerce. I say it is a new notion, grown up within the last few years, since omnibus bills have become fashionable; and since they have become so, no appropriations have been made for anything what

ever.

I do not recollect a single omnibus bill that has become a law, except the one under Mr. Tyler's administration, in 1843-4, I think. There were two or three passed under Mr. Polk's administration, all of which he vetoed, and properly too. In 1831 the 98th rule of the House was inserted in your general rules, under the administration of General Jackson; and a committee was then raised with the special view of taking into custody and charge the subject of the navigation of rivers. That was the reason why the committee was raised, and it is the only important subject that is referred to them at all.

I will not stop, however, to argue the constitutional question. Personally, as a matter of course, it can be of very little interest to me where this subject is referred. It will relieve me of a good deal of trouble if it goes to the Committee on Commerce. I only feel it my duty, however, to make this statement to the House, being placed in the position where I am, because I am friendly to appropriations for the improvement of the navigation of the great rivers of the country. To some extent, I say that I am friendly to such appropriations. I am not inimical to appropriations for harbors, when they come within what I deem the constitu

tional rule.

I

I warn northwestern gentlemen who feel a solicitude upon this subject, that if all these measures go to the Committee on Commerce, no bill can find its way through this House. While I would approve of a great many of the objects named in the bill of the last Congress, I will never vote for an omnibus of such a character as that one was. promised not to detain the committee. They have the question now before them, whether they will follow the rules giving one of their standing committees jurisdiction over the subject, and which the rules say belongs to it; or whether they will allow the Committee on Commerce to usurp it.

Mr. SEYMOUR, of New York. I will only say a few words by way of reply to the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. ROBINSON.] I think that gentleman has labored under a mistake in reference to the course of practice upon this subject. I concede that the rule to which he has alluded— the 98th rule-refers not only matters relating to roads and canals, but those which may relate to the improvement of rivers, to the Committee on Roads and Canals. I think he will look in vain, in the practice of this House, from the period when that rule was established, down to the present time, to find a single instance, when, either by a resolution of this House referring the President's message, or otherwise, the committee has had referred to it the consideration of the improvement of the rivers of the country. And I think he will also find, as a matter of fact, no such bill for the improvement of the navigation of rivers has ever emanated from the Committee on Roads and Canals. This, in my apprehension, has arisen from the very reason which was at the foundation of the committee designated now as a Committee upon Roads and Canals Ifthe committee will look at the facts and circumstances which attended the original organization of this committee, I think they will see a good reason which has influenced our predecessors, and which should influence this House in departing from the strict

There is another view of this question, to which I wish to call the attention of gentlemen coming from the Northwest. Those of us who live in the Northwest know that it is the habit there, particularly with our political opponents, to charge upon us that while we vote large appropriations for the harbors upon the Atlantic coast, we always overlook the great West. Now, I wish to ask those who should feel an interest in the prosperity of the great West, to turn to the list of committees and see who compose the Committee on Commerce. Now, I will be the last man in the House to intimate a want of proper confidence in that committee; but committees are always raised with reference to the subjects referred to them. They are raised so as to represent the various interests involved. Let us see how many upon the Committee on Commerce come from the great Northwest, comprising thirteen States of this Union, and in which we find nearly all the great rivers of the Union. The first gentleman on the committee-its chairman-is from New York; the second from Tennessee; the third from Georgia; the fourth from Maine; the fifth from Massachusetts; the sixth from Pennsylvania; the seventh from Louisiana; the eighth from South Carolina; and the ninth from Mary-language of the rule, and adhering to the settled land. Not a solitary man from one of the great States of the Northwest. Now, I would not have it inferred that I impute anything improper to the Speaker in the organization of this committee. I presume the Speaker followed the rule, and had it in his eye, when he appointed the committee; and seeing that the Committee on Commerce could properly have under its jurisdiction only those cases relating to our foreign commerce-there was nothing in the rules referring the subject of the navigation of rivers to them-he very properly formed the committee so as to represent the great commercial points on the sea-board. When he formed the Committee on Roads and Canals, he took gentlemen who resided, to some extent at least, upon the great rivers of the country, so as to have them represented.

I wish to note another fact here. I have stated that since this idea of making omnibus bills has become fashionable, bills of any character making appropriations for what are termed internal improvements, have generally failed. I have stated also that prior to this practice under the administration of General Jackson, when this Committee on Roads and Canals was first authorized, it was common for the western waters to get appropriations, and that bills making appropriations for these waters did not come from the Committee on Commeree, nor was it ever thought then that the power to make appropriations for purposes of this kind was to be found in that part of the Constitution which speaks of regulating commerce. If I were to look into the Constitution to seek for power upon the part of this Government to make such appropriations, that clause would be the very last to which I would refer.

practice of the House upon this subject. This 98th rule, to which the gentleman has referred, the committee will see was incorporated in our rules in the year 1831, now twenty years ago. Previous to that time, and at that very session, there existed a select committee upon the subject of internal improvements. It was distinctly and emphatically an internal-improvement committee, organized and operating for the purpose of carrying out that great system of internal improvements which then occupied the public mind in this country-a system which had extended so far, that at the time when General Jackson interposed by his veto upon the Maysville road bill, there were reported ready for action by this House, bills involving the expenditure of more than $100,000,000. This system had grown up in this way. It had been fostered by the action of the Internal Improvements Committee. General Jackson's doctrine incorporated in his veto altered the course of things upon this subject, and a new doctrine was established, which was followed up by another message returning a bill which had passed Congress in the year 1832; and declaring that the true line of distinction should be, whether the works for which these appropriations were made were national or merely local in their character. At the session of 1832, for the first time, a Committee on Roads and Canals was appointed, and to that committee was referred, under the general reference of topics in the President's message, all the subjects that related to the internal improvements of the country, so that this committee was really a substitute for and incorporation of the select committee, formerly known as the Internal Improvements Committee, and occupied its place

I am right, therefore, in the assumption, that this Committee on Roads and Canals, in its organization, was essentially an internal improvement committee. Now, what is the reason that since the first organization of this committee by our predecessors down to the very last House that preceded us, the subject of the improvement of our large rivers-though in some cases the reference has not been specifically made on the subject has been referred to the Committee on Commerce to the same committee to which the subject of the improvement of harbors has been referred, and the general matters pertaining to commerce? I think it is clearly seen that it has, because the policy of this Government has changed in this respect, and we have put ourselves, since that period, upon the ground of appropriating only for national objects, and have left entirely this whole system of internal improvements, as a system, to be carried out under the auspices of the National Legislature. That being so, the Committee on Commerce has properly had under consideration all matters relating to the commerce of the country to its foreign commerce-to the improvement, protection, and maintenance of that commerce, so far as a national legislature ought to interpose. It has been the national power that has been exerted for the purpose of supporting and sustaining the national commerce, whether that commerce shall be found upon the Atlantic coast, upon the Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific, or upon the great rivers of this country. That has been, I affirm, the settled practice of this House for the last twenty years.

Mr. CARTTER. With the permission of the gentleman, I will make an inquiry. Does the gentleman understand that the structure of the committee confines it to appropriations for the improvement of harbors opening out upon foreign commerce alone? I wish to ascertain that fact, with a view to the harbors upon the lake, and of determining my vote.

Mr. SEYMOUR. I will say, in reply to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CARTTER,] that the Committee on Commerce have not as yet had this subject under consideration, for the reason that this question has been a pending question; and for another reason, also: Many of the committee have been out of town, and their opinions could not be ascertained. It would be improper in me to commit any gentleman to any precise line of action upon this subject; but as for myself, I am willing to say, that I think the true ground which should be taken by this House upon this subject, is the one which was marked out in the Maysville Veto Bill, and reaffirmed in the subsequent message of President Jackson, to which I referred.

We should report to this House, and this House should pass such a bill in relation to these worksmany of which have been already fostered by Government and received very large expenditures, but now going to decay-as will sustain them. If there are new points at which the commerce of the country, in its most enlarged sense, which needs to be fostered and sustained, they should also receive proper appropriations for their protection. I am as much opposed as the gentleman who preceded me to what he terms an omnibus bill. I do not wish to be the organ of a committee, to present to this House a bill that shall not have in itself intrinsic merits-merits such as this House shall approve such as our constituents shall approve, and upon which we can fairly stand before the country, and not by such strength as is to be derived merely from appropriations for the purpose of carrying out and subserving local interests. Thus much I feel prompted now to say.

Before I sit down I ought to advert briefly to a topic to which the gentleman has alluded, and that is, the construction of the Committee on Commerce. For my part, in relation to these matters of great national concern, I have not been disposed to scan closely the locality of gentlemen who

might compose the committees. I had hoped that gentlemen who were placed upon important committees of this House would act, as I have no doubt they will, feeling that they represent every portion of this nation, so far as their action upon the committees of the House is concerned. I am not to see whether a man comes from the North or South, from the East or West, to judge of him in advance and determine whether he shall be favorable or unfavorable to any particular policy I may wish to advance by the action of a committee. I hope and believe that such will not be the judgment of this House, either as respects the Committee on Commerce or any other committee.

The experience of our legislation for twenty years past has sanctioned the reference of this whole subject to the Committee on Commerce, as the appropriate power that should act upon it; and I hope that the practice, thus uniformly followed, will be adhered to by this House. The chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, of the last House, reported a resolution similar to this, separating the improvement of rivers from the improvement of harbors, and referring the former to the Committee on Roads and Canals, and the latter to the Committee on Commerce. After discussion, that resolution was negatived, and the whole subject sent to the Committee on Commerce. That is the most recent action upon the subject, and hope that the example of our predecessors will be followed by this House.

Let us go a little into particulars upon this subject, as the gentleman has, and denote the residences or cities from which the members of that committee have been selected. He has appealed to gentlemen from the Northwest in reference to their interests; and he said that no gentleman connected with or having any interest in the trade or commerce of that part of the country was to be found on the Committee on Commerce. If he will look at that committee, he will find a gentleman, [Mr. ST. MARTIN,] as far as his State is concerned, whose locality is at the mouth of the Mississippi river-a river upon which floats the great commerce of the West a river upon which, and its tributaries, large appropriations are needed for the purpose of protecting that commerce. I have no doubt the interests of that quarter of the country, if they are to be represented by that gentleman, will be safe in his hands. If he will look at another State upon the western side of the mountains, he will find upon that committee the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JOHNSON,] an old and experienced member; and surely a gentleman coming from that quarter is safely to be intrusted, not only with the interests of his own State, but with all the interests that might pertain to the commerce of the great valley. He will find also another gentleman [Mr. ROBBINS] representing the State of Pennsylvania, whose trade and commerce extend to one of the great western lakes, and finds its outlet upon the river nearest us. Finally, (and the committee will pardon me-the Speaker has been pleased to place me upon that committee. The State of New York, which I have the honor in part to rep-ships, you cannot have commerce. resent, has an interest as deep and abiding in the source of the prosperity and trade of the great Northwest, as any State in this Union. The river upon which I reside-the Hudson river-is the great outlet of all that commerce scattered over the extreme Northwest, brought down through the Erie Canal and other avenues, and all concentrating in our great commercial emporium. It is needless-it would be improper for me to say, to what extent I would be willing to go to foster that trade. Suffice it to say, that I feel that my constituents have a deep and abiding interest in it, and as far as constitutional power will permit the House to go, in my judgment, on this subject, I shall be disposed to go for all necessary protection

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I have heard no good reason assigned, in the course of this discussion, why this subject of the improvement of rivers

should be taken from the Committee on Roads and Canals and sent to the Committee on Commerce. Two reasons have been given: one relates to the policy and the constitutional right of Congress to make these appropriations, and the other to the necessary connection existing between the two subjects-the improvement of rivers and the improvement of harbors. The policy of these appropriations for the improvement of rivers and harbors, and the constitutional right to make them, are questions to be discussed when the bill is reported to the House. But to say that those are appropriate considerations in deciding to which committee the subject shall go, is assuming a knowledge on the part of the House, of the feelings and opinions of the committees, which I think ought not to be assumed.

of that interest.

I have been constrained to go thus minutely into this matter from the course which the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ROBINSON] has taken. I do not wish to detain the committee by a discussion of the vexed question of internal improvement. The whole matter will come up before the committee when a bill shall be presented. I would rather that that bill should be judged of by its own merits, than to have it forestalled here by the suspicions of any gentleman. I will merely say now, that it must be obvious to the gentlemen of the committee that this whole interest of internal improvement which relates to the commerce of the country, whether that commerce be upon the seaboard or upon the northern lakes, or upon our larger rivers, is almost identical. They are connected together, and the power that acts upon one should act upon them all. As I said when I had the honor of presenting my amendment, these improvements, in many cases, are themselves connected together. By the resolutions presented by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HOUSTON] you grant power to the Committee on Commerce to report appropriations for harbors, and you grant to another committee-the Committee on Roads and Canals-power to report appropriations for rivers that enter into those harbors, when the very constructions, in many instances, which you propose to erect for the protection of your commerce, are connected together.

My colleague [Mr. SEYMOUR] says that rivers and harbors have a necessary connection, and relate to the commerce of the country. I would ask what thing is not connected with commerce? Is a river or harbor necessarily more connected with the subject of commerce, than agriculture is? Without exports, you cannot have commerce, and without grain and other produce, you cannot have exports. Is it any more connected with commerce than naval architecture is? Without Is it any more connected with it than astronomy? You cannot navigate a ship without the north star. Is it any more connected with it than electricity and magnetism? You must have a compass.

Why, according to that argument, the Committee on Commerce might claim that all matters and subjects relating to the arts and sciences, should be referred to them. I am myself a member of the Committee on Roads and Canals, but I am not so extravagantly fond of cold water, as to desire to have jurisdiction not only over rivers and canals, but also over the ocean. For myself, I would quite as lief get rid of the labor of taking up this subject, which will probably be a very laborious one, but I have had the pleasure of meeting our committee once or twice, and have a very high respect for our chairman. I know his intelligence and ability to take charge of this subject, and asthe rules expressly assign this duty to us, I hold that it should be so referred.

Now I have had no experience in legislation, but permit me to ask whether-even if the precedents to which the gentleman has referred do exist -the practice of three or four sessions is to override the rules of the House, one of which expressly says that it shall be the duty of the Committee on Roads and Canals to take this subject into consideration.

There is another reason why this amendment ought not to prevail, and I mention it with all possible respect to the chairman of the Committee on Commerce. But I say that when the chairman of a committee appeals to this House, to refer to that committee a subject which is not before them, it is presumptive evidence that the subject ought not to be committed to them. Why? Because the very anxiety to get hold of the subject authorizes the presumption, that there is an opinion already formed; and certainly it is for the good of the country, that subjects should be referred to committees who, when they take hold of them, are entirely impartial and unbiased.

But I have yet another reason for opposing this amendment. I have a great respect for the Speaker of this House; and when he appointed these committees he had the rules before him, and knew the

duties assigned to the different committees by these rules. And why did he put me on the Committee on Roads and Canals, and my colleague on the Committee on Commerce? Not certainly because, being taller than my colleague, I could perhaps touch bottom in the ocean as well as in the shallow rivers better than he could; for, as the poet says:

"The mind's the stature of the man."

When the Speaker appointed these committees, he inquired not only with regard to the general standing of gentlemen, but also as to their intellectual stature. I have no doubt, that in compliment to the high intellect of my colleague, [Mr. SEYMOUR,] he gave him the broad ocean, the great ships, the great steamers, and the whole commerce of the country, whilst he gave to me and my colleagues on the committee-being men of less intellectual stature the shallow rivers and the little muddy canals. And we want to show that it is not too much for us. I express no opinion whatever, one way or the other, about the doctrine of internal improvements. My opinions on that subject are known, I believe, to no human being here. I have no personal feeling upon this subject, and should be glad to accommodate my colleague; but

I have made these remarks because it is the desire of the respected chairman of the Committee on Roads and Canals, that this subject should be referred to that committee.

Mr. HOUSTON. I do not intend to occupy the committee long, and I am not going into a discussion of the amendment of the gentleman from New York. The rule has been read, and that is sufficient justification for me and for the resolutions which I had the honor to submit, proposing to distribute the President's message. The gentleman from New York [Mr. SEYMOUR] says that a like thing was done at the last session of Congress, and that the House overruled the then chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means by amending his resolution in reference to this subject, which was similar to that which I have offered. Well, sir, the House can give any direction they see fit to this subject, but I conceive that in submitting these resolutions for the action of this committee, I had no discretion at all in the matter. I am bound by the rules of the House which have been adopted for our government, and one of those rules expressly says that this subject shall go to the Committee on Roads and Canals. I have proposed, therefore, to give it that direction. If this committee shall see fit to overrule that rule of the House-if it shall see fit to adhere to its practice instead of to its rules, I shall be perfectly content that the subject should be referred to either committee. My main purpose in addressing the committee now is to call their attention to another subject which is pressing upon Congress for early action. I hope that the committee will vote upon the resolutions which I have submitted, and let us then pass on to a bill upon which the President has urged us in his message to take early action. I allude to the bill which I had the honor to report this morning, making an appropriation for the purpose of carrying out the twelfth article of the treaty between the United States and Mexico.

Mr. STUART, (interposing.) If the gentleman will allow me, I would suggest, that as there are several topics connected with the message that will probably give rise to considerable discussion, it tions for the present, and proceed to the considerwould perhaps be better to lay aside these resolu

ation of the bill to which he has referred.

Mr. HOUSTON. I have no hesitation in doing that, if it be true, as indicated, that an extendhope that the message may be referred, and that ed debate will be likely to grow out of it. I do we may come to this subject at once.

A MEMBER. We cannot get through with it to-day.

Mr. HOUSTON. Then I find myself in a very unpleasant situation in regard to this matter. We are called upon very urgently to take up the Mexican indemnity bill and pass it. I am satisfied that it ought to be taken up. I am satisfied that this bill appeals to this House for its early action. I therefore move that this subject be laid aside, with a view of reaching it.

Mr. GIDDINGS. Will the honorable chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means inform me at what time that Mexican indemnity will fall due?

Mr. HOUSTON. It will become due the 30th of May, 1852.

Mr. GIDDINGS. I understand it will become due the 1st of May, 1853. So it seems we are called on thus urgently to legislate for May, 1853! Mr. HOUSTON. The gentleman is mistaken. The indemnity becomes due in 1852. I am sure I am right in this matter. If the gentleman from Ohio chooses to do so, he can examine the documents.

Mr. GIDDINGS. If the gentleman will permit me, I will say that I do not assert it as certain; but I am very certain that we legislated for the payment of the installment due rext May near the close of the last session of Congress. If this is so, the payment for which we are now urged to legislate will not fall due till the 30th of May, 1853. I am sure of that.

Mr. HOUSTON. If the message of the President is on the Clerk's table, I must ask that he will read that part of it which refers to this subject. But I know the fact, which I have stated, to be true. I know that there was no law passed the last session of Congress. There was a bill before the House during the last session of Congress, but it failed to become a law. By reference to the treaty, you will find that the last installment becomes due 30th May, 1852, and no payment is to be made in 1853.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman move to lay the resolutions before the committee aside? Mr. HOUSTON. I do make that motion. Mr. GIDDINGS. If the gentleman will permit me. I understand that the bill, to which I have alluded, passed the House during the last session, but failed to become a law.

Mr. HOUSTON. It is very necessary that we should legislate upon this subject as soon as possible. By our treaty stipulations, we are to make negotiations for $3,180,000, to be paid in the city of Mexico by the first of May, 1852. I think the time is already too short. I regret that the proper legislation was not had the last session. I therefore move that this resolution be laid aside. The question was then put, and upon division there were-ayes 95, noes 17; no quorum. Tellers were demanded and ordered; and Messrs. PENN and BRECKENRIDGE were appointed. The question was again taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 113, noes not counted. So the resolution was laid aside.

WORKMEN ON THE CAPITOL.

The CHAIRMAN stated the next business in order to be a joint resolution providing for continuing in employment the workmen. engaged upon the extension of the Capitol.

Mr. HOUSTON moved to lay it aside. Mr. WALSH. Will the gentleman allow me to say a single word? I think there was, at least, an implied understanding that this business

The CHAIRMAN. No debate is in order. The question was then taken, and the bill was ordered to be laid aside-ayes 72, noes 47.

Mr. HOUSTON. Is it competent for me to move to lay aside all business which takes precedence of that relating to the Mexican indemnity? The CHAIRMAN. Not except by unanimous

consent.

No objection was made, and the committee proceeded to take up and consider the bill to provide for carrying into execution, in further part, the 12th article of the treaty concluded with Mexico at Gaudalupe Hidalgo.

Cries of "Read the bill!"
The bill was then read.

Mr. HOUSTON. I do not know that any explanation of this bill is necessary. I will say, however, that, as the reading of the bill has indicated, its object is to carry into effect the stipulations of the treaty between Mexico and the United States, by which the United States agreed to pay Mexico $15,000,000. Three millions was paid upon the ratification of the treaty, and the remaining $12,000,000 was to be paid in installments of $3,000,0000, annually. According to the provisions of the treaty each installment carried with it the interest on the whole amount then due. The first installment which was paid at the expiration of twelve months after the ratification of the treaty was $3,720,000 according to the provisions of the treaty, it being $3,000,000, and six per cent. upon the whole $12,0000,fi00 then due. The second payment was $3,000,000, and the in

terest upon $9,000,000 for twelve months at six per cent. In that way payments have been made until the last installment, which falls due the 30th of May, 1852, with the interest upon that amount for twelve months. That is the reason why the appropriation is for $3,180,000. The $180,000 is the twelve months interest at six per cent. upon that $3,000,000. The committee, I have no doubt, are just as familiar with the whole legislation that has occurred upon that subject, and of the provisions of the treaty, as I am, or as I can make them. This is one obligation growing out of the twelfth article of the treaty, in which we have stipulated and pledged our faith as a nation, that we will at certain periods pay certain sums of money to Mexico, upon the ratification of that treaty.

Mr. McMULLIN. I desire to know of the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means how this indemnity is to be paid, and to whom it is to be paid? I remember that during the last Congress a payment was made to Mexico through a certain house, while there was a proposition submitted-informally, I admit-by which the Government would have saved from sixty to eighty thousand dollars. My object now is to ascertain from the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, by whom this money is to be paid-by what house, or by what concern?

Mr. HOUSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am unable to answer the question of my friend from Virginia, for the very good reason that I consider that it is a subject with which this House and committee have nothing to do. We are required

Mr. BAYLY, of Virginia, (interposing.) If the gentleman from Alabama will allow me, I will take the liberty of answering the question myself. I will not consume the time of the House now, but I wish to say that my colleague is entirely mistaken in the remark he made, that a proposition was rejected here which would have saved the Government a cent.

Mr. McMULLIN. I did not say the proposition was rejected here.

Mr. BAYLY. It was the proposition of Duff Green to pay three millions and a quarter of dollars, and in that proposition he offered to do it for one half of one per centum less than anybody else. The Committee of Ways and Means did not believe that Duff Green was the man to pay three and a quarter millions of dollars in the State of Mexico.

with him. If he sees fit to make any negotiation by which the Government loses, that is a matter between him and Congress and the country. His is the responsibility and not ours. It is not our province, as I conceive, to introduce a provision into this bill by which we should direct the manner or the agency through which that money should be paid to Mexico, because by so doing we should, at once, involve ourselves in all the difficulties and troubles which may grow out of it. By so doing we should make ourselves responsible for any loss or miscarriage that might occur, and relieve the President entirely of his responsibility in the discharge of his duties upon this important question. I believe that it is a matter entirely foreign to our examination and inquiry here. The question presented for the consideration of this committee is, in the first place, the amount of money due; and if it be determined that it is due, then what is the usual mode of action on the part of Congress to secure its payment. Why, Congress does not carry on the negotiation, we do not appoint an agent, we do not say how it shall be paid, but simply put the money at the disposal of the Administration, and then the power, the duty, the responsibility all rests with them, and not with us.

There seems to be no difficulty, Mr. Chairman, unless it may be one which I have endeavored to show is foreign to our inquiry, and which I hope will be kept out of this discussion entirely. Cries, "Question!" "Question!"

Mr. BAYLY of Virginia. I have no disposition to say anything upon this subject, if there is a disposition to pass this bill.

Cries, "Let us pass the bill!" "Let us pass the bill!"

Mr. KING, of New York. There is a point in controversy, as to the expense of making the payment of the last installment to Mexico. It is charged that the expense was increased by making the payment through the Secretary of State, instead of the Secretary of the Treasury, and it is upon that point that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BAYLY] proposes to make an explanation, as chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means of the last Congress.

Mr. McMULLIN. I hope my colleague will postpone his remarks until morning. It is getting late, and I should like to have time to look into this measure.

Mr. BAYLY. I have but one objection to this, and it is, that I dislike to have a speech upon my mind worse than anything else in the world.

Mr. HOUSTON. The gentleman must perceive the great difficulty in reaching this bill in the morning. We shall then have to go through half a dozen other matters to get at it again.

Mr. BAYLY. I think the chairman of the Com

Mr. HOUSTON. I have nothing to do with what was done by the Committee of Ways and Means or by the House, at the last session of Congress. My opinion is, however, that the Committee of Ways and Means of the last Congress, if I understand their action, acted as the Committee of Ways and Means at this session have done and propose to do and as a matter of course I believe it to be right.

It is not our province, Mr. Chairman, to receive propositions from Corcoran & Riggs, or Duff Green, or anybody else, as to the mode of paying this installment. We are called upon to appropriate the money, but the responsibility rests with the Government of the United States-the present Administration-for its faithful and efficient and proper payment. We are not called upon to take from the President his responsibility. We have ours, which is to make the appropriation, and when we shall have completed our labors, the matter rests

bill should pass to-day. I will, in a few words, explain precisely the action of the Committee of Ways and Means of the last Congress upon this subject. In the first place that committee, at the last Congress, came to the same conclusion unanimously which it has come to at this; and that is that the payment of this indemnity was an executive and not a legislative duty. We were then of opinion that when Congress had appropriated the money to make this payment, our functions were at an end, and that the payment of this money was an executive duty.

We believed, as the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means has informed us that the present committee believe, that we ought not to take the responsibility of managing the mode of this payment, when we could not have any control over it. We did not think it was expedient for this House to assume a responsibility when it would have no control of the subject. Well, sir, for these reasons we reported a bill, which was precisely the bill now before us, with the exception of the sum appropriated. There were a parcel of speculators here, who put out pamphlets in reference to this matter, filled with misstatements. They succeeded in making an impression upon members of this House, and when we got before it we had a very long debate, which is reported in the Congressional Globe.

Amongst other points which were made was the point to which the gentleman from New York [Mr. KING] has referred that the payment of this indemnity, which under Mr. Polk's administration had been made by the Secretary of the Treasury, had been taken by General Taylor's administra