County seat of Madison county, and for semi-weekly serrice in two-horse coaches thereon.

Also, the petition of Aaron S. Johns, of Polk county, owa, asking for a law authorizing the correction of error in the location of a military bounty land warrant. By Mr. HASCALL: The petition of Jacob Coe, of Michigan, for compensation for property lost in the late war with Great Britain.

By Mr. TAYLOR: The petition of John Madeira, and 65 other citizens of Pope county, Ohio, praying Congress to extend the time for locating Virginia military land warrants in the Virginia Military District, in the State of Ohio. By Mr. HIBBARD: The petition of Betsey Whipple and Calvin Whipple, praying for leave to surrender patents for lands in Arkansas, and take other land.

By Mr. PERKINS: The petition of Selden Brown, of Marlow, New Hampshire, asking for relief.

By Mr. MILLSON: The petition of Ro. Owens, asking the difference of pay between that of a chief boatswain's

nate and a boatswain.

Also, the petition of Solomon Cherry, asking a pension, on account of inability from wounds received in the military service of the United States during the last war with Great Britain.

By Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts: The petition of Manson, Brothers, and others, of New York, that an appropriation be made to reimburse advances made by George Peabody, Esq., and others, for the protection of American interests at the World's Exhibition.

By Mr. FOWLER: The petition of Wm. A. Crocker, and 30 other citizens of Jaunton, Massachusetts, praying that a sum be appropriated sufficient to defray their unavoidable expenses in preparing their goods for exhibition at the Crystal Palace, in London.

By Mr. WEIGHTMAN: The memorial of a citizen of New Mexico, praying the enactment of a law authorizing the Governor of the Territory of New Mexico to call one extra session of the Legislative Assembly of said Territory.

By Mr. HAVEN: The petition of O. B. Evans, of Buffalo, New York, asking that Congress appropriate money to pay the charges on goods sent to the World's Fair.

Also, the petition of W. D. Allen, and 90 other citizens of Buffalo, New York, asking Congress to make suitable provisions for extending a telegraph from Fort Independence to the Pacific, by the passage of a law that will protect and encourage.

Also, the petition of Elizabeth E. N. Field, of Milton, Massachusetts, widow of the late Captain George P. Field, for a continuance of her pension.

By Mr. FITCH: The memorial of Thompson Barnet, of Indiana, asking compensation for services in transportation of mail.

By Mr. INGERSOLL : The memorial of Hon. Charles J. Ingersoll, of Philadelphia, in relation to a claim for contesting his seat in Congress.

By Mr. KUHNS: The petition of Samuel Slick, (not the veritable Sam Slick, of Slicksburg, down East, but) of Bedford county, Pennsylvania, the son of a revolutionary sire, praying for a pension.

IN SENATE.

WEDNESDAY, January 7, 1852. Prayer by the Rev. L. F. MORGAN.

PETITIONS.

Mr. WADE presented the memorial of Daniel Stack, representing that there is a variance between the awards made on his claim by the two Boards of Commissioners for the settlement of claims of American citizens against Mexico, and asking the

payment of the difference of awards.

Also, one of a similar character from Johnson H. Alford, by his administrator Henry P. Bates; both of which were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

the money; and he now prays the action of Congress for his relief. I move the reference of the memorial and the accompanying documents to the Committee of Claims.

The memorial was so referred.

Mr. SUMNER presented the petition of citizens of Boston, Massachusetts, praying that the expenses incurred by American contributors at the World's Fair in London may be defrayed by Congress; which was referred to the Conmittee of Claims.

Mr. BRODHEAD presented the memorial of Benjamin Holbrook, and the memorial of Charlotte B. Holtz, administratrix of Peter Holtz, praying the appointment of a Board to review the decision of the late Board of Commissioners for settling claims against Mexico; which were ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. RUSK presented the petition of Charles Uhde & Co., praying the return of duties paid on certain cotton goods shipped by them at New Orleans for Point Isabel, in Texas, and lost at sea; which was referred to the Committee on Com

merce.

Mr. FISH presented the memorial of the heirs of Charles Oakley, praying compensation for the services of said Oakley in the revolutionary war; which was referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims.

Also, a memorial of the heirs of Jacob Latting, praying indemnity for spoliations by the French prior to 1801; which was referred to the select committee appointed on the subject.

Also, a letter from the Mayor of the city of New York, communicating a resolution of the Board of Aldermen and Assistants, tendering to the United States a plat of land within that city for the erection of a Mint; which was referred to the Committee on Finance, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. DOWNS presented a petition of citizens of Caldwell Parish, Louisiana, residing on the "Maison Rouge Grant," praying an amendment of the late act of Congress for the relief of purchasers of land in that grant: which was referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

Also, the petition of Evariste Blanc, praying the confirmation of his title to a certain tract of land; which was referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

Mr. GWIN presented the memorial of L. M. Goldsborough, S. J. Van Brunt, and S. F. Blunt, naval officers, praying additional compensation for services on special duty to California and Oregon; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. SEBASTIAN presented a memorial of the First Christian and Orchard Parties of Oneida Indians, asking interest on certain moneys improperly withheld from them after the same became

due; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

CUBAN EXPATRIATED INVADERS. Mr CLEMENS. Mr. President, I desire to

rogative of the pardoning power vested in her hand, her merciful, politic, and wise, to commute the sentence of Catholic Majesty, the Queen of Spain, has deemed it both punishment, to knock the shackles from the bound, and to set the prisoners free.

Therefore, with a full knowledge of the destitute situation of these brave and gallant, but unfortunate men, (the most of whom are known to be gentlemen in their own individual personal right, and of highly reputable relationship in the United States,) and in view of that devotion to liberal republican principles by them herein exhibited, and of the action of your honorable bodies in behalf of refugees driven from their homes on the continent of Europe in consequence of similar espousals of the cause of liberty, your petitioner does most earnestly and urgently pray the taking such immediate steps by your honorable bodies as will authorize and command the Executive head of the nation to furnish a vessel with all necessary supplies for the transportation, in comfort and health, of these pardoned and released soldiers of liberty's army back to the shores of their own free and happy land; for which your petitioner in all good faith, must ever pray. WM. SCOTT HAYNES. WASHINGTON, D. C., January 5, 1852.

On motion of Mr. CLEMENS, the memorial was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

RECONSIDERATION OF VOTE.

Mr. BRIGHT. Yesterday the Senate passed T. Floyd, widow of Lieutenant George R. C. a bill entitled "An act granting a pension to Sally Floyd.

I see that the bill was introduced by the honorable Senator from Kentucky [Mr. UNDERWOOD.] As a general rule, I should defer greatly to his judgment in such matters, but on looking over the papers of this morning, particularly with reference to this bill, I find that it contains what I consider a dangerous principle-the granting of a pension to the widow of an officer who died outside of the service. I desire to move the reconsideration of the vote by which this bill was passed; and as I observe that the Senator is not in his seat, I will make the motion, and consent that it lie on the table till I may have an opportunity to examine the papers relating to the subject.

The motion was accordingly laid on the table.

PAPERS WITHDRAWN AND REFERRED. On motion by Mr. GEYER, it was

Ordered, That the memorial of the heirs of Herman Blannerhasset, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the

Committee of Claims.

On motion by Mr. MILLER, it was

Ordered, That the petition of Eliza M. Evans, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Revo

On motion by Mr. FELCH, it was

Ordered, That the petition of William Miller, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Pensions. On motion by Mr. JONES, of Iowa, it was Ordered, That the Committee on Pensions be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Mira M. Alexander, and that it be referred to the Committee of Claims.

memorial of citizens of the District of Columbia, Mr. PRATT. My attention has been called to a which is on the files of the Senate, praying that the United States may purchase a portion of the Columbia Turnpike Road, which is in the District of Columbia, so that it may be made free. The Senate are aware that the Government have

S. Wetmore, widow of the late Major Alphonso Wetmore, of the United States Army, praying a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. G. I present the petition of Richard B. Lee, an officer in the Army, praying to be allowed the amount of public funds stolen from him, and which he repaid to the United States.

The memorialist states that he was ordered by the commander to proceed to the Sandwich Islands and purchase supplies for that portion of the army which was in California and Uregon; that on his return he employed a vessel which was chartered by an individual who was in control of it. He further states that he deposited eleven hundred dollars with the charterer, and took a bill of lading. On his arrival at San Francisco, this money had been taken on shore and deposited with some merchants there. It appears, however, that this money was appropriated to the payment of the debts of this individual. He absconded, was pursued, overtaken, and searched, but no money was found. The major being without remedy against the general orders, sought relief by attaching the vessel, in which, however, he failed, this being before the admission of California as a State, and there being no tribunal there by which a specific remedy against the vessel could be enforced. Under these circumstances he felt obliged to make good

to read.

The Secretary read it, as follows:

To the President and members of the Senate, and the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States:

GENTLEMEN: Your petitioner, a resident citizen of the city of New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana, most respectfully begs leave to represent, that, on the 3d day of August last, he, in company with 434 associates, embarked on board the steamship Pampero, for the Island of Cuba, with the only and openly avowed intention of joining the Creole population for the purpose, and that alone, of aiding and assisting them in the contest which we were fully convinced had then commenced for the overthrow of the Spanish authorities there, and the establishing in their stead republican institutions similar in all respects to those governing our own highly-favored and prosperous country; and in furtherance of their wishes, a debarkation of our force was effected on the Island on the night of the 11th and 12th of the same month, between the hours of 11 and 2 o'clock; but, after undergoing privations and hardships well calcu lated to appal as well as to demoralize the stoutest and purest heart, without the commission of a single outrage either public or private which can cause the blush of shame to mantle the cheek, or the breath of detraction to justly sully the soldier's escutcheon with the taint of dishonor, and the having been engaged in several very hotly contested battles with her Spanish Majesty's troops, your petitioner, with the entire force under his command, was entirely cut to pieces, or dispersed, rendered fugitive and finally captured and conveyed to Havana as prisoners, where 160 to 175 of the number were, by order of his Excellency the Captain General, Concha, condemned as public malefactors to ten years' servitude in the fortress of Cento, and were by him sent to Spain to undergo the infliction of the punishment decreed; but, through the exercise of the high pre

necting the District with the State of Virginia. Senators are also aware that we have purchased the bridges across the Eastern Branch, thus connecting the District with the State of Maryland. I believe that this turnpike road is the only thoroughfare through the District which may not now be traveled free of expense. I move that the memorial be taken from the files of the Senate and referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia, and I hope they will give it their early attention.

The memorial was accordingly so referred.

NOTICES OF BILLS.

Mr. CLEMENS gave notice that he should ask leave to introduce a bill for the relief of Thomas Snodgrass.

Mr. FISH gave notice that he should ask leave to introduce a bill to increase the salary of the judge of the United States district court for the southern district of Florida.

Mr. PEARCE gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill for the relief of Sarah E. McKay, widow of Lieutenant-Colonel McKay.

BILL INTRODUCED.

Mr. BERRIEN, agreeably to previous notice, asked and obtained leave to bring in a bill to provide for the removal of obstructions in the river

Savannah, in the State of Georgia, and for the improvement of the same; which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES. Mr. DAWSON, from the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office, to whom were referred documents relating to the application of John Schley for the extension of a patent, reported a bill to extend a patent heretofore granted to John Schley, of the State of Georgia.

Mr. DAVIS, from the Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill for the relief of Charles A. Kellett, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. BUTLER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred a memorial of members of the Bar of the District of Columbia, reported a bill to make the salary of the judge of the criminal court of the District of Columbia equal to that of an assistant judge of the circuit court of said District; which was read and passed to the second reading.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred a bill amendatory of an act entitled "An act to provide for holding the courts of the United States in case of the sickness or other disability of the judges of the district courts," approved July 29, 1850, reported it without amend

ment.

On motion by Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, it

was

Ordered, That the Committee on Military Affairs be discharged from the further consideration of the documents relating to the claim of the State of Rhode Island for advances to volunteers in the late war with Mexico.

lieve, that considerable numbers of the crews of our ships, on approaching the coast of America in the winter season, have retired from their duty, knowing that the commanders had no legal authority to compel their service by the prompt and summary infliction of punishment, and that such vessels have been exposed in most inclement weather to great danger from such abandonment of duty on the part of this portion of their crew.

Your memorialists would also further state, that the desertion of duty before referred to in all cases had been on the part of the worst portion of the crews of those ships, and that it thus imposes upon the better portion of them so severe a duty that their strength may, in the hour of the utmost need, fail them, and that whilst deserters from duty are enjoying themselves in their hammocks, protected from the fury of the storm, their exhaustion may lead to the loss of the ship, and the destruction of the lives of all on board of her. Good men, who do their duty, fear no punishment,

and it is not inflicted upon them. The good men of the service, it is believed, desire the repeal of the late law. It imposes upon them the duty of bad men, who shelter themselves under it from the performance of their duty. It is not, in the opinion of your memorialists, punishment, disgraces a man. whether it be of the lash, the dungeon, or the sword, that It is the offence which merits such punishment that disgraces him. Lafayette was not disgraced by incarceration in the dungeons of Olmutz, Algernon Sydney by the axe of the second Charles, nor the great Apostle to the Gentiles by the repeated infliction on his person of the Mosaic law of "forty stripes save one."

If a sailor be so lost to a sense of duty, feeling, and honor, as to desert his post, or to commit crime, there is little danger to be apprehended of his feeling disgraced by the infliction of punishment by the lash, the chain ball, or the tread

mill.

And your memorialists would further add, that the necessary power of moderate and prompt punishment for petty offences committed on board ship has been, and still is, conferred on commanders of British vessels, and was so upon commanders of American vessels until the last

session of the Congress of the United States; and will only refer, in addition to the foregoing statements, to the high state of discipline and efficiency attained by these great maritime powers as a vindication of that practice, and an argument in favor of its reënactment.

And your memorialists, as in duty bound, will ever pray. Mr. STOCKTON. Mr. President, the sub

Nathan Weston, Jr.

TONNAGE OF VESSELS.

Mr. DAVIS submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be instructed to communicate to the Senate the following information, to wit:

First. The number and tonnage of American and foreign vessels which have arrived annually in the United States from foreign ports after 1814, designating the countries to which such vessels belonged, and that from which they last, before their arrival, cleared.

Second. The number and tonnage of such vessels which

have arrived, during the same period, annually, in the ports of Portland, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore,

Mobile, and New Orleans, respectively.

Third. The number and tonnage of such vessels which have arrived in the United States during the same period from foreign ports on the lakes, classifying in all cases such vessels in the usual manner.

FLOGGING IN THE NAVY.

Mr. GWIN. As I believe the morning business is concluded, I hope the memorial introduced some time since by the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BRODHEAD,] relating to flogging in the Navy, which has been laid upon the table, may be now taken up. Its consideration is due, as a matter of courtesy, to the honorable Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. STOCKTON.]

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. BERRIEN. Let the petition be read.
The CLERK read it, as follows:

To the honorable the Senate of the United States of
America:

The memorial of the subscribers, citizens of the United States, beg leave respectfully to represent to your honorable body, that at the last session of the Congress of the United States an important change was made in the regulations by which the discipline of the Navy and of the commercial marine of the United States was enforced, and

which, in the opinion of your memorialists, if it be not

modified or repealed, will lead to the most disastrous results to that great arm of the national defence and welfare.

Your memorialists refer to the law by which commanders of vessels are not permitted, for the commission of petty offences against the regulation of their ship and the laws of naval discipline, to inflict a prompt and ready punishment upon offenders for the commission of such offences.

Your memorialists most respectfully represent, that on the high seas, where ready access to legal civil tribunals cannot be obtained for the prompt punishment of offenders against the laws of the naval and marine service, and where it is neither possible to discharge such offenders from the service or to obtain others to occupy their places and perform their duties, it is of the highest importance that a power should be conferred upon commanders to compel the

importance to any which is likely to occupy the attention of Congress. It was, therefore, sir, that I asked the Senate, on its first presentation, to permit it to lie on the table for a few days, that I might have an opportunity to examine it. At the same time I promised the Senate, when it next came up, that I would express my views in relation to it. It is my purpose now to redeem that promise.

The memorial upon the table presents for the consideration of the Senate nothing less than the whole foundation of our naval structure-the human material by which your ships are worked and fought, your guns leveled, and their thunders pointed at your foes. Good ships, well built, well rigged, and fully equipped, are magnificent and perfect specimens of human science and art. But unless they are manned by good men they will sail only to become prizes to your enemies. If you || do not desire to build ships for your enemies, you must give them crews worthy to defend them. Sir, the difference between sailors is as great as the difference between other classes of different nations. There is as much difference between the American sailor in our whaling and coasting service and the sailors of other nations, as there is between the raw European emigrant and the sturdy son of one of our frontier pioneers. The emigrant will, in some cases, almost starve, while the pioneer is building his log house, enclosing his cornfield, and making himself an independent and useful man.

I am of opinion that the nation whose service is supplied with the best common sailors, will excel in naval warfare, as well as in all maritime pursuits. I am further of opinion, that in versatility, education, courage, and industry, our sailors in the whaling and coasting service excel those of all other nations. I am furthermore of opinion, that the superiority of the American sailor has decided the battle in our favor in many a bloody conflict, when, without that superiority, it might have been otherwise. I desire to secure and preserve that superiority. To that end, and for humanity's sake, I am utterly and irreconcilably opposed to the use of the lash in the Navy, or anywhere else. The longest, the most arduous voyages are made in the merchant service without the use of the lash. In the Polar seas-among the icebergs of the Arctic and Antarctic oceans, the intrepid New Englander pursues his gigantic game and hurls his

under other circumstances, would not be required.

Your memorialists would state, in illustration of the foregoing proposition, that they have been informed, and be

with the oily spoils of his adventurous navigation. But he owes none of his success, his patient endurance, his exemplary discipline, and his in

defatigable industry, to the guardian ministrations of the lash. To say that men who can make such voyages, and endure such hardships cheerfully and contentedly, cannot navigate their own national ships without the infliction of the infamous lash, is a libel. Is their nature changed the moment they step on the deck of a national vessel? Are they less men-less Americans as soon as the custody of the American flag, or the national honor, is intrusted to their keeping? No, sir; it is a libel. I do not mean to use the word in an offensive sense, nor shall I to-day use any word in that sense. It is one of those inconsiderate, thoughtless opinions, which mankind seem to think they have a perfect right to express in regard to sailors. It was not long since, sir, that I had a conversation on this subject with a gentleman who had for several years commanded a fine ship in the merchant service, but who is now an honorable, active, and efficient man of business in one of our large cities, and to whose integrity, generosity, and humanity, I would intrust anybody but a sailor. After he had heard my views on this subject, he instantly replied, "Why you mean to treat them like human beings." The theory that the Navy cannot be governed, and that our national ships cannot be navigated without the use of the lash, seems to me to be founded in that false idea, that sailors are not men-not American citizenshave not the common feelings, sympathies, and honorable impulses of our Anglo-American race.

I do not wonder, when I look back on the past history of the sailor, at the prevalence of this idea. His life has been a life of habitual, I will not say of systematic, degradation. The officers who command him-the oldest, the bravest, and the best-have been accustomed from their boyhood to see the sailor lashed about the ship's deck like a brute. He who by the laws of the service in which he is engaged is treated, or liable to be treated, like a brute, soon comes to be thought of as at least but little better than a brute. Who in social life respects a man whose back has been scarred at the whipping-post? Into what depth of contempt does such a punishment sink its victim? And here is one of the worst evils of the system. It destroys those feelings of respect and kindness which officers ought to entertain for the sailors under their command. But this is only one of the worst evils of the system. It destroys those feelings of regard and respect which the sailors should entertain for their officers. The truth is, there are no relations of affection and regard between them. The one is the oppressor, the other the oppressed. Sir, a man may fear or hate; but he neither loves nor respects his tyrant. The worst government upon earth is that of fear; the best, that of love and affection. These sentiments, by a law of our nature, must be mutual sentiments. Bonaparte was the idol of the soldier, because the soldier was his idol. They loved him because they supposed he loved them. There is nothing that gallant and brave men will not do and suffer for a commander whom they love. Difficulties and dangers and death have no terrors for such men. In great battles, where the contest has been doubtful, those soldiers have always fought most desperately whose devotion to their commander was the greatest. It has always been considered as an essential element in the character of a successful commander, that he should be able to excite and encourage the confidence and affection of the men under his command. But what confidence or regard can be expected under the government of the lash? But more than this: this punishment destroys the sailor's own self-respect. What has honor-what has pride-what has patriotism to do with a man who may be, at the caprice of another, subjected to an infamous punishment, worse-aye, sir, in some cases worse a thousand times-than death? Can nobleness of sentiment, or an honorable pride of character, dwell with one whose every muscle has been made to quiver under the lash? Can he long continue to love his country, whose laws degrade him to the level of a brute? The infamous "question" of torture now only remains as a blot on the page of Anglo-Saxon history. The whipping-post, where the worst vagrants used to expiate their offences, has been discarded from society. The worst offences in our State prisons are no longer punished by the lash. Why is all this? Why are those punishments now condemned as the shameful relics of a bar

af

arous age? It is because the light of a better day as dawned. It is because the precepts of the ospel of Christianity have ameliorated our laws. is because society has made the discovery, that a man is fit to live at all, he ought not to be diested of all the qualities which make a man, by the infamous mutilation of his body. What is the answer which is given to all this by those who seek to restore this relic of barbarism to the Navy? Why, they tell us we intend only to apply this system of punishment to seamen-we intend only

flog sailors. That is quite true. It is only sailors who are to be treated like brutes-aye, sir, worse than brutes. There is no man who hears me, who would permit his dog to be thus treated. There is no spot on the habitable globe known to me, where a man would be permitted to seize upon a dog, and lash him until he cut the flesh from off his ribs, and the blood should be made to run down from his backbone to his heels. But, sir, it is only the sailor, for whom this punishment is to be reserved.

Who, O Senators! is the American sailor, that he is to be treated worse than a dog? He has been my companion for more than a quarter of a century-through calm and storm, privations, sufferings, and danger. In peace and in war I have lived with him, and fought with him side by side, by sea and land. I have seen him in the northern ocean, where there was no night to veil his deeds. I have seen him on the coast of Africa, surrounded by pestilential disease. I have seen hirn among the West India Islands in chase of pirates, with his parched tongue hanging almost out of his mouth. I have encamped with him on the California mountains, and on the plains of the Mesa. I have seen the rays of the morning sun play on his carbine and his boarding-pike. I have seen him march one hundred and fifty miles through an enemy's country, over mountains and through rivers. I have seen his feet scarified by the projecting rocks, as he hauled his cannon over the hills. I have seen him with no shoes on but those of canvas, made by his own hands, and with no provision but what he took from the enemy. I have seen him plunge into the Rio Can Gabriel, and drag his guns after him in the face of a galling fire from a desperate foe. And inally, I have laid beside him on the cold ground, when the ice has formed on his beard. Sir, his heart has beat close to my own. I ought to know him. I do know him. And this day-now, before the assembled Senate of the Republic, I stand up to speak in his behalf. I hope he will find an abler advocate. Nay, I am sure he will find abler advocates on the floor. But, nevertheless, hear me.

Mr. President, the American sailors, as a class, have loved their country as well, and have done more for her in peace and war, than any other equal number of citizens. Passing by for a moment their antecedent glorious achievements, let me remind you that he has recently gained for his country an empire. Through perils by land and perils by water he has gained a golden empire, which has added to his country's renown and greatness, and perhaps saved his fellow-citizens from almost universal bankruptcy and ruin. And what has his country done for him? When the fighting was over, the battles won, the conquest achieved, you sent a band of Mormons to California to drive him to his ship, and rob him of his glory. And historians too have done more to prove that history is a lie. You refused to give him "bounty lands," which you gave to the soldier-his comrade fighting by his side-and you have neglected to give him even your thanks. And now, to cap the climax of his country's ingratitude, these memoralists would have him Scourged. They would scourge him for drunkenness, when they put the bottle to his mouth. They would scourge him for inattention to his duty, when injustice and wrong have made him for an instant discontented and sullen. Shame! Shame! You would scourge him while living, and when dead consign him to a felon's grave. That I may not be supposed to have drawn upon my fancy, or to have exaggerated his country's inhumanity, I ask the Secretary of the Senate to read these documents.

The Secretary read them as follows: To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representa

tives in Congress assembled:

The undersigned, President and Trustees of the Boston Marine Society, of the city of Boston, in the State of Mas

sachusetts, beg leave to represent to your honorable bodies, that, having had their attention directed, for many years, to the condition of seamen, abroad and at home, they have been much impressed with the fact of the sufferings of this valuable class of our citizens by sickness and accidents, and from poverty arising from these circumstances, connected with their proverbial improvidence for the future, with their pecuniary means.

The benefits of medical aid and comfort in foreign ports enjoyed by others, are hardly ever obtained by them, aud, in consequence, after receiving such comforts and attentions as the ships they are attached to, and their officers can give, they are frequently brought home and placed in our marine hospitals, where no seaman can remain beyond the time limited by the laws regulating those institutions.

It is very often the case that they are dismissed from these hospitals, when not sufficiently restored to render them fit for their active service, and, in consequence, they become paupers or tenants of public alms-houses, though most of them would rather die than suffer this degradation.`

It is well known to all, observant of seamen, that they are always ready to answer the call for their services, whether it be in the service of the naval, or of the mercantile marine-as ready to fight with valor for their country as to aid in its commerce-and so true is this, that very few

seamen, advanced in years, can be found who have not served in both our public and private ships.

Your attention is respectfully called to the fact, that there

is, at this moment, in the public Treasury, as your memo rialists have been informed, money to the credit of seamen who have been attached to the Government marine, and to the mercantile marine, amounting to more than a million of dollars.

This large amount has accrued from unclaimed sums due to deceased seamen, from unclaimed prize money belonging to seamen of private as well as public arined ves sels, and to the contributions made by all seamen of twenty cents per month in the name of hospital money.

In view of these facts, your memoralists beg leave to solicit from your honorable bodies, that measures may be taken to ascertain the amount accumulated from these

cies of both. But look to your history-that part of it which the world knows by heart-and you will find on its brightest page the glorious achievements of the American sailor. Whatever his country has done to disgrace him and break his spirit, he has never disgraced her; he has always been ready to serve her; he always has served her faithfully and effectually. He has often been weighed in the balance, and never found wanting. The only fault ever found with him is, that he sometimes fights ahead of his orders. The world has no match for him, man for man; and he asks no odds, and he cares for no odds, when the cause of humanity or the glory of his country calls him to fight. Who, in the darkest days of our Revolution, carried your flag into the very chops of the British Channel, bearded the lion in his den, and woke the echoes of old Albion's hills by the thunders of his cannon and the shouts of triumph? It was the American sailor. And the names of John Paul Jones and the Bon Homme Richard will go down the annals of time forever. Who struck the first blow that humbled the Barbary flag, which for a hundred years had been the terror of christendom, drove it from the Mediterranean, and put an end to the infamous tribute it had been accustomed to extort? It was the American sailor. And the name of Decatur and his gallant companions will be as lasting as monumental brass. In your war of 1812, when your arms on shore were covered by disaster-when Winchester had been defeated -when the Army of the Northwest had sur

sources in the United States Treasury, and that, therefrom, rendered, and when the gloom of despondency

suitable provision may be made in the principal seaports in the United States for the further maintenance of seamen, citizens of the United States, who are infirm and unfit for service, from sickness, advanced age, or any other cause. All of which is respectfully submitted.

PRESIDENT ANd Trustees, B. M. S.

Z. RING, ESQ.-DEAR SIR: I herewith furnish you with the information desired. During the year 1850 there were 106 deaths of seamen; of which number 45 were buried by friends, the balance (61) were taken by the Alms-House to Potter's field; for the latter class the Government allow us $5 each ($3 for coffin, and $2 for ground.) Not one in ten have money to provide for themselves. Very respectfully,

JOHN L. ROOME,

Superintendent of City Hospital, Ń. Y. POTTER'S FIELD.-The grand jury for the September term examined 276 complaints, and found 133 bills of indictment. They visited the various public institutions, but made no presentment. Previous to being discharged by the court, the foreman, Henry Erben, Esq., at the request of the grand inquest, stated to the court that the jury had visited Potter's Field, and found it in a horrible condition. One pit was about half filled. The coffins were exposed to the sun. The stench from them was very great. They directed Mr. Webb, the keeper, to come before the grand-jury on the following day. On the 19th he made the following affidavit:

GRAND-JURY Room, September 19, 1851. William O. Webb, being duly sworn, saith, that he is the keeper of Potter's Field; that the ground on Randall's island, used for a burying-place, is not at all suited for it; that it is full of rocks; pits are dug for the dead, where they are put in layers of six deep. The bottom of the pits being solid rock, when decomposition takes place, the liquid, not being able to go in the ground, passes through the top, causing a horrible stench, which can be smelt for more than a mile.

There is no earth between the layers of coffins, and there are only about eighteen inches of earth over the top layer of coffins-that it frequently happens that at high tides and heavy rains, the water gets into the pits, so that the coffins are floating. He further saith that in less than three weeks there will be no room left in the yard to bury another person. He also states that the south end of Ward's Island is a suitable place for a Potter's Field, the soil being good and free from rock. Sworn this 19th day of September, 1851.

HENRY ERBEN, Foreman.

hung like a cloud over the land, who first relit the fires of national glory and made the welkin ring with the shouts of victory? It was the American sailor. And the names of Hull and the Constitution will be remembered as long as we have left anything worth remembering. That was no small event. The wand of Mexican prowess was broken on the Rio Grande. The wand of British invincibility was broken when the flag of the Guerriere came down. That one event was worth more to the Republic than all the money which has ever been expended for the Navy. Since that day the Navy has had no stain upon its escutcheon, but has been cherished as your pride and glory. And the American sailor has established a reputation throughout the world-in peace and in war, in storm and in battle-for unsurpassed heroism and prowess.

Mr. President, I am no painter. I cannot draw with artistical skill the scene I would have you look upon. But it requires no artist. Picture it to yourself, sir. See the gallant bold sailor who has served his apprenticeship with Hull in the Consti- · tution, or one who helped to drag the guns across the San Gabriel, stripped and lashed worse than a dog. Can you stand it, sir? Yet your laws have authorized it to be done-it probably has been done. And now it is proposed to give authority to do it again. Will the American people stand it? Will this more than Roman Senate long debate whether an American citizen, as he is-the sailor shall be entitled to all his rights as an American citizen or not; whether, freeman as he is, he shall be scourged like a slave? Cicero's climacteric, in his speech against Verres, is, that though a Roman citizen, his client had been scourged: And shall an American citizen be scourged? Forbid it, God of humanity, forbid it. For my own part, I would rather see the Navy abolished, and the stars and stripes buried with their glory in the Mr. STOCKTON. Mr. President, to whom depths of the ocean, than that those who won its in time of peace are intrusted the lives of the thou- glories should be subjected to a punishment so sands who traverse the ocean? Whose energy and ignominious and brutalizing. Sir, if I had the skill, and hardy self-denying toil, carry the prod-power vouchsafed to others, to impress my own ucts of your soil through the world, and bring back the rich return? It is the American sailor. By his superior qualities as a man he has enabled you to rival in commerce the boasted mistress of the ocean. Where is the coast or harbor in the wide world accessible to human enterprise to which he has not carried your flag? His berth is no sinecure. His service is no easy service. He is necessarily an isolated being; he knows no comforts of home, and wife, and children. He reaps no golden rewards for the increase of treasure which he brings to you. When on shore he is among strangers and friendless. When worn out he is scarcely provided for. Making many rich, he lives and dies poor; carrying the arts of civilization and the blessings of the Gospel through the world, he is treated as an outcast from the mer

feelings upon the hearts of those who hear me, 1 would rouse in the minds of Senators such a sense of national pride and human sympathy that they would with one voice demand that the memorial which seeks to rob the American sailor of his rights as an American freeman, should be thrown under your table and trampled beneath your feet.

Mr. President, the object of all our legislation for our seamen should be to elevate them as a class, and not to degrade them. In proportion as you do this, and teach the sailor to respect himself, you will bring him to the performance of his duty with cheerfulness and alacrity. You best appeal to his patriotism by showing him that he is honored and respected by his country. You best appeal to his sentiment of native pride by presenting motives to his emulation. You can do

infinitely more with him by rewarding him for his faithfulness than by flogging him for his delinquencies. Whatever the peculiarities of the sailor may be, he is still a man, with all the impulses, wishes, and hopes of a man. And if there is one trait more peculiar to him than another, it is the sentiment of gratitude. He never forgets a kindness, and would take his heart out of his bosom to save a friend. Let him only see that he is honored and respected by his country, and her honor and interest will always be safe in his hands.

unwilling to admit that he can abuse it. Its safest depository he considers is his own hands. For these and similar reasons, I think that the opinion of the officers of the Navy on this subject should be taken with many grains of allowance. I find no fault with the independent expression of their opinions. It is the opinion itself which I propose to combat. Their argument is as brief as it seems to some minds formidable. They declare the lash to be necessary and indispensable. If they are right in this opinion, there is an end to the matter. Necessity has no law. But I beg leave to inquire into this alleged necessity.

I believe that many of the officers of the Navy have fallen into the error of supposing that sailors are more influenced by their fears than by their And first, I ask for what offences has this lash affections. They do not rightly appreciate his been so freely used? Has it been inflicted for character. If they would take more pains to think serious or atrocious crimes, which involve the for him-to keep him out of temptation-to attend honor of our flag or the safety of our national vesto his wants to see that he was fairly and justly sels? Or rather, let me ask, has it not been indealt by and properly to consider the fair allow-flicted for offences which, if they had been entirely ance which ought to be made for him, they would find it much less difficult to enforce discipline, to gain his confidence, and find him much more tractable. It is not by the severity of discipline as much as it is by a firm, just, and generous government, that he is to be controlled. It is so among men everywhere. It is rather by humane and judicious laws, than by the severity of penal enactments, that good government is established and maintained. Again: in the training and governing those men who are to fight your battles, and face every danger with courage, their fear should seldom be appealed to. You ought not to cultivate the emotions which make men cowards, and teach them habitually to shrink from the fear of personal suffering. You ought rather to teach them to despise an honorable suffering. True heroism is an intellectual quality. It is moral intrepidity that makes the man of true and reliable courage. And this can only coexist with a proper sense of personal honor and self-respect. Degrade á man by an infamous punishment, which destroys his personal honor and self-respect, and you do all that human ingenuity can to make him cowardly.

overlooked, would not have injured the proper discipline of the Navy? Has the lash ever been used in the hour of battle, or in that of preparation for battle? Is it reasonable to suppose that a coward or traitor would face a cannon-ball to avoid the lash? It would seem, then, without multiplying words, that so far from the lash being necessary for the maintenance of discipline in the most important duty of a ship-of-war, it never has and never will be used. How is it, then, in regard to the next most important matter concerning the discipline of a man-of-war? Has it ever been used for the suppression of mutiny? No, sir; the law has provided for that offence, as well as for cowardice, the punishment of death. Having thus briefly stated what the lash has not been used for, let me inquire, what are the offences for which it is deemed so absolutely necessary? We may derive some information in this particular from the published reports of the offences and punishments which have actually occurred on board our shipsof-war. By reference to the report of the Secretary of the Navy on this subject, you will perceive that one of the offences for which it has been used is that of suspicion of theft. One would hardly say it was either necessary or proper in that case. The offence for which, however, there seems to have been more lashes inflicted than for all other offences, is that of drunkenness. Now, sir, the Government furnishes the liquor for the sailor, and if he gets drunk upon his allowance, the Government itself is responsible, and the sailor ought not to be flogged. If he procures it on board of a ship by theft or bargain, it is evidence of a laxity of discipline, for which others are responsible, and for which the sailor ought not to be flogged. The lash, therefore, is not necessary to prevent drunkenness, not only for the reasons just stated, but because it must be universally admitted that it never has and never can prevent the offence of drunkenness, if he who is habituated to it is permitted to have liquor:

But it is said that the Navy cannot be governed without the lash. As a general proposition, I express my utter dissent to it. I admit that among sailors, as among other classes, there will always be found some who are vicious and troublesome. That is the case in the Army as well as in the Navy; and they have abolished the lash in the Army. It is as easy to get other and less offensive punishments for the Navy as for the Army; and if those punishments will not answer, the refractory person had better be driven in disgrace from the Navy. He is not fit to be trusted in the hour of peril-he is unworthy to have the honor of the flag confided to him. Sufficient inducements should be offered to the better classes to enter the Navy; and a part of those inducements should always be good treatment. A free use of the lash-nay, its probable use, its permission by law-has always been an objection urged by the better classes to entering the Navy. They prefer the merchant service, where they can at least select their own commander, while in the Navy they know not into whose hands they may fall. Thus you see that the very necessity which is pleaded creates, in a great degree, the circumstances out of which it is supposed to spring. You flog because there are bad men in the Navy, and the fact that you do flog excludes the better class of sailors from entering the service; so that the mischief is self-perpetuating. But again, it is said that a large majority of the officers of the Navy are of opinion that the lash is necessary and indispensable. Well, there are differences of opinion about it. We all know, however, that old notions and opinions are hard to be rooted out, and that men are very apt to love arbitrary power when they are to exercise it, and not be subject to it. All his-one, and especially from myself, because I did when tory shows this, and the experience of all reformers confirm it. Lord Denman, late Chief Justice of England, in a letter on the subject of legal reform, complains that everywhere he met the objection that the judges were opposed to it. And Lord Brougham, in a speech delivered in Parlia- | ment on the same subject, expresses a similar sentiment; yet it was not long before the judges and the bar and the people concurred in opinion as to the beneficial effects of the same reforms. It would seem, sir, that it is a part of man's nature to yield with great reluctance the smallest atom of power with which he may be invested. He is

The offence of disobedience of orders will be found frequently in this report. But we are not informed of the precise nature of the offence. Whether it is actual or constructive disobedience of orders; whether it is a serious or trifling matter; whether it is for accidentally spitting on the deck, or neglecting to clean the bright works of a ship, or not mending his clothes, or leaving his bag on deck; or whether it was a positive refusal to do his duty. We are, therefore, left to infer its seriousness by the punishment inflicted for it. I will hazard the opinion, judging by that standard, that stopping the offender's allowance of tobacco, or rum, tea, sugar, and coffee, would have been, in every case, a much more reasonable and a more efficient punishment. And now, sir, what has become of this plea of necessity?-I will not call it in this connection the tyrant's plea; the officers of the Navy do not deserve such a reproach from any

in the service execute, and permit to be executed, the law of the lash as I hope I did all other laws of the service, which I had sworn to obey and to enforce. And this should be a sufficient answer to those who expect to escape from the grasp of argument and facts by indulging in individual recrimination, and will be sufficient to remind them that there is some difference in the position of those who are called upon to make the laws and those whose duty it is to execute them.

The officers of the Navy, in my judgment, are entitled to high commendation. They are, as a class, brave, noble, generous, and patriotic men;

and in all the elements of character which constitute valuable public servants, they have no superiors. But however much respect I may entertain for them as a class, it is my duty, which I shall endeavor to perform, to deal without reserve or false delicacy with their arguments, and the errors which disgrace and paralyze the service to which they belong. It does appear to me, Mr. President, that the argument, from necessity, has resolved itself simply into this: that the lash is an easy and short way to settle a trifling difficulty with a sailor. And so were the thumb-screw and the rack an easy and short way to get a confession, and the inquisition settled matters of faith easily and readily. But, sir, there has been a great change in the opinions of mankind on this subject, and I hope the change will go on until the last relic of barbarism shall be banished from the world.

But I care very little for the details of this argument, and will not detain the Senate any longer m relation to them. There is one broad proposition upon which I stand. It is this: That an American sailor is an American citizen, and that no American citizen shall, with my consent, be subjected to this infamous punishment. Placing myself upon this proposition, I am prepared for any consequences. I love the Navy. When I speak of the Navy, I mean the sailor as well as the officer. They are all my fellow-citizens, and yours; and come what may, my voice will ever be raised against a punishment which degrades my countrymen to the level of a brute, and destroys all that is worth living for-personal honor and self-respect.

M

Mr. President, reference has been made by these memorialists to the example of the British Government. With what propriety such an appeal is made by the citizen of a free republican Government to the institutions of monarchy, let others determine. But, sir, I am not aware that the British Parliament has ever by statute expressly authorized the use of the lash. There is no doubt that it is used in the Navy of Great Britain, and has been so used since the restoration of the monarchy under the Stuarts; but there is no evidence that the practice of flogging prevailed in the republican fleets of the English Commonwealth; and 1 it is doubted by the best authorities that it ever was tolerated prior to the act of 13th Charles II. We have copied it from their practice, and not from their statute-book. But our Congress did what no British Parliament ever did: they sanctioned it in express terms by the laws of the United States. And here, Mr. President, you must permit me to call the attention of the Senate to a most singular fact, which is this: Our law of April, 1800, was principally copied from the statute of Charles II., and is openly and avowedly more severe and arbitrary than the British act, even under the Stuarts, and has remained so until last year, although flogging, as a punishment, was tolerated during the whole of that time, and up to the present moment, on land in England.

The act of Charles II. alluded to, was passed when the Duke of York, afterwards James II., was Lord High Admiral of England, and may be supposed to have been done at his instance. The English historian, the Earl of Clarendon, tells us, that when that prince entered on his duties, he found the Navy too republican for his taste or purposes, and set about reorganizing it by getting rid of the republican officers. In pursuance of this policy, he procured the passage of the act of 13th Charles II. Although that act does not, in express terms, authorize the use of the lash, yet by virtue of a clause contained in it, the Lord High Admiral, or the commissioners for executing his duties, issued instructions authorizing the use of the lash in the British Navy; and certainly it may be cited to justify any tyranny. I would not have noticed the reference of the memoralists to the practice in the British Navy, but that I desire, on this subject, not to leave a peg to hang a doubt upon. But, sir, the example of the British Government, such as it is, is no justification for the United States. The infliction of corporal punishment for certain offences has always, as far as I know, been sanctioned by British laws. The sailor in the British Navy receives the same punishment that is inflicted upon land in England; whereas, in the United States it has been almost universally abolished, and certainly has never been sanctioned by the laws of the United States,

xcept in the Army and Navy. Justification it as none; and if palliation is to be looked for, could only be found in its infliction by the judgent of the sailor's peers. But the trial by jury unknown to the naval service. Those great Conservative safeguards, so dear to the freementhe arraignment and trial before a jury of his peers differently selected, counsel and defence, are unknown to the everyday discipline of a man-ofwar. Much less has the sailor any appeal. The process by which he is tried is a short process, and the punishment follows immediately on judgment. Where the power to punish is so absolute, the law should at least protect its victim from an infamous punishment for a petty offence, which may disgrace and ruin him for life. If when a citizen enters into the service of his country, he is to forego the protection of those laws, for the preservation of which he is willing to risk his life, he is entitled in all justice, humanity, and gratitude, to all the protection that can be extended to him in his peculiar circumstances. He ought certainly to be protected from the infliction of a punishment which stands condemned by the almost universal sentiment of his fellow-citizens; a punishment which is proscribed in the best prison-government; proscribed in the school-house; and proscribed in the best government on earth-that of parental domestic affection. Yes, sir, expelled from the social circle, from the school-house, the prison-house, and the Army, it finds defenders and champions nowhere but in the Navy. To say that no laws can be devised for the government of the Navy which do not tolerate the lash, is an acknowledgment of imbecility which this Senate will never make.

The difficulty in regard to this matter has been, that in framing articles for the government of the Navy, three things have been overlooked, which caght never to be lost sight of. First, that an American sailor is an American citizen and a freeman, though in the service of his country. Second, that he has yielded no legal right, not inconsistent with his obligations of duty. Third, that naval officers are not infallible, and require as stringent regulations for their government as other citizens invested with authority.

In the view I take of the subject, then, the argument derived from a low and degraded estimate of the Navy, is unfounded in any of the characteristics belonging to the common sailor. Has it any foundation in the incapacity of the officers to excite and cultivate those feelings of honor in a sailor which make him obedient and tractable? I hope not. If there be any such, they should not be intrusted with any command. They are destitute of the faculty of commanding. They have not the necessary qualifications. They are not safe depositaries for such absolute power, or for the security of our public ships. How can they rouse the sailor's sense of honor in time of battle, who have proved themselves incapable of believing in its existence at all other times. I apprehend, if the restoration of the lash be made to hinge upon the question, whether the sailor is destitute of honor, or the officers of capacity to successfully appeal to that honor, that we should not be troubled with many importunate demands for its restoration. If the desire to restore the lash to the Navy is evidence that the standard by which the Navy is judged is low and degraded, it is also evidence, to my mind, that the Navy has not kept pace with the moral improvement of the age. If it be the general opinion in the Navy that the lash is necessary and indispensable for the preservation of discipline, then, I say, we are now just where public sentiment stood in 1660, during the infamous reign of Charles II. Then the thumb-screw and the rack were in vogue, too. And if we are to go back to the lash, I do not see why we should not retrograde likewise to the boot, the rack, and the torture. What would be thought of the man who should propose to introduce into our penal code those horrible and barbarous punishments of which I have spoken? What would be thought of the civilized community who would approve such a proposition, and reenact punishments in vogue three hundred years ago? Yet the proposition to restore the lash is of a similar character. It takes for granted that the sailor has remained stationary, ever since the rack, the thumb-screw, and the boot were abolished as part of the criminal law of civilized nations; it takes for granted that of all the light which has irradiated the human mind during the progress of the world, none of it has been poured on the understanding of the sailor. That he alone has remained stationary. That he alone has remained ignorant and incapable of improvement. That he alone is doomed to remain the victim of injustice and cruelty. Look, sir, through the various pursuits of human life, and wherever your eyes rest, you find that improvement has advanced with giant strides. You find that it has elevated and enlightened the ploughman in his field—the mechanic in his workshopthe merchant-the professional man-the daily laborer-all have felt the benign influences of improved civilization. If the sailor has not felt it in an equal degree with other classes, it is because you have degraded and abused him, by treatment from which other classes have compelled you to relieve them. His voice has not been heard like that of other classes in the halls of legislation. He has no representative in such places. He wields no political influence. He has no residence. His domicil is on the ship. If the interests of the sailor had received a tithe of the attention bestowed by legislators on the interests of other classes, we should not now be discussing the question whether or not he should be remanded to the tender mercies of these penal atrocities, from which the progress of modern improvement has relieved all other denominations of men -we would not now be discussing the question whether he should be treated like a man or a brute.

And now, Mr. President, I come to the discussion of a part of this subject far from being agreeable. Why is it that naval officers, and even some seamen, as I am told, desire to have the lash restored to the Navy? It is a symptom of unfavorable augury. It is an indication, that the moral standard by which the Navy is estimated, is low and degraded. It argues a preference for the exercise of arbitrary power, rather than appeal to those feelings of respect and sentiments of honor, which should influence the conduct of honorable men towards each other in the service of their country. The great Montesquieu has said, that while vie was the principle of a republic, honor was that of a monarchy. Now, the actual government, in peace or war, in your military and naval service, is necessarily, in some degree, monarchical. Within the limits of his command, and in reference to those immediately subject to him, the captain, the colonel, the general, or the commander of a ship of war, is a sovereign-a monarch; and I hold that honor is the principle on which the government of his subordinates should be founded. Tell me not that a sailor's heart is insensible to the dictates of honor. I know better. It is there. It may indeed slumber and remain passive, and be almost extinguished by sullen revenge or bitter hatred; yet there it is, as real, and in as perfect existence, as in your breast or mine. By proper appeals to it, by generous treatment, by manly and discriminating excitement, it kindles into activity, and becomes the supreme arbiter of the sailor's life and conduct. Sir, if the officers would only believe in the existence of this sentiment of honor, and appeal to it as an instrument for the preservation of discipline, we should not be asked to restore the lash. A requisition for the lash proceeds on the supposition that there is no honor in a common sailor. Now, so far from that dogma having any foundation in fact, it must be known to all who appreciate the character of a true-hearted sailor, that honor is almost the only principle by which nine tenths of them are governed. When an unsuccessful appeal is made to the honor of a sailor, it is not because he is desti-system of the recruiting service; in one word, you tute of the principle, but because the appeal has not been properly made.

Mr. President, a word or two more and I am done. We hear a great deal of the delinquencies of sailors. There are delinquencies of officers, as well as of sailors. There are officers in the Navy, as well as sailors, who ought not to be there. If you desire to prepare the Navy for the exigencies of war-if you desire to preserve your ancient renown as a naval Power, you must, in my judgment, abolish the lash, and adopt a system of rewards and punishments in its stead. You must abolish the liquor ration; you must alter the whole

must purge the Navy of all its foul stuff, in high places as well as low places; and you must lay

broad and deep the foundation of your naval greatness in the character of the COMMON SAILOR. The bone and sinew of every Navy is the common sailor. You require the commanding intellect of scientific officers to direct him, and you require good ships. But after all, the common sailor is the working power which enables the captain and the ship to gain laurels. "Tis the sailor who works and sails and fights the ship; and in proportion as he is superior or inferior, will be the success of the captain and the ship. Sir, in all the best traits of character which distinguish sailors, no nation excels the United States. The American sailor is bold, intelligent, hardy, and enterprising, and in nautical skill is unsurpassed. He shrinks from no danger, he dreads no foe, and yields to no superior. No shoals are too dangerous, no seas too boisterous, no climate too rigorous for him. The burning sun of the tropics cannot make him effeminate, nor can the eternal winter of the polar seas paralyze his energies. Foster, cherish, develop these characteristics by a generous and paternal government. Excite his emulation, and stimulate his ambition by rewards. But above all, save him, save him from the brutalizing lash, and inspire him with love and confidence for your service; and then there is no achievement so arduous, no conflict so desperate, in which his actions will not shed glory upon his country. And when the final struggle comes, as soon it will come, for the empire of the seas, you may rest with entire confidence that victory will be yours.

I move you, sir, that it is inexpedient to grant the prayer of the petitioners.

Mr. HAMLIN. I do not propose to occupy the time of the Senate. It is known probably to Senators, that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Downs] has been for several days extremely desirous of addressing the Senate upon another subject. The Senator from California, upon whose motion the Senate this morning proceeded to the consideration of this matter, has been called from the Senate. He was desirous of submitting the motion to lay it on the table for the present; and in his absence I have risen simply to make that motion,

Mr. BADGER. I wish to make a few remarks upon the subject. Mr. HAMLIN. I trust the Senator from North Carolina will yield, for the benefit of the Senator from Louisiana. I therefore move to lay the subject on the table.

Mr. BADGER. I hope it will not be done, sir. Mr. HAMLIN. I submit the motion because I told the Senator from California that I would do so.

Mr. BADGER. And because the Senator from California is absent, is that to preclude a member of the Naval Committee from saying a word on the subject?

Mr. HAMLIN. I wish the Senator from North Carolina to understand my position. I do not propose, by moving to lay this subject on the table, to preclude all further discussion of it; but only to preclude it so far as to allow the Senator from Louisiana to address the Senate to-day upon another subject, as he is anxious to do, so that he may leave the city for a time. It is out of kindness to him that I make the motion.

Mr. DOWNS. I did desire to address the Senate to-day; but if the Senator from North Carolina desires to continue this debate, I shall be very willing to wait until to-morrow.

Mr. HAMLIN. Then I withdraw the motion. Mr. BADGER. I have no disposition to inflict a speech upon the Senate upon this subject. The views that have been submitted to the Senate by the honorable Senator from New Jersey, have in some respects struck me with surprise; and I think that as they have been delivered to the Senate upon Ian occasion when it is not usual for us to go into discussions or investigations of this kind, as I am a member of the Naval Committee, to whose custody, long ago, according to my view, this memorial should have been intrusted; and as I entertain a very different opinion upon the subject of this petition from that which has been so forcibly and eloquently expressed by the honorable Senator from New Jersey, I could not think it right that remarks of this kind should go forth to the country without an instantaneous notice from some gentleman who belongs to that committee. In the absence of the chairman, I have assumed that duty myself.