ment. The Minister of Finance informed the Secretary of Foreign Affairs on the 27th of August, prior to Shannon's presentation, that the money had been paid some time before, and that it was the pressure of business alone that had delayed the announcement.

Mr. GREY. Does the Mexican Government now contend that that draft was paid?

Mr. BAYLY. That is a very long matter. It has been investigated, however; and if I get time I will go into the whole matter.

Benjamin E. Green's power of attorney in this matter was not revoked by the arrival of Shannon; and Shannon, in a letter to the commission, expressly states that he had nothing to do with it. I have got all the facts here, and if I have an opportunity I am prepared to bring the whole of them before the country. I had not time to do it in my hour.

Mr. GREY. Do I understand the gentleman to say that Hargous & Co. said they had never receipted for this money?

Mr. BAYLY. They not only denied that they had received it, but they satisfied the Government that they had not done it; and four hundred thousand and odd dollars were allowed to them by the Mexican Commission here, without any reduction of the $270,000, because the Government was satisfied that they had not received that money.

Mr. GREY. If I am not greatly mistaken, the Mexican Government showed that they had a receipt from Hargous & Co. for the money. My understanding of the matter is, that Hargous & Co., as the agents of this Government, gave a receipt to the Mexican Government for the money due, but that they had not received the money because they gave the receipt for a draft which has never been paid.

Mr. BAYLY. The gentleman is mistaken. One ground upon which they claimed exemption was, that Mr. Voss, formerly a member of the house of Hargous & Co., was made the agent by Green, and that he gave the receipt in his individual capacity.

Mr. GREY. Then the fact is, that Hargous & Co. were the agents of this Government, but that their clerk, Mr. Voss, received this draft from the Mexican Government and receipted for it. Mr. BAYLY. Green employed Voss; Hargous & Co. did not.

Mr. GREY. Then, if that be the case, the Mexican Government have no right to say that they have paid the money, because they have no receipt for it from the agents of this Government, Hargous & Co. No one in Mexico had a right to give a receipt for that money, except Hargous & Co.

him before this House for the purpose of denouncing him in terms the strongest which the English language is capable of furnishing? But, as I have said, it is not my purpose to meddle with this controversy between General Green and General Bayly. They may fight it out. On this occasion General Green, and his son especially, has been brought before this House, and charges have been preferred against him by the gentleman from Virginia. Then, at the conclusion of his speech, he informs the House and the country that he is a lawyer of some experience, that he has served as a judge, and that upon testimony weaker than that which he has adduced upon this occasion against Benjamin E. Green he would have sentenced a man to the penitentiary. Why, this would be a violation of one of the fundamental laws of this Government. An individual has a right to be heard by himself or by means of his counsel. He is entitled to have an impartial jury, and an impartial judge, to decide in his case. But upon this occasion the prosecutor, jury, judge, and all are imbodied in one person, and General Green and his son have been tried, convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary by that person. Now, this is anti-American; it is directly at war with republican institutions, and in conflict with the fundamental law of the land. But for the purpose of making himself more clear, he holds up Green as a traducer and calumniator. That in times gone by he had even slandered and traduced General Jackson. Sir, I am well aware that I can say nothing to add to the fame of that illustrious man-a renown that will stand so long as an American heart beats with one pulsation of patriotism. It is not for me to pronounce a eulogy upon his name; but if we were to go back and hunt up all the individuals who had denounced the course of General Jackson and his principles during the last war, he would find a pretty large.company to go with General Green in this respect. But why hold up General Jackson, who lives upon the pages of history with a fame above all other men-a fame that will outlive the assaults and shafts of calumny, from whatever quarter they may be spedwhy then thrust forward Duff Green in this matter, because he did not happen to agree with General Jackson upon some questions? Has not the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BAYLY] said about as hard things of General Jackson on former occasions as Duff Green ever did? It seems to me that he has. And I think the gentleman from Virginia is not the man to pronounce eulogies and hold up General Jackson's great character for the purpose of aiding him in his denunciations of others as the calumniators of General Jackson. Now, I repeat again, that, so far as this contro

His

with it. But, as insignificant a man as Duff Green is, it seems that the gentleman from Virginia has been a good deal roused by him. There is a good deal of the gentleman from Virginia, physically, and I will add mentally, too. mental powers are enclosed in a good deal of flesh and blood, it is true; but we have upon this occasion seen him physically and mentally roused to his utmost capacity. We have seen his wrath, physically and mentally, poured out upon even so insignificant a character as Duff Green or Benjamin E. Green, as the case may be. But I think he has been roused upon this occasion to make a display, rather than to produce facts which can make up any tangible argument against the Greens. However, this is a matter which he and General Green may settle between themselves. One thing is certain, there is considerable discrepancy between the facts he presents to the committee, in the bitter assault he has made upon this individual, which he has not been able to reconcile. There seems to be a tender point which the gentleman from Virginia evidently dislikes to touch upon, and he therefore assails General Green upon another point, thereby diverting the public attention from the point which is so tender to him.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. Mr. Chair-versy is concerned, I intended to have little to do man, it is my purpose to consume but a very small portion of the time of this committee in the investigation of the subject now under consideration. Although I presume it is not strictly in order to discuss this subject legitimately before the committee, yet I suppose it may be considered so. Nevertheless, I shall, to some extent, confine my remarks to the bill under consideration. I confess that the scene we have just witnessed, and the one which was witnessed in this House on yesterday, are rather extraordinary ones. Now, I have said that I would have nothing to do with the controversy between the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BAYLY] and the Greens, or General Green and his son, and I intend to have nothing to do with it; but when we reflect for a moment, it will be apparent to some gentlemen upon this floor, and to others, when I refer to the discussion which took place during the last session, in relation to this matter, who it was that made the first assault, and who it was that dragged General Green and his son into this discussion. It will be seen whether they thrust themselves before the House, or came voluntarily here as parties in this matter. When we go back to the discussion which took place during the last session of Congress upon the question of appropriating three millions of dollars, how does the matter stand? We find that because these gentlemen tried to effect a negotiation for the payment of that installment of the Mexican indemnity, they were denounced in this House. Now, does it come with a good graceis it very becoming for a statesman, occupying the high position which the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BAYLY] occupies, to travel beyond the limits of this Hall, to take up an individual and drag

Mr. BAYLY, (interrupting.) The gentleman speaks of a point which is tender to me. Will the gentleman from Tennessee be good enough to tell me what that point is?

Mr. JOHNSON. I inferred it from the gentleman's argument.

Mr. BAYLY. But what is that point? Mr. JOHNSON, (resuming). If the gentleman will hear me till I have concluded my remarks, I shall come to it after a while.

Mr. Chairman, when we come to examine this matter closely, what connection had General Green or Benjamin E. Green with this transaction? Did they propose to make a contract with the Government? Not at all. Has the gentleman from Virginia produced any proof that they did propose to contract with this Government? Not a word. But he has assumed that they proposed to be contractors, when they did not. What, then, becomes of his whole tirade? What becomes of this long catalogue of epithets, which he has poured forth against these men, because they dare hold a correspondence with the Mexican minister, in relation to the best arrangement possible for the payment of this money? Why, is he for this to be held up before the American people, and denounced by every opprobrious epithet which the English language can supply? Is General Green a contractor, or has he proposed to become a contractor? Not at all. Why, then, abuse him? Why lug him into this discussion? Why hold him up before the country? Is it because the gentleman from Virginia wants to have the existing arrangement carried into effect, no matter what the consequences may be? It seems to me that this last is clearly the reason. And the gentleman from Virginia assumes to himself the prerogative of instructing-not only of instructing, but absolutely of dictating what shall be done in relation to these installments, who shall pay them, and how they shall be paid. That ge tleman made an argument a few days since in relation to this matter; and what was it? He urged that this bill should be passed immediately, and passed in the shape in which it is; and why? He says that the time is drawing nigh when this money must be paid over to the Mexican Government. And the inference at least is, that unless the appropriation be made immediately for paying that installment, the result will be a great loss to the Government. Why, sir, some twelve months ago the same argument was made in this Hall. But the gentleman attempts to prove that this is wholly an Executive transaction, and he makes an issue upon that point. Now, let us examine this for a moment, and see how the matter stands. I offered an amendment, to convey my ideas of this thing, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to pay the money to the Mexican authorities; and did I thereby propose to take it away from the Executive power? If it belongs to the Executive to conduct this transaction, does not the Secretary of the Treasury belong to the Executive Department as much as does the Secretary of State? And if the money be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury, would it not be as much an Executive transaction as if paid by the Secretary of State? I think so. What is the argument of the gentleman from Virginia upon this subject? He says that during General Taylor's administration, a controversy arose between Secretary Clayton and Secretary Meredith, not as to who should handle the money, not as to who should pocket the profits to be made by the operation, but as to who should escape the responsibility of directing the payment. Mr. Meredith did not want to be troubled with it-Secretary Clayton wanted to escape the responsibility-both wanted to get clear of it. But after the reorganization of the Cabinet, how did the matter stand then? We find after Mr. Webster had come in as Secretary of State, and Corwin as Secretary of the Treasury, the scramble in relation to this Mexican indemnity assumed a very different character. It was not as to who should get clear of the responsibility, but who should make the payment, who should handle the cash, and who should' pocket the proceeds. I have been informed that a Cabinet meeting was held, and it was at length agreed that the Secretary of State was the most competent and suitable person, and because his position connected him more directly with the foreign relations of the country. What does this argument prove? It proves that with one Cabinet there was a dispute as to who should get clear of responsibility, and with another Cabinet as to who should take the responsibility and pocket the profits. What is the conclusion to be drawn from this? Is not the conclusion clear and irresistible to every sound, thinking man, that this House should hold the purse-strings of this nation, as well as originate all bills creating revenue? We are responsible directly to the people, and should not shrink from that responsibility. We should come up and say, in the law, who shall transact the business connected

Mr. DUNCAN, (interrupting.) I rise to make an inquiry of the gentleman, if he will allow me. Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly.

Mr. DUNCAN. I wish to have his authority for stating that the Secretary of State, under Mr. Fillmore's administration, contended for the privilege of paying the money.

Mr. JOHNSON. I did not say so. I stated that there was a contest as to who should escape the responsibility under the new Administration, and that there had been a Cabinet council, which determined who should have the privilege.

Mr. DUNCAN. I understood the gentleman to say that a Cabinet council settled this matter, after General Taylor's death.

Mr. JOHNSON. Under Mr. Fillmore's administration.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I believe it was established, in a former discussion upon this floor, that it was settled by the Cabinet of General Taylor, before his decease.

with the payment of this money. Are we afraid compliance with, and the consummation of the to do it? Are we afraid to take the responsibility, abuses of the treaty? Where is the check-where we, the sworn Representatives of the people-the the power to arrest the abuses of the treaty-making guardians of the public Treasury? Are we so power? It must exist somewhere; if not, everyfearful of responsibility that we cannot merely in-thing, so far as this Government is concerned, can dicate, in the act under consideration, the individual be absorbed and swallowed up by the improper who shall pay the money over? and dangerous exercise of this treaty-making power. We find in 1820, that the great statesman from Kentucky, in the discussion of the Florida treaty, introduced a resolution, in which this doctrine was boldly proclaimed; and he went so far as to say, that the treaty made at that period of time should be set aside, if Spain faltered in her course and refused to do us justice, and adopt the means necessary to maintain it. Well, some gentlemen may think this is a little foreign, and has no direct bearing upon this subject; but 1 wish to show the application I intend to make of it. Here is a treaty made, and money promised to be paid under it, at certain times, but subject to the other provisions of the Constitution, and subject to this conservative power. Then comes up another question. Here in the absence of law, in the absence of an appropriation of Congress, the Secretary of State-(I mean before the appropriation is made)-before the treaty is consummated, takes it upon himself to make a contract with British and American bankers, to pay over money which has not been appropriated by the laws of the country, and then after the contract is made, after the agreement has been entered into that they are to give a certain per cent., before the money is appropriated, then what is the result presented to the House? It is this: The contract is made, and the gentlemen are ready to consummate it-ready to pay over the money—and hence you are bound to appropriate it; and the Secretary of State comes here with all the influence he can bring to bear upon this Hall, and says, Pass the bill; let us make the contract fourteen months before the installment is due. Such was the case during the last Congress, to enable a set of bankers-of British bankers-to speculate upon this and the Mexican Government But pass the law, appropriate the money to enable a set of bankers to have three millions of dollars out of the Treasury to operate upon, fourteen months in advance. When we see how this thing is, Mr. Chairmanwhen we see the appliances that are brought to bear-when we see this speculation in every phase of the act-when we see some or all parties have to be operated upon, it calls upon us to assert our prerogative, and say to you, Mr. Secretary of State, You shall not act in advance of appropriations by Congress, or assume to exercise such a power. You shall not dictate to the Representatives of the people, as to who shall pay the money; but we will specify in our act who shall pay it.

Mr. JOHNSON. Precisely. I thank you for the correction. It was, then, settled by Cabinet council, and the succeeding Administration determined to carry out the decision of the previous Administration. Well, then, my argument is this: Here was a conflict of opinion, and this House ought to indicate in this act who shall pay over this money to the Mexican authorities. But I propose to take another view of this subject. [Here a communication from the Senate was received by the hands of ASBURY DICKINS, Esq., || their Secretary, announcing the passage of the House bills authorizing the payment of interest to the State of New Hampshire, and providing for the printing of additional copies of the Journal and Documents; also, returning a joint resolution of the House in regard to the assignment of land || warrants, with amendments thereto.]

Mr. JOHNSON, (resuming.) Mr. Chairman, had just concluded in stating views conclusive why we should fix, in this act, the person who shall pay this money over; but there is another reason why we should do so. There is a power authorized, under the Constitution, of the United States, to make treaties, and in conformity with this power, in 1848, there was a treaty made with the Mexican Government, and the twelfth article of that treaty provides that we shall pay to the Mexican authorities, at specified times, certain amounts of money. Fifteen millions was the whole amount stipulated. A certain portion there- The argument is made by some that it is an of was to be paid at the conclusion of the treaty, Executive duty; and that the Executive should and the balance in annual installments at times take the responsibility. Why, by saying in the fixed by the treaty. Now, this is the treaty, and law that this money shall be paid by the Secrewe have agreed, so far as the treaty-making power tary of the Treasury, does it change the responsiis concerned, to pay money at certain times. What bility? Does it exclude them from responsibility? has the treaty-making power to do with it here? Not at all. The responsibility is precisely the Is the treaty-making power conclusive and binding? same, for it is still with the Executive branch of I put this question to the House, and, humble as the Government. Should not we, in vindication I am, to the country. Suppose, in the exercise of of our position here as representatives, in view of this treaty-making power, great abuses were to all these facts-in view of the bargains and congrow out of it, that treaties were made, and money tracts made with British and American bankersstipulated to be paid over, which was wrong, and and certain letters on top of that, sent in here, which would result in oppression and heavy taxa- stating that time should not be consumed in tion upon the people, so far as the payment of the "needless discussion," I say, ought not we to money was concerned, I ask this House and the give this money a proper direction? It is true country, is there no conservative power; is there there is a great deal said here that does not amount no point at which the abuses of the treaty-making to much. But here is a communication sent in by power may be resisted? I know that the Constithe President, and by his Secretary of State to tution says that a treaty made in pursuance of the him, and which receives their sanction and authorConstitution shall be the supreme law of the land; ity, in regard to the duties and delays of Congress. and it is conclusive, so far as the Judiciary is con- And who was it sent by? We find it is signed by cerned. But how are the abuses of this power to be Barings, Brothers & Co., by T. W. Ward, their resisted? When a treaty provides that money shall attorney; Howland & Aspinwall, and Corcoran be paid, I say that money cannot be paid until an & Riggs, an association of banking companies, appropriation is made by Congress. For the Con- and banking offices. Now, what a position are stitution says expressly, that no money shall be we placed in before the country? Here is a set of drawn from the Treasury, except in pursuance of British bankers who have made a contract with an appropriation made by law; and hence all the Secretary of State in advance of an appropritreaties providing for the payment of money, is ation by law; and because Congress is a little tardy subjected to the appropriating power. Has not in providing the appropriation, they send you in this House-the Representatives of the people a lecture, to the effect that the passage of this bill the authority and power-and moreover, would it should not be impeded by useless and idle discusnot be their sworn duty, if they believed that a sion. We want this three millions-we want the treaty was wrong, that it was oppressive-to per cent.-we want the credit and character it will withhold the appropriation, and thereby defeat the || give us, And hence we are asked to pass this bill

under the operation of the previous question. Let us say they may have the money, and do not talk about it, and give utterance to so much twaddle.

Now, let us take another view of this bill. They say that the payment of this money is an Executive duty. How? Here is a treaty stipulating upon the part of this Government to pay so much, and at such a time; and here is a law appropriating the amount of money stipulated to be paid. Now, it leaves it just there. Now, I suppose that the President, or some one of his Cabinet, must run about, and look through all the acts that this House has passed, when money has been appropriated, without saying who shall make the payment. Why, do we not see it is vague and indefinite? There is a provision in the Constitution, that the President shall see that the laws be faithfully executed. How vague is that? Here is the law appropriating the money, and the general provision in the Constitution, which states it to be the Executive duty to perambulate about, and to take up the loose acts of Congress that have passed, and see that they be faithfully executed. Why not say in your law who shall make the payment, under the supervision of the President? Would you thereby change the responsibility? By this means, do you not make it direct; and is it not intelligent and proper so to do? Suppose, for illustration, that Congress were to pass an act to-morrow, appropriating $20,000,000 for the purpose of erecting a new Capitol. That is a faw, and under the Constitution the Executive is bound to see it faithfully executed. In the one case it is precisely as in the other. Would not the country say-would not intelligent, practical business men of the country say-define in your act who shall apply that money to the object indicated? Does this change its character, admitting that it is the Executive duty? Does it not keep it still Executive, and retain his responsibility to the Congress and the country? To me it seems so most clearly.

The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BAYLY] informed us in his speech that Mr. Walker received four per cent. Now, so far as money transactions are concerned, I mean to speak irrespective of party. In the first instance, the gentleman from Virginia-and I do not mean anything personal in what I am about to say, but only wish to show the strange position that he assumes-strives to show that it would have been impolitic for the Government to have anything to do with General Green; and from his argument it would be inferred that he was a faithless, wild, and visionary man, and that Benjamin E. Green has been found defaulting in transactions with the Mexican Government, depriving him and his father of all credit whatever. This is what he attempts to do. How do the facts stand when the question is put direct to him? Does Mexico assume that the money has been paid over? What is the response? There is no such assumption.

Mr. BAYLY. The gentleman from Tennessee is entirely mistaken. Mr. Rejon, in his letter of the 2d of September, 1844, states that he was informed by the Minister of Finance, upon the 27th of August, that the money had been paid a long time prior to that, and excuses himself for not informing our Envoy sooner by stating that the notice had been delayed in consequence of the vast amount of business which had engrossed the attention of his Department. I will give you the letter.

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me see whether I understand the gentleman. Does not that grow out of this transaction, going upon the idea that drafts had been given with the view of payment? Mr. BAYLY. I do not know anything about

that.

Mr. JOHNSON. Has the money ever been paid by the Mexican Government?

Mr. BAYLY. An agent had no right to receive anything but gold and silver, for that was the stipulation in the treaty. Mr. Shannon had gone out there to enforce that treaty; and on the day after his arrival-the day that he was recognized— he was informed that the payment had been made, and made in money, to raise which the Govern ment had experienced great difficulty. Mr. Shannon sent that information to our Government, and, assuming it to be true, we made the appropriation to pay the individual claimants.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, then it all resolves itself into this: that it was paid by a draft, when the law required that it should be paid

in silver. This was a departure common in matters of that character. He-the agent-agreed to receive in payment this draft. When the draft fell due, the Mexican Government failed to meet it; and all that we can make out of the Green transaction is, that he has transcended his authority to some extent in receiving a draft instead of money. But does that prove that he has one dollar of the money in his pocket?

Mr. BAYLY. It was said that the money had been paid.

Mr. JOHNSON. Is that upon the recordthat money had been paid to and received by the proper authority of the United States? If the facts are that way, I should like to know it.

Mr. BAYLY. I will show them to the gentleman, if he desires it. I have the official report of the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and also the message of Mr. Shannon to this Government, based upon it.

Mr. JOHNSON. Was the money paid before or after Mr. Shannon's arrival there?

Mr. BAYLY. Before; and if the gentleman will allow me, I will read the following paragraph from Mr. Shannon's official dispatch of the 21st of September, to show that the installments referred to had been paid to the United States agent in Mexico on the 27th day of August:

"The installments which fell due on the 30th of April and the 30th of July last, under the convention of the 30th of January, 1843, were paid to the agent of the Government appointed to receive and transmit the same, on the 27th ultimo. I am inclined to believe this Government will hereafter be more prompt in meeting its engagements under the above named treaty than it has heretofore been; and if it should turn out otherwise, it will be owing to a real inability to raise the means. I am advised that it was with the utmost difficulty that this Government was able to raise the money to pay the two last installments."

That is what Mr. Shannon says.

I have here also the official dispatch of the Secretary of State of Mexico to Mr. Shannon. It is very short, and if the gentleman will indulge me, I will read it:

[TRANSLATION.]

To his Excellency Wilson Shannon, Envoy Extraordinary, &c., of the United States of America. NATIONAL PALACE, MEXICO, September 2, 1844. The undersigned, Minister of Foreign Relations, has the honor of informing his Excellency the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, that on the 27th of last August he was apprised by his Excellency the Minister of Finance, that the quarterly installment due on the 30th of April of this year, and that which fell due on the 30th July last, had been paid to the agent appointed by the Government of said States, according to the terms of the Convention of January 30, 1843, and that this notice had been delayed in consequence of the vast amount of business which engrossed the attention of that Depart

ment.

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion, &c., &c. MANUEL CRESIENCIO REJON.

Mr. JOHNSON. He says, according to the terms of the convention. I understand the gentleman to say that he was bound to receive the money in gold and silver, and to state that in its stead he had received a draft which was in violation of his duty.

Mr. BAYLY. I said no such thing. Mr. Shannon states in his dispatch that it was paid in money, to raise which there was great difficulty. It was paid before Mr. Shannon arrived there.. Mr. Green copied that dispatch, for it is in his own handwriting. Mr. Green was the agent, and Mr. Shannon never was.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do I understand the gentleman to say Mr. Green, instead of receiving the money, received a draft? for that is the point.

Mr. BAYLY. These documents do not show it. In the investigation which was instituted to see whether reclamation could not be made, the Mexican Government said they had given him drafts, but then Shannon says that it was paid in

money.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Shannon speaks according to the terms of the convention.

Mr. BAYLY. You are mistaken; that is what the Mexican Minister says.

Mr. JOHNSON. It is not material. There is a general jumble, great intricacy in this matter, that I will let the gentlemen straighten out to their own fancy. I think that when the whole subject is boiled down; that when we get to what it really is, we will find that Mr. Green received a draft from the Mexican Government; and so the gentleman charges him with traveling outside of his duty in receiving it; and that the Mexican Gov

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JOHNSON] has expired. Mr. ORR. I noticed the watch when the gentleman from Tennessee commenced his remarks. It lacked twenty-five minutes of one o'clock. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina is mistaken. It was about two minutes after two when he commenced. The gentleman from Tennessee yielded the floor to the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. GRAY,] and also to the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. BAYLY.] The gentleman inquired whether it would be taken out of his time. The Chair assured him that it would.

Mr. ORR. It was the time at which the gentleman from Tennessee commenced speaking to which I alluded.

Mr. JOHNSON. I will state to the Chair, that when I asked the question, I understood the response to be, that it would not come out of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. When the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JOHNSON] made the inquiry, Whether it would come out of his time? a good many members in the Hall said "No! no!" After the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. GREY] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BAYLY] had finished, he proceeded with his remarks, and his time would have expired at about two minutes after three o'clock; but there was an interruption of some three minutes in the reception of a message from the Senate, for which credit was given. The Chair has no discretion in giving credit, and a gentleman, when his hour has commenced, cannot yield the floor for personal explanation or otherwise, in committee, in the opinion of the Chair, except by unanimous consent, as the rules in committee cannot be suspended. If there be no objection, the gentleman can proceed.

Mr. BAYLY. I hope there will be no objection to my replying.

[Cries of "No!” “ "No!"]

Mr. JOHNSON, by unanimous response, was permitted to proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I was about to conclude, and try to make my escape from this general entanglement in which this transaction seems to be involved. As far as that is concerned, it is wholly immaterial-if the facts are as stated by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. BAYLY]-whether this money has been paid and received by the agent of the United States, and he is proved to be a defaulter, or whether he has embezzled it. If either, I want to know why the proper steps have not action of the Government, and the history of this been taken to bring him to justice. I whole transaction, prove that it is just as I have stated.

say

the

reverse was understood, and not a dollar was to be taken from the Treasury.

Mr. JOHNSON. If the law had passed lastCongress, would not the money have been thereby appropriated, and was it not in the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury to give his draft covering the amount of the appropriation when he saw proper? Why, what is the reason and inducement for engaging in the transaction? Is it not because they can get the use of the capital-is it not because they can get the use of the credit which this large amount of money would give them? What did they agree to pay three-and-ahalf per cent. for? Was it not for the use of the capital-for the benefit of the credit and the per cent. to be realized by the use of it? If the money was not to be taken out of the Treasury-if the money was not to be paid over until it fell due, why pass the law fourteen months in advance? It seems to me to be the height of folly to place at the discretion of the Secretary of State three or four millions of dollars. Was there no danger to be apprehended from this? What did we see the other day? We saw a liberal distribution of money among the soldiery of France, and we saw the highest officer of government dissolving the House of Representatives publicly. The maxim is true, "Give me the money and I can get the men-give the men and I can get the money." We are told that if you pass a law fourteen months in advance, placing some three or four millions of money in the hands of individuals, the money would be secure-and that good security could be given. If the money was not to be taken out of the Treasury-if it could not be paid overwhat security had they? The money was the best security they could have, locked up in the Treasury-the best place in which it could be kept. No, it was all speculation. I infer it from the transaction; I infer it from the business habits of the men-from the money transactions of the world. It was to make money-to pocket the per cent.; and who was to get it I do not pretend to say. I have heard one thing; I know that rumor says that a former Secretary of the Treasury made money. I do not pretend to say how much, or how little. And while they talk about Duff Green's insolvency, who never had or proposed to make a bargain with the Government, they never talk about his being a visionary. I expect that perhaps General Green has been unfortunate in money matters, and has not been successful since he expended a large estate. But if I am credibly informed, others have been unfortunate in times gone by, and some of these bankers came well nigh it, if they had not taken the benefit of the insolvent law; but they have been since successful and prosperous in business. They had the funds of the Government to pay out in Mr. Walker's administration, and the opportunity of purchasing a large amount of stock. Somehow or other, they got very rich, as events proveWalker in the bargain, as I am credibly informed. Rumor now says that he has amassed a very large fortune. This is all predicated upon rumor;

but I think it is reasonable to infer that Mr. Webster would like to realize a little percentage in this way. If rumor be true-as we go into things of this sort-I never understood that Mr. Webster had acquired a character for much more prudence and economy in the management of financial affairs than a great many other men. I do not think he has an extensive reputation for matters of this kind. I think, if rumor is to be taken as true evidence, that Mr. Webster has been about as loose, prodigal and extravagant, in the management of his own financial affairs, as much so as men generally are.

Mr. BAYLY. No-far from it.

in our mouths, or asks us to vote? While this bill is under consideration, you find this and the other individual dropping soft words in our ears,

as to the precise point to bear-the exact argument to make. All that kind of thing is in the ears of members, and is all innocent and harmless, provided they get what they want. All this has an influence. Then say these insolent bankers, who are keeping their circulars before you, You hall not impede the passage of this bill by endIess discussion; you who are talking about the eople's money, away with your idle gabble our tittle-tattle-your fiddle-faddle-here stop and shut your mouths.

Humble as I am, I will resist all this influence; so far as I am concerned, and in behalf of my constituents, I say it is an encroachment upon the dignity and prerogative of the representatives of a free people. Whigs and Democrats should, in this transaction, prescribe by law-not shrink from responsibility-and say who shall pay this money over; and then hold them responsible for the faithful discharge of their duty. From the frequent interruptions since this discussion took place, so far as I am concerned, I have been diverted in fact from the regular points I intended to make. If I had been permitted to go on without interruption, I should not have consumed more than thirty minutes., But I must allude to one more matter before I sit down. When we come to look at this transaction-when we come to look at the proceedings of the Secretary of State heretofore when we connect it with the reasonable inference of speculation-I say it behooves us, as the representatives and faithful guardians of the public interests, to define clearly in our laws the individuals who shall pay this money over to the Mexican Government. To insert this amendment, and place this matter in the hands of large specu-", lators, looks to me like being dragooned and whipped into measures. I say, fix it upon the Treasury of the United States. But the gentleman tells us, that this officer has nothing to do with foreign affairs. Is he not, in fact, an officer more intimately and directly connected with the money transactions relating to foreign governments, than any Secretary of State?

Is there any man here who doubts the capability of the Secretary of the Treasury to negotiate and have this money paid over upon as good terms as the Secretary of State could do it? Mr. Walker made arrangements for the payment of two installments of this indemnity, and will anybody say that it was not as well done as if it had been done by the Secretary of State? or that the present Secretary of the Treasury cannot do it as well? I say that out of respect to ourselves, to our position, and to our constituents, we ought to take this matter out of the hands of an individual who has assumed the high prerogative of making a contract for the payment of this money before the bill is passed appropriating it.

There are many other things which I desired to say, but as my time has nearly expired, I will give way to some other gentleman.

Mr. EDGERTON next obtained the floor, but yielded it to

Mr. SWEETSER, who moved that the committee rise.

The question was put and agreed to.

The commitee accordingly rose, and the Speaker having resumed the chair, the Chairman [Mr. JONES] reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had under consideration the state of the Union generally, and particularly House bill No. 46, providing for carrying into execution in further part the twelfth article of the treaty concluded with Mexico at Guadalupe Hidalgo, but had come to no conclusion

thereon.

On motion by Mr. GROW,

Ordered, That the petition and papers of James F. Green be withdrawn from the files of the House, and referred to the Committe on Invalid Pensions.

CLOSE OF DEBATE ON THE INDEMNITY BILL. Mr. HOUSTON. I desire that the House

shall not sooner come to a conclusion on the same, and the committee shall then proceed to vote on such amendments as may be pending or offered to the same, and shall then report it to the House with such amendments as may be agreed to by the committee.

Mr. HOUSTON. I will move to fill the blanks in that resolution by inserting three o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

Mr DUNHAM. o'clock to-morrow.

And I move to insert one

Many MEMBERS. "Oh no, that's too soon." Mr. HOUSTON. I believe I am entitled to the floor. I will move the previous question on that resolution; but at the same time, I do not mean to press it to a vote this evening. I merely desire that members shall come here to-morrow morning prepared to fix a time at which the debate shall close. I wish it to close as early as convenient; but it is not my purpose to shut out any reasonable amount of debate. I now move that the House adjourn.

The motion was agreed to, and the House adjourned until to-morrow, at twelve o'clock.

PETITIONS, &c.

The following petitions, memorials, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees: By Mr. SMART: The petition of William Brewster and others, for a light house on Jameson's Point, in the State of Maine.

Also, the petition of John A. Brewster and others, for a light-house on Jameson's Point, in the State of Maine.

By Mr. BISSELL: The memorial of James L. Collins, praying relief for losses sustained while in the service of the United States in the war with Mexico, &c.

Also, the memorial of John Reynolds and others, citizens of Illinois, praying for the right of way and a grant of land, in aid of the construction of a railroad from Shawneetown, via Belleville, to a point on the Mississippi river opposite St. Louis.

By Mr. McNAIR: The proceedings of a meeting held at Norristown, Montgomery county, Pennsylvania, in favor of an increased duty on iron.

By Mr. SCHOONMAKER: The petition of theassistant marshals of Ulster county, New York, for an increase of compensation for taking the late Census.

the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. UNDERWOOD,] operates badly; or, at least, that these officers have forgotten their mathematics and do not understand how to work it out properly. I move that the memorial be referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I rise to state that that mathematical rule, which was incorporated into the census act at the last Congress, has worked more admirably than any rule which has ever applied by Congress. It has prevented every

thing like fraud and cheatery. You have prescribed a rule by which, when these officers have reported the number of families which they have enumerated, you can prevent everything like an exorbitant demand for mileage with mathematical certainty. The act of 1850, providing for the taking of the census, actually allows more for the enumeration than any prior act of Congress. This dissatisfaction has resulted from the application of the mathematical principle to which the honorable Senator has referred, to prevent the extraordinary charges for mileage, which have been heretofore made by the census marshals. The rule works admirably.

Mr. MORTON. I would say, in reply to the remarks of the Senator from Kentucky, that the rule may work admirably for the Government, but very badly for the marshals. One of the marshals for Florida, as he represents in his memorial, traveled upwards of one thousand four hundred miles, was laboriously and assiduously engaged for three months, and that the amount of compensation which he received was a hundred and odd dollars. This rule may work admirably for the Government and for the benefit of the Treasury, but certainly it does not afford the marshals a proper compensation. It reminds me of one of Esop's fables in relation to the boys who were throwing stones at the frogs: it was enjoyment to the boys, but death to the frogs. So this rule, in its operation, may work advanta

Also, the petition of William Sterry, for an invalid pen-geously to the Government, but it has certainly

sion.

Also, the application of Joseph Martin, for a pension. Also, the petition of Frederick Steele, first lieutenant, captain by brevet, second infantry, United States Army, for relief.

By Mr. BRECKENRIDGE: The petition of Benjamin J. Brunham, praying for a pension.

By Mr. MILLSON: The petition of Commander John L. Saunders, United States Navy, asking to be reimbursed for certain expenses incurred while in command of the United States ship St. Mary's.

IN SENATE. THURSDAY, January 22, 1852. Prayer by the Rev. L. F. MORGAN.

PETITIONS.

Mr. SEBASTIAN presented a report and resolutions, adopted by the New Orleans Chamber of Commerce, relative to the causes of the explosion of steam boilers, and the means of their prevention; which were referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. DAVIS presented the memorial of William H. Bartoll, and citizens of Marblehead, Massachusetts, representing that the sea-wall at the southwest part of Marblehead Harbor, which prevents the waters of Boston Bay from encroaching on said harbor, is in a very dilapidated condition, and praying an appropriation for repairs of said wall; which was referred to the Committee

on Commerce.

Mr. MORTON presented the petition of George Jennings, William T. Jennings, and George S. Jennings, praying that Thomas D. Jennings may be allowed to enter a certain tract of land settled by his father; which was referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

Also, the petition of William B. Davis, praying for remuneration for losses at Indian river, Florida, during the Indian disturbances in 1849; which was referred to the Committee of Claims. Mr. MORTON. I also beg leave to present the

mittee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the Mexican indemnity bill, and with that view I offer the following resolution, which I send to the Clerk's desk:

The resolution was read as follows:

Resolved, That all debate in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union on bill No. 46, providing for carrying into execution, in further part, the twelfth article of the treaty concluded with Mexico at Guadalupe Hidalgo, shall cease at o'clock, on-, if the cominittee

operated disadvantageously to the marshals. The laborer is worthy of his reward; but these officers have not received proper compensation for their laborious services.

The petition was referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. SMITH presented the petition of the children and heirs of John Fanning, a surgeon's mate in the revolutionary war, praying compensation for his services; which was referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Clams.

Mr. FOOT presented resolutions passed by the Legislature of Florida, in favor of a distribution of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States among the States; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, a resolution passed by the Legislature of Vermont, in favor of a grant of public land for the endowment of hospitals for the indigent insane; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. President, I have a memorial of sixteen printed pages-it is from H. C. Allensworth, of Kentucky. The object of the memorial will be fully explained by the reading of a single paragraph:

"Your memorialist further represents, that the award in his favor by the American Commissioners, under the convention of 1839, computed up to the close of the last

board, amounted to 42,446 38. For that amount he claimed

an award from the last board, which, however, arbitarily

reduced his claim to $650, making a difference of $1,796,"

He asks Congress to pay him this amount, because the last board on Mexican claims he alleges did not do him justice. I believe these memorials have been referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. I ask that this may take the same direction.

The memorial was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. President, I have also the memorial of John B. Amos. The petitioner represents that he contracted to carry the mail from Bowling Green to Glasgow, in the State of Kentucky; that this line was to connect to

marshals of the northern district of Florida, asking additional compensation for their services in taking the Seventh Census in Jackson and Cal-gether the alternate lines from Louisville to Nashhoun counties. It appears, from the number of memorials which have been presented to the Senate from marshals and assistant marshals, from all portions of the country, that the square-root system of estimating the mileage of the marshals, introduced into the census act on the motion of

ville, one passing through Bowling Green and the other through Glasgow, by means of which connection the people in the western part of Kentucky had a daily communication with Louisville. After he made this contract, he complains that the Government contracted for a direct daily line from

Bowling Green to Louisville, which deprived him of passengers on his cross-connecting line. He has taken testimony and got certificates to show that he has lost a large quantity of money by this arrangement made by the Government. When this arrangement was first made he says that he applied to the Postmaster General for additional compensation, but the Postmaster General refused to give it to him. He then applied to be released from the contract. That also was refused. He therefore claims that the Government violated its contract, and he asks Congress to grant him relief. I move to refer the memorial to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

The motion was agreed to.

FLOGGING IN THE NAVY.

Ordered, That Elisha Hampton and others, have leave to withdraw the documents on the files of the Senate, relating to their claims.

On motion by Mr. BRODHEAD, it was

Ordered, That the petition of Mary E. D. Blaney, widow of George Blaney, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee of Claims.

On motion by Mr. GWIN, it was

Ordered, That leave be granted to withdraw from the files of the Senate the petitions of citizens of San Francisco, California, presented January 2, 1852, in relation to the establishment of a branch Mint at that place.

On motion by Mr. UNDERWOOD, it was Ordered, That William Tell Zollickoffer have leave to withdraw his petition and papers.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I can now state more at length than I could yesterday the facts under which this application is made. I stated to the Senate yes

ac

to.

The motion to take up the memorial was agreed

Mr. HALE. I now move that the further consideration of the memorial be postponed to this day week, and that it be made the special order for that day, when I hope we shall finish it.

Mr. GWIN. The Committee on Naval Affairs are suspended in their action on this very question, because it is under discussion in the Senate. If the Senator from New Hampshire who has the floor, and the Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. STOCKTON,] who wishes to obtain the floor, will permit the memorial to be referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, we will very soon bring the subject before the Senate. The committee is now waiting for the discussion in the Senate to be stopped. hope the Senator from New Hampshire will postpone his remarks until the committee shall have reported upon the subject. I do not wish to interrupt the debate. I have merely made this sugges

tion.

Mr. HALE. This matter has been before the Senate for the last six or eight years. A provision in relation to this subject has generally been put in some of the general appropriation bills, and was not reached until the final hours of a session. The subject therefore has not received the deliberate attention which it deserves. I am glad that the Senator from New Jersey moved in this matter at so early a period. I am prepared to say what little I have to say upon the subject, just as well as I shall be hereafter. It was not on my own account that I asked for a postponement, but at the request of other Senators. Having made these remarks, I am perfectly willing to leave the question to the Seuate.

Mr. GWIN. I do not wish to interrupt the debate at all, but, as I stated to the Senator, the Committee on Naval Affairs are delayed in their action by the discussion in the Senate on the subject. The Naval Committee intend to bring the subject before the Senate in a very short time, either by a bill to restore flogging, or to provide a substitute for it. The committee will act promptly. We are now delayed in our action by the discussion in the Senate, and if it is agreeable to the Senator from New Hampshire, I move to refer the memorial to the Committee on Naval Affairs. The motion to refer was agreed to. PAPERS WITHDRAWN AND REFERRED. On motion by Mr. SMITH, it was Ordered, That the petition of Samuel W. Chilson, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

On motion by Mr. BELL, it was

Ordered, That the memorials of members of the Bar of East Tennessee, on the files of the Senate, relating to the appointment of a separate judge for that district, be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

On motion by Mr. MILLER, it was Ordered, That the petition of Samuel S. Marcy and others, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee of Claims.

On motion by Mr. DODGE, of Iowa, it was

upon this individual's memorial, but that it had never been acted upon by the Senate. I can now state in addition, that an application was made to the Pension Office, and that a pension was tually granted to Mr. Zollickoffer. Hence he does not want any further action in the Senate. He, however, wishes his papers to be returned to him, that he may be enabled to show that a pension ought to have been granted to him at the Pension Office something like a twelvemonth earlier than the Commissioner of Pensions allowed. It is under these circumstances that he asks a withdrawal of the papers.

REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES. Mr. BORLAND, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill for the relief of Mrs. E. A. McNeil, widow of the late General John McNeil, reported back the same without amendment.

Mr. UPHAM, from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, to whom was referred the memorial of Ira Day, of Vermont, submitted a bill for his relief, accompanied by a report. The bill was read and passed to the second reading.

Ordered, That the report be printed.

Mr. WALKER, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, submitted the following resolution; which was read:

Resolved That the Committee on Revolutionary Claims be authorized to employ a clerk to said committee during the present session, at the usual compensation.

Mr. BORLAND, from the Committee on Printing, to whom was referred the motion to print two thousand additional copies of the report of the Secretary of War in relation to the inundations of the Mississippi river, reported thereon; and in concurrence therewith,

Ordered, That three thousand additional copies be printed of the said report-three hundred of which for the use of the Topographical Bureau.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. SEBASTIAN, agreeably to previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill, to be entitled "An act to revive for a limited time 'An act in relation to donations of lands to certain persons in the State of Arkansas;'" which was read a first and second time by its title and `referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

He also, agreeably to previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to release from reservation and restore to the mass of the public lands certain lands in the State of Arkansas; which was read a first and second time by its title and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

ICE BOATS ON THE POTOMAC.

Mr. HUNTER, in the absence of the Senator from Texas, [Mr. RUSK,] and agreeably to previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a joint resolution to provide for the employment of ice boats on the Potomac; which is as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That the Postmaster General be and he is hereby authorized, in addition to ordinary steamboat service on the Potomac, to contract with the Washington and Fredericksburg Steamboat Company for an efficient ice boat, or ice boats, being kept up for the conveyance of the mail during the winter months, provided the additional expense to be incurred by the Department for keeping up such ice boat or ice boats shall not exceed $20,000 per annum.

The resolution was read a first and second time and referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

REVENUE FRAUDS.

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

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be requested to furnish for the information of the Senate a detailed statement of all cases where seizure and confiscation in pursuance of law may have taken place on the ground of under valuation, or fraud, either in the invoice or entry made or attempted to be made at the custom-house of any collection district in the United States, since the tariff act of the 30th of July, 1846, went into operation, describing any such goods, and stating the place or country froES whence imported; together with a like statement of all seizures and confiscations and prosecutions, if any, that may have taken place in pursuance of the directions to collectors and other officers of the customs contained in the circular instructions issued by the Secretary of the Treasury under date of the 12th of October, 1849, in the following terms to wit: "Where the value declared in the entry shall, 'on due appraisement of the goods, be found to be so far 'below the foreign cost or market value as to raise a preIsumption of being fraudulently invoiced, seizure and con'fiscation of the goods should take place under the pro'visions of the act of 2d March, 1799, and prosecution of 'the offending party under the nineteenth section of the 'tariff act of 30th August, 1842, instituted."

GENERAL GEORGE TALCOTT.

Mr. HUNTER, in the absence of the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. BUTLER,] submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be requested to furnish, for the use of the Senate of the United States, a copy of an original letter, on the files of his Department, from Colonel Benjamin Huger to General George Talcon, bearing date at Fort Monroe Arsenal, November 5, 1850. CREDITORS OF THE WESTERN CHEROKEES. Mr. SEBASTIAN submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Interior be and he is hereby directed to communicate to the Senate copies of all correspondence between his Department, including the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and persons claiming to be creditors of the Western Cherokees, since the last session of Congress.

CAPTAIN WILLIAM K. LATIMER.

On motion by Mr. HALE, that two thousand additional copies of the charges and specifications before a Court of Inquiry against William K. Latimer, a captain in the Navy of the United States, and the accompanying papers, which were ordered to be printed, be printed for the use of the Senate

Ordered, That the motion be referred to the Committee on Printing.

BOOKS FOR NEW SENATORS.

The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution submitted yesterday by Mr. BADGER, to supply each of the new members of the Senate with the same number and description of books as were furnished to each of the members of the Senate of the last Congress: and the resolution was agreed to.

SPIRIT RATION IN THE NAVY.

The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by Mr. SUMNER, on the 19th instant, directing the Committee on Naval Affairs to im quire into the expediency of abolishing the spirit ration in the Navy of the United States, and at the same time of increasing the monthly pay of all the enlisted men in the service; and the resolution was agreed to.

hurricane;

A bill to authorize the State of Illinois to select the residue of the lands to which she is entitled under the act of 2d March, 1827, granting land to aid that State in opening a canal to connect the waters of the Illinois river with those of Lake Michigan; and

A bill to admit the Hermaphrodite brig Sylphide to registry.

REPORTS OF SENATE PROCEEDINGS, The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the following resolution, submitted by Mr. NORRIS on the 20th instant:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be and he is hereby authorized and instructed to audit, and from time to time to settle, the account of John C. Rives for the reports