to make his proposition to this Government in writing?

Mr. MEADE. Certainly. If the Secretary intended to accept of a proposition commenced in a verbal way, he should require it to be reduced to writing; but if he does not intend to do it, no correspondence is necessary. Hence we find so little on this subject. But these verbal communications and propositions were made, as I stated before, to General Taylor's Cabinet, and they were accepted verbally, because no contract could be entered into before Congress acted.

Mr. DUNHAM. I think the gentleman will find himself mistaken in that. It has been distinctly denied that a verbal contract was ever made.

Mr. MEADE. I think it scarcely probable that the Mexican Minister should have been so importunate in his letter to Mr. Webster, if such an understanding had never existed. Now, all these things commence verbally; and though one would not be so bound as to be liable to a demand for failing to comply, yet a moral obligation may arise. And I say, and believe, that General Taylor and his Secretary gave Mexico to understand, that when Congress appropriated this money, they would pay it in the way she desired, and that they did not enter into a written understanding on the subject, because at that time it would have been improper. I say, then, that there rested on General Taylor, had he lived, an obligation to carry out that understanding, and that he would have been guilty of a breach of faith, if he had refused to do it. That obligation descended on his successor, and you cannot separate the two. I should like for some friend of Mr. Webster to get up and state why a different version of this matter has been given by him. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DAVIS] yesterday, when he got up in defence of his friend, [Mr. WEBSTER,] went off into collateral matters, with which this transaction has no connection. I ask again, why has the Secretary of State preferred the bid of three and a half per cent. from the bankers, to one of four and a half per cent. from Mexico?

Mr. STEPHENS, (interrupting,) I do not rise exactly in the character comprehended in the gentleman's term, as a friend of Mr. Webster in this matter; but I rise-not as his representativeto reply to the question which has just been propounded. The gentleman from Virginia asks, Who will rise here and assign reasons for Mr. Webster's giving a new version of this contract? Now, I do not understand that there is any evidence of any verbal understanding even with General Taylor's Cabinet, except what the Mexican Minister says.

Mr. BAYLY. The Mexican Minister does not even say so.

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. MEADE] has just asserted a proposition which, I must say, very respectfully, seems to me a most monstrous one. He says that the verbal understanding with General Taylor's Cabinet devolved upon their successors. Now, that amounts to just this: that when one Administration goes out and another comes in, if any foreign Minister comes forward and says that he had a verbal understanding with the preceding Administration, that that alleged verbal understanding is binding on their successors.

Mr. MEADE. The gentleman does not understand me at all. I am speaking of the moral ob || ligation on this Administration to carry out faithfully the promises of a previous Administration. Of course it should be satisfied they were made. I know that, technically speaking, they are not binding, but I say that there rests a moral obligation on this Administration-unless there is sufficient cause for refusing-to carry out the understandng had with their predecessors. Even if there were no promises, why, I again ask[Here the Chairman's hammer fell-the gentleman's hour having expired.]

honor of the people of that great State, without
distinction of party, requires should not, when it
is thus cast upon her by a representative of one of
her Congressional districts, on this floor, himself a
native son of hers, be suffered to pass unrepelled.
The imputation is one of corruption-not, as
I understand it, upon a few leaders of a single
political party, but upon a vast majority of the vo-
ters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts-of
a State which has stood so high in the history of||
this country from the time when this country be-
gan to have a history, and which I am proud to
believe has never forfeited her pristine rank in the
glorious sisterhood of confederated States. That
such an imputation upon the people of such a State
should be noticed upon this floor as soon as it is
made, seems to me so plain that I should think
myself without excuse if I kept my seat under
such a call to speak here. Sir, Massachusetts
bears a name too resplendent with the glories of
her colonial and revolutionary history to be ques-
tioned by her children. She has maintained her
high standard of patriotism, and virtue, and honor,
too long, too uniformly, too brilliantly, to have it
supposed for a moment that a true son of hers
would endure to see her fair fame sullied without
rushing to her defence.

Sir, the imputation of corruption is made here
upon two political parties, which the gentleman
estimates to contain forty-three thousand in the
one party and twenty-eight thousand in the other
-a majority, according to his own calculation, of
the voters who take sufficient interest in political
matters to present themselves at the polls. That
is the charge, and it is to that that I address myself.
And first, let me answer as to that portion of those
voters with whom I am directly and politically
identified, and have been for more than a score of
years, through a series, scarcely paralleled, of hard-
fought battles-I mean the Democratic party of
Massachusetts. But before going into the details
of this matter, let me make one general observa-
tion, and I shall appeal to the knowledge and con-
sciousness of every man that hears me, whether
I am justified in what I am about to say, and that
is, that if there be any political party in any State
in this Union whose history places it above the
suspicion of corruption, from its peculiar position,
it is the indefatigable and indomitable Democracy
of the State of Massachusetts; because there is no
party in any State in the Union that has stood up
against such odds, against such disadvantages,
against such actual losses and sacrifices, as the
Democratic party of Massachusetts, and every
man in that party, has confronted and sustained
for very many years past. Why, who are the
Democrats of that State? The laboring men of
the State, and some men of talent who are not
laboring men, but who are not men of capital
or property. And against whom are they con-
tending? Against the whole aggregate mass of
the capital of New England, concentrated in
the eastern portion of the State of Massachusetts.
That is the position of the two parties. Now, I
ask, if there be corruption in the State of Massa-
chusetts-and I do not deny that there is corrup-
tion, more or less, everywhere, in every State and
nation under heaven-but if there be corruption
in the State of Massachusetts, where is it? Prima
facie the answer is a pretty plain one.
ruption is where the means of corruption exist.
There are several hundreds of millions of capital
piled up in and about the city of Boston. There
is no other such aggregate of wealth in so few
hands on the American continent; and if there be
corruption there, it is that vast, unequaled mass
of capital that purchases whatever is venal. This
capital, like all other capital, is, by the instincts
of its holders, adverse to Democratic principles.
Conceive the effect of this on the position of poli-
tical parties. The Democrats are mostly of the
laboring classes. I do not say that there is brib-
ery there; but I say that if there be, it is the rich
that bribe the poor, and not the poor that bribe
the rich. Upon that position, then, I start in this
examination. The Democratic party of Massa-
their own individual interests; and this every man
may know that will pass through that State, and
not shut his eyes to facts around him. Is there an
operative in a factory there who does not know
that this place is less secure to him if he votes
the Democratic ticket than if he votes the Whig
ticket? Is there an agent in a factory who does not

The cor

Mr. RANTOUL obtained the floor. He said: I do not propose to enter at all into the general merits of the question before the committee; in-chusetts consists of men who stand up against deed, I would not have troubled the committee as I am always very unwilling to do it-with any remarks of mine, if there had not been cast upon my native State an imputation so serious as to demand immediate notice from me. A majority of the people of Massachusetts are involved together in an imputation which, it seems to me, the

know the same thing? Is there a porter or stevedore on a wharf who does not feel his certainty of future employment sensibly diminished if he is known, nay, if he is even suspected, to be a Democrat? Is there a storekeeper there, not a Whig, who does not know that those who would be his best customers pass by his door because he does not happen to be of the same politics, and that the customers whom he gets in their place do not expend with him such large sums of money? Is there a physician or a professional man of any kind who does not know that he makes heavy sacrifices if he adopts and professes the so-called heresies that have been so unpopular formerly with the powerful in Massachusetts? Is there a lawyer of any talent, who is a Democrat, who does not know that he could quadruple his practice by simply profess ing to be a Whig? Clergymen, physicians, laborers, tradesmen-all classes of men make sacrifices by belonging to the Democratic party. No mortal man in Massachusetts ever made sacrifices by joining the Whig party, but tens of thousands of Democrats have sacrificed a large proportion of their means of support by standing up to what they believed to be sound, and true, and right. That is the position of the Democratic party of Massachusetts, and that has been its history from its com. mencement down to the present time. Against this party particularly is the charge of corruption aimed, and what is the ground of that charge? It is brought down to the alleged fact of a coalition.

Before going into the character of the alleged coalition, let me ask, are coalitions in themselves wrong? Is it wrong that those who seek a common object, should coöperate to effect that object? Am I to stop to inquire whether my neighbor thinks as I do upon all questions—all important questions, if you please-before I act with him upon any one important question? If the Capitol is on fire, and the engines in the Rotundo, and not men enough to man the brakes, must I refuse to fall in and help to work for the salvation of the common interest, and to extinguish the conflagration, because there happens to be a man at work there for the same object, who entertains different sentiments from me, on religion, for instance, the most important concern of man-he being a Catholic, and I a Protestant? Every man will say at once, that the man would be an idiot who would suffer his energies fo be paralyzed by scruples against the coalition in such a case, though it might be a coalition with atheists and drunkards, polygamists and monarchists. I hold that, as a general thing, for those to act together who desire a great public object, impossible to be accomplished without their union, shows that they are men of sense and understand how to effect their object. What do all these men who cry out against the alleged coalition in Massachusetts do in respect of coalition among themselves? Do they isolate themselves? Does each man stand apart from his neighbors with whom he differs on any important question? If they did, there would be no parties in this country, from one end of it to the other, and no Government, for without combinations of men differing widely from each other, constitutions could never be adopted, nor governments carried on, nor even established, and freedom would expire in universal anarchy.

But to come now to the precise question raised by the charge of my colleague against Massachusetts: is a coalition between men who do not oppose the compromise measures, and the fugitive slave law particularly, with men who do oppose them, an unholy coalition? If it be, where and since when was that discovery made? Was it by the Whig party in the State of Missouri? Has Missouri been denounced again and again upon this floor, by Whig gentlemen, because the gentleman [Mr. GEYER] who holds his seat in the other branch of this Congress, was elected by a coalition, as I understand it, of those who favored and those who were opposed to the fugitive slave law, and the compromise measures, in the State of Missouri? Is it in the State of Wisconsin, where the gentleman nominated by a Free-Soil convention, and known to concur in their views, was elected, and the Whig papers, from one end of the country to the other, set up a shout of triumph at the Whig victory in the State of Wisconsin? The Free-Soil candidate of the Free-Soil party was elected, and hence it was, as one would suppose, a Free-Soil victory. But is a Whig victory a Free-Soil victory? Are they one and the same thing? The

But I am not going to take my stand behind the dignity of the State of Massachusetts, and say that she does what she pleases, and she will not give an account of what she does. I stand ready here to-day-what I have never done before in public, and what I would not do now, if I did not feel particularly clear and particularly free from doubt that I am doing right in what I am doing-in to indorse the coalition in Massachusetts. I believe I understand what it was, and what it did, though I was not present at the time it was entered into. I was in the State of Illinois. But after my return I heard what had been done, and I am now in the condition of an impartial looker-on; and being thus free to take my own course, I can say, and do say, that I think it was eminently wise and patriotic in the majority of the people of that State to take the government of the State out of the hands of the minority, however unpleasant to the minority that proceeding might be.

Before proceeding to discuss the propriety of that movement, and of the masterly combination by which it was made, let me, however, inquire, for a moment, who it is that makes the charge of corruption against the coalition in Massachusetts? My colleague from the sixth district [Mr. DAVIS] undertakes to read lectures to the Democracy and Free-Soil party because they act together in Massachusetts. That is all. He has not impeached them for their acts, but only for their concurrence in those acts. He has not singled out any one act of those parties, except that of acting together. That he considers a violation of political principles. I have a right to presume that all our great measures were right, only that it was wrong for us first to agree to do right, and then to do it. He has not accused

PUBLISHED AT WASHINGTON, BY JOHN C. RIVES.-TERMS 3 FOR THIS SESSION.

32D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HOUSTON] is entitled to the floor. Mr. HOUSTON. I am in a very peculiarly embarrassing position, either in speaking upon the matters before the committee, or upon the main question that will occupy the time allotted to me; but I do not feel myself at liberty to resist the application that seems to come from all parts of the House to allow the gentleman to make the motion that the committee rise. It appears to me, however, that when we do get into the House, we will be in the precise condition that we are now. We cannot reconsider the vote.

Mr. BISSELL. I move that the committee rise.

Mr. ORR. There is no necessity for going into the House, for the resolution cannot be reached there.

Tellers were demanded and ordered.

Mr. BISSELL then withdrew his motion that the committee rise.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama will proceed.

Mr. HOUSTON. Mr. Chairman, I intend to occupy the portion of time to which I am entitled in endeavoring to call the attention of the committee to the issues that legitimately and properly grow out of the bill upon which we shall shortly be called to vote, and, if possible, present the subject free from all extraneous matters and influences. The circumstances which have just transpired have placed me in a position peculiarly embarrassing the debate having wandered entirely from the question before the committee, and assumed a personal character. Such discussions being always exciting, command attention, while a debate which is pertinent to the question does not. Another cause of embarrassment proceeds from the fact that there was such an evident disposition for the speaker [Mr. RANTOUL] to proceed, when it was not in my power, nor was it in the power of the committee or of the House, if we had gone there, to have authorized him to do so. The committee itself must see that there was no other course left for me to pursue than the one I adopted. I was appealed to for a portion of my time-time granted to me under the rules of the House for the purpose of closing this debate, and which I feel bound to devote, or such portion of it as I may occupy, to a discussion of the bill and amendments before us. The usage of this body gives me-because of the position I occupy on one of the committees of the House-to some extent beyond what I might otherwise have, a general direction or charge of some of the most important bills that will come before the House for action; and I feel, therefore, a responsibility that forbids my yielding unnecessarily to a debate not upon the bill or proposition before us. The debate to which I was called to yield was not germane to the question before the committee, and if I had yielded to it, I would not only have abused the trust committed to my hands under a rule of the House, by making important legislation secondary to mere personal and party strife, but I would also have set a precedent which would necessarily have embarrassed me hereafter. Had I granted that request, I would soon have been called to grant a like one to the other side, or to a like contest between other members. And how could I justify myself in a refusal Where could I have stopped?

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1852.

whether this bill shall pass with its present pro-
visions, or whether it shall undergo amendinent;
and if so, in what way? In enabling the House
to determine that question, it is not at all neces-
sary or proper that we should settle any of the
controversies to which I have alluded; they are
not matters for our inquiry or action-they are in
no legitimate connection with the bill now under-
going examination.

Mr. Chairman, a position was assumed a few
days ago by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Dis-
NEY,] that to some extent implicated the present
Committee of Ways and Means, and to a larger
extent implicated me as one of the members of that
committee. I intend to direct my first moments to a
reply to that position or suggestion, with the view of
presenting the action of the committee of Ways and
Means, as well as my own action, in its true light.
I can satisfy the gentleman himself that we have
done our duty fully. I feel satisfied that the hon-
orable gentleman did not intend, by what he said,
to cast censure upon any portion of that commit-
tee; but the course of remark indulged in by him
has given a false coloring to the whole question,
and has presented to the country an irrelevant,
and, as I think, an unfair issue. He argued to
show, that the Committee of Ways and Means
had not discharged its duty in connection with
this bill, and that I, as chairman of that commit-
tee, should feel bound, in the proper discharge of
my duty, to call in person upon, and obtain from
the Secretary of State, information which would
clear up the mist and fog, and obviate all the dif-
ficulties and troubles that seem to surround this
subject. If I could have done that, Mr. Chair-
man-if I could have been successful in an enter-
prise so desirable, it would have been a pleasure
to me to have done so. If I could, by any proper
act of mine, have relieved the minds of the
members of this committee from doubt, let the
scale turn as it might, I would have encoun-
tered extraordinary difficulties to have accom-
plished so desirable a result. I am not here to
make charges against the President of the United
States, or any executive officer of the Govern-
ment, nor am I here to defend them. It is my
purpose on this occasion (from a conviction of its
correctness) to advocate the adoption of a meas-
ure, which I have presented to the House as the
chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means,
and I shall endeavor to show that this bill should
become a law in its present form and with its
present provisions. In order to do that, I pro-
pose to state the facts of the case, derived from
authentic sources-from the Executive Depart-
ments of the Government, and not from sources
which might seem to be interested or in any way
biased on the one side or the other of the issues.
The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. DISNEY,] how-
ever, substantially charges that the Secretary of
State evaded the call which was made upon him
by the resolution of the Senate at the last Con-
gress. Then, if it be true that the Secretary of
State evaded that call-a call which the Senate
of the United States had an unquestioned and un-
questionable right to make, and which it was the
duty of the Department, in the proper form,
through the President of the United States, to
answer-if it be true, I say, that with all the
authority of the Senate, the Secretary of State
did refuse to give the facts-if he suppressed the
facts, and thereby gave utterance to falsehoods-
then, I ask, how could it be expected that I, or
any other member of this House, could, upon his
mere personal solicitation, obtain from the Secre-
tary the facts he had thus wrongfully withheld
from the Senate? If Mr. Webster evaded a prop-
er, full, and truthful reply-if he did not state the
facts existing in his Department, which were
called for by the resolution of the Senate he is
guilty of a high offence, and one which Congress
should punish, and the country should condemn.
And under these circumstances, would it be rea-

Mr. Chairman, it is my purpose, if I can do so, to separate, as briefly as may be, the true from the false issues-the relevant from the irrelevant matter that has been brought before this committee; and in doing that, allow me, in the outset, to disentangle this bill from all extraneous matters of whatever kind or character. With the contest between the honorable member from Virginia [Mr. BAYLY] and the Messrs. Green, of this city-with the contest that grew up a few days since between the members from Ohio-or with the contest that has been witnessed yesterday and to-day between the members from Massachusetts-the question in-sonable in me to expect he would say more to me volved in this bill has nothing to do. Those things do not in any way pertain to the question under consideration. We are called upon to decide

than he said to the Senate-in other words, that
he would confess to me that he had withheld facts
which he should have given to the Senate? How

||

NEW SERIES.....No. 25.

could I approach him? What should I say to him? Should I tell him that members of the House of Representatives believed he had not told the whole truth to the Senate, and that had called to get it out of him? That would hardly do; for if he evaded answering what the Senate propounded, would my authority be so much greater than that of the Senate that he would disclose everything to me, regardless of the consequences to himself? He, of course, would know what use was to be made of his statements to me; and inasmuch as his statements given to the Senate are in writing, he would hardly contradict himself and thereby enable the House to convict him of a suppression of facts. He would know that any statement he might make to a member of this body in conflict with what he had said would be used against him, to show his duplicity. I am not charging these things upon Mr. Webster, but am arguing to show the singularity and untenableness of the suggestion of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. DISNEY.] I have always understood, and have not the least doubt of the correctness of that understanding, that the mode which either House of Congress should pursue to get information from the President of the United States or any of the Departments, is by a call of the House, by a formal resolution of the House desiring the information

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I suggest to the gentleman that he extend the argument further, and say that the Secretary of State had no right to give copies of any papers in his office without the permission of the President. They are in his control, and he is responsible.

Mr. HOUSTON. Although that was not in the line of argument I had marked out for myself, yet I am perfectly willing to give it as my own opinion, that such is the rule which should govern such applications-the head of that Department, the Secretary of State, has no authority unless by sanction of the President. Calls upon that Department for information must be through the President of the United States, and not directly upon the Secretary; he has no authority to communicate to the public, or to either House of Congress, the secrets of State, if I may be allowed to use that expression, without the sanction of the President. What are the Executive departments of this Government? They are mere organizations for the purpose of enabling the Executive of the United States the more efficiently to execute the laws of aiding him in the discharge of his important and responsible duties. In point of law, the President of the United States, then, is the responsible head of the Department of State, and whatever you may do in this case goes further than the Secretary. It reaches the head of the Government-the Executive of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, what are the duties of the Committee of Ways and Means in relation to appropriation bills? They are, as I understand them, that we shall examine and learn by what authority the appropriation is sought to be made, whether by law or treaty; that we shall obtain, if accessible, the information necessary to enable the House to determine whether the appropriation should be made. In the discharge of that duty, we have presented the treaty made between the Government of the United States and Mexico in February, 1848, in which, and from which, it appears that the installment of three millions, and one hundred and eighty thousand dollars interest upon such installment, becomes due upon the 30th of May next. Have we anything further to do? What further can we do? No one contends that that installment has been paid? Is there any other information which the House desires to enable it to pass upon his bill? If so, I would like some gentleman to make it known.

Here, then, we have satisfactory evidence that this money is due, and must be paid on the 30th of May, 1852, only four months from now, and that it cannot be paid until we make an appropriation for it. The treaty with Mexico cannot be complied with without the money; and to obtain the money it is necessary to make an appropriation, so that the

Executive of the United States may be prepared and give no directions as to its payment-who
to execute the treaty according to its requirements.pays that money? We appropriate millions of
Let me say a word further on this subject. Sup- dollars to carry out our treaty stipulations with
pose I had gone to the Secretary of State and ob- the Indian tribes, for the military, naval, and civil
tained information from him personally-(and I service of the country; but in none of the bills
will here say that I have obtained none of my in-
m`king those appropriations do we do more than
formation from that officer, or from any other per- we propose to do here-appropriate the money and
Ison who is supposed to be implicated by the re- place it at the disposal of the Executive, who is
marks of any member upon this floor, or suspect- bound to execute the law. There we leave it,
ed of wrong in this transaction: I have 'altogether unless some reason is presented why Congress
avoided them, not because I supposed they would should do more. It seems, then, if I am right in
not tell me the truth, but because I prefered to this-and I am satisfied I am correct-that we
speak from the record-I wished to leave no chance have not made this bill an exception to the general
for doubt in the mind of any one as to the correct- rule; that we have done or propose to do every-
ness of my statement: I have, therefore, resorted thing that is usual to be done with appropriation
to the archives in your Departments; and I am bills, and no more. We have the power to do
sure that I am not mistaken as to the informa-
more, to go further, if a case is presented to re-
tion I present)-suppose I had gone and con- quire it; but unless such case be presented it would
versed with the Secretary of State, and had reported be both improper and unfortunate for us to inter-
the result of such interview and what had passed, vene between the Executive and his duties, and
would it be at all likely that such course on thereby release him from responsibility or afford
my part would have given satisfaction to those
him a pretext for throwing an improper responsi-
members who think I should have pursued that bility on Congress. The gentleman from Vir-
course? The honorable member from Virginia, ginia, [Mr. MEADE,] who addressed the commit-
[Mr. BAYLY,] who preceded me, as chairman of tee this morning, sustains me in this view. He
the Committee of Ways and Means, in his speeches says the Committee of Ways and Means could have
states distinctly that he did converse with the Sec- done nothing but what it did do. Why? Because,
retary of State, and that he communicated the re- he says, if the committee had reported a provision
sult of those conversations to the House. Yet it such as he and other gentlemen advocate, it would
seems that gentlemen are not satisfied; and would have been a reflection on the Secretary of State-
it be likely that what the Secretary might tell me an act which should be done by the House, if done
would have a better effect upon their minds? Such at all, and not by one of its committtees. If the
a supposition is hardly a reasonable one. With
House desire to reflect upon the President or Mr.
the evidence, then, of that fact before me, I do Webster, surely it can do so; and the committee
not feel willing to become the medium of any un- cannot be blamed for not having reported a provis-
official communications from the Secretary of State ion that would have had that effect. I am not the
to the House. We have a right to call by reso- advocate or defender of either of those public func-
lution, and that is the only mode we can adopt. tionaries. No persons could be more antagonistic
In no other way can we hold official communica- politically than I am to each of them. I do not pro-
tion with the President of the United States, and
pose, however, to occupy the time of this committee
we should never hesitate to adopt that rode when in either defending or charging them further than
we think the public interests require it.
a frank and fair statement of the facts may go. I
leave this committee to decide as it may see fit.
We pass an appropriation for paying our foreign
ministers, without directing in the bill who shall
pay out the money. Who makes that payment?
What department of the Government does it? It
is left with the President of the United States.
He, as the Executive of the United States, is bound
by his oath faithfully, honestly, and fairly to ex-
ecute the laws, whether making appropriations or
otherwise. I am aware that he does not do it
personally, but he does it through his executive
departments, which are under his control and di-
rection whenever he sees fit to exercise it.

But further: the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. DisNEY] was unfortunate, in my view, in another thing. The gentleman seemed to press upon the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union the adoption of the call for information, but withheld it from the House. He was a member of the Thirty-first Congress, and at the first session of that Congress made a speech, of which his speech the other day was almost the counterpart, at which time he charged that these rumors existed, and, indeed, the whole tenor of his speech would indicate that his mind was not satisfied with the fairness of the transaction between the Executive of the United States and Mexico. He did not then, as I have been able to find, seek the information which he seems so much to desire. It is true, he said he tried to get it and failed. I do not understand that he called either in person or by resolution upon the President of the United States or the Secretary of State for it. Then who is most in fault, if fault exists at all? This bill was reported to the House and referred to this Committee on the 6th day of this month, and I have been pressing constantly to have action upon it; yet no effort was made in the House to obtain the information until some two days since, notwithstanding the gentleman knew that the House of Representatives (and not the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union) could legitimately make such call. The honorable member is a parliamentarian, and knows very well that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union cannot originate a resolution of that character; that the House must originate it; and yet he continued to urge it upon the committee, and seemed to desire, in his speeches, to put some of us in the position of endeavoring to suppress information-to smother inquiry and investigation; but, strange to say, he had not then made an effort to get the call in the House.

I think the gentleman was unfortunate in another view which he presented in connection with this bill. He asks why the Committee of Ways and Means have made this bill an exception to the general rule governing appropriation bills?thereby charging that they have done so. I must say to the gentleman, in all kindness, that he is mistaken-we have not made it an exception. This bill merely proposes to appropriate the money; and that is the case with every appropriation bill, unless some special cause exists and is presented demanding something else to be done. You appropriate several hundred thousand dollars for the judiciary,

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee, (interrupting.) I desire to ask the gentleman if the payment of ministers, consuls, chargés, and officers of that description, is not done by the Secretary of the Treasury, and not by the Secretary of State?

improper conduct upon the part of the Execu-
tive.
For these reasons it seems to me that the amend-
ment of my friend from Tennessee [Mr. JOHN-
SON] should not be adopted, and if adopted, it will
be of no avail. I understand his amendment to
be, that the Secretary of the Treasury shall make
this payment under the direction of the President
of the United States. That is no more than the
law as it no stands, only the President of the
United States, as he had a right to do, has re-
quired the head of another Department, instead of
the head of the Treasury Department. It would
only substitute the Secretary of the Treasury for
the Secretary of State.

Mr. BAYLY, (interrupting.) And Mr. Corwin told me, at the last session of Congress, that if the change was made, he should carry out the arrangement with the Barings, which had been made by the Secretary of State.

Mr. HOUSTON, (resuming.) If we were to adopt the amendment, what would be the result? The President has a right to employ whichever Department he chooses, to pay the installments running to maturity, unless we tell him that he shall employ one and not the other. He could make the payment himself, if he had desired it. Indeed, it is his duty to do it, if he had the physical ability, and at the same time attend to his various other duties. The wisdom of the country, knowing that he could not discharge all those duties, has given him executive departments to aid him. And it matters not which department makes this payment, the President is bound to supervise it, because the act is done upon his responsibility and under his direction, through the aid of the Secretary.

So then, if we should adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JOHNSON,] we would accomplish no good for the country-at least, I am unable to see in what way the country would gain by it; and while we accomplish no beneficial result, we by that act interfere with the duties of the President of the United States, by directing him to do differently from what he has heretofore done and what it seems he proposes to do now. My friend from Virginia [Mr. MEADE] gave but one reason which can influence the minds of any one in favoring that particular amendment. I understood that gentleman to say that he wanted to adopt that amendment for the purpose of rebuking the present Secretary of State, because that Secretary had not consulted the wishes of Mexico in the payment of the third credit installment of the Mexican indemnity. Let us for a moment look at this matter. I am quite sure the honorable gentleman does not desire to do anything which would unfavorably affect the interest of the country. Then the question very forcibly presents itself, whether the amendment will result in any good? It is true, it may accomplish a personal object-to rebuke the Secretary of State. But if you want to rebuke him, do it directly, and not in this indirect manner. He is no favorite of mine, and has never been. I must say, however, that our action should be just and fair; let us not condemn him-let us not rebuke in advance of an investigation. Would my friend from Virof this sort, and without stopping to inquire into its truth, rebuke him without giving him an opportunity to be heard-to defend himself? I presume not. Such course would be repugnant to our nature. If gentlemen will prepare the issuemake up a case-I will go as far as any one to condemn guilt. When a resolution was offered in the House a few days ago by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BRIGGS,] proposing to institute an inquiry into the legality and fairness of the election of the Delegate from the Territory of Utah-whether he had not obtained his seat here bý bribery and corruption, what was the argument used? and what were the indications of the sense of the House on that occasion? It was that the resolution implied a censure upon the Delegate, and that it should not be adopted without giving him an opportunity of being heard in explanation of the circumstances connected with his election.

Mr. HOUSTON. The gentleman is very shrewd. I put a question to him, and instead of answering it, he rises and puts the same question to me. However, I will answer him. Those payments are made through the Department of the Treasury, upon a requisition from the Secretary of State, but also through the instrumentality of the Barings, as I am informed-those same bank-ginia be willing that we should take up a rumor ers through whom the President proposes to pay the installment about which we are now debating. But I brought that matter up only for the purpose of showing that in our appropriation bills, after appropriating the money, we leave it, as a general rule, with the Executive Department, to be applied honestly and faithfully to the objects of appropriation, and not for the purpose of showing which Secretary did it. I presume no one doubts the fact, that the President has a right to employ either of his Secretaries, as his judgement may dictate. To make an appropriation is a legislative act. The Executive cannot touch the public money unless we authorize him to do it by the enactment of a law. He cannot draw a dollar from the Treasury any more than you or I, or any other citizen of the community, until a law is passed giving him authority to do it; and when such a law is enacted, it is his duty to see that the money is applied to the objects specified in the law. The application of an appropriation is, therefore, an Executive duty, and not a legislative duty; and to justify the legislature in making an encroachment upon the duty of the Executive in the application of an appropriation like this, there must be some evidence before Congress of fraud, corruption, or

Mr. MEADE. I distinctly stated in my remarks, that the amendment was intended not only to indicate displeasure at the manner in which the last payment had been made, but inasmuch as it had been made in a manner incompatible with the views of this House, if adopted, as indicative