printers of this city? Why you expend, on an average, $200,000 annually upon the printers and publishers of this city, exclusive of the amount paid to them for the publication of the laws and public advertisements. And yet, when I propose to expend $76,000 among the printers of the whole country to the most healthy portion of the American press, and for the benefit of the whole people, gentlemen seem to think that it is an exorbitant expenditure. I hold that an expenditure which is for the benefit of the people, is a wise and good expenditure. I hold that the intelligence of the people is the solid basis of the republican institutions of this country, and that any expenditure which is made to disseminate information and light among the people, is a wholesome and proper expenditure. Show the people your laws and they will see where to apply the knife of retrenchment-they will make good use of the information you give them. The bill before us, I admit, adds a little to the expense of Government, but it will, in the end, lead to retrenchment. But further: the present publication of the Laws of the United States is absurd-totally absurd. What is it? You provide for the publication of the Laws of the United States in two newspapers in each State-in two papers in the great State of Ohio, for instance, and in two papers in the State of Delaware. You not only make an arbitrary provision for the equal circulation of the Laws in States with populations greatly varying in amount, but you do more-you confine it to a party. When the Whigs are in power you give the circulation entirely to the Whigs, and when any other party is in power, you give it entirely to that party. I say, then, that the circulation of the Laws of the United States, as at present provided, is totally absurd. Why, what is the circulation of the laws of the State of Ohio, in that State? I have some information on that subject, which I suppose is nearly correct, for I obtained it from a gentleman belonging to Ohio. I understand that Ohio publishes her own Laws in two papers in each county. I understand further, that there are some eighty counties in the State, and that the Laws are published in something like one hundred and fifty papers in the State of Ohio alone, at an expense of about $12,000. That is what Ohio does; and if you take her circulation of the Laws as an average, it would cost $125,000 to publish the Laws of the several States of the Union. The States feel it important that their laws should be pubJished; and if Ohio and other States can afford as much as I have stated to publish their Laws, I think the Government of the United States might afford to pay $76,000 for the publication of the Laws of Congress for the benefit of the people. Salaries of Ministers.... Salary of Minister Resident to Turkey.. $81,934 73 3,432 48 I find that there are upwards of one hundred collection districts in the United States; and the Secretary of the Treasury tells us in his annual report that he will need $2,450,000 to pay the salaries and other expenses incident to these collection districts. Take this branch of the service alone, and I ask this House if it does not present a case of enormous patronage of the Government? In the cities and towns where this immense sum is expended by the appointees of the President, the publishers of leading newspapers are the recipients of favor from the President, and willingly do his bidding. gress, at Philadelphia, the following language was used: "We might tell of dissolute, weak, and wicked governors having been set over us, * of needy and ignorant dependents on great men advanced to the seats of justice, and to other places of trust and importance." "Expensive and oppressive offices have been multiplied."-Memorial of Continental Congress, 1774. "Judges of courts of common law have been made dependent on the Crown for their commissions and salaries." Id. "The charges of usual offices have been greatly increased, and new, expensive, and oppressive offices have been multiplied."-Address to the King by Continental Congress, 1774. "Officers employed in the administration of justice, have been rendered independent of the people with respect both to their salaries and the tenure of their commissions."-Address to the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, of Great Britain, by the New York Assembly, 1775. "He [the British King] has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."-Declaration of Independence. I repeat, sir, when I reflect upon the enormous increase of the patronage of this Government, the multiplication of officers, and the control of the Government over those officers, I am forcibly reminded of the complaints of our fathers in the Revolution. I appeal to gentlemen to say if the patronage of the Government is not sufficiently large without giving to the Administration, to a great extent, the control of a thousand publishers and printers? And while I am upon this subject, I cannot perhaps do better than to call the attention of the House to a report made in 1826 by Mr. Benton, as chairman of a select committee of the Senate, recommending a reduction of the patronage of the Executive Government, and presenting among other bills to promote that object, one taking the control of the press away from the Executive. ask attention to one or two extracts from that report. Speaking of the power and workings of the Federal patronage, he says: "The whole of this great power will center in the President. The King of England is the fountain of honor;' the President of the United States is the source of patronage. lie presides over the entire system of Federal appointments, jobs, and contracts. He has 'power' over the support of the individuals who administer his system. He makes and unmakes them. He chooses from the circle of his friends and supporters, and may dismiss them, and upon all the principles of human action, will dismiss them as often as they disappoint his expectations. His spirit will animate their actions in all the elections to State or Federal offices. There may be exceptions, but the truth of a general rule is proved by an exception. "The intended check and control of the Senate, without new constitutional or statutory provisions, will cease to operate. Patronage will penetrate this body, subdue its capacity of resistance, chain it to the car of power, and enable the President to rule as easily, and much more securely, with than without the nominal check of the Senate. * We must look forward to the time when the public revenue will be doubled, when the civil and military officers of the Federal Government will be quadrupled; when its influence over individuals will be multiplied to an indefinite extent; when the nomination by the President can carry any man through the Senate, and his recommendation can carry any measure through the two Houses of Congress; when the principle of public men will be open and arowed: The President wants MY vote, and I want his patronage. I will vote as he wishes, and he will give ine the office I wish for. What will this be but the government of one man? And what is the government of one man but a mon By such instruments, influence is made in the great cities of the Union to control the Union. This influence exhibits itself in the shape of meetings, resolves, speeches, &c., and is often called public sentiment, when in truth it proceeds from the dictation of the Executive, and is merely the émanation of his will. It is true that when the people are in a state of healthy excitement they do their own work, and salaried men are compelled to stand out of their way. But in times of apathy there is always danger from the machinations of the hundred thousand men who are fed from the Treasury of the nation. There are, it is true, many honorable exceptions among the men holding office; but the great majority of those who receive office from the hands of the Executive respond with alacrity to his commands. These references to the patronage of the Executive are sufficient, I trust, to satisfy all of its magnitude-archy? Names are nothing. The nature of a thing is in to satisfy all that it has increased beyond the increase of population-to satisfy all that it is liable to become a dangerous power unless its control is to some extent modified. Shall we, then, allow the Executive any longer the power to withhold or bestow patronage, so far as the press is concerned, or shall we pass this bill, which employs printers to do the work of the Government without the intervention of the Executive? Sir, is it a fact that the laws we make here are of no importance? We come here and sit in grave council; gentlemen come together from all parts of the country to legislate for the good of the country, and then publish the laws they enact in so few papers in the Union as to be almost inaccessible to the people. In my remarks upon this bill some days ago, I spoke of the patronage of Government dispensed to the press and to individuals, and I intend to say something more upon that subject now. I wish gentlemen to understand that there is a wide difference between the patronage of the Government and the expenditures of the Government. The Government may make expenditures and still give no patronage. This bill, it is true, slightly increases the expenses of the Government, but it diminishes its patronage. What I wish to speak of now, is the patronage of the Government-that is, the expenditures upon individuals over whose tenure of office the Administration have control. The patronage of this Government, it is well known, has become enormous, and I have some facts in relation to that subject to which I wish to call the attention of the House. The expenditures of the Government, nearly all of which are under the control of the Adminis-rection of more abuses than it will be necessary tration, have been for certain periods as follows: In 1830, $13,229,533; 1840, $22,389,356; 1852, $43,816,124; exclusive of payment of the public debt; showing that the expenditures of the Government have nearly doubled in every ten years since 1830. I ask if this is not an enormous expenditure, and if we have not reason to be alarmed at the increasing patronage of the Government? In addition to this, you have under the control of the Administration a large portion of the press of the country, by means of the publication of the Why, sir, when I reflect upon this subject of Executive patronage, I am reminded of what was said in the time of the Revolution, by our fathers, against the mother country, and I have here one or two extracts, which, with the indulgence of the House, I will read. Our revolutionary fathers fought for the cor for me to mention upon the present occasion. DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICES AND EMOLUMENTS. These abuses were made the subject of frequent complaint to the British Parliament, and to the people of England, and the American colonies. In an address (October 21, 1774) to the people of Great Britain, from the delegates in General Con its substance, and the name soon accommodates itself to the substance. The first Roman Emperor was styled Emperor of the Republic, and the last French Emperor took the same title, and their respective countries were just as essentially monarchical before as after the assumption of these titles. It cannot be denied or dissembled but that this Federal Government gravitates to the same point.** "In the country for which the committee act, the Press with some exceptions, the Post Office, the Armed Force, and the Appointing Power are in the hands of the President, and the President himself is not in the hands of the people. The President may, and, in the current of human affairs, will be against the people; and in his hands the arbiters of hu-. man fate must be against them also. "This will not do. The possibility of it must be avoided. The safety of the people is the supreme law,' and to insure that safety these arbiters of human fate, must change position, and take part on the side of the people." "The committee must take things as they are. Not being able to lay the axe at the root of the tree, they must go to pruning among the limbs and branches. Not being able to reform the Constitution, in the election of President, they must go to work upon his powers, and TRIM DOWN THESE BY STATUTORY ENACTMENTS, wherever it can be done by law, and with a just regard to the proper efficiency of the Government. For this purpose, they have reported the six bills enumerated. They do not pretend to have exhausted the subject; but only to have seized a few of its prominent points. They have only touched in four places the vast and pervading system of federal Executive patronage-the Press, the Post Office, the Armed Force, and the Appointing Power. They are few compared to the whole number of points which the system presents; but they are points vital to the liberties of the country. THE PRESS IS PUT FOREMOST, BECAUSE IT 18 THE MOVING POWER OF HUMAN AC TIONS; the Post Office is the handmaid of the Press; the Armed Force its Executor; and the Appointing Power the directress of the whole. Let me say with regard to this bill that I have no pride of opinion about it, but I believe that it has merit, and I ask this House to consider it for its intrinsic merit. I want no triumph for the proposition because I have introduced it, but I ask gentlemen to look at the proposition; examine it Carefully, and before they dispose of it by laying it on the table, to see if it is not worthy of consideration. It has been proposed, as a means of reducing Executive power, to elect officers of the Federal Government by the people-to prohibit the appointment of members of Congress to office during their term of office; but these things can only be accomplished by an alteration of the Constitution, but a divorce of the press from the Government can be brought about at the present time by law. This bill will effect the object, and I hope it will pass. Mr. CARTTER, (Mr. SMART yielding the floor.) With the permission of the gentleman from Maine, I will say that I am in favor of this bill, from a consideration that he has not alluded to, but I do not wish to detain the House with an argument upon the subject at this late hour of their session. The project contained in this proposition, is the first practical project for giving the freemen of the Republic a practical knowledge of what transpires here, in the way of law-making. The previous action of the Government upon this subject has acknowledged the duty, by some ways and means, of bringing the law-making power home to the knowledge of the makers of lawmakers, and of giving evidence to the people of what transpires here, in the form of authoritative laws. Now, as has been justly remarked by the gentleman from Maine, it is a mockery of that design to commit the publication of our laws to two partisan presses in a State. It is a mere acknowledgment of the duty on the part of the Government towards citizens, to bring home to the citizens a knowledge of the laws that are enacted, without doing it. The proposition of the gentleman from Maine, is a practical proposition to make the people of the United States acquainted with the transactions of this body, when those transactions have assumed the solemn form of laws. I am in favor of it, for the reason that the history of this Republic and the history of the States within the Republic in their own municipal legislation, is this, that in proportion as you have brought the law-making agents into intelligible connection with the constituents of those agents, you have elevated the tone of legislation, and increased the responsibility of the Representatives. I am in favor of it, because it affords a record-an intelligible record that is read by every constituent who is worthy of wielding a vote, by which he can judge and bring to accountability the man who represents him. Now, if you will confer upon your constituents a knowledge of your transactions, let them have it practically, instead of concealing them in the columns of a partisan press. There was an old law in Rome which compelled the authorities to publish upon the posts in the city of Rome what they had enacted into law. But it is said that in order to get rid of the effect of that law, the authorities caused their laws to be posted so high that the people could not read what they had enacted. So in regard to the laws which you enact here, you post them so high that the people cannot read them. You have been careful to transfer them to the columns of two partisan presses in each State, and you might as well have buried them below the soil of that State as to have done it. I hope this proposition will prevail. But the question of expense is mooted in it, and the subJect of expenditure takes hold of the intelligence of the people. Now, when the question of expenditure is mooted in the publication of these laws, as a representative of the people, I have no fear of it. If this argument was urged in reference to The idle drafts upon the Treasury, proceeding from men who have no other interest than the consumption of money, I would go with the closest economist in relation to it. But here, it seems, the expenditure of $75,000 is grudged. Those who acknowledge the necessity for the publication of the laws grudge it. But when that $75,000 is sent on the mission of informing every reading citizen of the Republic of what you do, when what you I would advise your Committee of Ways and Mr. SEYMOUR, of New York. Will the gen- Mr. SEYMOUR. I only want to make a sug- Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Will the geptleman from Maine yield in order to allow me to move an adjournment? Mr. SMÄRT. I will yield for that purpose. Mr. STEPHENS. Then I move that the House do now adjourn. Mr. HOUSTON. I appeal to the gentleman to withdraw that motion. I desire to say a few words upon the bill, and it is not likely that it will come up again soon. Mr. STEPHENS refused to withdraw the motion, and The House adjourned. PETITIONS, &c. The following petitions, memorials, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees: By Mr. MASON: The petition of E. R. Hollingsworth, and 51 others, citizens of Lawrence and other counties in the State of Kentucky, praying for an increased duty on iron. By Mr. CONGER: The memorial of Beverly Johnson and 113 others, asking for a mail route from Lapeer county site to Pine Run, in Genesee county, Michigan, via Lathrop's Mills, Origon, Niver's Mills, Marathon, Hay's Mill, and Forest. By Mr. FULLER, of Maine: The memorial of Gilman D. King, and sundry others, ship-masters and ship owners, of Calais and vicinity, Maine, asking Congress to build a light house on Southern Island, at the entrance of Tenant's Harbor, in the town of St. George, coast of Maine. By Mr. HENN: The petition of Henry P. Scholte and 223 others, citizens of Marion county, Iowa, asking for a mail route from Newton, via Pella, Amsterdam, Knoxville, and Chariton, to Nine Eagles or New Buda. By Mr. DURKEE: The petition of the Board of the Lawrence University, in the State of Wisconsin, asking Congress to appropriate a portion of the public lands for the benefit of said institution, upon certain conditions therein expressed. By Mr. McCORKLE: The memorial of R. Glover and By Mr. The memorial of William C. Daniel, of By Mr. BRENTON: The petition of citizens of New By Mr. HENDRICKS: The petitions of C. J. Hand, of Marion county, and Lot Edwards and James Rutherford, of Hancock county, Indiana, praying that compensation be made to the assistant marshals for services in taking the Seventh Census. By Mr. FLORENCE: The memorial of Lewis, James & Co., Bacon & Oppenheimer, James S. Smith, H. Jones Brooke, and others, citizens of Pennsylvama, Delaware, and New Jersey, praying for an appropriation at the present session of Congress for the erection of suitable piers and harbors in the Delaware river and bay, to afford shelter for vessels navigating them. Also, the memorial of Charles Conner, late a seaman, who lost his sight in the service of the United States, praying for a pension. Also, the memorial of Henry Hochstrasser, of Philadelphia, praying for compensation to defray actual expenses incurred, and for indemnity for the loss of a contract to furnish locks and keys for the use of the mail service of the United States. By Mr. McLANAHAN: Two memorials from citizens of Pennsylvania, remonstrating against the renewal of the patent granted to Austin and Zebulon Parker, for alleged improvements upon reaction water wheels. By Mr. WALSH: The memorial of Henry Mankin, of Baltimore, praying the Postmaster General may be authorized to contract for the transportation of the mail between the city of Baltimore and certain ports in South America. By Mr. WHITE, of Alabama: The petition for removal of land office at Lebanon, Alabama, to Centre, Cherokee county, Alabama. By Mr. GREEN: The memorial of William P. Reznor, John J. Strother, and Isaac J. Strother, of Ohio, deputy marshals, asking increased compensation for taking the census. By Mr. EDGERTON: The memorial of E. M. Dennison and Thomas E. Nichols, assistant marshals of Auglaize county, Ohio, asking additional compensation for taking the census. By Mr. CHANDLER: The remonstrance of Samuel Mergarger and many other lumber dealers in Philadelphia, against the renewal of Woodworth's patent for a planing machine. By Mr. McDONALD: The petition of John Weeks for arrearages of pay for service as first mate in the late war with Great Britain. IN SENATE. POSTPONEMENT OF PRIVATE BILLS. Mr. CASS. Say till one o'clock. Mr. CLARKE. What reason does the Senator from California assign for making this motion? We have since the adoption of the resolution setting Fridays apart for the consideration of bills on the Private Calendar, adhered to it thus far; and I would like to have a good reason why we should depart from it. Mr. GWIN. I have already stated the reason, namely, that we might attend to our usual morning business. I only move to postpone the consideration of private bills for an hour. Mr. CLARKE. Then I will move to amend the proposition of the Senator from California, by saying "till one o'clock." It is now half past twelve, and I think half an hour will be sufficient for all the morning business likely to come up today. The PRESIDENT. The question will be first on the longest time. The question was taken on the motion to postpone for an hour, and it was not agreed to. The question then recurred on the motion to postpone until one o'clock, and it was adopted. PETITIONS. Mr. RUSK presented the petition of George W. Sevier, praying payment for hogs taken and used by the United States troops during the war with Mexico; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. Mr. CASS presented the memorial of Theophilus Hardenbrook, representing that he was taken prisoner during the last war with Great Britain, and confined more than two years in Dartmoor Prison, and praying a pension or some other remuneration for his sufferings and privations during that time; which was referred to the Committee of Claims. Mr. CHASE presented two memorials of assistant marshals for taking the Seventh Census in Brown and Sandusky counties, Ohio, praying additional compensation; which were referred to the Committee of Claims. On motion by Mr. JONES, of Jowa, it was Ordered, That the Committee on Pensions, to which was referred the petition of William Dusenbury, praying bounty land, be discharged from the consideration of the same, and that it be referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims. CHARLES A. GRIGNON. I am instructed by the Committee on Indian Affairs to report a bill for the relief of Charles A. Grignon, and I ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to proceed to the consideration of it now. It proposes to make an appropriation of only three hundred dollars for services rendered many years ago. There being no objection, the bill was read a first and second time, and considered by the Senate as in Committee of the Whole. The bill provides that the Secretary of the Interior be authorized and directed to pay to said Grignon such sum of money, not exceeding three hundred dollars, as he may be entitled to for extra services rendered as interpreter in the year 1848, in the negotiation of a treaty between the United States and the Menomonee tribe of Indians. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, and was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. NAVY-YARD AT SAN FRANCISCO. The PRESIDENT. This bill was reported from the Committee on Naval Affairs with two additional sections as an amendment. To this amendment an amendment was offered by the Senator from North Carolina, [Mr. BADGER.] The amendments will be read. appoint such a board? I would like to know furthermore-and that is the important point of inquiry-what necessity there is for a railway and basin connected with the dry-dock in California. A railway and basin will cost a million and a half, and perhaps two millions of dollars, and require from five to ten years for its construction. i repeat, sir, that I would like to hear from the Senator from California what reason can he given for the marine barracks, and basin and railway, which he proposes, by this amendment, to have constructed in California in connection with a drydock. This matter was disposed of, I think, at the last session. Mr. GWIN. It is not my purpose to make a speech on this question at all. This bill was unanimously ordered to be reported by the Committee on Naval Affairs, and accompanying the bill is a report, the reading of which will answer all the inquiries of the Senator from Pennsylvania. I ask that the report may be read. The PRESIDENT. The report will be read. The committee review the policy of the Government in establishing permanent navy-yards for the construction and repair of vessels of war. It appears that the first attempt under our present form of Government to comnience a naval estabment, was demanded by the necessity of defenddepredations of the Algerine corsairs. That, coning our commerce and citizens from the piratical Mr. GWIN. I wish to appeal to the Senate to take up the bill to establish a navy-yard and depót on the bay of San Francisco, in California. That bill was up some time ago, and postponed at the request of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. BRODHEAD] and the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. HUNTER, both of whom are present. The pas sage of this bill is a matter of considerable importance to that section of the Union, and I hope it will be taken up and acted upon to-day. I am sure it will not occupy more than twenty minutes.sequently, in 1794 an act was passed authorizing the building and equipment of six frigates, and The question was taken, and the motion to take that the building of the ships was directed in sevup the bill was agreed to. eral ports of the Union, in order as well to distribute the advantages arising from the operation, as to ascertain at what places they could be built to the greatest advantage. That, in the commencement of our naval establishment, the public vessels of the Government were built in private dockyards; but this experiment proving ineffectualnone of the vessels having been completed-a committee of the House of Representatives, in the year 1797, recommended the appropriation of a sum of money for the purpose of purchasing and fitting up a naval yard. That another committee of the same House, in the following year, had taken the same view of the matter, and that James McHenry, then Secretary of War, in a letter to the House, remarked, that the great delay that had occurred in the above-mentioned undertaking, must always be more or less experienced when heavy ships of war are required to be suddenly built, and the Government is not previously possessed of the necessary timber and materials. That it was certainly an unfit time to look for these and prepare a navy-yard, when the ships were required for actual service. It was not to be expected, that the large pieces of heavy timber suitable for ships of The amendment submitted by Mr. BADGER was read as follows: Strike out all after the word "operate," in the eleventh line of the third section, and insert the following words: The Secretary of the Navy be and he is hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with the patentees for the construction of a basin and railway, in the most approved form, connected with the said navy yard and depốt, substantially upon the agreement made with them under the act of September 30th, 1850, as stated in his report to the House of Representatives, dated January 20th, 1851: Provided, That the said contractor shall procure in California all the materials for said work that can be obtained and prepared there at an expense not exceeding the cost of procuring, preparing, and transporting them from the Atlantic seaboard to California." Also, by striking out in the eighth and ninth lines in the amendment the words "President of the United States," and inserting "Secretary of the Navy." [The object of this amendment is merely to transfer to the Secretary of the Navy the performance of duties proposed to be imposed by the reported amendment upon the President of the United States.] Also, by inserting in section fourth of the amendment, at the fourth line, between the words "present" and " pay" the words "sea service." [The object of this amendment is to designate the amount of pay to be given to the officers whom the Secretary of the Navy may appoint to select the site and perforin the other duties mentioned in the first section of the bill, and to limit it in such manner that it shall not exceed double the amount of their present sea service pay.] Also, to amend by adding the following section: SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That for the purpose o, enabling the President of the United States to carry into effect the provisions of this act, the sum of five hundred thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby appropriated, to be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. Mr. BRODHEAD. This, Mr. President, is a very important bill. It provides for the establishment of a navy-yard, depót, marine barracks, naval hospital, and basin, and railway in connection with a dry-dock, which was ordered at the last session of Congress for California. I suppose, if this bill be passed, it will involve the necessity of an expenditure of from three to seven millions of dollars; I think, therefore, that it ought to be carefully examined. There are many provisions in this bill, which do not commend themselves to my favorable consideration, and I would like to have some little explanation from the honorable Senntor from California with regard to them. I would like to know what necessity there is for marine barracks in California, or why we should order, by an act of Congress, a board of officers. Has not the Secretary of the Navy the power now to war would be found in market, or accumulated in private magazines for sale when wanted on pressing occasions. That, in a State paper from Benjamin Stoddard, the first Secretary of the Navy, dated April 25, 1800, he had stated his opinion, that the proper course to be pursued was to make the building-yards public property, and to commence them on a scale as if they were meant to be permanent. The report proceeds to give the opinions of other gentlemen connected with the Government, declaring that docks for the repairing of ships ought to be convenient to the sea, and yet not easily accessible to an enemy. That yards for the building of ships, where large quantities of materials would be deposited, (the destruction of which would always be an object with an enemy,) should be in the vicinity of a commercial city for the convenience of procuring able workmen. It then states, that the opinions of public officers of high reputation, in the infancy of our naval establishment, have been verified by the experience of the last fifty years, and that they had been referred to because of their coincidence of the Senate committee as to the advantage of establishing at once a permanent navy-yard and depot on the Day of San Francisco, rather than to depend upon private establishments for the repairs or building of public vessels in that bay. That, being well satisfied of the necessity of having a naval establishment in that distant harbor, the only question was, whether such an establishment should be of a permanent or temporary character; and that the authority referred to, together with the settled policy of the Government, were considered conclusive upon that point. In regard to the vessels of the Navy cruising upon that distant coast, none so well remembered, or felt more sensibly, the want of a port of safety in that region, than our naval officers who had served for many years past upon the voyages and cruises in the Pacific, both as to the repairing of their vessels and the recruiting of the health of their crews; and that, with a navy-yard as proposed, these great inconveniences to vessels making the voyage round Cape Horn and along the western coast of this continent would be in a great measure obviated. But that more especially was such an establishment needed on the westeru coast in case of war with a maritime nation. The report then states the advantages to be derived, in a commercial and fiscal point of view, from a navy-yard and depôt at San Francisco, adding security to our commercial marine, and the nu merous vessels engaged in the whale fisheries in the Pacific, and that the greatly increased revenues in these western ports would more than counterbalance, in a very short time, any expenditure which might be made by the Government for this purpose. That, in an extended maritime and national aspect, the creation of a strong naval establishment in the bay of San Francisco, is of great importance to this country. That, when the im mense value of the whale fisheries and trade to the western coast of the two Americas, to China and other countries of Asia, and the islands of the Pacific and Indian oceans, and the daily increas ing trade and commerce of California and Oregon, are all considered, it must be confessed that this Government is under the strongest obligations to lose no time in providing the most ample means for the future security of all these interests, which belong almost entirely to the Atlantic coast and the enterprising mariners from New England engaged in the whale fisheries. The report then details a variety of statistics, showing the extent of commerce and navigation in past years from the Atlantic ports to California, and concludes by urging the necessity of the ap||pointment of a board of officers to superintend the construction of the dock and basin and railway. Mr. BRODHEAD. Mr. President, the read|ing of this report does not satisfy my mind that we should authorize the construction of a basin and railway, which will involve an expense of from a million to a million and a half of dollars. This basin and railway is proposed to be built, not only without, but in opposition to, the recommendation of the department. It is also in opposi tion to the decision of the last Congress. This is my first objection. My second objection is, that it is entirely unnecessary and useless. I shall occupy the time of the Senate but a little while, for I or'y have a few practical suggestions and remarks of a business character to make. Mr. President, no Secretary of the Navy has ever recommended this basin and railway in connection with the dry-dock. I find that this subject was before the Senate at the last session, and an inquiry was addressed to the Secretary of the Navy upon the subject, as to whether it was necessary; and he gave an answer which I will read to the Senate: "In reply to so much of the resolution as inquires whether, in the judgment of the head of this Department. 'a dock could not be constructed sufficient for all the putment than the one contemplated by the act aforesaid, 'I poses of the Navy at much less expense to the Govern have to state that, in my opinion, a sectional dock alone. without the addition of a basin and railway, but with a pier to secure it, would answer every demand of the Vari on the coast of California, for many years to come. Sun a dock has recently raised the steam-ship “Ohio," belong ing to Messrs. Law & Co., in the harbor of New York, which ship is over three hundred feet in length. "The cost of the dock alone would certainly be much less than one half, and possibly not inore than one third, of the amount proposed to be paid for the whole work as herein stated. The addition of the pier to secure it, and render it capable of use, would probably not exved $50,000. These can be completed and ready for use in two years, at most, and may be in fifteen or twenty month; while the addition of the basin and railway will require from four to five years to complete them.” That is the opinion of the Secretary of the Navy, given at the last session, when this subject was brought to the attention of the Senate. I find, also, in the naval appropriation bill, a decision on this point: "For the floating dry dock in California, $150,000; and the Secretary of the Navy is hereby required so to modify the contract, alleged to have been made on the 17th of January last, as to confine the sum to the construction of the floating dock alone, without a basin or railway; Provided, The contractors will agree to do the work at the estimates made by the Department in November and December last: And provided, The Secretary considers the estimates fair and reasonable; and so much of said law as authorizes the construction of a basin and railway is hereby repealed: Provided, That, before making any contract, the Secretary of the Navy shall give at least sixty days notice by advertisement in the usual way." So, sir, this question with regard to a basin and railway was decided at the last session. Sir, what does the Secretary of the Navy say in his report to the present Congress upon this matter? "Agreeably to the act of the last session of Congress, a modified contract was entered into with Messrs. Dankin & Moody, and Gilbert & Secor, for the construction of a floating sectional dock on the Bay of San Francisco, to he completed and delivered for the sum of $610,000. This work is understood to be in a course of speedy execution, the contract requiring its completion in two years from the mouth of May last. Its precise location cannot be deterained until the selection of a site for a navy-yard on the waters of that bay, for which purpose a commission will be sent out early in the ensuing spring. It will be necessary to provide a pier or basin to render this dock capable of use. The location of the dock not yet being determined, THE DEPARTMENT POSTPONES THE QUESTION OF PREFER KSCK BETWEEN THESE TWO STRUCTURES UNTIL THE REPORT OF THE PROPOSED BOARD SHALL BE RECEIVED AND FULL LOCAL INFORMATION OBTAINED." Yet this bill, without this proposed local information, authorizes the construction of this basin and railway, and the location of this navy-yard and depôt, with reference to its construction." Mr. CLARKE. If the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania will give way, as the time for the consideration of private bills has arrived, I will move to postpone the further consideration of this subject. The PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania give way? Mr. BRODHEAD. I would rather finish my remarks now, if such is the pleasure of the Senate. It is, however, immaterial to me. Mr. DAVIS, (in his seat.) Let him go on. The PRESIDENT. The Senator from Penn sylvania will proceed. Mr. BRODHEAD. Why, therefore, enter into these contracts Mr. SHIELDS. If the honorable Senator will permit me, I will suggest that I fear this will occupy the whole day. The PRESIDENT. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor. Mr. BRODHEAD. There seems to be a desire to proceed to other business, and I—— Mr. SHIELDS. I am very anxious to hear the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania give this subject a fuli investigation at an early day, || and if he will permit me, I will move its postpone ment for that purpose. The PRESIDENT. The Senator from Pennsylvania is entitled to the floor, and must not be interrupted. Mr. COOPER. I hope my colleague will give way. Mr. BRODHEAD. It is a matter of very great indifference to me, but perhaps what few remarks I have to make may as well be made now. Why should Congress undertake to order this dry dock to be constructed, and by certain gentlemen who have a patent-right for it? We have a Secretary of the Navy; we have a Bureau of Docks and Yards; we have a Bureau of Construction and Repairs; we have all the materiel and personnel necessary; and yet, whenever a dry dock is required we must have a contractor to do it, while the of our own officers goes on. We have pay engineers, artisans, constructors, everything of this kind, and yet, sir, contractors must be employed. Why, one half of the time we do not find out what is necessary for the naval service, unless we are informed by gentlemen who desire Contracts. I am opposed to all acts of Congress Providing for making contracts. Why, sir, this Contract system and these contractors have become kind of fourth estate. We have now the three epartments-the legislative, executive, and judiial; and I think we ought to have a fourth, and hat is, the contract department. Mr. President, I have stated that this basin and ailway is wholly unnecessary and useless. We have now more docks than there is any necessity or. How many ships have we to be repaired at hese docks-because it is well known that they are not constructed for building vessels, but only For their repair-they were.originally authorized, in 1848, for the purpose of repairing ships of the line? We have eleven ships of the line, and durng the last three years we have expended three t millions of dollars for building these docks. Eleven ships of the line to be repaired, once in three years, and we have spent nearly a million of dollars at Kittery, in Maine, nearly a inillion at Philadelphia, and nearly a million more at Pensacola, for these dry docks, and now a million and a half more is asked for a basin and railway connected with a dry dock in California. It is unnecessary in California, because our vessels will be repaired upon the Atlantic coast. There are no materials, sir, for constructing dry docks or repairing vessels in California. They will all have to be taken from the Atlantic border. Besides, provisions and labor are three or four times as dear in California, and our vessels should therefore be repaired upon the Atlantic coast, and not upon the Pacific side. Mr. President, I have some statistics upon the subject of these dry docks, by which I wish to show to the Senate how much we have paid for dry docks during the last three years, in fact since the organization of the Government. Up to about ten years ago, we had expended $1,652,446 47 for docks. We spent prior to the commencement of the stone dock at New York that amount. We then paid $2,146,255 36 for the stone dock at New York, making, together with what had been previously expended, $3,798,701 83. Thus it appears that previous to 1848 we had spent upwards of three millions of dollars, nearly four millions, for docks. Well, sir, in 1848 this new system commenced. Certain gentlemen had obtained a patent for the kind of dock mentioned in this bill, and we have paid them since that time, $3,078,594. So, sir, we have spent, and given to this particular set of contractors, for this particular kind of dock, in opposition to the decisions of the Navy Department, nearly as much money as has been spent from the time of the organization of the Government us to 1848. We have expended six millions since the commencement of the Government for docks, and of that sum over three millions have been given to these contractors, and that since 1848. These are statistics which are taken from the Navy Department, and I believe them to be correct, and they are unanswerable. position by the Secretary of the Navy. He says that a pier is all that is necessary; and that alone will cost only $50,000. A basin and railway will cost from a inillion to a million and a half. But there is another fact which I wish to bring to the notice of the Senate, to sustain the position which I have assumed. This kind of dry dock has been in use and patented for ten years, and a basin and railway has never been connected with one for the merchant service. This is an unanswerable fact. Merchants never think of making use of the basin and railway. They use a pier, which costs $50,000, instead of a million or a million and a half. These, Mr. President, are the large objections which I have to connecting basins and railways with this dry dock authorized at the last session of Congress. Another thing, Mr. President. This bill not only proposes that these officers should receive their regular pay, but that that pay shall be doubled, and their expenses paid also. Sir, if that is the way you are to pay the officers of the Navy, who receive their pay whether they are on duty or not, I shall be much mistaken. This bill also provides that we are to pay for the land and for the location the amount which may be awarded by a jury in Caufornia. A jury in California is to say not how much the State of California is to pay for the location, but how much the United States is to pay for it. I rather think, sir, that it will be a pretty large sum. It is true that the bill provides that the district attorney shall approve the award, and also that it shall be approved by the Attorney General of the United States. Sir, the district attorney lives in California, and the Attorny General of the United States lives here. The bill also provides for a marine barracks. What necessity is there for a marine barracks in California? How many marines will you have to send there? Sir, we have only about nine or ten hundred marines-perhaps eleven hundred with the officers of a brigade-and we have already a marine barracks at Portsmouth, another at Boston, another at New York, another at Philadelplia, another at Washington, another at Norfolk, and another at Pensacola; and we are to have one more at San Francisco, although we have but eleven hundred mariners, and more than three Mr. President, it is said that it is necessary to have this work for our protection in time of war. In time of war! What nation wants to go to war with us? We fought the battles of the Revo-fourths of them are on board our national vessels. lution with three millions of people; snd we did very well during the war of 1812 with about ten millions, and without these dry docks, basins and railways. We are not about to become armed propagandists, saying to other people, "Come, and adopt our principles and institutions-come, be brethren of ours, or we will cut your throats!" I do not think that is any part of the policy of this Government. Our danger is not from without, but from within. Sir, if this barracks is established at San Francisco, we will not have ten men to put into it. These, however, are objections of minor importance. My main objection is to the amendments proposed to this bill. I object especially to the provisions of the amendment authorizing the construction of a basin and railway in connection with a dry dock. We have expended money enough in constructing docks recently. I have some objection to the details of this bill. They are of minor consideration, it is true; but I will state them. I have already shown that the Secretary of the Navy has informed us that he has already the power to appoint this board of officers to make this location. A navy-yard may be necessary in California. I believe that it is; but we need not provide for the appointment of a board of officers. The Secretary of the Navy now has power to appoint Mr. President, I have stated that these docks are not only unnecessary, but useless. We have a dry dock at Philadelphia. It was to be completed and tested with a ship of the line last June; and what does the Secretary of the Navy inform us? Why, in December he said they had a dredging machine for the purpose of preparing the dock to receive a ship of the line, in order to have it tested. And when it was taken off the hands of the con-them. tractors, notwithstanding the work was so ob-|| structed by want of water, they said, "Give us the money, it is not for us to find water." They, were right in what they said, and were not to blame. Now, what I want to know is, whether a dredging machine will not be constantly necessary there to make the dry dock of any use, and whether it will not be constantly filling up after it is dredged out. Mr. GWIN. I will not continue this debate now. I do not intend to intrude on the private business set apart for this day; but I give notice to the Senate, that if this bill goes over until Monday, I will then call it up, in order that I may have an opportunity of replying to the speech of the Senator from Pennsylvania. If it is the wish of the Senate, I will proceed now; but I do not wish to intrude on this day, which has been set apart for private business. When I do speak, I pledge myself not to leave the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BRODHEAD,] for the argument brought forward this morning, and which has been so laboriously prepared, an inch of ground to stand on; or, if I do not do this, some other member of the Committee on Naval Affairs, much more able than myself to discharge the duty, will. The Senator's speech is a mere rehash of argu I have stated, Mr. President, that more than three millions of dollars have been paid to these contractors for this particular kind of dock, and that, too, within the last three years-since 1848; and I will now give the items in detail. They received for building a dry dock, basin and railway at Kittery, in Maine, $732,915; for building a similar one at Philadelphia, $813,742; for building one at Pensacola, $921.937; and for a floating dry dock alone at San Francisco they are to receivements which have been brought up time and again $610,000, according to the report of the Secretary of the Navy at the present session. Now, sir, it is said that this floating dry dock is useless without a connection with a basin and railway. I deny that statement. I say that basins and railways are entirely unnecessary in connection with a dry dock; and I am sustained in this in opposition to this system, and discredited by both Houses of Congress. Why is it that the Secretary of the Navy should know more in regard to this question than the Congress of the United States, which has laboriously and thoroughly examined this question, and always overruled their views, which, in my opinion, are nar row and contracted in this respect, in regard to our progress in naval affairs? I am prepared to meet and overcome every argument which has been brought forward by the Senator from Pennsylvania; and if this pledge is not redeemed by myself or some other member of the committee, then I expect the bill to be defeated. I will not go into the argument to-day, but it is due to myselfto say, that I am not in the habit, either as a member of this body or as the organ of one of its committees, of connecting my name with any measure which can be so easily overthrown. This bill has been reported from the Committee on Naval Affairs unanimously; and I do not think that a single argument brought forward by the Senator from Pennsylvania is so unanswerable as he seems to think, and as he will find out before the bill is disposed of. Without giving up my right to the floor, I maye that the further consideration of this subject be postponed until Monday. The motion was agreed to. RAILROADS IN IOWA. Mr. JONES, of Iowa. I gave notice yesterday that I should to-day ask the Senate to take up the bill making a grant of land to the State of Iowa, in aid of the construction of certain railroads. At the suggestion of the chairman of the Committee on Public Lands, who is a friend of my bill, and at the suggestion of other friends, as well as in consequence of the general disposition of the Senate to proceed to the consideration of private bills, I will not make that motion; but I desire to give notice that I shall on Monday ask the Senate to take up that bill. I have been assured by gentlemen, friends and opponents of the measure, that when the Senate next takes up the bill, they will dispose of it. NOTARIES PUBLIC. Mr. CHASE. A bill, at its third reading, in relation to notaries public, was yesterday, on my motion, postponed until to-day. I was then acting under the supposition that the bill required an amendment, for I thought it was the same bill which had been passed by the Senate two years ago; but I find, upon inquiry, that the amendment which was proposed last year by the Senator from Georgia, (Mr. BERRIEN,] and then modified on my motion, has been substituted for the bill upon the motion of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I therefore ask that the bill may now be taken up and passed. The bill was accordingly taken up and passed, and its tittle was amended so as to read: "An act to authorize notaries public to take and certify eaths, affirmations, and acknowledgments, in certain cases," ENUMERATION OF FIRE-ARMS. On motion by Mr. CASS, it was Ordered, That the report of the Secretary of War, made the 25th of February, 1851, exhibiting the number of firearms belonging to the United States, be printed. CLAIM FOR THE OCCUPATION OF KEY WEST. general law. I can see no reason which shows The bill proposes to refer to the accounting offi- under this bill. But the bill goes further. It does profess to point out a rule for the ascertainment of damages, which is, in one branch of it, correct. The bill says that, in the settlement of this claim upon the principles of justice and equity," they shall ascertain, as nearly as practicable, the benefits and advantages which accrued to the United States from 'the occupancy of it; and also the injury which ' resulted to the owners of it; and to pay the same out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated." Is that a sound principle for the assessment of damages, taken altogether? I would ask the Senate, Was such a mode of the assessment of damages ever before heard of, as this first part of direction, that the accounting officers are to ascertain the amount of damages to these parties upon the principle of the advantage to the United States from the occupation of the island? 6 I submit that it is no true measure of damages recognizable on any principle either in the case of an individual or in the case of the Government. The bill, therefore, in point of form, in my judg ment, enacts an unsound rule for ascertaining the damage sustained by the party, and that, being unsound in principle, it ought not to be retained in the bill. Secondly, I am opposed to the bill on the ground that it gives a discretionary power to ascertain damages under, as I have said, a false rule; but whether with or without the rule, that discretionary power ought not to be given. If we are to compensate these parties for the injuries they have sustained, let Congress do it; but as long as Congress refuse to establish a tribunal by which claims against the United States can be properly adjudicated, and settled upon some recog nized and known principles, there can be no rea son for making these the exceptional ones to the action of Congress in reference to a general prin ciple. On either ground I am opposed to this bill in its present form; and unless it is put into a dif ferent shape, I shall oppose it on these grounds; but waiving these objections, I will now proceed to state my objections to the claim for relief on which the bill is founded. I have had my attention called to the bill in consequence of the mode in which the damages were directed by it to be estimated, and I have taken the trouble to read over all the papers which are printed, with the report of the committee in the previous report of the committee of the House of Representatives. The conclusion that my judg ment has come to from this examination is, that this is a speculative claim from the beginning to the end; that the parties who have prepared it (and they have prepared it well) have done it on a speculation upon the Government, and that there is no just claim against the United States for a single dollar. It appears that in 1821, Simonton, who resided in Havana, knowing (and I presume that he knew it, for the papers are very indefinite in their information on many points) that he could probably obtain an old Spanish grant in the hands of a man by the name of Salas, on the 7th of De-i cember, of that year, addressed a communication to the Government, (whether or not to the Naval Department does not appear,) calling their atten tion to the importance of Key West, then a desolate and uninhabited island, as a naval station. He did not do this as the owner-not as a claimant -not as a person having any individual interest, No such principle has ever obtained in reference but with a view to the benefit of the country; and to the United States, nor could it in justice obtain. within thirty days after he had sent this notice to The benefit of the United States is not a source of the Government, which they immediately acted injury to the claimants. If the United States take upon by surveying it, he purchased it. This was the property of a citizen for any purpose what- at the time when there were a great many pirates ever, though that purpose may prove fruitless, in the neighborhood of the West Indies who and though it may be a wasteful and extravagant preyed upon our commerce. Within thirty days expenditure on their part, they are bound to com- after he had done this, he purchased from Salas, pensate him to the extent of his loss. But on for two thousand dollars, his Spanish grant. The what principle is it that, because it may become papers in the case show that there was a contest in reference to titles between the Governor, important to the United States to take possession of private property, the United States are to make Gidney, of South Carolina, and Mr. Simonton. compensation according to the benefit which they None of these titles had been acknowledged under received, as well as according to the injury of the the treaty of Florida-none of them had been proparty? The value of the property, the real dam-duced. There was no law till 1832 to authorize age to the party, should be the sole measure of the injury in every case. Take a common illustration of this: In almost all the States there are internal The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill for the relief of John W. Simonton. It provides that the proper accounting officer of the Treasury, under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy, audit and settle the claim of John W. Simonton and others, owners of the island of Key West, Florida, upon prin-improvements, railroads, which are made by railciples of justice and equity, on account of its occupancy by the Government of the United States as a naval and military post during the years 1823, 1824, 1825, and 1826; and that in settling it upon these principles they shall ascertain, as nearly as practicable, the benefits and advantages which accrued to the United States from the occupancy of it; and also the injuries which resulted to the owners of it; and to pay the same out of any money not otherwise appropriated. Mr. BAYARD. Mr. President, I feel myself compelled to oppose this bill. I object to it on account of its form, and also on the ground that the claim itself is utterly worthless, and forms no just demand against the United States. I shall endeavor to show satisfactory reasons for my oppo sition to this bill. I object to the form of this on this ground: Congress has uniformly adhered to the determination not to establish a board, or court of claims, or any tribunal for the purpose of deciding upon claims made against the United States. Yet this bill is intended to effect, in a particular case, what you have refused to pass as a road laws, for the incorporating of individuals company. any adjudication upon them. As to possession, the evidence is exceedingly imperfect. The United States in 1822 had a survey made of the island under Commodore Perry, and left there a guard with a view to the protection of the Island, which was then, and had been hitherto, according to that officer, a resort for smugglers and pirates, and utterly unsafe as a residence. Being found to be admirable for the purposes indicated in this com munication, the Government subsequently, in 1823, directed Commodore Porter to establish a naval depôt and barracks there, when he was put in command of the squadron for the purpose of suppressing piracy in these seas. Under these orders he made the establishment, and he reported that he had so made it in April, 1823. Immediately there commenced a scene of constant disputes between the commanding officer and the alleged owners of the land, whose title had not yet been established, and was not established until 1825. These disputes were in reference to their rights in relation to a plan of the town, and in reference to the preparations alleged to have been made by them for the purpose of carrying on the manufac ture of salt. There were various other difficulties existing between them. They alleged that Commodore Porter exercised arbitrary power as to the |