Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

It is to have this communication from the Governor, or Chief Magistrate, of the independent State and Kingdom of Hungary, and the imbodiment of the very principles of republicanism throughout the world, in our Congressional documents, to be handed down to posterity in company with communications of a similar kind which

come to the Senate.

Mr. CASS. I am not going to argue this question at all, particularly on the issue made by the honorable Senator from North Carolina. This communication, as I understand it, is simply a letter of thanks from this gentleman to Congress for inviting him here. It is sent to us in the most modest and proper language. All that is proposed is, that we should show, upon our record, that we have received it, and given it that respect to which it is entitled. As the issue now is, to refuse to print it, is to reject it, and throw contempt upon the man. That I am not disposed to do.

Mr. BUTLER. I recollect that when the oposition was before the Senate to welcome Louis Kossuth, it was expressly disclaimed that it was with any view to address the Senate of the United States. It was to place it upon a parallel with the reception of Lafayette, which was a very high honor, I confess. I now understand this gentleman to have written to the President. So far as it was a private communication to the President of the United States, returning his thanks for honors which had been shown him by this Government and the people of the United States, there could be no objection to it; but when the President thinks proper to send a communication of that kind to the Senate, it is allowing this gentleman-Mr. Kossuth-to address himself indirectly to the Senate of the United States, and, so far as this proceeding will do it, to obtain the sanction of this body, impliedly, to the doctrines set forth in that paper; for it is not a simple expression of his return of thanks to this body.

Mr. BADGER. By no means.

Mr. BUTLER. It must not go out with any such understanding. If it had been of that kind, I presume it would never have found its way here. If it had been a simple, modest return of thanks to the President of the United States, we would never have heard of that paper. But it is the vehicle, under the name of returning thanks to this Government, of the doctrine of this gentleman, and so far as we give our sanction to it, we are called upon to do it. In other words, we are called upon to take this paper from this ex-Governor, or gentleman who claims to be the Governor of a foreign country, and place it upon our archives as one of the documents of the Senate.

Mr. BADGER. It is a political paper. Mr. BUTLER. It is a political paper to all intents and purposes. What effect it may have upon the public mind of the United States, or of Europe, I know not. But the object is, disguise it as gentlemen may, to send it forth with all the indorsement and imposing sanction that can be imparted to it by this body. It is not a simple return of thanks, as the Senator from Michigan calls it.

Mr. CASS. I did not intend to say another word. But, really, it seems to me to be a new idea, that because we print a paper, we advocate the sentiments contained in it.

Mr. BUTLER. I did not say so. Mr. CASS. I understood that that was the intimation of the honorable Senator.

Mr. BUTLER. Very far from it. I attempted to be very explicit, and I said that this gentleman wanted this to be sent forth, by implication, under the sanction of this body. I did not say that, if we print it, we sanction the doctrines contained in it. I dare say some gentlemen are very willing to adopt them. I am not.

Mr. CHASE. Mr. President, when this communication was received yesterday by the Senate, it was addressed to you, as the President of this body. By yourself, as President, it was laid before us. It was read to the Senate, after the question upon reading had been put by the Chair, without objection. And then a motion was made by myself, that it should by printed; which went, in its regular course, and without objection, to the Committee on Printing. The Committee on Printing, this morning, has reported in favor of printing this document, and now, if the Senate refuse to print it, it will be taken as an act of discourtesy. I do not say that such will be

the motive that will prompt Senators to vote against the printing; but it will be so taken throughout the country. I did not participate to any extent in the debates which arose in regard to the welcome reception of this distinguished man; but I know the sentiment which animates a large portion of the people of this country in regard to him. I know the sentiment which animates, especially, the people of my own State. They have received him with distinctions and honors, which have never before been paid to mortal man, but Lafayette. And, in that, sir, let me say, they have simply imitated the example of this Senate, which paid to him honors which it never before paid to any other man but Lafayette.

Mr. CLEMENS. Did not the Ohio Legislature refuse to pay his expenses?

Mr. CHASE. They did not: and I am happy that an occasion is presented for the contradiction of that rumor. And now, when this distinguished exile returns to us, modestly and courteously, his thanks for the honor we have done him, and the committee which has charge of this matter reports in favor of printing his communication, can we do less than print it? It seems to me that we can do nothing less, without discourtesy.. I am therefore in favor of printing. And I am in favor of it for another reason. Because I would take every opportunity legitimately offering itself to avow my sympathy with that man and his mission, and my concurrence in the great general principles which he proclaims in the hearing of the American people. I think it is proper, Mr. President, since this question has assumed the shape it has, to renew the call for the yeas and nays on the motion to print.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will take occasion to say, in consequence of the remarks of the honorable Senator from Ohio, that the communication was not addressed to the Presiding Officer of the Senate. There was a letter received from Louis Kossuth, addressed to me, and which he requested me to lay before the Senate, enclosing a communication which he had made to the President of the United States. He was informed, he says, by the Secretary of State, that that was not the proper course to be pursued, and that the President could not communicate it to Congress; and, in consequence of that information, as he states in his letter to me, and on advice from the Secretary of State, that he should adopt the course of addressing it to the Presiding Officers of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, he did so. 1 hesitated for some time with regard to my duty to lay such a paper before the Senate. But, on consulting with others, I thought it was the best course to pursue.

Mr. BADGER. If there is any implication of discourtesy to Louis Kossuth in the Senate's refusing to print this document, the disrespect, I think, must be fairly attributable to the Senator from Ohio. When these papers were offered here yesterday, and read, everything was done with respect to them which was necessary to prevent any manifestation of disrespect on the part of the Senate. He thought proper, however, to make a motion to print the papers. They are of a character which the Senate is not in the habit of printing; and I believe the Senate has never received such papers before. We have papers laid upon our tables every morning by dozens, that nobody ever thinks of moving to print. But the Senator from Ohio, in his zeal to reflect the enthusiasm of his State in favor of Louis Kossuth, is not content with the papers being presented and read, but he moves to print them. Under the rules of the Senate, the motion was referred to the Committee on Printing. The Committee on Printing, animated, I suppose, by the same favorable disposition towards the enthusiasm which has sprung up in this country toward this great military chieftain, or warrior-but who, my friend from Alabama said the other day, was not great at fighting-report back the motion, and recommend that the Senate concur in it. Now, I say, that as there was, in my judgment, no propriety in the original motion to print, as it is not in accordance, as I think, with the usages of the Senate to print such papers-as the case is of a description peculiar and unusual in our proceedings-there is no disrespect offered to the person in question by refusing to print them. But if there be any disrespect, it is brought upon us by no action of the

Senate at all, but in consequence of the motion made by the Senator from Ohio. For my own part, I wish that the records could be kept, as far as possible, clear of any further proceedings respecting this gentleman.

Mr. SEWARD. I have voted against the proposition to lay this motion on the table, and I shall vote for the printing of this communication. I was influenced, and am influenced, by considerations of respect and courtesy toward the distinguished personage from whom it proceeds. But I am influenced more by a consideration of the self-respect which I think the Senate owes to itself. The Congress of the United States, at a time interesting to the friends of liberty and free government throughout the world, sent a national ship to bring this personage from Europe to our shores. On his arrival here, the Congress of the United States, in the name, and in behalf of the American people, bade him welcome to the capital. He came here, and was received by Congress. Upon his departing, he addressed to the Congress a respectful note through the President of the United States; but formalities of etiquette prevented the President from sending it to Congress, and it is now respectfully submitted by the gentleman himself to Congress. It seems to me that a refusal to receive it can do no injury to him, but may impair our own self-respect. It is but courteous, under all the circumstances, to give a respectful congé to our guest. Congress having received this person as a guest, it appears to me, only acquits itself of an ordinary act of hospitality by receiving this communication. Under these circumstances, without at all referring to the contents of the paper, or to the manner of the paper, I think it is our duty to receive it. I see nothing objectionable in the communication; but if there was, courtesy, under all the circumstances, would seem to make it our duty to receive it, however objectionable it might be.

Mr. RUSK. Did I understand the Chair to say, that this communication was not addressed to the Presiding Officer of the Senate?

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will state again what is the true state of the case. The paper proposed to be printed, was addressed to the President of the United States. The Secretary of State, by letter, (as Louis Kossuth informs me in a letter, dated at Cincinnati,) informed him that the President declined to communicate it to the two Houses of Congress, as it was not exactly in accordance with usage; and he suggested to him the propriety of sending it to the Presiding Officers of the two Houses; in consequence of which he addressed a letter to me, stating this fact, and asking me to present it to the Senate. I presented the letter addressed to me by Louis Kossuth, together with the paper which was addressed to the President of the United States, and which the President had declined to lay before Congress, and had so notified Louis Kossuth through the Secretary of State.

Mr. SEWARD. Here is the letter, dated Cincinnati, Ohio, February 14, 1852, and addressed to the Hon. Wm. R. King, President of the Senate. It sets forth, that on the 12th of January, Kossuth addressed a letter to the President of the United States, and requested him to communicate it to Congress; and a copy of that letter is annexed to his communication to the President of the Senate, under the advisement of the Secretary of State. I will read that part of his letter:

"Not initiated into the diplomatic forms of the United States, I respectfully directed my farewell to his Excellency the President, and requested him to communicate my assurance of everlasting gratitude to the Senate and the House of Representatives.

"The Secretary of State had since the great kindness to inform me, though his letter has reached me but recently, that my request in respect to the communication would have been gladly complied with, if it were consistent with the accepted forms; and he suggested it to me, as a more appropriate way, to send copies of my address to the Presidents of the Senate and of the House.

"It is upon this suggestion of the Secretary of State that I have now the great honor to inclose the feeble expression of my everlasting gratitude and hope, with the request to have it communicated to the august body of which you are the President.

"Mr. President of the Senate, your most humble and devout servant, L. KOSSUTH."

Mr. BUTLER. I wish to bring to the view of the Senate a remark made by this gentleman in the first paragraph of his letter to the Presiding Officer of this body. He says:

"Before I left Washington city, I felt myself bound by

gratitude to return my warmest thanks to the Government and the Congress of the United States, for their generous patronage they had so kindly granted to me as to the humble representative of my country."

He speaks of our having received him as "the humble representative of his country." He has assumed, in that letter to us-what I did not intend, by any vote of mine, to do-that we recognized him as an official representative, or any otherwise as a representative, or that he had any country, contradistinguished from the one which exists under the Government of Austria. But, I suppose this gentleman has served his purposes very well, and has, in soine measure, subserved the purposes of others, by being a political agitaAnd it is in that point of view that he commends himself, I have no doubt, to many who vote for this.

tor.

The Senator from Ohio undertakes to say, that if we refuse to print this communication, it will be a discourtesy. Allow me to say, that when gentlemen make imprudent issues, and we are not disposed to sustain them and their issues, the retort is immediately made: If you do not do so and so, which we have tendered, and which ought not to be done, the reproach falls upon those who oppose imprudent motions of this kind, if you choose to call them so. It was an unusual thing to make a proposition to print a paper of this kind. It was an unusual paper. And if it did not come from Louis Kossuth, with all the associations connected with his doctrines and his name, I answer for it, that no such motion would

have been made. Gentlemen cannot disguise the fact from the country, that the object of this motion is to give importance to this gentleman's mission, and, as far as a vote will go to do it, to indorse his doctrines and to fortify his sentiments. I cannot, consistenly with my regard for the dignity of this body, undertake to admit the opinions, much less sanction the interference-for interference it is of this foreigner.

stand in this attitude: That we have invited Louis
Kossuth here; that we have received him with hos-
pitality; and that now, when he wants to make
his bow, and proposes to take his leave, we tell
him he shall not make his bow and take his leave,
but that we will kick him out. How does that
present the state of the case now before the Sen-
ate? I thought he had been here. I thought he
had been received, and that he made his bow. I
was not here on that occasion, but I suppose he
desired to make his bow, and I am sure that am-
ple opportunity was allowed him to make his bow;
that he was allowed to retire out of the Senate;
and that he was neither hurried nor kicked out.

He now sends us a letter which he calls a letter of
thanks. Assume it to be a letter of thanks. We
have received, we have read it. And the honora-
ble Senator says it is equivalent to kicking him
out, when he wants to make his bow, if we do not

in this whole matter; and I am fearful it respects || things with which the Senate has nothing to do, and with which it ought not to occupy itself.

[ocr errors]

print and preserve it among the archives of the country. It seems to me that that is a very strange interpretation of the matter. No incivility has been offered to this man. The Senate has received this paper, and it has been read at the desk. And it is said that we are now offering an indignity to him, equivalent to kicking him out, when he wants to make his bow and take his leave, because we object to printing the paper he has sent to us. We have not yet quite done what is incumbent upon us in this matter, and what I am ready to do at any moment; that is, to pay the expenses incurred by his reception here. But it seems to me to be making a most extravagant caricature of the position we occupy on this subject, to say that because we do not wish the communication to be printed, we are offering the indignity of refusing to let the gentleman make his bow and depart. I assure my honorable friend from Louisiana that no man in this country is more heartily willing to let him make his bow and take his leave of us and of this country, now and forever, than I am. 1 would instantly withdraw all objection to the printMr. DOWNS. I have not entered into any dis-ing, if the withdrawal and the printing would have cussion in relation to Kossuth; and I do not think that very salutary effect. I have any extreme opinions on any side of the question: but it really seems to me astonishing that opposition should be made to printing this document. The honorable Senator from North Carolina [Mr. BADGER] thinks it is not such a document as it is usual to print. I would like that gentleman to say what the rule is on that subject?-what particular kind of documents is it confined to? It seems to me, that, instead of there being any technical rule on the subject, it is customary for the Senate to order such documents to be printed as they think will be useful, and ought to be preserved in the archives of the nation. We often print memorials, resolutions from State Legislatures, and many other documents containing facts worthy of preservation. Without giving any opinion as to the course of Kossuth, or anything connected with his visit to the United States, I must say that his visit, his reception and course here, form an interesting event in our history. Without expressing any approbation of his course, or any opinion in regard to it, I think it is but right and fair, when he is taking leave of us, that we should order to be printed and put on record his response. I do not feel myself responsible for anything he has said, if he has said improper things; but this is a part of the history of this transaction; and I cannot conceive why the honorable Senator from North Carolina [Mr. BADGER] and the honorable Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER] should be so sensitive on this subject. They seem to be actuated by a kind of hydrophobia, as if everything relating to Kossuth had something injurious and poisonous about it. It seems to me, that if there is such deadly venom in everything connected with Kossuth, these two gentlemen ought to have discovered it a long while since; for we have been talking and speaking about Kossuth for half the session. We invited him here; we have had him among us; we extended to him the hospitalities of the nation; and now, when he appears in our midst to make his bow, are we to say that we will not accept it, but that we will shove him out of doors, and tell him he has no business here? That I take to be the position of the honorable gentleman.

Mr. BORLAND. I have found it exceedingly difficult to accommodate my actions here to the wishes, I will not say caprice, of the particular friends of Mr. Kossuth. I certainly, from the beginning, had no intention or wish to treat him with disrespect; but on the contrary, to treat him with very great respect. To show that I did so, I myself introduced a resolution, which I thought a proper one, recognizing him as the guest of the nation; inviting him here to the capital; providing for his welcome when he got here; and I went a step further, and in order to complete the whole business at once, and to make it substantial as well as formal, I provided in that resolution to pay || the expenses which might be incurred in consequence of his reception. How was that proposition received? I was told by the peculiar friends of Mr. Kossuth-particularly by one gentleman who seemed to have him in special charge, and who on that occasion seemed to consider himself the es

Mr. BADGER. I think my honorable friend from Louisiana would find it very difficult to make out his proposition He says that those of us who are opposed to printing this communication

pecial guardian of Kossuthi's honor and wishes,
in this country-that I had offered a monstrous in-
dignity, and grossly insulted Mr. Kossuth by men-
tioning money in connection with his name, in
order to pay his expenses. I find, however, that
other friends of Mr. Kossuth have since brought
forward, in a separate form, the proposition which I
then made, and which I was anxious should be
adopted then. I did not wish to have this indi-
vidual before us so often. I thought those who
had due regard for his reputation would rather
preserve it, by not allowing him to come before
the public so often as to become so common as to
cease to be interesting. I wanted to treat him
with respect, and to provide for meeting the ex-
penses which might be incurred in consequence of
treating him with respect. I wished to dispose of

the whole matter at once, and be done with it.
Although I was then charged with treating him
with disrespect, because I provided for taking care
of him and paying for him in a substantial way,
I am now charged, and others who agree with me
are charged, with treating him with disrespect in
another way-because we will not consider him
further. It was disrespectful to provide for his
respectful treatment; and now we are treating him
with disrespect because we are unwilling to have
any more to do with him. And one Senator has
told us that the self-respect of the Senate requires
this. I am afraid there is too much "respect"

Mr. CLEMENS. 1 cannot say, as many of those who have preceded me have said, that I have had nothing heretofore to say about this man, Kossuth. I have had a good deal to say about him; and I shall have a good deal more to say. There is a little resolution lying upon the table, very innocent upon its face, about which I shall have a good deal to say when it comes up for consideration. I shall then draw a parallel between the action of the Senate on two different occasions. I shall remind the Senate that, just a few days before the adoption of their first resolution upon this subject, a poor old woman, the only child of a revolutionary soldier, came here and asked for bread to support the little remnant of her exist ence, and you gave her a stone. Now it is proposed to pay to this man and his suite more money for Champagne and Burgundy, drank in one day, than would have supported that poor old widow double the remnant of her life. But that is not the question on which I wish now to speak.

I want to know the use of printing this letter. What use are we to put it to? How are we to use it? In what manner is it to be employed? The Senator from Louisiana asks, by what rule are we governed in ordering the printing of public documents? Why, we are governed by one plain, unvarying rule; and that is, when a document is presented here, upon which the action of the Senate is required, it is printed for the use of the Senate; it is printed to enable us to act understandingly on matters submitted to our consideration; and for no other purpose. Is it proposed to take any action upon this letter? Not at all. Why, then, is it to be printed? For our information? Why, all of us, who ever intended to read it, have read it long ago. All of us who chose to swallow its doctrines, have swallowed them long since. We all know every word that is to be printed and laid upon our tables. Then it is not for information; it is not for the purpose of enabling us to act understandingly upon the subject; but it is for some other purpose. What is that purpose? As a mark of respect? We have paid him all the respect he deserved; yea, more, in my opinion, than a hundred such men deserve. We have gone to the utmost limit in that respect. We have paid him the same honor which we paid to Lafayette; and respect can go no further. There is still another thing sought to be accomplished. It is to commit this Senate to the opinions and doctrines which have been advanced by him. I shall engage in no such business. And let me warn those gentlemen who are so exceedingly anxious now to make capital out of this Kossuth humbug, that it is a dead humbug, and cannot be galvanized into life. The man, or the party, who shall connect himself or itself with it, will go down as certainly as that the sun will rise to-morrow. It is a dead humbug, and cannot be galvanized into life.

Mr. DOWNS. If the humbug is dead, as the gentleman supposes, why is it that gentlemen oppose so strenuously this motion to print? It is not quite so dead, as some of them seem to suppose. As to the effect of a refusal to print the document which is now before us, the Senator from North Carolina and myself are not perhaps likely to agree; but notwithstanding the ingenious manner in which he has replied to my suggestion, I think it will be considered pretty much in the light I viewed it. There are some few circumstances connected with this subject which I did not think it was necessary to mention before, but to which I will now call the attention of the Senate. One is this: Gentlemen were so very cautious in the admission of Kossuth, in the programme of of dumb show. No opportunity of reply or adarrangements on that occasion, that it was a sort dress was given to him. He had no opportunity of returning his thanks in the usual way at the time of his reception. It seems to me that we ought to give him some opportunity of returning his thanks for the hospitalities tendered to him.

Another circumstance which shows that to refuse to print this communication would be a refusal to receive his bow at departing, is the fact that it was addressed to the President of the United States before Kossuth left this city. It was written here in Washington city before he departed. This shows that it was his parting bow. Let the gentleman from North Carolina construe it as he will,

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

this is the response of Kossuth, on his leaving Washington, to the hospitalities extended to him while he was here. And I say again, that if the ordinary course which is adopted when documents are presented here which are supposed to be interesting and which it would be useful to pseserve, is not pursued with regard to this communication, it will be considered that we treat Kossuth with discourtesy.

As to the subject to which the Senator from Alabama has referred, when it comes up, it will be a matter for separate consideration. I do not now pretend to say what course I shall pursue on that subject; but I can very well conceive that the question involved in that resolution is very different from that now before the Senate.

Mr. CHASE. In submitting this motion, I had not the slightest idea that I was about to give occasion to a protracted debate; nor in the suggestions which I made, did I suppose I was giving just occasion to any one to say, that I charged the Senators who opposed this motion with intentional discourtesy. But when it is asked, what is the use of printing this document? I answer, that the use of it is to complete the record; it is to fulfill the obligations which the Senate took upon itself, when it determined to welcome this illustrious man. We have received him; we have paid him honors. He now returns to us his grateful acknowledgments. The communication in which he imbodies them, was addressed originally to the President of the United States. By the President, through the Secretary of State, he was informed that the President, in the ordinary course, cannot transmit such a document to the Senate. He then, || upon the suggestion of the Secretary of State, inclosed it to the Chair. The Chair received it. It was read to the Senate, and then the Senator from North Carolina, with that manner for which he is so remarkable-which gives point and force to censure and satire, conveyed in the language of commendation and praise-took occasion to say, that as we had all heard the document read, and as it had no doubt duly impressed upon all a profound sense of the importance of the subject which it discussed, and the sentiments which it promulga ted, he would move that it lie upon the table. It then seemed to me due to courtesy, due to our own self-respect, that this document should be printed. I therefore made the motion to print. I am glad to find that the majority of the Committee on Printing concurred with me in opinion.

Mr. President, I do not wish to discuss the principles which have been advanced by this illustrious man. They are before the country. The people are thinking of them, and they will decide whether or not the requests which he makes of the American people, and through the American people of their representatives, is reasonable and ought to be granted. Other occasions will arise when those questions can be properly discussed. The Senator from Alabama says that Kossuth has already received more honors than he has deserved. That is a question between that honorable Senator and a very large portion of the people of the United States. I am much mistaken if it does not turn out to be a question between the honorable Senator and history itself. But be that as it may, I shall not go into the discussion now. In moving to print this document all that I have asked of the Senate is simply that they will close the record of the transactions connected with the welcome and reception of Kossuth in the most appropriate manner, by receiving with attention and respect the parting words of the gentleman whom they have chosen to honor.

Mr. RUSK. I do not intend to engage in this discussion; but I must say that it seems to me that this man Kossuth is a little like Falstaff about wit; he has not only a good deal of talk in himself, but he is the cause of talk in others. I have had nothing to do with this matter from the beginning, because I thought we had business enough of our own to attend to without attending to Hungary and Kossuth, and I was very anxious to get up a bill this morning of some importance. I shall vote against the printing of this letter, for I do not know how many more will follow it. I believe I have voted against everything of this kind hitherto, and I am strongly tempted to change my course and vote for this motion, on the ground on which this matter is put by the honorable Senator from Michigan, as a specimen of the modesty of Kossuth. As that is a scarce article, and this is

a rare specimen of it, I have a great mind to change my opinion. But as I am anxious to be done with this whole matter, I believe I shall still vote against the motion.

Mr. BADGER. The Senator from Ohio has referred to a remark which I made yesterday, at the conclusion of the reading of the letter of Kossuth, that inasmuch as it had been read and listened to with profound attention by the Senate, unless the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Cass,] or the Senator from New York, [Mr. SEWARD,] or the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS,] desired some reference of it, I would move to lay it on the table. Why, my remark was perfectly well understood by every gentleman in the Chamber and in the galleries. My meaning was this: that although this paper was directed to be read by the Senate, so far as I could judge there were not half a dozen members of the body who paid the slightest attention to its reading, thus manifesting beyond all dispute that the reading of the paper was a mere idle ceremony, and that nobody here wanted to hear it. That is what I meant. And now permit me to say, that I consider the motion to print as standing precisely on the footing of the proceeding to read. Nobody cares one copper about the printing of this paper. No one supposes it is worth one chincapin now or hereafter to the American people. It is to be printed for other purposes and other ends.

A word now with regard to the remark of my friend from Louisiana, that there are some considerations to which I have not adverted which would

perhaps induce a different view of the propriety of printing this document, and lead me to believe with him that a refusal to print it would be an indignity. I wish merely to remind the Senator, that in reference to Kossuth's reception on this floor, it was arranged by a committee of very distinguished gentlemen who had charge of that subject, to put it precisely on the footing of the reception of General Lafayette. General Lafayette, when introduced into the Senate, did not open his mouth. He was simply introduced by the Presiding Officer, took the seat assigned to him, and the Senate adjourned, and he was introduced to its members in their private and individual capacities. The committee resolved to preserve a precise accordance with what had taken place in the reception of General Lafayette in this Chamber. Now, surely doing that cannot be tortured into discourtesy to Louis Kossuth. Surely he sets up no higher claims to the admiration and gratitude of the American people than General Lafayette. For what should we admire him more? Has he higher and nobler qualities than one of the most gallant and noble men that ever sprung from a nation of gallant and noble men? Has he any greater claims on our gratitude? What has he done for us? Nothing. He has come here and lectured our people, and through them he has lectured us in order to give us a new edition of political rules by which our conduct with foreign Powers is to be regulated. It seems to me he can have no claim upon us either for admiration or gratitude higher than Lafayette. Did General Lafayette send a letter to the Senate? Was any letter of his printed?

Mr. DOWNS. I would ask the gentleman whether, if there had been a letter from Lafayette, its printing would have been refused?

Mr. BADGER. I will not make such a supposition with respect to General Lafayette, because it would suppose General Lafayette to be deficient of a quality which he possessed in an eminent degree. He was a gentleman of real merit and real modesty. He was not disposed to thrust himself in with his political opinions, lectures, or dissertations, on what he thought ought to be the policy of this country, by letters addressed to the public authorities, or speeches made to the people. He behaved in that transaction of his life as he did in every other. It was the middle of his life, suitable to its commencement, and harmonizing gloriously with its termination-always able, patriotic, brave, and modest.

Mr. DOWNS. If there is anything in this document calculated to be construed into a lecture, then I concede it would not be improper to oppose its printing. But I am sure that there is no such thing in the letter before us.

Mr. BADGER. I can point out one at once. In that letter he states that the United States had sent "a steam frigate to Asia in order to restore

me to liberty and activity." We all know that the correspondence of the Executive Department of this Government directed the representation on which his release was to be asked of the Sultan to be, that the object was to bring him here as a settler among us, as an emigrant, and to remove him from activity and power for political agitation. Mr. DOWNS. It was not intended to confine him when he got here.

Mr. BADGER. No, sir; but I suppose the honorable Senator knows what Kossuth means by being restored to activity. He means that we intended to restore him to liberty, and not to a quiet retreat in this country, but to activity as a political agitator. His conduct here shows the interpretation which he means to attach to the

term.

Mr. DOWNS. Even if the sentence to which the Senator from North Carolina takes exception bears the interpretation which he gives it, still it does not amount to a lecture. It is a mere statement of his impression of the transaction. I hope the gentleman will not consider Kossuth as delivering a lecture, because he takes a different view of that transaction.

a

Mr. BADGER. It is not the true view.

Mr. SOULE. We are exhibiting, I should think, Mr. President, a very unusual, and certainly a most uncalled-for, degree of susceptibility with respect to the motion now before the Senate. What does it aim at? Simply at the printing of communication which was transmitted on yesterday to this body through the medium of its Presiding Officer. The communication itself emanates from the distinguished individual whom, by previous resolves, this Senate, acting in conjunction with the House of Representatives, had constituted and proclaimed as the guest of the American people; and the question arises whether or not that communication shall be printed. Let us consider on what grounds is the motion to print resisted. From the remarks that have fallen from the lips of certain Senators, it would seem as if the printing of the document in which the communication is contained was to impart to that communication a character involving us in high and momentous responsibilities, and indeed making the advocates of the measure personally accountable for the opinions and doctrines which the document may contain. Sir, it is now clear, and I will not dispute with those who may choose to deny it, that such can be neither the bearing nor the effect of our action on the proposition upon your table. We give it not any sanction. We print it, and that is all. What may be the judgment which the present generation will pass upon the merits and worth of the illustrious exile, and what rank will be awarded to him in history among the apostles and martyrs of the cause in the defence of which he is pouring out his whole soul, it is not for me now to investigate and determine. That question will have its day, and shall in time be met. But I can hardly conceive that we should at this moment inquire what be the character that gives Kossuth any right to address the country, and to address us on the occasion which has elicited this document. Sir, he came not an uninvited and unknown wanderer to our shores. He came hith

er by the wishes of the American people, signified to the world through their constituted organ, the Government; and it were more than strange, indeed, if after you had reclaimed him from exile, and welcomed him to your land, to your capital, to the very halls of your parliament, you should now deny him the privilege of returning thanks for the hospitality and the honors you were thus pleased, and with lavish hands, indeed, to bestow upon him. What can be the object of such a denial? Senators admit that it is no longer in our power to blot out of our recorded proceedings the dreaded document. It went to the Journal on yesterday upon being read by your Secretary, and there it must remain, in spite of the fate which may await this motion. Sir, allow me to say that it would be past strange in us to minister such an undignified rebuke to our former proceedings. To those who can see but a dead humbug in the document upon your table, and in those monuments of burning eloquence that have roused hundreds of thousands of our people to an enthusiasm approaching almost to frenzy, I would ask leave to say, Why should that dead humbug move you out of propriety and moderation? Fear you that the lurid carcass may haunt you at night, and dis

turb the quiet of your dreams? Sir, I am an unbeliever in the power of ghosts to do mischief. There are others who apprehend danger from the influence which may be exercised over our future destinies by the doctrines which have been lately, and are still now, proclaimed by that inspired missionary of freedom, and who presume that it may be in their power, through the negative virtue of a dissenting vote, to stem that torrent of thought and of wild wisdom, as some would call it, which is now flooding the land. Let me tell them to be composed and resigned. It were in vain-yes, in vain-that they would attempt to compress the surges of the popular sentiment. They will rise in spite of their efforts to avert a fantastic danger. Sir, it is idle to struggle against public opinion. The exists not that can isolate the policy of power this Government from the conscience of the nation. I shall vote for the printing.

Mr. CLEMENS. The Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. SOULE,] is totally mistaken as to the grounds taken by the opposition to this measure. He says that some of us have denounced it as a dead humbug. I did say so, and I say so again. That is my opinion. But no one has intimated here, as the Senator from Louisiana seems to suppose, that there was danger of the sentiments contained in that letter creating an unwholesome state of feeling in the public mind. No one has been foolish enough to intimate anything of that sort. There is not a sentence in the letter, there is not an idea advanced in it, which has not been published over and over again; which has not been strewed from one end of this Union to the other. There is nothing in it which can do harm; or if there is, the harm has been done already. Like the Senator from Louisiana, I am willing to trust to the people. I am willing to trust even to the first impulse of the great mass of the people. I do not require that you should wait even for the sober second thought. Collect the people of this Union together, and let them vote this day, and there is not one twentieth part of them would sustain the doctrines Kossuth has advanced.

It is from no apprehension either of the people or of Louis Kossuth, that we have opposed the printing of this communication. The Senator has misunderstood us entirely. What we do contend for is, that there is no necessity for the printing of this document; that it does not distribute information. He does not ask us to distribute it among the people. We are asked to print it for our own information. Who of us will be informed by it? Who of us does not know every word that it contains? What have we to dread by its publication and its distribution here in this Senate Chamber?

This is an unnecessary expenditure of the public

money. This printing is useless. It is for no object. It is a waste of the public money, and that is the ground of the objection which has been urged against it.

Whatever might be my feelings towards this individual; whether 1 entertained for him a very high or a very low degree of respect, I should still oppose the printing of this communication. It is what Lafayette never asked. It is something unusual, out of the course of business, without an object, I cannot comprehend it. What are we to do with the document after it is printed? You do not propose to print enough to distribute through the country. You communicate no information to the country. You simply lay it on your own desks and require the Committee on Printing to incur the expense of furnishing you with the information which has already been furnished over and over again. That is the objection to it. I have no fear of any consequences which may flow from it. We cannot suppress it if we

desired to do so. We do not want to suppress it. I want it to go abroad through the land." I want every freeman in this Republic to read this letter. If some of them have been deluded heretofore, I think it will go very far towards banishing their delusion.

The question was then taken on the motion to print, and it was determined in the affirmativeyeas 21, nays 20; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bright, Broadhead, Cass, Chase, Davis, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Downs, Felch, Gwin, Hamlin, Jones of Iowa, McRae, Norris, Seward, Smith, Soulé, Stockton, Sumner, and Wade-21. NAYS-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Borland, Butler, Clarke, Clemens, Dawson, Fish, Geyer, Hunter, Jones of Tennessee, King, Miller, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Spruance, Underwood, and Upham-20.

NOTICES OF BILLS.

Mr. SEWARD gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill to incorporate the Sisters of Visitation of Washington, in the District of Columbia.

REPORT OF POSTMASTER GENERAL.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. laid before the Senate a report of the Postmaster General, showing the amount received for postages collected and postage stamps sold during the quarter ending the 30th September, 1851; which was read, and ordered to be referred to the Committee on Finance and printed.

TREASURY CONTRACTS.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. laid before the Senate a report of the Secretary of the Treasury, showing the contracts made by that Department during the year 1851; which was read, and ordered

to be referred to the Committee on Finance and printed.

DRAWBACK UPON FOREIGN MERCHANDISE. The bill extending like privileges to those conferred by the act entitled "An act allowing drawback upon foreign merchandise exported in the original packages to Chihuahua and Santa Fé, in Mexico, and to the British North American Provinces adjoining the United States," approved March 3, 1845, to foreign merchandise exported to Mexico by certain indicated routes, was read the second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole; and no amendment being made, it was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.

MILEAGE OF DELEGATE FROM OREGON.

A message from the House of Representatives was received by Mr. FORNEY, its Clerk, announcing that it had passed a bill entitled "An act to regulate the mileage of the Delegate from the Territory of Oregon," and requesting the concurrence of the Senate therein.

RAILROADS IN IOWA.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill granting the right of way and making a grant of land to the State of Iowa in aid of the construction of certain railroads in said State.

Mr. UNDERWOOD addressed the Senate for an hour; and, without finishing, yielded to the request of Senators, and The Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. WEDNESDAY, Febuary 18, 1852. by the Chaplain, Rev. Mr. MORGAN. The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. The SPEAKER. The first business in order is the unfinished business of yesterday, being the motion to reconsider the vote by which the House refused to order to be engrossed and read a third time the bill regulating the mileage of the Delegate from Oregon; and upon which the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HENDRICKS] is entitled to the

floor.

Mr. KING, of New York. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to report from the Committee on the Judiciary the bill to provide for the holding of the courts of the United States in case of the sickness or other disability of the judges. I ask that it may be read for information. It was read by its title, as follows:

An act amendatory of an act entitled "An act to provide for holding the courts of the United States in case of the sickness or other disability of the judges of the district courts," approved July 29, 1850.

Mr. OLDS. I asked yesterday for leave to introduce a report from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, equally important with this report, which was objected to.

to.

Mr. KING. I hope this will not be objected
It will delay the House but a moment.
Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I object, and call

for the regular order of business.

Mr, BOWIE. I hope the gentleman from Tennessee will not press that call now.

Mr. JONES. I shall object to every bill which is sought to be introduced by unanimous consent. Bills introduced in that manner have already consumed a greater portion of the time of the House. I call for the regular order of business.

Mr. BOWIE. I only desire to withdraw some papers from the files of the House, for the purpose of having them referred to the Senate.

There was no objection, and leave was accordingly granted to withdraw from the files of the House the papers of Zachariah Walker, for the purpose of referring them to the Senate.

MILEAGE OF THE DELEGATE OF OREGON.

The House then proceeded to the consideration of the subject of regulating the mileage of the Delegate from Oregon.

Mr. HENDRICKS. When I gave way on yesterday for a motion to adjourn, I was replying to the interrogatory put to me on the day before by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. WOODWARD.] He asked if the general law of 1818, regulating the compensation of members of Congress, does not limit the mileage of each member to the amount of his per diem. I had answered that I thought there was no such limitation, when my colleague [Mr. FITCH] rose in his place and stated that the mileage of members of Congress, under the existing general laws, could not exceed the per diem allowance. I have examined the provision to which he alluded, but I find no such limitation. The only portion of the law which relates to this question is the following proviso to the section which I read, viz:

Provided always, That no Representative or Delegate shall be allowed a sum exceeding the rate of eight dollars a day, from the end of one session to the time of his taking his seat in another.

Taken literally, this language includes both per diem and mileage, and would limit the entire compensation to such sum as a per diem of eight dollars would amount to during the recess between the two sessions of a Congress.

Mr. WOODWARD. If the gentleman will allow me, I will state that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. FITCH] stated the effect of this provision correctly day before yesterday. He stated that the effect of that clause was to provide that the mileage and compensation of members shall not exceed the aggregate sum of eight dollars per I think that is the correct statement. day for the three hundred and sixty-five days, and

Mr. HENDRICKS. I think that construction of the proviso cannot be sustained. The language does not import that, nor has it ever been so construed. There is a provision in this statute which enacts that in case any Representative or Delegate be detained by sickness on his journey to or from the session of Congress, he shall be entitled to his per diem compensation since the enactment of the law. The construction of the proviso has been, that it is a proviso to this portion of the statute, and restricts and limits the mileage given under it, is taken sick upon his way to Congress or on his and that the per diem allowance of a member who way home, shall not exceed what his per diem would have been during the vacation. I say that has been the construction put upon the proviso since its enactment, and I have no doubt that if it means anything, this is what it means. Then, sir, the law stands in reference to every member of

Congress-every Representative of a State and every Delegate from a Territory, with one single exception, that they shall receive eight dollars per day for every day they serve in Congress, and eight dollars for every twenty miles distance be tween this Capitol and their places of residence. This, I say, is applicable to every gentleman upon this floor, and to every Senator, with one single exception; and that exception the Committee on Mileage by the pending bill have proposed to re

move.

Mr. SMART. I desire to inquire whether this limitation does not extend also to the Delegates from New Mexico and Utah ?

Mr. HENDRICKS. The limitation extends in terms, but not in effect. The compensation of the Delegates from Utah and New Mexico does not amount to $2,500 under the law of 1818; so that the limitation does not apply to them at all.

Mr. SMART. I called at the office of the Ser geant-at-Arms this morning, and I understood him to say that the Delegate from Utah had drawn his mileage up to the utmost limit of $2,500.

Mr. BERNHISEL. I desire to say that I have not drawn that amount.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The gentleman from Utah tells me that his mileage amounts to $2,100 under the law of 1818, and that he has drawn that amount. At the first session of the Thirty-first

Congress a law was passed entitled "An act to supply a deficiency in the appropriation for pay and mileage of members of Congress for the present session." The gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. ORR,] a lawyer of high standing and reputation in his own State-and his reputation is not confined to his own State-gave it as his opinion that the proviso to that law is permanent in its effect, and that it now regulates the compensation of the Delegate from Oregon. I will read the law so far as it applies to this question. The title is, "An act to supply a deficiency in the appropriation for the pay and mileage of members of Congress for the present session." The first section is as follows:

[ocr errors]

"That the sum of one hundred and sixty thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the payment of mileage and per diem of the Senators, members of the House of Representatives, and Delegates in Congress, at the present session: two thousand three hundred and thirty dollars for additional expense of stationery for members of the House of Representatives, during the present session: Provided, That the mileage of the Senators and Representatives from California, and the Delegate from Oregon, be computed according to the most usual traveling route within the Inuits of the United States; and the per diem of said Senators and Representatives for this session shall commence from the day on which the Constitution of California was first communicated to the two Houses of Congress, respectively."

It is this proviso to this appropriation bill which the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. ORR] thinks now regulates the compensation of the Delegate from Oregon.

Mr. ORR, (interrupting.) With the permission of the gentleman from Indiana, I desire to call the attention of the House to this fact in the act which that gentleman has just now read. In every clause of that act there is a special reference had to this session. For instance, the sum of $160,000 is appropriated for the payment of mileage of the Senators and members at the present session-for $2,000 at the present session; but the mileage which is in the proviso, the present session is not introduced. In the last clause of the proviso, however, relating to the per diem compensation of members, the present session is again introduced. So that the act indicates clearly, according to my conception, by its reference, in every provision and in every clause, except this one, that the appropriation is made for the present session, and even in the latter clause of this proviso it is introduced, while the provision for the mileage of the Delegate from Oregon remains general, that that proviso was designed to remain permanent..

break water, and for certain harbors, and for removing obstructions in and at the mouth of certain rivers, for the year in 1835."

The act which makes the specific appropriation contains the following proviso:

"Provided, That no officer of the Army shall receive any percentage or additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation, in any form whatsoever, on account of the disbursing any public money appropriated by law during the present session for fortifications, execution of surveys, works of internal improvement, building of arsenals, purchase of supplies of any description, or for any other service or duty whatsoever, unless authorized by law."

It speaks of disbursements of appropriation of that session, and then says that no additional compensation shall be made to any officer for any other services. Under that provision, the United States in that case claimed that no compensation should be allowed to this surgeon of the Army for those additional services rendered to the Government. The Court, speaking upon this subject, uses this language:

"The argument on behalf of the United States is, that this proviso, although found in a mere appropriation law of a limited nature, is to be construed, by reason of the words or for any other service or duty whatsoever, unless authorized by law,' to be permanent in its operation, and applicable to all future appropriations, where officers of the Army are employed in such service or duty; and that it appears from the record, that this was the very ground on which the Treasury Department rejected the elain of Doctor Minis for commissions. The same question has been made and fully argued in the case of Gratiot vs. The United States, at the present term; and we have given it our delibrate consideration. We are of opinion that such is not the true interpretation of the terms of the proviso; and that it is limited exclusively to appropriations made at the session of 1835.

"It would be somewhat unusual to find ingrafted upon an act making special and temporary appropriation, any provision which was to have a general and permanent application to all future appropriations. Nor ought such an intention on the part of the Legislature to be presumed, unless it is expressed in the most clear and positive terms, and where the language admits of no other reasonable interpretation. The office of a proviso, generally, is either to except something from the enacting clause, or to qualify or restrain its generality, or to exclude some possible ground of misinterpretation of it, as extending to cases not intended by the Legislature to be brought within its purview. A general rule, applicable to all future cases, would most naturally be expected to find its proper place in some distinct and independent enactment."

I ask gentlemen to notice the language of the Supreme Court in that case. The terms of the act admit of no other reasonable interpretation.

"The office of a proviso"-to use the language of the court in that case-"is generally either to except something from the enacting clause, or to qualify or restrain its generality, or to exclude some possible ground of misinterpretation of it, as extending to cases not intended by the Legislature to be brought within its purview. A general rule, applicable to all future cases, would most naturally be expendent enactment."

The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. ORR] has referred to a provision to be found in the general appropriation bill of the last Congress. It is a provision found in connection with the appropriation for the public survey. It is as follows:

"Provided, That no land bounty for military services granted by the act of 28th of September, 1850, entitled 'An act granting bounty land to certain officers and soldiers who have engaged in the military service of the United States,' or by virtue of any other act of Congress heretofore passed, granting land bounties for military services, shall be satisfied out of any public land not heretofore brought into market, and now subject to entry at private sale under existing laws."

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. Speaker, I should have been glad if the committee could have adopt-pected to find its proper place in some distinct and indeed that construction of this provision, for then this question would not now have been before the House. But, sir, of what is this a proviso? It is a proviso to a law which is for a special purpose, and-temporary in its operations. It is a proviso to an appropriation law, and more, sir, to a deficiency appropriation bill. And what is a proviso in a law? It is that which qualifies, or restricts, or construes that which precedes and forms the body of the law. This proviso is connected with what goes before; it is a qualification of it; else it is not a proviso. That gentleman, [Mr. ORR,] upon reflection, will recollect that it is a recognized and well-settled rule of construction, that a proviso to a statute, unless the words of the proviso indicate clearly and beyond all doubt another intention, cannot have an effect in point of time beyond the operation of the statute to which it is attached. This is an appropriation law to pay the compensation and mileage of members of Congress; and that appropriation is qualified by a proviso that the mileage of the Delegate from Oregon be computed by the overland route. That is what the statute means, in my judgment. I will read a part of a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in a case analogous to this. It is the case of Minis vs. The United States, in 15 Peters, 423. The suit was brought by the United States against Minis, who was a surgeon in the Army, for moneys of the United States received by him as agent for the Government, but not disbursed by him. He claimed to retain it as commission upon moneys by him disbursed as agent for the Government in the removal of the Cherokee Indians from their residence on this side of the Mississippi to their residence upon the other side. The disbursements were made in the year 1836-7. In 1835, there was a law passed "making certain additional appropriations for the Delaware

Mr. Speaker, I say that is no proviso. That is legislation upon an independent subject, not in any way connected with the public survey. It does not limit the provisions of the law which precedes it, and does not exclude misconstruction. That proviso-it is called a proviso-does not perform the office of a proviso. I say it is an independent enactment upon an independent separate subject, and performs none of the functions of a proviso to the preceding enactment.

moments to the merits and demerits of the proposed bill. And first, sir, I do not advocate this bill, I did not report it, upon the ground that I approved of the existing law. I think that the law of 1818 ought to be amended, and I expect that the Committee on Mileage will make a report upon that snbject. A bill is pending before the committee, and when the committee shall have come to a conclusion upon the subject, and decided upon their report, the matter will be brought before this House, and then I expect to give my views upon the question. I will say now that I am in favor of a change of the law, so that the compensation of the members of this House, so far as their mileage is concerned, shall be estimated by some direct route-by some route to be ascertained by another department of Government than by ourselves. I say it is not worthy of this body, that members of Congress should be called upon to decide their own compensation. And this is the great objection I have to the present law. To fix the service of his brother members is not a duty which any man desires to perform, and I wish to see the law changed so as to devolve this duty upon others than members. I would like to see the law so changed that the Post Office Department shall decide the mileage of members by the mail routes. And I would say further, if we shall adopt this system of direct routes, then, as a matter of course, the Delegate from Oregon will be governed by the same principle of legislation as other members. When we make this reform in the law, then we will bring the Delegate from Oregon and the members from California to the same principle of compensation with other gentlemen. If we have no mail route over the country we can establish some distance and ascertain the mileage to which they will be entitled by a direct route.

I will now notice some of the objections urged by the honorable gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. HEBARD.] When I heard his speech yesterday I was not sure that I understood him correctly, but when I came to read his printed speech I find I did not mistake his language. He says:

"I do not know what injustice there is about it. I have not heard one gentleman, who has undertaken to show that the pay given to this Delegate from Oregon was not an equivalent for the service he renders here."

With regard to the question which the gentleman raises, and the proposition involved in his remarks, that we shall estimate each gentleman's compensation by the actual services performed here, I undertake to say that the honorable Delegate from Oregon has given an earnest to the country in his past services that the services which he shall render in future will be commensurate it is a singular question for the gentleman from with the compensation to be given to him. And Vermont to raise upon the distinguished Delegate from Oregon, whether he earns $2,500 or not.

We say the Delegate from Oregon is not adequately compensated, because he is not placed upon a level with the rest of us. We ask that he shall be placed upon the same platform with every other member of Congress. I would not ask the honorable gentleman from Vermont [Mr. HEBARD] if his services are worth more to the country than the amount of his mileage and per diem. It is a question which I ought not to ask. It is a question, the answer to which might be embarrassing. I do not know whether it would hurt his feelings or not, or whether it would flatter the gentleman's constituents or not. It is a question which he ought not to propound in reference to the services of the honorable Delegate from Oregon. I say, sir, that the Delegate from Oregon has performed services for this country which gives us a good guarantee that he will compensate the country in faithful services for what shall be paid him under the general law.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] argues that the Delegate from Oregon comes here with a vested right to $2,500 under the or

But I will not occupy any more time upon this subject. I will say that the Committee on Mileage, at the last session of Congress, gave the construction to the law which I have mentioned, that this proviso to the appropriation bill was tem-ganic law of the Territory, and that the Governporary in its effect, and ceased to operate at the close of the session at which it was passed. I understand that the Judiciary Committee in the Senate gave it a different construction during the last Congress, but that that decision has since been reversed. But I am not certain upon that ques

tion.

In reference to the compensation of the Delegate from Oregon, there is but one law, and that is the provision in the territorial bill.

Now, I desire to turn my attention for a few

ment has a vested right to his services; and that if more than that sum is paid him, it is a gratuity.

If the honorable gentleman, by the use of these terms, means that the compensation of a member of Congress being fixed by law, cannot be changed during his term-that it is a fixed legal compensation, which Congress has no legal or constitutional power to alter, I do not agree with him. If he means that there is a moral obligation upon the Government, that the compensation of any pub

« AnteriorContinuar »