Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

lic officer shall not be reduced during his term, I agree with him; but when he talks about vested rights that Congress has no power to change the law compensating members of Congress, I do not concur with him. I understand him to be an advocate of reform upon the mileage question, but, under his doctrine of vested rights, I want to know when that reform could be brought about? When can we change the law and not affect the compensation of Senators. This law of 1818 regulates the compensation of Senators, Representatives, and Delegates, and under the doctrine of the gentleman it cannot be amended so as to change the compensation of a Senator now chosen. Owing to the peculiar organization of that body you never could bring a law into force at a time at which it would not affect some man who was holding that office, unless, peradventure, you put its operation off six years. Then, perhaps, you might. The position the gentleman assumes forever forbids amendment of the present law. But Congress has never adopted his doctrine. In 1816 the compensation was changed so as to give a salary, and that was made to affect the members of that Congress. In 1818 that law was repealed, and the new law took effect during that Congress. I am not in favor, Mr. Speaker, I will here say, of imitating the example of these two Congresses, which I have mentioned. I am not in favor of amending the law so as to affect the compensation of Representatives during this session-during the same session at which the law is changed. Members ought not to legislate upon their own compensation any further than it is possible for them to avoid.

because they have to leave their country, their
family, and their business. The gentleman from
Oregon is as far removed from his home and his
business as any minister when he leaves this coun
try and goes to any court in Europe, and yet the
gentleman from Georgia would give him the same
compensation as is received by a member living
within thirty or one hundred miles of the capital.
I have remarked that the law as it now stands
compensates every member of Congress by a fixed
rule-a per diem allowance and mileage, with a
single exception, and that exception is made
against the honorable Delegate from Oregon. We
ask to remove this exception; and shall it not be
removed? My colleague from Indiana (Mr. Pag-
KER] on yesterday said no such exception ought
to be taken prejudicial to the Delegate from Ore-
gon-that his services to the country have made
him the object of so much interest to the country
that this exception to his prejudice ought not to
be made. I think there is force in that sugges
tion. If we are going to make a discrimination
against one man, let it not be against the Dele-
gate from Oregon, who has rendered such distin-
guished services to the country. But I do not
claim that this bill shall be passed upon that
ground-that the Delegate from Oregon has made
himself a name, and secured a place in the hearts
of his countrymen by his gallant services. I ask
it for no such reason. I ask that it shall be passed
to place him upon an equality with the rest of the
members of Congress-that he shall not be made
an exception, but that his compensation shall be
estimated by the same rule that regulates the com-
pensation of the rest of the members of Congress.
And then, Mr. Speaker, I will be in favor of
amending the general law limiting the mileage by
more certain enactments, and by such amend-
ments the Delegate from Oregon will be equally
affected with other Representatives.

session. He knew that his predecessor was not limited by the restriction of the territorial law, but that he received a mileage compensation. I therefore say, that the argument of the member has lost its force with relation to the compensation of the Delegate from Oregon. He was not expected to know the law more than gentlemen upon this floor who differ widely in respect to it. Now, I will briefly notice a few other arguments, and will then close. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. TOOMBS] contends that the present mileage law is very unjust, very unequal, and that we ought not to compensate the Delegate from Oregon under that law. He says that it is unequal and unjust because one man receives more money from the Government than another. The dollars that we receive from the public Treasury is the rule by which he estimates the equality of position of honorable gentlemen. In my judgment there is another rule than the dollar rule which the gentleman mentions. We are equal when we stand upon the same law, when it prescribes our duties, defines our rights, and protects us We are unequal when there is for one man one legislation, and for another man a different legislation. That is all I have to say in reference to that argument, of the gentleman. Let us see how unequal the law is as it stands, and how much more unequal the gentleman would make by the amendment he would propose. He says that all above the mere traveling expenses is to be regarded as compensation-as salary, and that that ought to be divided equally amongst the members of Congress-that above the actual expenses in approaching the capital and returning from it we Again: the gentleman says the Delegate from ought to be equal. I think that would be a more Oregon came here under a vested right, knowing unequal and more unjust law than the one at presthe law; and he dwells with some force upon the ent regulating the compensation of members. fact that the honorable Delegate was once the Gov- The Delegate from Oregon has to come, in apernor of Oregon, and at the time the law was passed proaching this capital, more than seven thousand which changed the compensation of the delegate miles. It costs, the gentleman says, $300; and from that Territory. The present Delegate then that $600 ought to be allowed him for coming was not the Governor of that Territory. Party pro- and returning, and that all above that that he rescription had driven him from that position to ceives should be the same that a gentleman living which his services to the country had elevated within fifty miles of this capital would receive. him. I will take that back, I will not charge it How does he compensate the Delegate for the upon the party. I do not believe the Whig party time spent in the journey? It takes from thirtyts responsible for that odious act. I believe it was five to forty days to reach the seat of Governthe personal feelings of the then incumbent of the ment from that Territory, and by the overlandpresidential chair, which induced the removal of route it would take several months. The gentlethe honorable Delegate from his position. Diffi- man would make no compensation to the Deleculties growing out of the vindication which the gate for the time spent in getting here and returnhonorable Delegate from Oregon had made of the ing home. There would be then three months of Indiana troops against the report of their com- time for which he would receive no compensation. mander, caused his removal from that position. He makes no estimate in his rule of equality for The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] the fact, that the Delegate must turn his back upon dwells upon the fact that the Delegate was Govhis family-oes within seven or eight hundred his business. The gentleman ernor of that Territory, and knew the law. He from Georgia quotes an old maxim of law, that all men are bound miles from the capital. If the circumstances of to know the law-a maxim under which unforhis family required it-if no business of general tunate men were often executed in England when importance was on hands, or if the interests of they were guilty of no moral offence an axiom his constituency did not require him to be here of law that every man is bound to know the law he might absent himself from the House-as I which prevailed in England when the statutes took believe he did, during the first part of this session.sition of this kind been made to remedy the evil effect and were in force from the first day of the I do not refer to the fact that the gentleman from session of Parliament. And the gentleman desires Georgia, [Mr. TooMBS,] and the gentleman from to adopt towards the Delegate from Oregon this Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] were absent from iron and unjust maxim of the English law. So their seats, for the purpose of criticism. They, odious has this principle of the law been to the no doubt, when they left their seats, felt it to be States of this Confederacy, that in a majority of their duty to do so. They did not feel that they them it has been provided in their constitutions, deserted their public duties by going. They that no law shall take effect until it has been pub- were, on account of their living near the capital, lished, unless the public good or the exigencies of enabled to go home within a day or two. They the times require it. The gentleman says that the were able to leave the Halls of Congress, and go Delegate knew the law. I say that honorable gen-home to attend to their private affairs, and in the tlemen upon this floor and committees of Congress differ in reference to the law giving compensation to that Delegate. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. ORR] thinks that his compensation is regulated by the law of 1850, while other gentlemen of this House think that the law organizing the territorial government governs his compen-, sation. Yet the gentleman from Pennsylvania, although there is this uncertainty about the law, says that the Delegate is bound to know it. This law of 1850 had hardly reached Oregon when the gentleman was elected as the Delegate. He was not then Governor. He was a private citizen, and following his own pursuits, and not, I suppose, reading with great care the special appropriation bills of Congress-bills which very few men read. Then how was the Delegate to know what the law of compensation was? He knew that his predecessor had received $3,452 at the last

[ocr errors]

Mr. WILLIAMS. The House have given this subject an importance which, in my humble opinion, it does not require; still, I believe it to be my duty to give the House and the country the reasons which have governed my vote. I would like to know what the inequality of mileage and the pay of members has to do with this ques tion, abstractly and properly speaking? Nothing at all. No more than the gallant services of the gentleman from Oregon has to do with it. What has the great question of retrenchment, economy and reform, which was brought in by my friend from Georgia, [Mr. TooMBS,] to do with this question? Is there a solitary member who has addressed the House, but what admits that the present pay of members of Congress is wrong and improper, and ought to be remedied. I will not dispute but what that is the feeling of every gentleman who has addressed the House; but as acts speak louder than words, I would be pleased to see any gentleman who speaks of the want of attention to economy and reform, make a propo sition to remedy this evil. Has a sohtary prop

Not one. You cannot fix the system of mileage without producing injustice to some one, whether you fix it at two cents, at twenty cents, or forty cents per mile. The distance will make it u equal and unjust. If, then, it is an evil-if mem bers are paid improperly, as we all believe-for I have been here seven sessions, and this ques tion of mileage, like Monsieur Tonson, comes again before us, and we have had long and loud speeches upon it-why not vote to give a bona fide and proper annual compensation to all the mempractice of the law to keep up their business. bers, with just enough to pay them their reasonThis, sir, I suppose is worth something to gentle-able traveling expenses? Do that, and you will men living near the capital. I suppose the gen-adjust this matter finally and permanently. Has tleman from Pennsylvania would not give up this advantage of his, in keeping up his business at home, for the whole mileage of the Delegate from Oregon. In his estimate, the gentleman from Georgia does not take that into consideration.

Why is it that we pay foreign ministers when they leave this country $9,000 going, and $9,000 returning, and $9,000 each year for staying? It is not merely to defray their expenses in going, because they can go to any court of Europe sooner, and at less expense and risk of life and health than the honorable Delegate from Oregon can come to this capital. It is not for that, then. It is not to enable them to imitate the courtly and costly fashions of Europe. Certainly it is for no such purpose. We compensate them thus largely

anybody proposed it? Does the Committee or Mileage offer to apply the pruning hook to the evil of which we all complain? Not at all. The entire action of this House consists merely in complaints. Proper action will remedy the evil complained of. When Congress passed this ter ritorial bill for Oregon, we all labored under the impression that this mileage system was wrong. For by it, the greater the distance the greater the injustice, And when you crossed the vast Rocky Mountains, and entered upon the Pacific border. in the formation of that territorial bill Congress put in a provision that the Delegates west of the Rocky Mountains should receive $2,500. It was a good beginning, and if it had been carried out and acted upon, I would have submitted to 11

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

32D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

most cheerfully. When Congress lost sight of this purpose, and permitted the two members upon this floor, and the two Senators from California, to receive their mileage under the law of 1818, and suffered this special law, creating a distinction against the Delegate from Oregon, to remain on the statute book, because you need reform, I say it is an act of crying injustice.

The Delegate from Oregon should not be excepted from the general law. If his pay were to amount to $100,000 under the principle of that law, yet it is the law, enacted for the purpose of regulating the pay of all the representatives, and should be general in its application. It should be adhered to in all cases or not at all. There is no justice in discriminating against the Delegate from Oregon. If the mileage is too high under the general law, introduce a bill which shall in its application be equal, uniform, and just to all the members and delegates, and I will vote for it. But I cannot consent to pay the gentleman from Oregon by a rule different from the one regulating the pay of all the members and delegates of this House. I know that members living near the Capitol complain, and justly, too, of their pay. It is unjust. Take my own case, and that of my friend from Maryland, [Mr. EVANS.] When the short session comes, I shall receive for the session $2,000, while my friend does not receive $800. Is it proper, just, and right? How, then, are you to remedy this matter? Let us pass this bill and place the gentleman from Oregon upon the same footing with all others; give instructions to the Committee on Mileage to bring in a bill, that will remedy the evil, by fixing a just annual compensation, and vote for it, relying upon the good sense and intelligence of the country to sustain it. Let us cease this eternal cry about our own pay, mileage reform, economy, and retrenchment, and go to work properly to remedy the matter. Some years ago in Congress there was a regular bill introduced, founded upon the estimates of the proper department, estimating the amount necessary for the annual expenditure of that branch of the Government, and every solitary member who made a speech cried out to the top of his voice economy, reform, and retrenchment, yet each member had an amendment to offer. I sat down and had the curiosity to keep an account of every one of these reform gentlemen. They proposed to give $3,500,000 beyond the estimates of the proper department in the name of reform. I know this is a difficult and perplexing question, and with due deference to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. TOOMBS,] who never fails to leave the impress of his powerful mind upon any question that he discusses, you cannot go properly to work now upon the question of economy and retrenchment, without you have proper aid in the departments. How is it to be expected, that members who come here, can in a session or two understand all the ramifications of your different departments and custom-houses in New York, and elsewhere. Consequently without proper information, the House would be voting blindly.

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1852.

this question has been sufficiently discussed, I call for the previous question.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put; which main question was the motion to reconsider the vote by which the House refused to order the bill to be engrossed and read a third time.

Mr. GOODENOW demanded the yeas and

nays.

Mr. MEACHAM moved to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table.

Mr. STANTON, of Ohio, demanded the yeas and nays upon that motion; which were ordered. The question was then taken, and resultedyeas 84, nays 97, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Charles Allen, Allison, William Appleton, Averett, Babcock, Barrere, Bartlett, Bennett, Bibighaus, Bowie, John H. Boyd, Brooks, George H. Brown, Burrows, Caldwell, Lewis D. Campbell, Chapman, Chastain, Churchwell, Cleveland, Clingman, Curtis, George T. Davis, Dockery, Duncan, Evans, Ewing, Fowler, Giddings, Goodenow, Grow, Hammond, Harper, Haws, Hascall, Haven, Hebard, Houston, John W. Howe, Hunter, Jenkins, Andrew Johnson, James Jolinson, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, George G. King, Preston King, Kuhns, McMullen, Meacham, Miller, Millson, Miner, Morehead, Newton, Outlaw, Penniman, Perkins, Robie, Sackett, Schermerhorn, Schoolcraft, Schoonmaker, Skelton, Smart, Stanly, Benjamin Stanton, Alexander H. Stephens, Thaddeus Stevens, Strother, Sutherland, Taylor, Benjamin Thompson, Thurston, Toombs, Walbridge, Wallace, Walsh, Washburn, Watkins, Welch, Alexander White, and Wildrick-84.

NAYS-Messrs. Aiken, Willis Allen, John Appleton, David J. Bailey, Beale, Bell, Bissell, Bragg, Breckenridge, Brenton, Briggs, Albert G. Brown, Buell, Busby, Joseph Cable, Thompson Campbell, Caskie, Chandler, Clark, Cobb, Colcock, Conger, Daniel, John G. Davis, Dawson, Dean, Doty, Dunham, Edgerton, Edmundson, Ficklin, Fitch, Florence, Freeman, Henry M. Fuller, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gaylord, Gentry, Gilmore, Gorman, Grey, Hall, Hamilton, Isham G. Harris, Hart, Hendricks, Henn, Holladay, Howard, Thomas Y. How, Ingersoll, Ives, Jackson, John Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Landry, Letcher, Lockhart, Mace, Edward C. Marshall, Humphrey Marshall, Mason, McCorkle, McDonald, McQueen, Molony, Henry D. Moore, Morrison, Nabers, Olds, Orr, Andrew

Parker, Samuel W. Parker, Phelps, Porter, Powell, Price, Rantoul, Richardson, Riddle, Robbins, Robinson, Savage, Scurry, Origen S. Seymour, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Abraham P. Stevens, St. Martin, Stuart, Townshend, Venable, Ward, Addison White, Wilcox, Williams, Woodward, and Yates-97.

So the House refused to lay the motion upon

the table.

1

The SPEAKER. The question recurs upon the motion to reconsider the vote by which the House refused to order the bill to a third reading. The question was then taken, and there were ayes 95, noes 86.

So the vote was reconsidered.

The question then recurred upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. Mr. HENDRICKS. Is the previous question still in force?

The SPEAKER. It still operates.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. CLINGMAN. I beg leave to say this. matter is open to debate, and I wish to say one word

Mr. OLDS. I rise to a question of order. The question is not debatable.

The SPEAKER. The question is not debatable, but the Chair will be happy to receive suggestions from the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I would like to know upon what principle it is not debatable. If it is settled that we are under the operation of the previous question, it is not debatable; but that is the very point we are about to determine, and I hope the Chair will allow a word or two of remark upon it.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will be happy to hear any suggestion from the gentleman, but debate is not in order.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I do not desire to go into a lengthy debate.

Mr. ROBINSON. I rise to a question of order. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. CLINGMAN] appeals from the decision of the Chair, that the bill is now under the operation of the previous question.

Mr. ROBINSON. Is that appeal debatable? Mr. CLINGMAN. I shall ask the yeas and nays. I say that a different decision has been made heretofore.

Mr. ROBINSON. I call the gentleman to order. The SPEAKER. The Chair states, for the correction of the gentleman, that he knows the fact, that the decision has been as the Chair has stated.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I have no doubt that such decisions have been made; but I also know that different decisions have been made.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I think the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. CLINGMAN] cannot find a single case as he states it. Whenever a bill is put upon its passage under the operation of the previous question, and the motion to reconsider is carried, we are put back exactly in the condition we were in before the bill was passed. If a gentleman wishes to amend it afterwards, he must move to reconsider the vote by which the previous question was seconded.

Mr. CLINGMAN. That was not done in the case I referred to.

The SPEAKER. Debate is not in order. The Chair decides that the previous question is now

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. The previous ques-operating upon the question before the House, tion was upon the reconsideration, and not upon the engrossment. It exhausted itself upon the engrossment.

The SPEAKER. In the recollection of the Chair, the vote by which the bill was put upon its engrossment, was under the operation of the previous question.

Mr. JONES. It exhausted itself when the House refused to engross it.

The SPEAKER. Upon a reconsideration, in the opinion of the Chair, it places the House precisely where it was.

Mr. JONES. How does it come, that this debate was had upon the motion to reconsider, if the previous question was still hanging over the bill?

When William Henry Harrison came into power, the Whigs came here agreed upon the principles of reform, retrenchment, and economy. Many Democrats aided in the good work-being out of power they were perhaps willing to go for these measures, and for that reason they joined in with the Whig party; and, after a laborious session of three or four months here, the whole reform amounted to cutting down the regular printer and a few pages of the House. Sir, all the officers in the Government-the doorkeepers of the House not excepted-are better paid than you are. Suppose I am wrong, and that the pay of the Delegate from Oregon is just and proper, will this House contend for an isolated question at the expense of the feelings of the gentleman who represents that Territory? I say, if I was the Mr. CLINGMAN. I will take an appeal, and representative of Oregon, or any other place, I barely remind the Chair, that when the Texas would wish to be upon an equal footing with my boundary bill was under consideration, the preassociates upon this floor; and unless I were, Ivious question was applied to it, and the bill was should resign and go home. rejected. It was reconsidered and amended on your motion.

Mr. BISSELL. Under the impression that

The SPEAKER. The Chair 18 very well aware that this question has been decided variously. The Chair has stated his opinion. Does the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] take an appeal from the decision of the Chair?

Mr. JONES. No, sir. I will not appeal.

which is upon the engrossment and third reading of the bill. From this decision the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. CLINGMAN] takes an appeal.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I withdraw my appeal. The SPEAKER. The question then recurs, whether the bill shall be engrossed and read a third time?

Mr. KING, of New York. Upon that question I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was then taken, and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 100, nays 88, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Aiken, Willis Allen, Ashe, David J. Bailey, Beale, Bell, Bissell, Bragg, Breckenridge, Brenton, Briggs, Albert G. Brown, Buell, Busby, Joseph Cable, Thompson Campbell, Caskie, Chandler, Clark, Cobb, Colcock, Conger, Daniel, John G. Davis, Dawson, Dean, Doty, Dunham, Eastman, Edgerton, Edmundson, Ficklin, Fitch, Florence, Henry M. Fuller, Thomas J. D. Fuiler, Gamble, Gaylord, Gentry, Gilmore, Gorman, Grey, Hall, Hamilton, Isham G. Harris, Hart, Hendricks, Henn, Holladay, Howard, Thomas Y. How, Ingersoll, Ives, Jackson, John Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Landry, Letcher, Lockhart, Mace, Edward C. Marshall, Humphrey Marshall, Mason, McCorkle, McDonald, McLanahan, McQueen. Molony, Henry D. Moore, Nabers, Olds, Orr, Andrew Parker, Samuel W. Parker, Phelps, Polk, Powell, Price, Rantoul, Richardson, Riddle, Robbins, Robinson, Savage, Scurry, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, Frederick

P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Abraham P. Stevens, Stone, St. Martin, Stuart, George W. Thompson, Townshend, Ward, Addison White, Williams, Woodward, and Yates-100.

NAYS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Charles Allen, Allison, William Appleton, Averett, Babcock, Thomas H. Bayly, Barrere, Bartlett, Bennett, Bibighaus, Bocock, Bowie, John H. Boyd, Brooks, Burrows, Caldwell, Lewis D. Campbell, Cartter, Chapman, Chastain, Churchwell, Cleveland, Clingman, Curtis, George T. Davis, Dockery, Duncan, Evans, Ewing, Faulkner, Fowler, Giddings, Goodenow, Grow, Hammond, Harper, Sampson W. Harris, Haws, Hascall, Haven, Hebard, Hibbard, Houston, John W. Howe, Hunter, Jenkins, Andrew Johnson, James Johnson, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, George G. King, Preston King, Kuhns, McMullin, Meacham, Miller, Millson, Miner, Morehead, Newton, Qutlaw, Penniman, Perkins, Robie, Sackett, Schermerhorn, Schoolcraft, Schoonmaker, Skelton, Smart, Stanly, Benjamin Stanton, Alexander H. Stephens, Thaddeus Stevens, Sutherland, Taylor, Benjamin, Thompson, Thurston, Toombs, Walbridge, Wallace, Walsh, Washburn, Watkins, Welch, Alexander White, .and Wildrick-88.

So the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and being engrossed, was read a third time.

Mr. HENDRICKS moved to reconsider the vote just taken, and also to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table.

The SPEAKER. The bill having been once reconsidered, cannot, in the opinion of the Chair, be again reconsidered.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. That very decision was overruled during the last Congress. The Speaker of the last House made that decision upon the Texas boundary bill, and the House overruled it.

The SPEAKER. The Chair recollects that very well. The Chair is, however, of the opinion that a bill cannot be reconsidered a second time. The question now being upon the passage of the bill,

Mr. HENDRICKS demanded the previous question.

The previous question received a second, and the main question was ordered to be now put; and the question being taken, it was decided in the affirmative.

So the bill was passed.

Mr. HENDRICKS moved to reconsider the vote upon the passage of the bill, and to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table; which latter motion was agreed to.

GRANT OF LANDS TO MISSOURI.

The SPEAKER stated, as the next business in order, the bill reported from the Committee on Public Lands, to grant the right of way and a portion of the public domain to the State of Missouri, to aid in the construction of certain railroads therein, and that the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. PHELPS] was entitled to the floor.

Mr. HOUSTON. I dislike very much to ask permission of the House to do anything that is not strictly in order; but in view of the fact that this debate may occupy many days, I ask the House to allow me to report the Deficiency bill, which I have had in my possession for some days, and have been waiting for an opportunity to report.

Mr. KING, of New York. It is very true, as the gentleman says, that this debate will occupy several days; but I have been waiting for some days to report a bill of considerable importance, and have been unable to do so, and I therefore object to the introduction of this bill. I think the committees ought to be called for reports, and I will therefore move to postpone the consideration of the bill now before us until to-morrow morning, at such time as the call of the committees shall have been gone through with.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman cannot obtain the floor to make that motion without general

consent.

[Cries of "Object!"]

Mr. PHELPS resumed and concluded his remarks commenced on the 12th of February, in opposition to the pending motion to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and argued earnestly in favor of the meas

ure.

He insisted that Missouri has a just claim to lands to aid her in the construction of the railroads which are designated, and that she is entitled to grants similar to those which have been made to other States of the Union for internal improvement purposes.

[For the speech of Mr. P., see Appendix.]

Mr. WATKINS next obtained the floor, and said that the remarks which he intended to make, although they would have a general bearing upon the bill now under consideration, had reference more particularly to the bill providing for a grant of land to the State of Tennessee, to aid said State in the construction of certain railroads therein, and to the homestead policy. He maintained that according to official data the public lands cannot much longer be looked to as a source of revenue; he argued in favor of such a distribution of them among the States as would facilitate and aid the purposes of education and internal improvements, which are of the highest national importance, and giving homesteads to citizens of the country. If it is constitutional to appropriate a portion of the public lands, it cannot be less so to appropriate the whole of them, considering a large class of cases would be covered. One of the reasons which led him to this course is, that unless some such system be adopted the most fertile lands-the indications are unmistakable-will, in a very few years, be frittered away by partial, sectional, and local legislation.

[For the speech of Mr. WATKINS, see Appendix.] Mr. MILLER next obtained the floor, but yielded to.

Mr. YATES, on whose motion,
The House adjourned till to-morrow.

PETITIONS, &c.

The following petitions, memorials, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees: By Mr. HOW, of New York: The petition of journeymen cigar makers, of Auburn, Cayuga county, New York, praying for a modification of the tariff on cigars of a less value than ten dollars per thousand.

Also, sundry petitions of citizens of the State of New York, praying for an appropriation to improve the harbor at Little Sodus Bay.

By Mr. JOHNSON, of Ohio: The petition of Daniel French and 61 other citizens of Holmes county, praying for a tri-weekly mail from Canton, in Stark county, to Millersburg, in Holmes county, in the State of Ohio.

Also, the petition of Thomas Arinor and 62 others, on the same subject.

Also, the petition of Daniel Baughman and 59 others on the same subject.

Also, the petition of John Raber, and 201 others, on the same subject.

Also, a memorial of citizens of Coshocton county, Ohio asking that mail contractors, postmasters, and other officers of the Government, may be released from performing labor on the Christian Sabbath.

By Mr. MACE: The petition of Moses Colton, of Pittsburg, Indiana, asking for indemnity for loss on conti

nental money.

Also, the memorial of Williamson D. Crothers, of Clinton county, Indiana, asking for additional compensation as assistant marshal of said county in taking the census.

Also, the memorial of Thomas J. Irwin and H. Dunkle, of Carroll county, Indiana, asking for additional compensation as assistant marshals of said county, in taking the

census.

By Mr. WATKINS: The memorial of the assistant marshals of the eastern district of Tennessee, for increase of compensation.

By Mr. FLORENCE: The memorial of Samuel C. Kennedy, Robert Hays, Rebecca Wilfong, Sarah Yarmer, and others, citizens of Pennsylvania, and also of the surviving officers, soldiers, seamen, and marines, and widows and children of those deceased who have served in the war of 1812, praying Congress to modify the bounty land act of September 28, 1850, so as to give each person intended to be benefited by said act, not less than one hundred and

Mr. KING. Then I must insist on my objec- sixty acres of land.

tion.

Mr. HOUSTON. I am a little astonished that the gentleman from New York should make objection, when it can only answer the purpose of putting my bill back, and cannot advance his.

I desire, however, to propound this question to the Chair: Whether the gentleman from Missouri, having yielded me the floor, it is competent to the gentleman from New York to deprive me of my right to introduce the bill.

Mr. KING. I have a right to object. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Alabama must remember that his proposition cannot be entertained except by unanimous consent.

By Mr. HIBBARD: The memorial of the Rock County Agricultural Society and Mechanics Institute, in the State of Wisconsin, in favor of the establishment of a national Bureau of Agriculture.

By Mr. CHURCHWELL: The memorial of the assistant inarshals of the eastern district of Tennessee, praying for additional compensation for taking the census.

By Mr. CAMPBELL, of Illinois: The petition of Chas. S. Hampstead and 500 others, citizens of Galena, Illinois, praying that Congress may establish Galena as a port of entry.

Also, the petition of the Mayor and City Council of the said city of Galena, for the same purpose.

By Mr. CARTTER: The petition of Charles Alcott, for

relief.

By Mr. KUHNS: The petition of Henry Wentling, praying compensation for supplies furnished United States troops in the late war with Great Britain.

By Mr. CONGER: The petition of Wm. H. Platt, Pres

ident of the Alton and Sangamon Railroad Company, asking for a grant of land for the purpose of aiding in the construction of said road.

By Mr. LETCHER: The petition of J. W. Pope and 179 other citizens of Hardy, Rockingham, and Shenandoah counties, in Virginia, asking the establishment of a mail route from Luney's Creek, in the county of Hardy, to New Market, in the county of Shenandoah.

By Mr. BARRERE: The petition of John G. Marshall, Thomas Middleton, and B. f. Johnson, assistant marshals in Brown county, Ohio, praying for additional compensation for taking the Seventh Census.

By Mr. SCHOOLCRAFT: The remonstrance of 155 citizens of Albany, New York, against the further extension of the patent for Woodworth's planing machine.

s

By Mr. CHANDLER: The memorial of J. W. Wetmore and many other citizens of the city of Erie, Pennsylvania, asking for the establishment of a naval depất in connection with a dry dock, at some point on the lake frontier.

Also, the memorial of J. Houghton and other judical officers of New Mexico under the government of General Kearny, asking for an appropriation for the payment of their salaries.

By Mr. BIBIGHAUS: The petition of Strange N. Palmer and others, of Schuylkill county, Pennsylvania, praying for a modification of the tariff of 1846 on iron, &c.

By Mr. YATES: The petition of David J. Perry and 120 others, for a grant of the right of way and a portion of the public lands to aid in the construction of a railroad from the city of Springfield, in Illinois, to the city of Bloomington, in McLean county, in extension of the Alton and Sangamon railroad.

Also, the petition of Z. Lawrence and 22 others, for the same object.

IN SENATE. THURSDAY, February 19, 1852. Prayer by Rev. LITTLETON F. MORGAN.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will bring to the notice of the Senate that the three members of the Committee on Engrossed Bills are temporarily absent, and in consequence there are bills which cannot be examined unless an additional member shall be appointed.

Mr. HUNTER, I move that the Chair have power to appoint an additional member of that committee.

The PRESIDENT. If such be the pleasure of the Senate, the Chair will make the appointment. Mr. WADE, of Ohio, was appointed.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS. The PRESIDENT pro tem. laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and the opinion of the Attorney General in relation to the conflicting claims of Randolph Coyle, John Delafield, and the city of Cincinnati, to the unsold parts of frac tional section No. 11, in fractional township No. 4, of fractional range No. 1, in J. C. Symmes's purchase, in the State of Ohio; which was read and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

PETITIONS.

Mr. MANGUM presented the memorials of Thomas K. Hall, of Brunswick county; E. H. McClure, of Buncombe county; J. C. Smith, of Alexander county; John Clayton, of Henderson county; James J. H. Russ, of Randolph county, and Samuel M. Hughes, of Stokes county, assistant marshals for taking the Seventh Census in North Carolina, praying additional compensation; which were referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. BELL. I present the memorials of twentyfour assistant marshals for taking the Seventh Census in the eastern district of Tennessee. They represent, in positive and strong terms, that the character and the formation of that country, being generally mountainous, and the population, except in the valleys, being very sparse, they have received nothing like an adequate compensation. I move that, without reading, they be referred to the Committee of Claims. They were so referred.

Mr. BADGER. I have, sir, the memorials of R. C. Miller, assistant marshal of Caldwell county, and J. M. Taylor, assistant marshal of Nash county, North Carolina, both complaining of losses and grievances arising from this same root of bitterness, and I move their reference to the Committee of Claims. They were so referred.

Mr. BADGER. Mr. President, I have certain" resolutions, or rather two or three series of resolutions, adopted at the last session of the Legislature of North Carolina, which, for reasons not necessary to be now mentioned, were transmitted to me so late that the opportunity was not afforded me to offer them to the Senate at the last legisla tive session; and in consequence of their having been left at home when I came here this winter,

with certain papers to be transmitted immediately, and some delay in their transmission, I have not had the opportunity heretofore to present them to the Senate. As I do not wish to be any longer considered negligent of that duty, I present the resolutions of the Legislature of North Carolina, in relation to the encouragement of home industry, and requesting their members of both branches of Congress to vote against any increase of tariff duty.

I present, also, a resolution of the Legislature of North Carolina, in favor of the reopening of the inlet at or near Nag's Head, between the ocean and Albemarle Sound.

Also, resolutions of the Legislature of North Carolina, in favor of opening a communication between Beaufort Harbor and the waters of Pamlico Sound; also, in favor of a hydrographical survey of the waters between Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, known as Core Sound. As my colleague suggests, I ask that they be printed for the use of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, presented a memorial of assistant marshals for taking the Seventh Census in the eastern district of Tennessee, praying additional compensation; which was referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. BRIGHT presented three memorials of assistant marshals for taking the Seventh Census in Indiana, praying additional compensation; which were referred to the Committee of Claims. Mr. MASON. I present a petition which has been addressed to me, postmarked from New York, of Margaret Shields and Mary McDermit, in behalf of themselves and many others.

On motion by Mr. DODGE, of Iowa, it was Ordered, That the petition of James Higginbotham, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

On motion by Mr. DODGE, of Iowa, it was Ordered, That the petition of John A. Batin, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES.

Mr. BORLAND, from the Committee on Pensions, to which was referred the petition of Frances E. Baden, reported a bill for her relief; which was read and passed to the second reading.

Mr. SEWARD, from the Committee on Commerce, to which the subject was referred, reported a bill to prevent unnecessary delays in the discharge of the cargoes of steamers; which was read and passed to the second reading.

Mr. PRATT, from the Committee of Claims, to which was referred the petition of Richard Mackall, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill for his relief; which was read and passed to the second reading.

He also, from the same committee, to which was referred the petition of R. D. Sewall, as executor of R. Sewall, deceased, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill for the relief the heirs and representatives of the late Robert Sewall; which was read and passed to the second reading.

Mr. STOCKTON, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to which was referred the memorial of Ursula E. Cobb, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill for her relief; which was read and passed to the second reading.

Mr. MASON, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred the message of the President of the United States of the 18th instant, reported a joint resolution extending the time of the commission under the convention with

Brazil; which was read and passed to the second reading.

BILLS INTRoduced.

They represent that the Secretary of State is about to interpose for the relief of certain Irish prisoners in Van Dieman's Land, and asking that their husbands, who they say are in like exile, may be included in such interposition. I do not quite agree with all the positions of the memorialists, but as the memorial is a respectful one, I have felt it to be my duty to submit it to the Sen- asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill grantMr. FELCH, agreeably to previous notice, ate; and I ask that, without being read, it may being the right of way and making a grant of land laid upon the table. I have no idea, however, that to the State of Michigan, in trust for the Ziluakie, the Secretary of State will ever make such interposition.

The memorial was laid upon the table. Mr. HUNTER presented a petition of sundry merchants of New York, praying the correction of errors in the practice of the warehouse laws; which was referred to the Committee on Com

merce.

Mr. WADE presented a memorial of A. Raymond, an assistant marshal for taking the Seventh Census in Ohio, praying additional compensation; which was referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. JONES, of Iowa, presented the memorial of William Hollinshead, praying compensation for reporting and preparing for publication the decisions of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Minnesota; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. DOWNS presented a petition of the curate, president, and members of the board of trustees of the Cathedral of St. Louis, in the city of New Orleans, praying that certain marble altars and other articles ordered in Europe for the use of that Cathedral may be entered free of duty; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. CHASE presented a memorial of the trustees of the Miami University, praying a donation of land for the benefit of that institution; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Also, three memorials of assistant marshals for taking the Seventh Census in Ohio, praying additional compensation; which were referred to the Committee of Claims.

PAPERS WITHDRAWN AND REFERred. On motion by Mr. UPHAM, it was Ordered, That the petition of Samuel White, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Pensions. On motion by 'Mr. SHIELDS, it was Ordered, That the memorial of Michael Nash, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee of Claims. On motion by Mr. BRIGHT, it was Ordered, That the documents on the files of the Senate relating to the claim of Franklin Hardin be referred to the Committee of Claims.

On motion by Mr. JONES, of Iowa, it was Ordered, That William E. McMaster have leave to withdraw his memorial.

Grand Traverse and Mackinaw Plank Road Company, in aid of the construction of a plank road from Ziluakie, on the Saginaw river, to Grand Traverse Bay, thence to the Straits of Mackinaw; which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. BRIGHT, agreeably to previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to amend an act entitled "An act to create additional collection districts in the Territory of Oregon, and for other purposes;" which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on Territories.

CONTRACTS FOR DRY DOCKS, ETC. Mr. BRODHEAD submitted the following resolution for consideration:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be directed to communicate to the Senate copies of the contracts under which the dry docks, basins, and railways have been built or are building at Kittery, Philadelphia, and Pensacola. Also, a copy of the contract for the construction of the dry dock, without the basin and railway, at San Francisco, and a copy of the advertisement inviting proposals for said work. Also, copies of all bids or proposals to construct said dry docks, basins, and railways. Also, to inform the Senate whether a board of officers has been appointed to select a site for a navy-yard or depôt, or to locate the said dock, in California; and if said board has made a report, to communicate a copy thereof.

MILEAGE OF THE DELEGATE FROM OREGON.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will put on its passage a bill from the House of Representatives, entitled "An act to regulate the mileage of the Delegate from the Territory of Oregon.'

The bill was read a first time by its title and ordered to a second reading. It was also read a second time with a view to reference.

Mr. GWIN. I move to refer the bill to the Committee on Territories.

Mr. BADGER. This is a bill which concerns the mileage of one of the members of the House of Representatives.

Mr. GWIN. It is the Delegate from the Territory of Oregon.

Mr. BADGER. Yes, sir; and the object is to take his case out of the operation of the proviso tacked to a former appropriation bill and let it stand on the general law. Now I wish to suggest whether it is worth while to have this bill referred.

[ocr errors]

In this case we need not exercise any revision over the proceedings of the House.

Mr. BRIGHT. I hope not. I hope this bill will not be referred, but that it will be taken up and acted upon immediately. There is no necessity for a reference.

Mr. GWIN. I withdraw my motion.

Mr. CHASE. Mr. President, I hope that bill will be referred. It introduces an important principle, and I have no doubt it will be discussed when it comes up. I renew the motion that it be referred to the Committee on Territories.

Mr. BRIGHT. I take issue with the Senator from Ohio. It does not introduce a new principle.

Mr. BADGER. Not at all.

Mr. BRIGHT. The object of this bill is to place the Delegate from the Oregon Territory exactly in the same position with every Senator and Representative and Delegate from the States and Territories of this Union. By a special enactment in the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill, at the close of the Congress before last, the Delegate from the Territory of Oregon was allowed but $2,500 mileage; while if his travel had been computed upon the principle by which the mileage of Senators and Representatives and other Delegates was calculated, it would have been $3,452. The limitation contained in the bill to which I have referred has expired, and this bill is designed to place the Delegate in the same position with all other Senators, Representatives, and Delegates.

Mr. BADGER. Certainly, to put him on a footing with all others.

Mr. BRIGHT. hope this bill will not be referred, but that it will be acted upon immediately.

Mr. CHASE. I am still of the opinion that this bill ought to be referred, and that it ought to be considered before it is acted upon. It is not exactly in order to discuss the merits of the prop

osition now but inasmuch as the Senator from Indiana has stated that the object of this bill is

and Representatives from the west of the Rocky simply to place the Delegate from Oregon in the very same position which is occupied by Senators Mountains, I think it is due to myself, and due to the Senate, to say that I believe the Senator from

Indiana is mistaken.

If I recollect right, at the conclusion of the sespriation bill, or rather to a bill for supplying desion of 1850, a proviso was added to the approficiencies in appropriations, which restricted the California and the Delegate from Oregon to the mileage of the Senators and Representatives from land route. That proviso was construed as a temporary provision in the House, and the Representatives from California in the House were considered by the Committee on Mileage, and without the action of the House, as I believe, entitled to receive full mileage for the route by the Isthmus, without the limits of the United States. The honorable Senator from California presented that subject to the consideration of the Senate at the last session, and it was then referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which committee reported that the provision in that bill was a permanent and not a temporary provision. He therefore received his mileage by the overland route, while his colleagues in the House of Representatives received their mileage by the Isthmus route. This bill now proposes to repeal the clause of the act organizing the Territory of Oregon, which restricts the Delegate from that Territory to $2,500 mileage; and it will make two rules of compensation in mileage to the Senators and Representatives from the territory west of the Rocky Mountains-one rule for the Representatives and the Delegate in the other House, and another rule for the Senator in this body.

I merely say this in order to show that this is a question which it seems to me to deserve some consideration; and while I am for a liberal provision, I am for something like equality in this matter of mileage.

Mr. BRIGHT. I should like to hear the bill read.

[ocr errors]

The Secretary read the bill accordingly. It provides that so much of the act entitled An act to establish the territorial government of Oregon, approved August 18th, 1848, as limits the mileage compensation of the Delegate from the said Territory, be repealed.

Mr. BRIGHT. The law organizing the Territory of Oregon limited the mileage of the Dele

gate from that Territory to $2,500. If there had been no clause in that bill restricting his mileage, he would clearly have been entitled to be paid according to the computation of the distance as the Senators and Representatives of the States and Territories generally. I regarded that limitation, as I think every Senator here must regard it, as unjust. At the last Congress an amendment was appended to the civil and diplomatic bill, giving to the then Delegate from the Territory of Oregon $3,452, which, as I stated before, was the amount of mileage he would be entitled to if computed according to the distance traveled. The object of this bill is to give the present Delegate from that Territory the same rate of mileage-nothing more. Hence I say that I think there is no necessity whatever for referring it. If Senators are willing to award justice to the Delegate from Oregon; if they are willing to measure out to him the same rate of compensation that they measure out to themselves, they can do it immediately. If they desire to single him out, and say that his travel is worth less than that of Senators and Representatives of California and other States and Territories, they have a right to do so; but I must say that, in my opinion, it would be very unjust and oppressive towards him. For that reason I oppose the reference of the bill.

Mr. BADGER. When I threw out the suggestion that I thought there was no necessity for a reference of this bill, I did not do it because I ineant to intimate any opinion whether the House of Representatives ought or ought not to pass a bill for the purpose of repealing that restriction. It was sufficient for me that it concerned a Delegate in that body, and that the object of the bill was to put that Delegate on a footing with other Delegates and members of that House. I therefore thought it would not be exactly gracious to discover any disposition to revise what the House has done. I am satisfied that were the case reversed, we would not think that the House was treating us properly if it were to hesitate in adopting a bill we had passed for a like purpose. But the Senator from Ohio has called attention to another matter. If I understood his views on that subject-if his object is to amend this bill so as to produce an equality between the Senators and Representatives, I think it would be well, whether this bill is referred or not, to allow it to lie on the table until an amendment can be prepared. He has stated the action there was on the appropriation bill, and the terms of the clause which applied as well to Senators as to members of the House of Representatives from the State of California in respect to mileage. In the House that was interpreted as being a temporary provision. The regulation in the Senate was interpreted as being permanent; the consequence of which has been, that the Senator from California receives less compensation for mileage than the members of the House from California. Now that cannot be right; and if the Senator from Ohio proposes to move an amendment which shall declare the law, either the one way or the other, so as to give it the sanction of Congress, and to apply it to the members of both Houses, then either a reference or a postponement of the bill, in order to allow him to propose his amendment, would be proper; but otherwise it seems to me we ought to pass the bill

at once.

[ocr errors]

from Oregon is the only member of either House who has not the right to go to the proper officer and demand mileage for the distance he has traveled. This restriction is imposed upon him by previous enactment, and it requires some legislation to give him that amount of money to which all admit he is entitled. I hope the Senate will not embarrass the bill by any other question.

The motion to refer was not agreed to; and the bill was considered as in Committee of the Whole.

according to the overland route, and it has been so decided in the other branch of Congress. Mr. GWIN. The honorable Senator is mistaken. The fact is directly the reverse. The House has decided that the members from California are entitled to be paid according to the Isthmus route, and they have received mileage according to that route. This bill proposes to put the Delegate from Oregon on the same footing as members of the House.

Mr. BRIGHT. As I said before, the object of the bill is to pay the Delegate from Oregon as other Delegates and members are paid. It is wholly

would not charge by any other than the route recognized by law. I hope the honorable Senator from North Carolina [Mr. MANGUM] will not single out this individual from all others, and apply a rule in his case that is clearly unjust.

Mr. MANGUM. My attention has not been called to this bill, nor to the principles involved in it. I have usually been on the liberal side of ques-immaterial by what route he travels. I know he tions of this sort, but I would ask that it may be allowed to lie on the table for the present, that we may have an opportunity to look into the measure, and of considering the principles which are involved in it. I do not mean, by any motion of that sort, to indicate anything like opposition to it. I do not know what it is, and therefore I move that it do lie upon the table for the present.

The motion was not agreed to, the vote, on a division, being 15 in the affirmative and 16 in the negative. There was, however, no quorum voting.

The Senate having been counted, 33 Senators were found to be present.

Mr. MANGUM. My simple object is to gain a little time to look into it. My motion is made with no hostile purpose towards the measure itself. I have no desire to oppose it.

Mr. BRIGHT. I ask the Senator from North Carolina, if he was in his place at the time the bill was read? The object of my inquiry is to ascertain whether he heard the statement of the facts of

the case. If he had, I am sure he would allow this bill to pass.

Mr. SEWARD. If the Senator from North Carolina will withdraw his motion for a few minutes I will renew it.

Mr. MANGUM. I withdraw it.

Mr. SEWARD. I wish to say, that I have no opinion made up against this bill. I am not prepared to vote either for or against it. I want time to think of it, and that I suppose is the object of all the Senators who desire that the bill shall be laid the table. Their object is not to defeat upon the bill, but to have an opportunity of considering the question which it presents. I mean no more, when I make the motion to lay the bill on the table for the present.

Mr. BRIGHT. I hope the honorable Senator will withdraw the motion for a moment. Mr. SEWARD. Certainly.

Mr. BRIGHT. I would dislike very much to press this bill against the sense of the Senate, but am quite sure that every Senator present, who understands the question, is prepared to vote upon it. It is a very plain question, and is within a very small compass. Any Senator who will take time to refer to the 16th section of the law organizing the Territory of Oregon, will see that the Delegate from that Territory is restricted to $2,500 as mileage. The first Delegate elected from that Territory was allowed, under an amendment to the civil and diplomatic bill, $3,452. Why was he allowed that amount? Because the distance he

Mr. BADGER. I hope the Senator from Indiana will permit the bill, without being referred, to lie over until to-morrow. There is misapprehension about it, and I hope he will give Senators an opportunity to examine it.

Mr. BRIGHT. I will not press the matter if Senators desire to examine so important a question.

Mr. MANGUM. In reference to the remarks of the Senator from Indiana, I have to say that I am not prepared at this time to make any invidious discrimination between this Delegate and any member of the House. Not at all; but I really think it is not according to the regular process of legislation to force the determination of a question about which even the friends of the measure differ as to the amount to be paid, and the principle upon which it is to be paid. I renew the motion to lay the bill upon the table..

The motion was agreed to.

RAILROADS IN IOWA.

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

Mr. UNDERWOOD resumed and concluded the speech which he commenced yesterday in opposition to the bill and in favor of his amendment. His speech will be found in the Appendix.

The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky to the amendment reported as a substitute by the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. One or two Senators stated to me that they wanted to make some amendments to my amendment, which would make it more agreeable to them. They thought it would be better to let the amendment proposed by the committee be acted upon first, and then I could renew my amendment, which would be subject to amendment. I will, therefore, withdraw my amendment until the question is taken on the substitute of the committee. When that is adopted, I shall renew my amendment.

Mr. DAWSON. I move that the Senate do now adjourn; though, in the present state of my health, I shall probably be unable to address the Senate on the subject, and I do not move the adjournment for that purpose; but there are a num

traveled would, under the general law, entitle himber of Senators who have spoken to me, and said

to that amount. I know there is not a Senator on this floor who will refuse to allow the Delegate from Oregon to receive the same amount which was given to his predecessor. That is all he asks, and all admit that he is entitled to it. If he be paid, as Senators and Representatives are paid, according to the distance traveled, he would be entitled to receive $3,452. But, I repeat, he is the only member of either House who is not entitled to go to the proper officer and draw mileage

Mr. CHASE. I did not propose to introduce any amendment to the bill; but I did think that either the Committee on Territories or the Committee on the Judiciary, having this bill under consideration, might introduce some provisions which would equalize the mileage, either in the way suggested by the Senator from North Carolina, or in some other mode. For myself, I am very willing to say that I have always considered that restric-according to the distance he has traveled. That is tion upon the mileage both of the Senators and Representatives from California, contained in the deficiency bill of 1850, as in the nature of a temporary provision, and applicable only to the mileage for that year. That has been my opinion on the question as one of law merely. It was, however, submitted to the Judiciary Committee, who decided otherwise, and the Senate acquiesced in its decision.

Mr. BRIGHT. I respectfully submit to the Senate, whether it is proper, whether it is just towards the Delegate from Oregon, to embarrass this measure with so embarrassing a question as the mileage of members generally? The Delegate

on account of the fact, that a law is in force which prohibits him from doing so. The object of this bill is to repeal so much of the law as limits his mileage to $2,500, and proposes to give him $3,452. Mr. NORRIS. I should like to know by what law he would be limited to $3,425?

Mr. BRIGHT. By the general law which provides that the members shall receive their mileage according to the usual traveled route from their place of residence to the capital of the United States.

Mr. NORRIS. That is across the Isthmus. Mr. BRIGHT. If he travels across the Isthmus he ought to be paid for it, but it is not. It is

they presumed no vote would be taken to-day. They are therefore absent, and hence I move that the Senate adjourn.

The motion was agreed to, and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THURSDAY, February 19, 1852. Prayer by the Rev. LITTLETON F. MORGAN. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. The SPEAKER. The first business before the House is House bill No. 104, being a bill granting the right of way and making a donation of public lands to the State of Missouri, to aid in the construction of certain railroads therein.

Mr. MACE. I rise to a question of privilege. The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman state his question?

Mr. MACE. I sent to the table on yesterday two memorials and petitions, which I did not hear read by the Clerk this morning.

The SPEAKER. The Chair would remark, that such matters are journalized and printed, but

« AnteriorContinuar »