The House then adjourned until to-morrow morning. NOTICE OF A BILL. By Mr. ALLISON: A bill making a grant of land to the State of Pennsylvania, in aid of the Hempfield Railroad Company. PETITIONS, &c. The following petitions, memorials, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees: By Mr. FLORENCE: The memorial of Henry R. Parker, F. G. Wolbert, William Henwood, George C. Rickards, and 56 others, citizens of Philadelphia, praying for the extension of the Woodworth patent, for planing boards. By Mr. THOMAS M. HOWE: The petition of F. A. Hutchison, James Vincent, and other citizens of Pennsylvania, praying that all the employees of the Government may be relieved from duty on the Sabbath. Also, the petition of Wilson S. King, J. S. M. Young, and other citizens of Erie, Pennsylvania, praying for the construction of a navy-yard or naval depot in connection with a dry dock, at such point on the lake frontier as may be selected by the Engineer Department. By Mr. DOTY: The petition of citizens of the county of Manitoowoc, for a grant of land to the Manitowoc and Mississippi Railroad Company. By Mr. HARPER: The remonstrance of Michael Dulty and 130 other citizens of Muskingum county, Ohio; and the remonstrance of C. B. Goddard and 67 other citizens of said county; also, the remonstrance of James Johnson and 75 other citizens of Guernsey county, Ohio, praying that the bridges of the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company may be established as post roads and permitted to remain at their present height. By Mr. MILLER: The petition of Henry Clamoryand and others, praying a confirmation of title to certain lands therein mentioned. Also, the petition of sundry citizens of Pettis and Saline counties, Missouri, for a mail route from Saline county to Georgetown, Pettis county. By Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts: The petition of Edwin H. Seymour, of Massachusetts, asking a pension for services in the Mexican war. By Mr. MACE: The remonstrance of E. H. Beck and 100 others, citizens of Carroll county, Indiana, against the extension of the Woodworth patent. By Mr. ROBBINS: The petition of George Painter, and 151 others, citizens of Philadelphia county, asking Congress to grant a further extension of the Woodworth patent. By Mr. ALLISON: A memorial from the Directors of the Hempfield Railroad Company, for an appropriation of public lands to aid in the promotion of their work. By Mr. BABCOCK: The petition of 108 citizens of Oswego county, New York, for a marine hospital at the port of Oswego. By Mr. McLANAHAN: A memorial from citizens of Cumberland county, Pennsylvania, praying for a modification of the bounty land act of 1850, so far as to give all claimants under the same 160 acres of land. By Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee: Application to Congress of Samuel Early for arrears of pension, a resident of Washington county, Tennessee. Also, a memorial of the same, affidavits of John Haltsinger and E. L. Mathes, and memorial of citizens of said county inclosed. IN SENATE. THURSDAY, March 11, 1852. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER. Mr. McRAE presented the credentials of the Hon. WALKER BROOKE, elected a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Mississippi, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of the Hon. HENRY S. FOOTE; which were read, and the oath prescribed by law having been administered to Mr. BROOKE, he took his seat in the Senate. PETITIONS, ETC. Mr. GWIN presented the memorial of Franklin C. Gray, praying the establishment of a tribunal to review the decisions of the late Board of Commissioners for the settlement of claims of American citizens against Mexico; which was referred to the select committee appointed on the subject. Mr. MASON presented the petition of citizens of Frederick county, Virginia, praying that the patent granted to W. W. Woodworth for a planing machine may be extended; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office. Mr. FISH presented the petition of Doctor A. S. Wright, praying indemnity for losses sustained in consequence of his expulsion from Mexico by the agents of that Government; which was referred to the select committee appointed on the subject. Also, the petition of William D. Jones, praying the appointment of a tribunal to review the decisions of the late Board of Commissioners for the settlement of claims of American citizens against Mexico; which was referred to the select committee appointed on the subject. Also, two petitions of merchants and other citizens of Buffalo, New York, praying that further aid may be extended to Collins's line of steam ships; which were referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. Mr. WADE presented the memorial of assistant marshals for taking the Seventh Census in Ohio, praying additional compensation; which was ordered to be laid on the table. Mr. DODGE, of Wisconsin, presented a memorial of the Legislature of Wisconsin, praying the establishment of a mail route from the village of West Bend to Monches; which was referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of Wisconsin, praying the establishment of a mail route from Madison to Wanhaeca Falls; which was referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads. Mr. SEWARD presented the petition of the heirs-at-law and legal representatives of Francis Gillemast, an officer in the revolutionary war, praying an allowance for the depreciation on commutation certificates; which was referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims. Mr. DAVIS presented the memorial of F. A. Chenoweth and others, praying the title to certain land settled and improved by them in the Territory of Oregon; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. Mr. SOULE presented a resolution of the Legislature of Louisiana, praying the establishment of a weekly mail between Thibodeaux and Lockport; which was referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads. PAPERS WITHDRAWN AND REFERRED. On motion by Mr. CHASE, it was Ordered, That the memorial of John A. Bryan, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. On motion by Mr. DOWNS, it was Ordered, That leave be granted to withdraw the original papers which accompanied the petition of Valerian Allain. AMERICAN CEMETERY IN MEXICO. a Mr. MASON. The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred the message of the President of the United States recommending further appropriation for completing the cemetery purchased by order of Congress, near the city of Mexico, for the interment of officers and soldiers of the American army who were killed in the late war, or who died while in that country, have had the same under consideration, and have instructed me to report a bill for the purpose of carrying out the recommendation. It appears that, in the year 1850, a sum of money was appropriated for the construction of this cemetery and the removal of the remains of the dead, and that that sum has been exhausted without effecting the object of the appropriation. There have been removed to this cemetery the remains of some five hundred officers and soldiers, who died from disease or were killed in battle; but there are probably as many more remaining, and it is the desire of those connected with the cemetery-and it is certainly that of the. committee that this object should be carried into effect. The appropriation asked for is only a small one, not exceeding $3,000, and I ask that the bill reported from the committee for this purpose may now be considered by the Senate, and receive its favorable action. The bill was read a first and second time, and considered by the Senate as in Committee of the Whole. It provides that the sum of $3,000 be appropriated, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to be applied under the direction of the President of the United States, to carry into effect the act approved September 28, 1850, for the purchase of a cemetery near the city of Mexico, and for the interment of the officers and soldiers of the army of the United States, who fell in battle, or otherwise died, in or near the city of Mexico; and that the interment of citizens of the United States who have heretofore died in Mexico may be had in said cemetery, under such regulations as may be prescribed by the President of the United States. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, and was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. A message from the House of Representatives was received by Mr. FORNEY, its Clerk, announcing that it had passed the bill from the Senate to provide for the repair of the Congressional Library room, lately destroyed by fire. ENTERTAINMENT OF KOSSUTH. The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the following resolution: "Resolved, That the expenses incurred in the reception and entertainment of Louis Kossuth and suite during their late visit to the capital, by invitation of Congress, be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate, when approved by the committee of reception, to an amount not exceeding $5,000." Mr. MASON. I do not think that resolution correctly recites the facts connected with that genIt tleman's presence at the seat of Government. recites that the expenses were incurred in the reception and entertainment of Louis Kossuth in Washington, at the invitation of Congress. Now, I am not aware that that gentleman was at Washington by the invitation of Congress; on the contrary, so far as I know the history of the case, he came to Washington, as he had a perfect right to do, with the declaration of his purpose, which doubtless was correct, of paying his respects to the Government at Washington. It is not a very important matter, but I do not choose, so far as I am concerned, that it shall go upon the records of the country that he came to Washington at the invitation of Congress. But I have another objection. I have not the slightest objection to paying these expenses; none whatever. He came here, and was received by both Houses of Congress, and that being the fact, I am perfectly willing to pay any expenses which may have been incurred by his presence here; but I contend that it must be done by a direct appropriation, and not from the contingent fund. I therefore submit to the honorable Senator from New York, [Mr. SEWARD,] the mover of this resolution, that it will be better to put it in the form of a joint resolution. If he will do so, it shall have my concurrence. Mr. SEWARD. I have no tenacity, in the first place, as to the form of the resolution, or the recital contained in it. If it would obtain for the resolution one vote more, or commend it the more to the favor of the Senate, I would consent that the recital should be struck out, according to the suggestion of the Senator from Virginia. I am somewhat embarrassed by the other suggestion of the Senator-which I take kindly, and for which I return my acknowledgments-to make this a joint resolution. There was an informal consultation between the honorable Senator from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS,] who was the chairman of the committee to receive Governor Kossuth, and myself; and the result of the opinions we collected from members of the Senate was, that it would be better to put the resolution in its present shape. I would ask Senators who are favorable to the object of the resolution in some shape, to signify their wishes with regard to the form. I will receive their suggestions very kindly. What, sir, do you say? (addressing Mr. DAVIS.) Mr. DAVIS. I would prefer a joint resolu tion. Mr. SEWARD. Will the honorable Senator from Michigan be good enough to give me his opinion? Mr. CASS. I will answer distinctly. I cannot vote for the resolution in its present shape. Mr. SEWARD. Will the Senator from Michigan say whether he will vote for it in the form of a joint resolution? Mr. CASS. I think I should; but I do not wish the Senator from New York to take that as a definite answer. I must say, however, that I cannot vote for this resolution. Mr. SEWARD. Then, Mr. President, without further inquiry, I move to insert the word "joint" in the resolution. Mr. BADGER. Oh, no; you will never get it through the Senate. The PRESIDENT. That will change the whole character of the resolution. Mr. SEWARD. Very well, sir; then I will let it stand as it is, and take the sense of the Senate upon it. Mr. BADGER. I desire to say a word before the question is taken. It is pretty well known to every member of the Senate, and perhaps to many persons out of it, that I was totally opposed to the proceedings in reference to Kossuth, which ended in the presentation of the resolution now before the Senate. But, sir, I do hope that there will not be a moment's difficulty with any member of this body; after Louis Kossuth has been at Washington, after a committee has been appointed by our own body to receive and present him to the Senate, and after those expenses have been incurred in his entertainment here-I say, that after all this, I hope there will not be a gentleman of this body who will hesitate to vote promptly to have these expenses defrayed. Mr. MASON, (in his seat.) Yes; in a proper manner. contingent fund is designed, if it be not for expenses of this kind. They are not the regular and ordinary expenses of the Senate. It is clearly a contingency-an expense incurred in consequente of a resolution of the Senate, not relating to the ordinary expenses of the body-and if this is not a contingent expenditure, I do not know what is. I, for one, am for meeting this matter in the form in which it is proposed. If we give it the form of a joint resolution, it is as much as to infer that the expense was not incurred by us separately. But it was incurred by us, and we should not now attempt to give it a form which it did not originally wear. It seems to me that the resolution is right as it stands. Mr. BADGER. I think we owe it to ourselves to pay these expenses. With regard to the form of the resolution, I think it is proper that these expenses should be paid upon a resolution of the Senate, and not upon a joint resolution. When that gentleman came to this city, he came here without any committee having been appointed by the House of Representatives to receive him, or Mr. SHIELDS. I hope the motion to posttake charge of him, or present him to that body. pone the consideration of this resolution will not A committee had been appointed by the Senate for prevail. I would much rather, so far as I am inthat purpose; and he was in the city something dividually concerned and I know that the gentlelike a week before the resolution was passed in the man who incurred this expense so generously House of Representatives authorizing his recep- upon a contingency, would rather have the question in that body. In the meantime, he was re- tion decided one way or the other now. So he ceived by our committee, placed in suitable quarhas informed me. When Kossuth was made ters in the city, and the expenses, now sought to be the guest of the nation, and was on his way to defrayed, had been incurred. It seems to me, there-Washington by the invitation of Congress, the fore, that this matter properly belongs to the Senate, and it is our business to see that these expenses are paid. I hope that the proposition of the Senator from New York will be adopted-that the Secretary will audit these accounts, and ascertain what is just; and what is just, ought to be paid. Mr. BORLAND.I rise simply to suggest that the consideration of this resolution be postponed; not for the reason that I intend to discuss the subject to which it relates, but there is a member of the Senate [Mr. CLEMENS] who has given notice that he intended to offer his views upon it when it should come up. He is not now in his seat, and as this is not a pressing matter, and there are subjects which are of that character, I move that the further consideration of the resolution be postponed. Mr. SEWARD. I hope that motion will not prevail. A large portion of this money will be payable, if it is paid at all, to the keeper of one of the public hotels in this city, who stands in need of the money, and who has earnestly pressed upon. me to bring up this resolution as early as possible. I have not called it out of its order; but I do not feel at liberty to consent to its being deferred when it comes up in its regular course. Mr. CASS. The honorable Senator from New York had better accept the proposition of the gen. tleman from Virginia, [Mr. MASON.] If it were put in the form of a joint resolution, it would probably receive a more unanimous consideration by the Senate. I must observe, however, that it seems to me that you defeat the object and intent of appropriation bills if you are to pay such a sum as this, for such an object, out of the contingent fund of the Senate. It does not properly apply to the matters to which the contingent fund of the Senate should apply-the business of the nation as connected with its own operations. It seems to me to be one of those objects which call for the joint action of Congress, and I repeat, that if the resolution is put in the shape suggested by the Senator from Virginia, I shall feel strongly inclined to vote for it. I am clearly of opinion, however, that in its present shape it will meet with much stronger objection than in the other. Both Houses of Congress have had questions in relation to this gentleman and his reception here before them; and to have an appropriation made by both Houses is, in my opinion, vastly more proper than to say, "Pay it out of that contingent fund which was set apart for carrying out your own operations." Mr. BADGER. I do not agree with the Senator from Michigan. There is no propriety whatever in giving this proceeding the shape of a joint resolution. On the contrary, I regard it as entirely inappropriate. These expenses were incurred under no joint proceeding of the two Houses; by no joint committee of the two Houses, nor by any concurrent resolution; for the resolution which was passed by the Senate, and under which that gentleman was received here, and placed in quarters and entertained, was a resolution adopted by the Senate, which had been in force for a week after his arrival in the city before any resolution was adopted in the House of Representatives. It was a movement of our own; and now, sir, I should be glad to know for what expenses the question with us was, what were we to do? We tried to get the Executive to make some provision for his entertainment, but it was declined. What was to be done? Were we to invite the man and make him the guest of the nation, and bring him to Washington-a man whom we knew had come out of a prison, and was poor-and then permit him to remain in the streets? Sir, most unhesitatingly we determined to run the risk at once and made some provision for his entertainment. We considered that the nation was already under obligation to receive him in accordance with the dignity of the nation. Now, I take it for granted that in this case there was one of two things to be done: either to do nothing, or to do all that ought to be done either to stop before you begin, or not to stop until you end. [Laughter, in which the Senator from Illinois himself heartily joined.] My honorable and distinguished friend from Michigan, as I understand, says this cannot be paid out of the contingent fund, because that fund is appropriated especially for national objects. If this is not a national object, it ought not to be paid out of any fund at all. Mr. CASS. Because that fund is appropriated to the expenses of the Senate as such. Mr. SHIELDS. But I find there are precedents for this. In the case of the unfortunate disaster which occurred on board the Princeton, which had no direct connection with the Senate or with Congress, all the expenses were paid, as I understand, out of the contingent fund of the Senate. Yet it had no connection whatsoever with the Senate, and no direct connection with the Treasury, even. This is one precedent. But in my humble opinion, we ought unhesitatingly to pay this out of the contingent fund of the Senate, as has been suggested by the Senator from North Carolina, [Mr. BADGER.] My opinion is, that unless we pay it out of that fund, it will not be paid at all. I do not think a joint resolution will pass; then we shall be in the position of having invited Kossuth here as the guest of the nation, and of refusing to pay his expenses. I have already said this is a Senatorial act; it was performed by a committee of the Senate, and there was no option left us. We had been appointed by this body, and there was no preparation made for receiving him. The Executive had refused to make any provision for him, and the only question was what we were to do. Mr. SEWARD. If the Senator from Illinois will allow me to interrupt him, I ought perhaps to state that the Executive was consulted, and that he recommended the course which the committee afterwards took. Mr. SHIELDS. Yes; that fact may be stated, if it will give any force to the view I was presenting. Mr. Brown, the keeper of the hotel, has been waiting a long time for his pay, and my impression is, that unless it is paid out of the contingent fund, it will not be paid at all. Mr. PRATT. I do not exactly understand the phrase used by the honorable Senator from Illinois. But perhaps there is a meaning in it which is apparent to his mind, which does not suggest itself to mine. I mean the phrase in which he says it is best to stop before you begin, or not to stop until you end. Now, I think I can put a meaning upon it which would be sound policy to follow, although it may not be precisely the mode in which he would interpret it. I think we should have stopped to make the appropriation before we began to receive the man. If the committee, in the unpleasant situation in which they were placed, had applied to the Senate for authority to make the appropriation, the Senate would not have been in the position in which they now are of having the money expended before any act was passed to provide for its payment. This man was carried to one of the public hotels in this city, where he was entertained. If the committee had asked Congress or the Senate to make an appropriation, and to put the money into their hands for this specific purpose, it would have been all right and proper. But they pursued no such course. They entertained the man, and the bill having been made out, they now come and ask for its payment. The question in the first place is, whether the bill ought to be paid; and in the next place, whether it should be done by a joint resolution or out of the contingent fund of the Senate. I can have no earthly doubt if this bill is to be paid, that it ought not to be covered up and paid out of the secret and contingent fund of the Senate. Mr. BADGER. The contingent fund is not a secret fund. Mr. PRATT. He comes here, the guest of the nation, according to their theory, and he was entertained as the guest of the nation. If this is so, the expenses should be paid out of the national fund. The first question is, whether the object is proper; and the next is, what is the amount neces sary for the accomplishment of that object. Here is a proposition to pay some $5,000. If the appropriation were of a larger amount, the principle would be the same. Are we not to ascertain by the report of a committee, or from some other source, that this sum has been properly appropri ated to that object? Is there a bill ever presented to the Senate asking for an appropriation of money when there is no report of a committee, nor any explanation, going to show that the amount asked for is necessary for the purpose for which it is asked? It will be a matter of some curiosity to the people of the country at large, to see the items of this bill. I am sure the people of the country would like to see how $5,000 were spent in ten days in a public hotel by this man. Mr. SHIELDS. In thirteen days. Mr. PRATT. Well, if there were thirteen days, I think it would be a matter of public curiosity to know how the money was spent. I admit that I should be very much pleased myself to know in what way this sum could be properly appropriated for the entertainment of one individual for thirteen days. Mr. SHIELDS. The gentleman says that he does not understand my meaning, and insinuates, in a measure, that I do not understand it myself, when I say that we ought to have stopped before we began, or not to stop at all till we got to the end. Sir, I will tell that gentleman what my meaning is. If that gentleman invites a guest to come and sit down at his table, surely he ought not to ask him to bring his provisions with him! [Laughter.] He ought to ascertain whether he is able to entertain him before he invites him. Mr. PRATT. When I ask a guest to partake of my hospitalities, I know beforehand that I shall be able to provide something for him to eat. Now, this gentleman was not invited under such circumstances; and I think it would have been well had the committee ascertained that they had legiti mately the means of providing for him before they undertook to entertain him. Mr. SHIELDS. The Senator from Maryland forgets that this gentleman was invited by the nation and not by me, and that he, as a member of that nation, is as much bound by its acts as I am. Then, sir, as for reading over and examining the items, I would just as soon invite a guest to my table and, after I had treated him as well as I was able, take all the items of which he had partaken and publish them, in order to disgrace him. I do not care what opinions gentlemen individually entertain on this subject. None can deny that his being invited was the act of the nation. They have invited him and made him their guest, and the committee of the Senate, as the servants of that nation, placed him in that hotel and made arrangements for his reception; and I consider it would not be a very proper way of treating the matter now to call for the items of this account and publish them to the world, with the view of disgracing the man whom you have made your guest. Sir, in doing so you stultify yourselves; and everything you do to belittle that man after having made him your guest will only result in belittling yourselves. That is my opinion. After having gone so far, it seems to me that we ought not to stop here. We ought to pay these expenses. not by a joint resolution, but by a resolution of Mr. SHIELDS. According to the resolution Mr. SEWARD. The Secretary of the Senate is to audit the account. Mr. SHIELDS. It is to be investigated, and if the committee choose to pay, it will be very well. I do not see why we should publish the items. Mr. BORLAND. I moved the postponement of this resolution for the reason, as I stated, that there was a Senator who gave notice some time ago, that it was his intention to speak at some length on the subject. That Senator is not in his seat-I presume in consequence of indisposition. For that reason I was desirous that the question should be postponed until he might be present, in order that he may be able to present those views to the Senate of which he has given notice. I think that there is great force and propriety in the remarks made by the Senator from Maryland, Mr. MASON. I wish to state to the Senate [Mr. PRATT,] that we ought to have provided the that I was under some misapprehension when I means of entertainment before we proceeded to addressed the Senate a short time since, and I entertain that guest; and it will be recollected that ought to correct my remark. I stated that acwhen the resolution was before the Senate inviting cording to my recollection, this gentleman had Kossuth here, and calling him the guest of the not been invited to Washington. I have since nation, I offered a substitute for it, in which I sent for the joint resolution which was passed, made a direct proposition to make the appropri- and I find that the invitation was to the country ation then, and to determine what it should be. and to the capital. I am free to admit that that is But how was that proposition received by the an invitation to Kossuth to visit the city of Washfriends of Kossuth-his especial friends-and par-ington, and although I opposed it here, as is ticularly the Senator from Mississippi, not now here, (I mean Mr. Foote?) My proposition was declared to be an insult to Kossuth. It was said to be an insult to him to connect money with his name. Money was not to be thought of. Oh, no! We were to have "A feast of reason and a flow of soul," which was to cost nothing but the wind which provided it. [Laughter.] No money was to be mentioned. It was considered an insult to connect money with his name. I foresaw the consequences as everybody might have seen them, namely, that he would come here at considerable expense, and that when the bill came in we should be required to pay it, and that there would be no telling what it would be. known, in every form, I submit to the action of Mr. CLARKE. The honorable Senator from Virginia has anticipated much of what I intended to say, corresponding with my recollection with regard to the reception of Kossuth. In the first place, I shall vote for the postponement of this resolution; not because I desire that there should be any delay with regard to the payment for the entertainment of Kossuth and suite, but because I consider it a matter of courtesy to the Senator from Alabama, [Mr. CLEMENS.] I think that it is due to him that he should have an opportunity of presenting his views upon this subject when The Senator from Illinois objects to bringing the resolution is considered. He has already given the items here. He says that it would be dishon-notice of his desire to do so; and we all know that oring Kossuth. That has nothing to do with Kossuth at all. It is merely to see whether the account brought in by the hotel-keeper, who has furnished the means of his entertainment, is a correct account or not. Sir, it is said to be $5,000 for the thirteen days which he was here. That cannot be for the entertainment of Kossuth. I presume it must have been for the gentlemen who were with him. Now, this the Senate positively refused to do. The proposition was to include his suite, and the Senate would have nothing to do with it. It was to be Kossuth alone, that was to be entertained; and now, when the bill comes in, we are to pay for the entertainment of men whom we positively refused to entertain at all. Mr. UPHAM. I am very much surprised at the remarks made by the Senator from Illinois. He thinks that, to ask for the items, would be belittling Kossuth. It seems to me that he is under a very great mistake; but, on the other hand, if there is an attempt to shroud the matter in darkness and conceal it from the country, the people will infer that there is something wrong. I disagree with that Senator on another ground. He says we invited Kossuth here; that he was our invited guest. According to my recollection, when the committee was appointed, the question arose whether they should go to New York and receive him, or whether he should be received here. It was said that he was to be received when he reached the city of Washington. He came here, and the committee did receive him, and went with him, I presume, to the hotel; and I have no objection to pay a reasonable compensation for his entertainment. But, for one, I shall never vote for a proposition of this kind until I see the items composing this $5,000, or have an assurance that it will be examined by a committee of this body. As the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. BORLAND] has stated, we refused to invite his associates. We invited him, if there was any invitation at all. We invited him to the country and to the capital. We next appointed a committee to receive him, and now we are called upon in a public manner, it came up quite unexpectedly this morning while Now, it has been suggested by some gentleman mittee of the Senate acted conjointly in everything that related to the distinguished stranger. Mr. SHIELDS. The committee of the House of Representatives did not act with the committee of the Senate at all. Mr. CLARKE. I know they were there. I have no doubt the committee of the Senate first received him, but the committee of the House were there, and received him as well as the committee of the Senate. We see that he was the invited guest of the nation, and why, then, should not this expense be paid as well as any other claim against the Government of the United States? I think it should be paid by a joint resolution; in that form it shall have my support, without a murmur or complaint, and without asking to see the items on which this claim is founded. I have no desire to see them. I object to the impropriety of introducing this resolution here—as if the Senate of the United States were the only body that received Kossuth at Washington-to be paid out of the contingent fund, appropriated particularly and explicitly for the uses of the Senate. If he had been received by the Senate only, it would have been a different thing; but it was by a joint resolution that he was invited, and the appropriation should be made by a joint resolution. For that reason alone I beg to state explicitly that I shall vote against this resolution, because it will appropriate money which was not designed for such a purpose. A joint resolution shall have my cordial support. Mr. MANGUM. In all matters of this sort, the gracefulness with which the act is done constitutes more than half its merit. I have never had any of this Kossuth fever. If I had been here, I should have voted for none of these initiative proceedings. They were all consummated before I came here. I have seen many developments since that period, which would still more indispose me towards these proceedings than I was in the first instance. But, sir, he was invited here, and I think very improperly invited, to a seat in both Houses of Congress, with a view of bestowing those honors upon him which were bestowed upon La Fayette. I had no sympathy then with that movement, and I have none now. I look back to it with little respect, although we all participated in it. I think we were all in error; but the money having been expended, I think there can be' but one opinion throughout the country with regard to what is now proper to be donethat, without any higgling policy, the claim ought to be met. I think this resolution should not be postponed. I think it is not necessary, even for the presence of the Senator from Alabama, for I have as little respect for these proceedings as that Senator; but I feel that it is a point of honor, and even a more delicate one, a point of hospitality, and that we should pay this claim without raising difficulties upon the subject. As to the difference between a joint resolution, and a resolution to pay from the contingent fund, I see no particular difference. The money is money furnished by the United States, and that contingent fund is raised by the joint action of the two Houses of Congress; and I should be unwilling to see a running discussion of three or four days in either branch of Congress upon this subject. It has been compared to a case of private hospitality. I think it is even of a more delicate character; it touches that which ought to be dearer to every American, it touches the national honor. hope we shall never send another national ship for any person who does not hold as high a position as that of La Fayette. I do not hold this to be a parallel case at all. I have no sympathy with the proceeding. It was a snap judgment taken upon us, without due consideration; but having done it, we must go through with it; and, in the emphatic language of the Senator from Illinois, "Let us not stop till we get to the end." I hope that we will vote for this appropriation. At all events, let the honor of the Senate be clear of any imputation of inhospitality. Mr. PRATT. For my life, Mr. President, I that, therefore, the remarks which have been The original resolution has been handed to me That the Congress of the United States, in the name and behalf of the people of the United States, give to Louis As has already been said, a proposition to amend Mr. PRATT. Now, what is the question? This individual, as they say, has been invited as the guest of the nation. Sir, has he not been entertained? He has been entertained, and has now departed from among us. Everything has been done by the committee, according to their own showing, necessary to be done in regard to the treatment of this individual, as the guest of the nation. Therefore, the honor of the nation, so far as this individual is concerned, has been complied with and satisfied, by the committee entertaining him according to their own views. Now, what is the question? It is not the application of Kossuth to have this bill paid. He has nothing to do with it. No credit was given to him by the party who brings this bill to the Senate for payment, but it is an application on the part of the committee for payment to the individual. And now the honorable Senator says that it is dishonorable to the Senate and the country to direct any inquiry to be made in regard to the correctness of the bill for articles ordered by the Senate that it is dishonorable to inquire whether these articles have been furnished or not. That is the proposition. Kossuth has been introduced, and Kossuth has awakened your sympathies, I have no doubt. Mr. ATCHISON. Mr. President, from the He has departed from among us; a bill is pre- very beginning of this Kossuth matter up to the sented by one of our own citizens, who, at the present hour I have been peculiarly situated-sitinstance of the committee, supplied the articles uated somewhat as poor Hungary is situated, with necessary for his entertainment, and asking pay-Russia on the one hand and Austria on the other. ment for these articles, and we are not even to inquire what those articles were. Sir, cannot we as well inquire into the propriety of paying that bill as we could inquire into the propriety of paying any other bill for articles ordered by the Senate? Why is there such a degree of sensitiveness on the part of gentlemen in regard to this matter? What is there which is dishonorable in this inquiry? If the Senate had ordered these articles to be supplied for ourselves, or for anybody else, is it not always useful to inquire into the propriety of paying a bill? Are not the items examined by somebody, to ascertain that they are reasonable? The honorable Senator from Rhode Island says that he is for paying this bill, so far as it is reasonable. Sir, who is against paying it, so far as it reasonable? But how are you to ascertain whether it is reasonable or not, unless we or somebody else is to see the items? [The honorable Senator is seated between Mr. I have heard no constitutional objection to paying it out of the contingent fund of the Senate; and, for a wonder, the Constitution has not been interposed from any quarter. I shall vote against postponing this matter. I shall vote for paying the bill now as a matter of economy, that it may be ended once for all. Whether it be from the Mr. CLARKE. If the honorable Senator from influence of my friend on my right, or the SenaMaryland will allow me, I would beg to say, that tor on my left, I have looked upon this whole he misunderstands me. I was for paying the bill matter rather suspiciously. I had an indistinct when audited by the committee or the Secretary. idea that there was something of humbuggery All I meant to say was, that I had no idea of cav-mixed up with it. Now let us end it. I think iling about the amount, whether it was $4,000 or $5,000. The committee will determine that as provided by the resolution. Mr. MANGUM. Let the resolution be read. Mr. PRATT. One moment, sir. The Senator from Rhode Island expressly said that if the bill was reasonable it should be paid; and he will not say, nor will any man say, that if it should be unreasonable it ought to be paid. How is it that when these articles have been furnished to this individual no inquiry is to be made about it? What impropriety is there in making such an inquiry? That is the ordinary course. The individual himself has nothing on earth to do with it. The resolution does not direct that the committee shall examine the account, which I think it ought to do, Mr. BADGER. Let the resolution be read again. Mr. PRATT. I have no objection to have it read. when we foot this bill and pay it off, it will be the Mr. CASS. I will not go that. [Laughter.] The motion to postpone was not agreed to. on making that a joint resolution, and move an amendment to that effect. The PRESIDENT. It is moved to amend the resolution by changing its form, so as to make it read as follows: "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representativas of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the expenses incurred," &c. Mr. CASS. I wish to say a word or two only on that question. As to the bill, I have nothing to say upon it. I am perfectly willing to leave t to the committee. As to Kossuth's suite, I think it is altogether proper that they should be support ed at the public expense while they were here with him. We could not expect him to come here alone. It seems to me that is rather a small matter; but the other is the difficulty with me. The resolution recites the joint action of Congress in asking Mr. Kossuth to come here as the guest of the nation. It recites that it was done by the Congress of the United States; and now, to meet the necessary expenses, we propose to pay them out of the cortingent fund of the Senate. I repeat, there is no propriety in that. The contingent fund of the Serate was meant to meet the expenses of the Serate as such. Why, sir, what is the value of specific appropriations, which the Democratic party hire advocated since the days of Mr. Jefferson? The object is to decrease the amount of contingent payments, and make everything as specific as we car The smallest claim in the Union, unless there is a preexisting appropriation for it, has to come to Congress to be allowed and get a specific appro priation. It is a great principle which is involved in this question. I repeat, it is not to the bill that I object; I am willing to leave that to the committee. I am perfectly, willing to extend to the suit the necessary support. I think that is all right. But because the House of Representatives may not act upon the joint resolution, is that any reaso why we should not pass it? Is it the proper course for us to pursue, not to do our duty, presupposing that they will not do theirs, or that they will waste their time in useless and idle discussions? Noth ing is more important than that specific appropri ations should be made, as far as it is possible to make them. It was a great doctrine taught by Mr. Jefferson; and there is no man who knows the course of Mr. Randolph, but knows that it was one of the first things he urged in Congress. Our object is to give as little discretion to the ac counting officers as possible; to make the appropriations specific, and let the officers act upon them under the operation of the law. I repeat it is no objection to this course, this legal constitutiona course, that the House of Representatives will not do their duty. I presuppose no such thing. Mr. MANGUM. I should like to know very much, sir, how a specific appropriation can be made in this case?" One dozen of champagne, four and twenty or fifty dollars, as the case may be; half a dozen bottles of cologne, and varicus other matters! Sir, Mr. Jefferson's doctrine never touched such a case as this. The thing is imprac ticable in the nature of the case. I know some thing about the doctrine of specific appropriations When I was a very young man and a member of the other House, we undertook to carry it out. With that view, on the naval appropriators, a committee of conference was got up from the other House, and one from the Senate; and Mr Rufus King and the late Mr. Lloyd, then a repre sentative of Massachusetts, made a report, and the result of the endeavor was to show as litte foresight as could be shown. The effect of it was a crippling of the whole operation of the public service. Sir, as to this Kossuth movement, I view it with contempt; and so view, though with a much more energetic feeling, the doctrine which he has broached since he left the city of Washington. I have no sympathy with it; but if we have cont tracted an obligation, let us get out of it, and, as I said before, to do it gracefully constitutes more than half its worth. When General Lafayette was here, I remember, under the recommenda tion of President Monroe, we reported a bill to give him $200,000 and a township of land. There was a minority opposed to it. They were against exceeding $100,000. The question came up for consideration, the General having been invited here, and tendered a passage in a national ship: and, sir, I think the other branch of the Legisla ture almost unanimously felt that we should lower ourselves very much in the public judgment, if 1 PUBLISHED AT WASHINGTON, BY JOHN C. RIVES. TERMS $3 FOR THIS SESSION. 32D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION. in making a gratuity, we should weigh it as fine gold. That was the first occasion upon which I ever addressed that House in my life, to repudiate that idea. The appropriation was voted to General Lafayette, with only seven or eight opposed to it. You, Mr. President, were then a member of this branch of the Legislature, and it passed here with an overwhelming majority. There were about ten or fifteen, or perhaps not so many, opposed to it. SATURDAY, MARCH 13, 1852. you attempt to tie them up to the line of precision, it very often cripples the public service. nearer you get to a specific appropriation in every case, the nearer you get to a compliance with the true rule. Mr. CASS. That crippling has come down to us for half a century, and will go on, I trust, as long as we are a Government. Suppose you should undertake to say that $52,000,000 should be appropriated for the expenses of the Government, and leave the Executive to apply it; is there a man in either House of Congress who would advocate such a plan? It would be hooted, or the Sir, I can see no merit in our Government hav-public voice would hoot us out. Well, then, the ing tendered a national ship to a mere revolutionary mover in the Old World-I allude to Mr. Kossuth; one who had never rendered any service to this country; and one who, so far as we know, has rendered none to the cause of liberty. We were brought into that without due reflection. I hope we shall never do so again; but having incurred these expenses, I think we ought to meet them without counting the cost. The committee is to examine the bill. That committee consists of three of the most eminent members of this body-the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. CASS,]priate so much for the pay of members, so much the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS,] and the Senator from New York, [Mr. SEWARD.] If they have not learned arithmetic enough to settle the account of this hotel keeper, I think we never shall. It strikes me as an extravagant bill. However, I shall leave it to those gentlemen to say what is right, and I shall not quibble about it. I hope the subject will not be postponed, and that we will consume no more time upon it; but take a vote, and dispose of it finally. Mr. CASS. I desire to say one word, in answer to the remarks of the Senator from North Carolina. He speaks about champagne. I do not know whether there is any in the bill. He probably understands it better than I do. He asks whether every bottle of champagne-and I suppose every mouthful-is to be put in the specific appropriation? Nobody ever thought of such a thing. The honorable Senator did not ask the question seriously. In a specific appropriation, we leave the accounting officers, to carry the details into effect. I am for making a specific appropriation in this case of $5,000, or $4,000, or $3,000, or whatever may be necessary for the support of Kossuth, and leave the investigation to the committee to determine whether the items are proper. What they determine will be satisfactory to me. No man dreams of going over every item in the bill. Mr. SEWARD. If the Senator will permit me, I will ask him a question. If this is not a specific appropriation now, will it be made more so by changing it from a resolution of the Senate to a joint resolution of both Houses? As to the question of the Senator from New York, I would say that he mistakes the whole question in dispute between us. It is simply a question of the proper application to be made of the contingent fund. It is no question of a specific appropriation, or of a latitudinarian appropriation. It is no question of appropriation at all, but a question of application. You approfor this contingent expense and the other; now, what are they, fairly, honestly and purely? They are the expenses necessary to enable you to get along in your legislative capacity-payment of officers, and things of that description. But now you come to us with a resolution passed by both Houses of Congress, and signed by the President, inviting the guest of the nation to come here, and you wish to appropriate the amount of his expenses out of the contingent fund of this body. I repeat it is not proper. You say that Lafayette was paid. But was he paid the $200,000 out of the contingent fund of the Senate? Did any man dream that it was so? Would there have been found one man in either House who would advocate such a course, or have even proposed to give to Lafayette $200,000 out of the contingent fund of Senate? No, sir; it was a regular act of Congress. I shall vote for this appropriation with pleasure, if it is put in the form of an appropriation to be made by Congress, so that it may take the accustomed course in passing the two Houses. Mr. RUSK. I desire to say but a few words. All seem to admit that we have incurred a liability to pay these expenses. How has that liability been incurred? By a law of Congress, or by a direct joint resolution, which has the same force as a law, which was passed by both Houses of Congress. This proposition is to pay the expenses out of the contingent fund of the Senate, which is given for a particular object—the payment of the necessary expenses of the Senate, as a body, by itself. Now, this is either a debt owing to the tavern-keeper, or an obligation of politeness we are under to Mr. Kossuth. It seems to be treated in both capacities. Take it in either. Sir, the proper mode of doing it, unless you sanction an abuse in legislation, is by a regular, legal appropriation by the two Houses of Congress, and passing all the departments which hold a check on our expenditures. This is a matter in which gentlemen say, our courtesy is concerned, in which our obligations also are concerned. Well, there are other cases in which there are just as strong obligations, and as much courtesy due from this body towards claimants, as in this instance are due towards the Mr. CASS. That has nothing to do with it. Specific appropriations are not made by the action of the Senate, but by the joint action of the Senate, House of Representatives, and President of the United States. Allow me to say, that at the commencement of the Government, I believe, in asking appropriations for the Army, it was customary to say so many millions for the Army. Who would venture to ask such an appropriation for the Army now? They would ask so much for the pay of officers; so much for subsistence; so much for clothing; so much for the pay of the soldiers; so much for the medical department; so much for each particular. Specific appropri-hotel-keeper. I know there are bills lying upon ations should be made to check abuses. That is their object. No man pretends that you can, beforehand, set down every item. But, as is done in every constitutional government, you can make your appropriation for the object to which it is to be applied, and then you can hold your executive officers responsible for the proper application of the money, and the proper, legal adjustment of the accounts rendered under it. The honorable Senator from North Carolina [Mr. MANGUM] says, that he formerly made a speech to show that specific appropriations were useless. Mr. MANGUM. Oh, no. Mr. CASS. I thought that was the amount of the remark. Mr. MANGUM. My remark was, that when the table, providing for the payment to widows and orphans of just debts which they have against the United States, which have been reported upon frequently by committees of both Houses of Congress, but because they have been discussed in one House, or time did not permit them to be passed, have failed; and they are still here. The reason which the honorable Senator from Missouri [Mr. ATCHISON] furnishes, that they will discuss presidential questions in the House of | Representatives on this resolution, might apply to every bill. Then, according to that doctrine, we should have to change our whole proceedings. Would it not be just as legal, and proper, and appropriate, to take up one of these meritorious bills for the payment of $1,000 or $5,000 in favor of NEW SERIES.... No. 46. some individual who has a just claim upon the Government, and pay it out of the contingent fund of the Senate, because there would not be time to pass it in the House of Representatives? That would be just as legitimate a reason for us to take such a course to take money out of the Treasury, as it would be in this case. But it is altogether an assumption that it will be discussed in the House and not passed. We do not know anything about that. My plan is to act, and take our share of the responsibility, and trust to the House of Representatives. I believe they will be as just and as dignified as we; and, therefore, I shall vote for the amendment to constitute this a joint resolution. Mr. DAVIS. The honorable Senator from New York, when the discussion was commenced inquired of me in which form I would give the resolution a preference? I replied, as a joint resolution. As that topic is under discussion, I wish to state my reason for giving that opinion. It is now proposed, by this resolution, to take money from what is called the contingent fund of the Senate, in order to make these payments. That contingent fund is money already appropriatedappropriated by the two Houses of Congress for the use of the Senate, in payment of its contingent expenses. If this is a contingent expense of the Senate, then it is proper to make this application of the money. I thought that it was a little doubtful whether it would fall among that description of expenditure that we ordinarily consider the contingent expenses of the Senate; and therefore it was that I answered that I would prefer a joint resolution. I cannot perceive that the House could have within its contemplation, when it agreed to give this contingent fund, an expenditure of this description; though perhaps in some instances we adopt, as contingent, payments that are of as doubtful a character as this. I shall, however, find no insuperable difficulty in supporting it as a contingent expense, or as a joint resolution; for that this bill ought to be paid admits of no doubt; it can admit of no doubt. Why, sir, if any man of spirit and honor, for whose benefit a bill of this sort was incurred, could have listened to this debate, he would have put his hand in his pocket and paid the hotel-keeper himself. Why has it not been done? It has not been done, because a committee of this body and a committee of the other House, having the matter in charge, gave this gentleman to understand that he would be welcome to his lodgings; that no compensation, and no equivalent was to be expected from him. Now, whatever might be my views of the character of this individual, or of the course of life which he has pursued, I should deem this the most improper motive for me to withdraw myself from this transaction. I would meet the bill and pay it fairly, be it what it may. Nor would I inquire into the particulars of such a bill. I hardly think it is compatible with the character and dignity of the two Houses to go into the items of the expenditure. It is enough that you appoint a committee to look into the business, to take care of your rights, and see that what to them is satisfactory is done. That is enough for me. I would not stop to inquire whether the amount was reasonable or unreasonable. The Government paid this gentleman a great compliment-one that is almost unparalleled in the history of the country, there being but one precedent for a similar course of procedure. They gave him a welcome to the capital and to the country. And the committee, in my judgment, did right, when they thought that the spirit of hospitality in the Government should be carried out by making further provision for his entertainment. I, for one, approve of the course they have pursued. And now I would meet this obligationmeet it manfully, and pay it, as it becomes us to do. Mr. PRATT. I do not know to what portion of this debate the remarks of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts are intended as a reply. I would ask him to state, who upon this floor has said that this bill is not to be paid? I have |