Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

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

32D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

John Moore, Morehead, Newton, Olds, Outlaw, Samuel W. Parker, Penniman, Perkins, Phelps, Porter, Price, Richardson, Robinson, Sackett, Schoolcraft, Schoonmaker, Scudder, David L. Seymour, Smith, Stanly, Benjamin Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Stuart, Sutherland, Taylor, Benjamin Thompson, Thurston, Tuck, Walsh, Ward, Watkins, Welch, Wells, Addison White, Williams, and Yates -102.

So the resolution was not laid on the table.

Mr. BROWN. I desire the unanimous consent of the House to make a remark or two, in justice to myself and the House. It shall be very brief.

Mr. Speaker, during the six years that I have occupied a seat upon this floor, I am not sensible that I have, before, once violated or committed a breach upon the rules of this House. I deeply and painfully regret that there should have been a necessity for my, doing so now. I shall not recur to the circumstances under which I was induced to perpetrate an act in the presence of this House, which I know was a breach of its rules and a violation of parliamentary decorum; a thing which I certainly should not have been guilty of, except from what I conceived to be a very pressing and extraordinary necessity. I apologize to the House, sincerely, earnestly, and from my heart. Sir, I apologize to the representatives of the people, and express to them my deep and heartfelt regret that I should have been engaged in any transaction which must necessarily reflect discredit upon the councils of the nation. More than this, under the present circumstances, I cannot do. I trust the House will receive my apology. I throw myself upon the indulgence of the country, and ask its pardon also; and I offer the guarantee which a life passed in the service of my country affords, that a similar occurrence will not again take place, unless under some other very pressing and very extraordinary circumstances. am the last man to violate, willfully, the smallest rule of the House, and much less to violate its order and its decorum so flagrantly, as to attract the attention of the House, and, as I painfully fear, the attention of the country also. I have nothing more to say.

Mr. WILCOX. It is a matter of heartfelt sorrow to me, that I have to rise so soon after having become identified with this body, to make an apology for a breach of its rules.

During my identity with this House, I have endeavored, so far as in me lies, to discharge the duties devolving upon me as a representative, and to comply strictly and rigidly with the rules and regulations that govern the House. And, that the quiet and repose of this great deliberative Hall should have been disturbed under circumstances of the kind and character which transpired a few minutes ago, I repeat, is to me a matter of heartfelt sorrow. I tender an apology to this House. I mean, I feel, what I say. It is the language of my heart. I intended no disrespect to the representatives of this nation; none whatever. I am incapable of it. And now permit me, once and forever, to say that I desire to enter a disclaimer to that effect.

But, sir, as my honorable colleague has alluded indirectly to this unpleasant difficulty, permit me to say that I considered the wrong and outrage offered me, by him, justified me in the course I pursued.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. I move that the gentlemen from Mississippi [Messrs. BROWN and WILCOX] be excused.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I beg leave to suggest to my friend from Arkansas, that there has been no proceeding against those gentlemen, and therefore there is no necessity that such a motion should be made.

Mr. JOHNSON. I make the inquiry of the Chair. Did not the Speaker, under the direction of the House, order these men to be arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms?

The SPEAKER. The Chair issued an order for the arrest of those continuing in disorder; but the Sergeant-at-Arms was not present at the time, and no arrest was made.

Mr.JOHNSON. Then no motion is necessary. I withdraw my motion.

MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1852.

PROPOSITIONS TO ADJOURN OVER.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. I move that when this House adjourn, it adjourn to meet on Monday next.

Mr. STANLY demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

The question was then taken, and decided in the negative-yeas 67, nays 110-as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Abercrombie, John Appleton, William Appleton, Babcock, Beale, Bennett, John H. Boyd, Bragg, Breckinridge, George H. Brown, Busby, E. Carrington Cabell, Lewis D. Campbell, Thompson Campbell, Cartter, Chastain, Coleock, Cottman, Cullom, Dawson, Dimmick, Edgerton, Edmundson, Ewing, Faulkner, Floyd, Gilmore, Green, Hamilton, Hibbard, Hillyer, Holladay, James Johnson, John Johnson, Landry, Letcher, Humphrey Marshall, McDonald, McMullin, McNair, McQueen, John Moore, Morehead, Nabers, Orr, Andrew Parker, Samuel W. Parker, Peasfee, Phelps, Porter, Riddle, Sackett, Schoonmaker, Scurry, Smart, Smith, Snow, St. Martin, Sutherland, Wallace, Ward, Addison White, Wilcox, Wildrick, Woodward, and Yates-67.

NAYS-Messrs. Aiken, Willis Allen, Allison, Ashe, Averett, Thomas H. Bayly, Barrere, Bartlett, Bell, Bibigbaus, Brenton, Briggs, Brooks, Albert G. Brown, Buell, Burrows, Joseph Cable, Caskie, Chandler, Chapman, Clark, Cleveland, Clingman, Cobb, Curtis, Daniel, John G. Davis, Dockery, Doty, Duncan, Dunham, Durkee, Eastman, Evans, Ficklin, Fitch, Florence, Fowler, Henry M. Fuller, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Giddings, Goodenow, Gorman, Grow, Harper, Isham G. Harris, Sampson W. Harris, Hascall, Haven, Hebard, Hendricks, Henn, Horsford, Houston, Howard, Thomas M. Howe, Thomas Y. How, Ives, Jackson, Jenkins, Andrew Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, George G. King, Kubns, Kurtz, Mason, McCorkle, McLanahan, Meade, Miller, Molony, Henry D. Moore, Morrison, Mur

ray, Newton, Olds, Outlaw, Penniman, Perkins, Polk, Price, Rantoul, Richardson, Robbins, Schoolcraft, Scudder, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, Stanly, Benjamin Stanton, Richard H. Stauton, Abrabam P. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stratton, Stuart, Taylor, Benjamin Thompson, George W. Thompson, Thurston, Townshend, Tuck, Walsh, Watkins, Welch, Wells, Alexander White, and Williams-110.

The SPEAKER. The question recurs upon the motion to adjourn.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Illinois, called for the yeas and nays; which were not ordered.

The question was then taken upon the motion to adjourn, and there were, upon a division-ayes 44; noes not counted.

So the House refused to adjourn.

The question recurred on the proposition to close debate.

Mr. CLINGMAN.

Has the House seconded

the call for the previous question? The SPEAKER. The question is upon the adoption of the resolution, and upon that the previous question has been demanded.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee At what hour does that resolution propose to close debate?

The SPEAKER. In one hour after the committee shall have resumed the consideration of the subject.

Mr. JONES. Then I move to amend, by substituting to-morrow, at half past one o'clock.

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks the amendment is not in order, the previous question having been demanded.

The question then being upon seconding the previous question,

Mr. FOWLER called for tellers; which were ordered, and Messrs. CLINGMAN and CHANDLER appointed.

The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 30, noes 37.

So the previous question received a second, and the main question was then ordered to be put. The question was then taken upon the adoption of the resolution, and it was agreed to.

Mr. CLINGMAN moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted, and to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table; which latter motion was ageeed to.

Mr. CABELL, of Florida. I move that when the House adjourns, it adjourn to meet on Monday

[blocks in formation]

NEW SERIES....No. 47.

The SPEAKER. The motion of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. CABELL] is also a privileged question, and must take precedence of the motion to adjourn.

Mr. CABELL. I withdraw my motion. Mr. HALL. I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SMART. I move that when the House adjourns, it adjourn to meet on Monday next.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is of opinion that * this is a question which must be put before that of the motion to adjourn, under a positive rule of the House, although both are in order, and privileged questions.

Mr. MASON called for the yeas and nays upon the motion of Mr. SMART; and they were ordered. Mr. SMART. I withdraw my motion.

Mr. MASON. I move that the House do now adjourn.

The question was taken, and there were, upon a division-ayes 55, noes 97; so the House refused to adjourn.

Mr. STANTON, of Kentucky. I move that the rules of the House be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union upon the special order.

Mr. ORR. Is it in order to move, now, that when the House adjourn, it adjourn to meet on Monday next?

The SPEAKER. It is in order.

Mr. ORR. Then I make that motion.

Mr. CLINGMAN. Upon that motion I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PHELPS demanded tellers upon the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and Messrs. ROBBINS and CLINGMAN appointed.

The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 39; noes not counted.

So the yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. ORR. As many members have to go to the Departments on business, I withdraw my motion.

Mr. MOREHEAD. I renew the motion, and with the distinct understanding that it will not be withdrawn.

Mr. HOUSTON. Is it in order to renew and withdraw a motion consecutively, as soon as the yeas and nays are called, and thereby delay public business?

The SPEAKER. It is not within the power of the Chair to do more than to enforce the rules of the House. The motion is clearly in order.

Mr. HOUSTON. I hope the House will put down these efforts to defeat public business.

Mr. HEBARD. The question I propose is this: whether this is one of those questions which can be repeated successively-the question of the adjournment over?

The SPEAKER. If the gentleman is of the opinion that it is improperly repeated, the Chair will hear him upon that subject, and he may take an appeal from the decision of the Chair. The Chair has no doubt but that the motion is in order. There was no vote taken upon the proposition of the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. ORR,] to adjourn over until Monday. It was withdrawn. It was as competent for the gentleman in front of the Chair to make that motion, as it was for the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. HEBARD. That is not the point I make. It has been once voted upon. The question is, whether it can be made again the same day?

The SPEAKER. If voted upon this morning, there may be a different reason this evening for adopting it.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I will remind the Chair that it was voted upon and rejected, under the call of the yeas and nays..

The SPEAKER. Of that the Chair was aware; but would the gentleman insist it is not in order for a gentleman to submit a motion to adjourn more than once during the day?

Mr. GENTRY. The point of order is, whereas the House refused to adjourn this morning, it cannot adjourn this evening. [Laughter.]

Mr. HEBARD. That is not my question. Mr. MEADE. I ask for the reading of the 48th rule.

The SPEAKER. The question is not debatable.

Mr. CLINGMAN. My remark was in reply to the observation of the Speaker, that if it had been voted upon, it would not be now in order; and I wish to remind the Chair of it.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman did not understand the Chair. The Chair had reference to the proposition made by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. ORR.] If it had been voted upon, the Chair would have decided, immediately upon the annunciation of the vote, that it would not be in order to renew it; but business intervening, it would be in order a dozen times during the day. Mr. CLINGMAN. I agree with the Chair there.

The SPEAKER. The 48th rule, as requested by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. MEADE,] will be read.

The Clerk read the rule as follows:

"A motion to adjourn, and a motion to fix the day to which the House shall adjourn, shall be always in order." Mr. ROBBINS demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

The question was then taken, and the motion was decided in the negative-yeas 58, nays 107— as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Allison, John Appleton, William Appleton, Ashe, Babcock, Bennett, John H. Boyd, Breckinridge, George H. Brown, Busby, E. Carrington Cabell, Lewis D. Campbell, Thompson Campbell, Cartter, Colcock, Cullom, Dawson, Dimmick, Dunham, Edgerton, Edmundson, Ewing, Gaylord, Gentry, Green, Hamilton, Isham G. Harris, Sampson W. Harris, Hillyer, Holladay, James Johnson, John Johnson, Landry, Letcher, Humphrey Marshall, McMullin, McNair, McQueen, John Moore, Morehead, Nabers, Olds, Orr, Andrew Parker, Samuel W. Parker, Peaslee, Phelps, Porter, Richardson, Riddle, Scurry, Smart, Smith, St. Martin, Wallace, Ward, and Alexander White-58.

NAYS-Messrs. Aiken, Willis Allen, Averett, Thomas H. Bayly, Barrere, Bartlett, Bell, Bibighaus, Brenton, Briggs, Brooks, Buell, Burrows, Joseph Cable, Caskie, Chandler, Chapman, Churchwell, Clark, Cleveland, Clingman, Cobb, Curtis, Daniel, John G. Davis, Dockery, Doty, Duncan, Durkee, Evans, Ficklin, Fitch, Florence, Fowler, Henry M. Fuller, Giddings, Goodenow, Gorman, Grow, Hall, Harper, Haws, Hascall, Haven, Hebard, Hendricks, Horsford, Houston, Howard, Thomas M. Howe, Thomas Y. How, Ives, Jackson, Jenkins, Andrew Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, George G. King, Preston King, Kuhns, Kurtz, Mason, McLanahan, Meacham, Meade, Miller, Molony, Henry D. Moore, Morrison, Murray, Newton, Penniman, Perkins, Polk, Price, Rantoul, Robbins, Savage, Schoolcraft, Schoonmaker, Scudder, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, Snow, Stanly, Benjamin Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Abraham P. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stratton, Stuart, Sutherland, Geo. W. Thompson, Thurston, Townshend, Walsh, Washburn, Watkins, Welch, Wells, Wilcox, Wildrick, Williams, Woodward, and Yates-107.

So the House refused to adjourn till Monday. Mr. STANTON. As it is the desire of the House, I move we adjourn; which motion was agreed to.

And the House adjourned.

PETITIONS, &c.

The following petitions, memorials, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees: By Mr. MOORE, of Pennsylvania: Three memorials from citizens of the county of Philadelphia, asking an extension of the Woodworth patent.

By Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania: The remonstrance of a large number of citizens of Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, remonstrating against the extension of the Wood

worth patent.

By Mr. CHANDLER: Four memorials, one signed by 105 builders and lumber merchants; one signed by Joseph West and 116 others; one signed by members of the Select and Common Councils and Board of Trade; portwardens, alderman, and recorder; one signed by A. Clark and 122 others, all citizens of Philadelphia, remonstrating against a renewal of patent for Woodworth's planing machine. Also, two memorials signed by 115 citizens of Philadelphia, asking for a renewal of Woodworth's patent.

By Mr. SIBLEY: Memorial of 156 citizens of the United States, residing in New York, Pennsylvania, and other States, members of "the Western Farm and Village Association," praying a grant of 160 acres of land to each individual, signed on condition that actual improvement be made thereon previous to the 15th day of July, 1852; and that said memorialists be allowed to select these grants from any unappropriated public lands between Lake Michigan and the Rocky Mountains.

By Mr. WASHBURN: The remonstrance of Henry Richardson and others of Oldtown, Maine, against the renewal of Woodworth's patent.

By Mr. ALLISON: Three petitions signed by C. F. Speyrer and 252 others, citizens of Beaver county, Pennsylvania, on the subject of intervention,

By Mr. ROBBINS: The petition of Patrick Sharp and 36 other citizens of the county of Philadelphia, asking Congress to modify the bounty land act of September 28, 1850, so as to give to each of the persons intended to be benefited thereby, and to the seamen and marines who served in said wars, not less than 160 acres of land.

Also, on the same subject, the petition of Jacob Moser and 72 others, citizens of the city and county of Philadelphia.

By Mr. CAMPBELL, of Illinois, the memorial of Da vid C. Riggs and 21 others, citizens of the State of Illinois, praying for a grant of land to aid in the construction of a railroad from Burlington to the Missouri river.

On motion by Mr. CLEVELAND, the petitions of Messrs. Frink, Chew & Co., and others, and the accompanying papers, relating to seamen engaged in the whale fishery, and the erection of a marine hospital at New London, Connecticut, were taken from the fles and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

On motion by Mr. PORTER, the petition of McKnight, Brent & Wood was taken from the files and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. HAMILTON: The petition of Gideon Bouty and others, citizens of Frederick county, Maryland, remonstrating against the extension of the Woodworth pat

ent.

By Mr. PENNIMAN: The memorial of 400 citizens of Michigan, asking a grant of alternate sections of land in aid of the Oakland and Ottawa railroad.

Also, the proceedings of a meeting of the Detroit bar, and a memorial thereof, asking increased compensation to the district judge of the United States for the district of Michigan.

By Mr. DOTY: The petition of settlers on the Menominee Purchase, in Wisconsin, for a preemption of three years to the lands occupied by them.

By Mr. BRENTON: The petition of R. Morgan French, asking compensation as special mail agent, from San Francisco to New York.

Also, the petition of Isaac Covert, deputy marshal in Indiana, asking additional compensation for taking the census.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, March 13, 1852.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Rev. C. M. BUTLER.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

MESSRS. WILCOX AND BROWN. Mr. POLK. I rise to a privileged question. I am gratified to be able to state to the House that the unfortunate difficulty between the two representatives from Mississippi [Messrs. WILCOX and BROWN] has been adjusted in a manner highly creditable to both parties, and that they now occupy the same position of friendship which existed between them previous to the unpleasant affair of yesterday. At the request of the friends of both parties the matter was referred to the honorable gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. JOHNSON] and myself, for adjustment.

The SPEAKER. The business first in order is the motion submitted by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. STANTON] upon yesterday, that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole upon the state of the Union, on the special order.

RESOLUTIONS OF STATE LEGISLATURES. Mr. PRICE. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce joint resolutions of the Legislature of the State of New Jersey in relation to the producers of coal, and the manufacture of iron and glass.

There was no objection, and the resolutions were received, read, and referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. KING, of New York, asked and obtained the unanimous consent of the House to introduce joint resolutions of the Legislature of the State of New York, against the extension of the Woodworth patent; which were referred to the Committee on Patents, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. DANIEL. I understand the first business

in order is upon the pending motion to go into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. I wish to inquire if the subject under consideration before that committee is a special order? The SPEAKER. It is.

Mr. DANIEL. If the House refuse to go into the Committee of the Whole, I suppose that it will be competent to postpone that special order with the view of going into Committee of the Whole House upon the private Calendar?

The SPEAKER. It will be in order. Mr. DANIEL. I hope, then, that the motion pending will not prevail.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I insist, as this motion now pending is the first business in order, that it put, take of other motion.

CONTESTED ELECTION FROM NEW MEXICO.

Mr. PHELPS. I rise merely to suggest to the House that I had hoped that the question of privilege which I called up the other day I should be able to have considered to-day; but if the House will consent to its now being taken up with a view to postponement to a day certain, I shall be satisfied. I was not present on yesterday when an attempt was made by the Delegate from New Mexico [Mr. WEIGHTMAN] to call up that question. As soon as the signal had been given that the House had assembled, I left the room of the Committee of Ways and Means with the resolution calling it up for consideration. I am perfectly willing, however, to have the question laid over until Monday.

A MEMBER. Let it lie, and it can be called up at any time.

Mr. PHELPS. I am sometimes retained in the committee room, and, of course, cannot be here precisely at the time of the reading of the Journal. I am perfectly willing that it shall be postponed until Monday.

Mr. HOUSTON. I would suggest to the gentleman from Missouri, that of next week the portion which will not be taken up in the consideration of private matters is allowed for the completion of the special order and the disposition of the deficiency bill. If this case of contested election intervene, it is entirely possible, and indeed probable, that the whole time thus allowed for public business would be consumed in discussion. I therefore hope that the contested election will be postponed for a more remote day.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I make this point of order: There is nothing before the House but the pending motion. I do not understand the gentleman from Missouri to have insisted upon taking up the privi leged question. It will go over, of course, until Monday, or some other time.

The SPEAKER. If the gentleman from Missouri presses his proposition to consider the subject, it being a privileged question, the Chair thinks that it will be competent to take the sense of the House in regard to its disposal; but it is competent also for the House to postpone it or to pass to other business at any time. That matter will be decided, the Chair will suggest to the gentleman from Missouri, by a vote upon the proposition now pending to go into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. PHELPS. Very well.

CONGRESSIONAL LIBRARY ROOM. Mr. WILDRICK, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported as correctly enrolled "An act to provide for the repair of the Congressional Library Room lately destroyed by fire;” which received the signature of the Speaker.

The question was then put upon the motion that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and it was decided in the affirmative.

THE EXTENSION OF THE CAPITOL. The House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. SEYMOUR, of Connecticut, in the chair.)

The CHAIRMAN. The first business in order is the special order, being "Senate joint resolution No. 2, authorizing the architect of the Capitol to continue in employment the mechanics, laborers, and others, employed upon the two wings there of," upon which the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. WILCOX] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. DUNCAN. If the gentleman from Mississippi would give away for a few minutes while I make an explanation in reference to the bill now under consideration, I would be obliged to him.

Mr. WILCOX. I will say to my honorable friend that I will reserve sufficient time in which he may say all that he desires, and ask that I may have notice from him. I regret exceedingly, Mr. Chairman, to say anything further upon this sub ject than that which I addressed to the House a few days ago; but were I to fold my arms and sit quietly by and permit the speech of the honorable member from Mississippi [Mr. BROWN] to go unanswered, in all probability the charge could with some propriety or impunity be made against me, that I had uttered from my place upon this floor things that were untrue, so far as Missis Democracy might be impeached from

Also, the petition of Robert J. Hammond and 153 others, bebje, and any other proceeding until that is dis- sippi politics are concerned. Furth the remarks

citizens of Washington county, for an act to prohibit the transportation and delivery of the mail on the Lord's day.

posed of,

Yet the honorable gentleman rises in his place upon this floor, and says that there was no party in Mississippi in favor of secession or disunion. Again, one of the judges of the high court of errors and appeals of Mississippi, when addressing a State-Rights convention, was reported to have said, "that he thanked his God that there was no such a God in his political pantheon as the Union God."

Why, the history of the country does not comport with the remarks which the gentleman has made. I care not for the impression which has been made upon his mind. He may have his impression of the facts, but I recollect the newspapers of the day charged him with saying, “I call God to witness, that I am for resistance;" and he called upon the people of his district "to trust to God and keep their powder dry."

which the honorable gentleman saw fit to sub- and cry about the mixed ticket of the Union party mit. I simply ask to say to my Democratic in the State of Mississippi. He studiously avoids friends to-day, that I have always been a Demo- saying anything about the mixed ticket of his own crat-that I have never hedged to the right or the party of State-Rights secession Whigs being left, but am a Tennessee Democrat. The first les- nominated for the convention and the Legislature sons of Democracy that I ever learned were from by Democratic State-Rights conventions. He says the late lamented James K. Polk of Tennessee, nothing about his party abandoning the Demoand the first political speech that I ever delivered cratic doctrine of free trade-of excluding by legis in my life, when a boy, was written by that in- lative enactment all goods manufactured north of mortal statesman. I was raised in Tennessee. I Mason and Dixon's line. He says nothing about love her statesmen, I love her politics, and I re- a Democratic State-Rights secession Senate electing joice to say this morning that I stand with her the honorable John J. Guion, an open and avowed upon these questions-that I stand with the Democ- Whig, President of the Senate, on account of his racy of Tennessee upon the late compromise indorsement of the secession, disunion doctrines of measures passed by the Congress of the United the State-Rights party-and nothing about having States. Here, sir, is her platform. I hold it in run him afterwards for Chancellor of the State. my hand. I went to Mississippi to seek out an Yes, sir, a secession Senate, contrary to the usages honest livelihood; shortly after having been in that and customs of the party, elected a Whig PresiState I took the stump as a speaker of the Demo-dent of the Senate, who became Governor of the During my canvass upon one occasion, while I cratic party, and labored arduously in the cam- State on the resignation of Governor Quitman. was addressing the people, and calling upon them paign of 1844, and afterwards in 1848. I have For the first time in nineteen years Mississippi to submit as good citizens to the laws of their ever been a faithful, uncompromising, unyielding was placed under the rule of a Whig Governor-Government, two hundred men upon horses surDemocrat. I was elected secretary of the Senate and that, too, by a secession Senate, a majority of that State, and reëlected, as a Democrat. When of whom were Democrats. May I not be perour country was inyolved in war with Mexico, it mitted to exclaim with the Scotch bard was charged upon the Democratic party as being a Democratic war, and that that immortal statesman of Tennessee had plunged us into it, notwithstanding my patriotism was excited, yet I am free to confess that my partisan predilections coerced and compelled me to offer my services in behalf of my country-to fight this country out of

that Democratic war.

"Owad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
'Twad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion."

rounded the place where I was speaking, with a banner unfurled to the breeze. Was it the old star-spangled banner of our country? Oh, no, not at all. It was a flag with two stripes upon itone for Mississippi and one for South Carolina. And in the midst of my speech three cheers were given by them for South Carolina and three cheers for Mississippi. No disunion party in the State of Mississippi!-no secession party in the State of Mississippi! I have heard men, in my own State, of this party, hurl imprecations upon this Government, saying it should be sunk fifty fathoms in hell. No party in favor of disunion-in favor of

secession >

Here, sir, was an example set by a Democratic
Senate; which Senate now refuses to go into the
election of a United States Senator for the long
term, riding over the constitution and laws of the
State, and standing out in perverse opposition to
the express wishes of the people. If this is De-
mocracy, God save me from such Democracy!
Throughout my whole speech I spoke from the
If I had time, I could read you resolutions from
record. Did I stand with the Democracy of my
almost every county in the State, where this par-
State in 1834? What was Democracy then, should ty took the ground, if the North refused to run
be good Democracy now. In that day and hour, the line of 360 30' through California, that they
when our country was imperiled in consequence were in favor of the dissolution of the Union. I
of the doctrines of secession and nullification which
referred you to those resolutions in part the other
were running riot throughout our country, the day; and yet, with those resolutions, the message
Democratic party of the State (and here is the jour-of Governor Quitman, and the proceedings of the
nal) of Mississippi that met in convention to sustain convention of the State of Mississippi, before the
General Jackson, denounced the doctrine of nulli-
honorable gentleman's eyes, he says there was no
fication and secession as a heresy unknown to the
Constitution. I plant myself upon those resolu- party in the State of Mississippi in favor of se-
cession or disunion. I have seen meetings, time
tions. Here are the journals also of the Legisla- and time again, where they had their transparen-
ture that assembled the Democratic Legislature; cies with Secession and Southern Confederacy
it sustained General Jackson, his proclamation written upon them.
and all. I stand upon those resolutions, and the
Union party of the State of Mississippi stand upon
those resolutions.

But the honorable gentleman says there was no Disunion party in Mississippi; there was no party there in favor of secession! Why, I refer you to my address delivered a few days ago. I now say that whoever in this House, or elsewhere, says that there was no such party in the State of Mississippi in favor of disunion, misconceives the history of the country. Upon this question the honorable gentleman and myself differ; his impressions are to the contrary. What are the facts? There was a large Democratic State-Rights secession dinner given to General Quitman, at which there were thousands of persons assembled. At that meeting a letter was received from Colonel Pickens, of South Carolina, in which we find the following:

The gentleman seems to think that I now stand outside of the Democratic party. Why, it is known to everybody that these compromise measures were Democratic measures, notwithstanding they received the support and advocacy of the Whigs; but the majority of members advocating and voting for these measures were Democrats. Now, let us see how I stand. I look north of Mason and Dixon's line, and I see all the great statesmen of the North, including Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Seymour, Mr. Clifford, Mr. Dallas, Mr. Douglas, and Mr. Dickinson-ay, sir, all the great statesmen of the Democratic party-not only indorsing, but acquiescing in every feature of that compromise. I look South, and I find distinguished Southern Democrats sustaining and acquiescing in the compromise measures. Further, I find that every convention of the Democratic party that has met since the passage of the compromise have indorsed it. I acquiesce in these compromise measures. My Democracy prompts me to acquiesce in them as a final settlement. In doing so, I have not lost my identity with the great national Democratic party of the United States. I delivered a speech a few days ago, in which I endeavored to be bold and pointed, reviewing Mississippi politics. I spoke from the record. I spoke from the message of the Governor, as submitted to the Legislature of the State. I spoke from the history of that State, and quoted article upon article from the press of that State, and yet the honorable gentleman from Mississippi proceeds to answer my address-contradicting what I have said. So far as General Quitman is concerned, he says he had it from the mouth of that gentleman that he did not oppose General Jackson. Now, I want no further difficulty or collision with that honorable gentleman, but I feel proud that I have here with me, upon the present occasion, some old documents, and they are dangerous things. I feel proud that I can submit to this House the address of the Democratic party of Mississippi, put forth to the people of that State, in which General Quitman is charged with being a nullifier and a secessionist; the author of the nullification and secession addresses; the presi-sissippi, with such men as Quitman and Davis to lead her dent of their meetings; the warm personal and political friend of Mr. Adams; with supporting him in 1824 and 1828; and as the bitter and unqualified enemy of General Jackson up to 1836. Here is the address of the Democratic party of the State of Mississippi. Let the gentleman join issue with the Democratic party of the State of Mississippi upon that point. Why did not General Quitman, in those days, when our country was in peril and danger, deny these things? They never were denied; and for the first time have I ever heard that he was not the supporter of Mr. Adams.

But the honorable gentleman raises a great hue

"Are we to stand by and see these monstrous outrages perpetrated, and raise no arm for resistance? Is Mississippi to stand by and say to South Carolina, Strike, but we cannot? Did she stand back at Buena Vista for any one to lead? No! She flashed her gleaming saber high over the perilous ridge of battle, and her waving plume led where death and danger stood. It may become her sacred duty to walk the plank alone; and if so, I trust she will walk it like a queen that never quailed before earthly power, although it may lead over a gulf of fire and blood. We have but one path to tread-the path of duty, lead where it may. Mis

to the breach, can do anything she dare to maintain her

rights. Brave men can cut their way to independence, if

needs be, with sword in hand."

He concludes with this sentiment:

"MISSISSIPPI AND SOUTH CAROLINA: May they at present entwine for themselves, as sisters, a civic wreath as imperishable and as glorious as the bright fame of their gallant sons that rose in splendor from the plains of Buena Vista and Churubusco."

When this letter was read, it was received with shouts of approbation. About the time of this celebrated Quitman festival, a similar one was holden in South Carolina. This toast was given:

"JOHN A. QUITMAN: The first President of the Southern Republic, in all the illustrious line to follow him, there never will be found a clearer head or a braver heart,"

The honorable gentleman asks me some questions. He asks me if I was ever in favor of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions? Did I indorse the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions? Oh, yes, with all my heart I have ever indorsed those resolutions. The gentleman cannot with any propriety refer to those resolutions to sustain his sinking cause. The doctrine of the peaceable and constitutional right of a State to secede from the Union cannot be deduced from them. It would be a shameful perversion not only of the spirit but the very letter of those resolutions. The author of them, in 1833, with all the amplitude of his power, and the profundity of his vast conceptions, reviewed them, and what was the conclusion to which he came? He said this constitutional right was wholly unwarranted, and that secession was an extra and ultra constitutional remedy. These are facts of such public notoriety that they cannot be gainsayed. It is in the recollection of the older members of this House, that these resolutions were adopted in consequence of the passage of certain obnoxious acts of Congress. And these resolutions amounted to nothing more than a simple protest by the parties aggrieved, so as to produce a repeal of those measures or obtain amendments of the Constitution. Every State in the Union indorsed and responded to them. I defy any gentleman to point to a single State which, in responding to them, "hinted at anything being contained in them looking, however remotely, towards secession."

Mr. Jefferson agreed with Mr. Madison; and their joint opinion is contained in Mr. Madison's letter to Mr. Everett, in 1833. I would refer that honorable gentleman to this letter, and if he would read it, it would prove useful to him. But the honorable gentleman says that he will not ask the Baltimore Convention to indorse his peculiar views of the doctrine of State-Rights. Oh no, I do not think he will, I do not think that the gentleman will have the effrontery-I speak it in no unkind sense to rise in that body and request the passage

of a resolution indorsing his peculiar notions of State-Rights. No, the day and hour will never come, when the national Democratic party will incorporate in its creed of faith this doctrine of the peaceable and constitutional right of a State to secede from the Union. Never. But should such a proposition be presented to the Baltimore Convention, it will be scouted from that convention with indignation.

[ocr errors]

I refer them. A sense of duty has constrained
me in trespassing upon the House to this extent,
and I will here conclude.

outside of from six to twelve or fourteen inches thick, and the middle was filled up with rubble and angular stone, with bad mortar, presenting actually the worst character of wall that could have a decent outside appearance.

Mr. BEALE next obtained the floor, and said: Mr. Chairman, I feel impelled, for the first time in my life, although I have been a member of this Now, I do not pretend to say that this foundaHouse for many years, to intrude some few ob- tion will not support a structure of four feet five servations upon the attention of this committee. or six inches of solid marble, let it be thirty-odd There is a bill lying upon your table, which pro- feet high; but I do say, that if this wall is like the poses an appropriation of $500,000 for the contin- part that we examined, it would be extremely uation of the wings of the Capitol. A select com- doubtful whether it could support such a struc mittee was appointed, early in this session, whose ture. That is my opinion, founded upon the facts duty it was to examine into the permanence, stabil-which have come before us and upon the exami nations we have made. The swearing is all in one way, the facts the other way.

In relation to the employment of a scientif man, that was at my suggestion. I did not know the quality of the stone. It is not common in the part of the country in which I live; and although the gentleman from Kentucky found fault with the committee for employing that gentleman, I hope it will be viewed by the committee as an honest effort on our part to acquire the information necessary to arrive at a correct judgment.

Mr. DUNCAN. I am very happy to obtain the floor for a few minutes, in order that I may remove an erroneous impression which probably exists in the minds of this committee from the rep resentations made, inadvertently, perhaps, by the gen-gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. MCNAIR,] the chairman of this select committee. That gentleman stated yesterday, and he is so reported in the papers this morning, that the committee had examined the walls for themselves, and had come to the opinion, from that examination, that these foundations were in a dreadful condition.

But, Mr. Chairman, nothwithstanding it has been my pleasure, in days past, to regard the honorable gentleman as a Democrat, to vote for him as a Democrat, I must confess that I have been driven to the conclusion to suspect the genuinenessity, and quality of the foundation work to support of his Democracy. When the question was asked the superstructure that is intended to be put upon the honorable gentleman by Mr. CHASTAIN, of it. Now, sir, I hold that the House ought to know Georgia, if he would support Lewis Cass, of what are the sentiments of that committee, because Michigan, for the Presidency, if nominated, he re- if they do not, they will legislate in the dark in refused to answer the question. The boldness and lation to the appropriation of a very large amount independence of character which should ever sig- of money. That, and that alone, impels me to nalize a Southern gentleman upon that, as any give the information which I possess on the subother question, seem to have forsaken the honor-ject. able gentleman. Why, sir, I have no hesitancy I hope I shall be pardoned for referring to the in saying that I will support the old veteran. His observations which the gentleman from Kentucky manliness of character, his spotless integrity, com- [Mr. STANTON] made on yesterday in relation to mend him to the nation as one of her brightest this subject. That gentleman gave us his learnjewels. The accomplished scholar, the able states-ing in architecture, and told us of his long expeman, and skillful diplomatist, should he be nomi- rience as a mechanic, and he chose to depreciate nated, the nation will look to him as a pillar of the talents and probity of the committee. cloud by day and of fire by night, to guide her in her onward and upward march to usefulness, to honor, and to greatness. I am a Democrat, sir, in whom there is no hypocrisy, no deceit, disguise, or dissimulation. There is none in the principles of the party. I go further, and say that if the Baltimore Convention should nominate Sam Houston, of Texas, the old Tennessee Democrat, I, with nineteen twentieths of the Tennesseeans, (and their name is Legion,) will give a loud Amen! He is a Jackson Democrat, and notwithstanding the extreme vicissitudes of life through which he has passed, like the Hebrew children, he stands unscathed by the fiery furnace. Look at this man. When a boy he was commissioned by General Jackson, and side by side, he fought the battles of his country. In manhood he was elected Governor of Tennessee. In after life, when clouds lowered over him and adversity came, he emigrated to Texas, where he redeemed a nation from oppression, from anarchy, and from priestcraft. Yes, sir, with a handful of men, he accomplished more than the Government of the United States with the Army and Navy at its back. He conquered Mexico; took her President a prisoner; established a Republic; was elected its President, and afterwards presented it to this Government as a part of its vast domain. Oh, yes, sir, the Highland harpers never rallied more eagerly to the standard of Rhoderick Dhu, at his bugle blast, than I would to the support of Sam Houston for the Presidency. And if Mr. Buchanan, of the old law-abiding, Constitution-loving, and right-recognizing Keystone of the Arch, should be presented. I, as a Democrat, will support him, will vote for him, and fight for him, if necessary. I regard him as one of the main pillars in our national edifice. If the political economist and able jurist, George M. Dallas, is presented, I will support him. If the warm-hearted, chivalric, and generous Dickinson is presented, I will support him. If the young giant of Illinois is presented, my heart will leap with joy to sustain him. And for the best of reasons. Should our old ship of State ever lose her ballast, split her planks, and spring a leak, he knows what a hammer, a saw, a chisel, and an auger were made for.

Mr. STANTON, of Kentucky. I beg the tleman's pardon; I depreciated neither the talents nor the probity of the committee.

Mr. BEALE. The gentleman was present, I think, when the excavations were inade in the wall, and I, too, was there, and he observed on yesterday, that the committee were men of such diminutive structure of mind and feeling, that they were Mr. Chairman, I am one of that committee. capable only of observing specks and blots upon the and I dissent entirely from that statement. I have great superstructures of genius and talent, [Laugh-formed no such opinion. I have attended every ter.] Now, whether I come within this lamenta-meeting of that committee; I have heard all the ble category, I will not determine.' I am willing that my position in this House should be judged by those who have known me since I have been here. I make no pretensions to talent, but I do make pretensions to probity.

A MEMBER. Would you support Marcy? Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir. I would do nothing else but support Marcy. I am a Democratthe majority of the people of Mississippi are Democrats. The patriotic Whigs of my district supported me as a Democrat-they will support me again as a Union Democrat-I know nothing else but Democracy. The best evidence of Democracy which a man can furnish, is to be willing to abide the nomination of the National Democratic Convention.

The distinguished gentlemen to whom I have alluded in connection with the Presidency, are all Union, acquiescing, compromise Democrats, and stars of the first magnitude-diamonds of the first water. It would be invidious in me to make a distinction. I cannot find it in my heart to do it. It is the business of the convention, and to it

Permit me, sir, in a very succinct manner, to say what I know in relation to the examinations which have been made by the committee, and which I think the House should know before they vote an appropriation of $500,000 for continuing the work on the wings of the Capitol.

The condition of my mind when I came to this work, was this: upon a survey of the outward appearance of the wall, I had two objections to it; the first was, that I thought the stone was too small for the magnitude of the wall, and the second was, that there were very many long lines of stone running longitudinally with the wall, which did not appear to me to have breakers to sustain them.

Well, sir, this matter was inquired into by the committee. We had architect, builders, masons, and all that description of persons before us, and they all agreed on several great facts. The first

was,

that the best wall which could be built, was
of hewn stone, where each strata should be laid
down with a little mortar on top, and the next
strata breaking against it. That was the best wall
that could be built. The next best wall that could
be built, was where there were leaders and stretch-
ers run across the wall, and that in the next strata
heavy stones should be laid upon the junctions and
smaller stones upon the superficial area. That is

the next best wall that could be built. There was
particular inquiry made in the committee as to the
mode in which this wall had been built up, and
the universal opinion was that it was safely built
and in the manner last indicated. We had the
evidence of architects, builders, and masons-men
who were not interested in the work, who had bid
for it and been disappointed of getting employ-
ment, who swore to the durability and excellence
of the wall. Well, sir, I must confess, such is
my confidence in human nature, that my objec-
tions were removed, especially when on speaking
to Mr. Walter, the architect, in relation to these
long lines of stone running longitudinally with the
wall, he asked me "did you ever know a wall to
crack longitudinally? Does it not always crack
at right angles?"

But, sir, the committee made an excavation
some ten or twelve feet long, and from two and a
half to three feet deep, and that excavation real-
ized the worst anticipations that could possibly have
been formed. There was a stone running along the

testimony, and have taken it at length in writing. I am not now going into a detailed discussion i relation to this testimony; but this I state: The committee have not, to my knowledge, had any meeting of conference since that excavation of the wall to which the gentleman alludes, nor have they exchanged opinions at all, to my knowledge, in relation to the subject as a committee. At the close of the examination of witnesses, it seemed to be the unanimous impression on the minds of ail the members present, that the testimony conclusively showed that the foundations were adequate to sustain any weight which may be placed on them. Notwithstanding this, the chairman of the committee expressed a desire that the committee should investigate the walls themselves-dig into them. I differed with him upon that point. I thought it was not befitting for a committee of this House, clothed with unlimited power to send for persons and papers and to examine witnesses, to go out and dig into this green wall, surrounded by a company of men and boys. I did not give my assent to the examination. I did not believe it was necessary, and I did not attend that exami nation. But since that time I have carefully examined that excavation, and my opinion still remains the same-it is not changed in the least.

And, sir, I dissent also from the statement made by the gentleman, that the outer sides of the wall were mere shells, and the inside filled with smal stones. I measured the sides of the wall, and found in each, stones more than two feet in length projecting inward, and many of the stones thrown out of the wall, were from one to two feet long. It is true that in that particular place a large proportion of the stones were small, but the best architects tell us that a wall built of such material, with a suitable proportion of binding stone stretching across the wall, or nearly so, at suitable distances, say once in twenty feet would be sufficiently strong to sustain any superstructure. That it would be stronger than a wall built entirely of large stones, unless these were carefully hammered and fitted, an expense which is never incurred in foundation walls. And the committee should know that the wall, which was the subject of examination, is leveled up to receive windows four feet in width, and distant from each other seven feet, and the wall between them will be carried up with larger stones, and at the surface of the ground is to receive, acording to the plan, a block of granite fif teen inches thick and four feet in width.

Now, I say to this House that if any reliance can be placed upon testimony,-testimony the

most intelligent, the most impartial, and the most reliable that can be obtained-then the foundations of this extension are amply sufficient to sustain a greater weight than they will be required to bearthat they are better foundations than those of any public building in this city-better than those of any public building ever erected in this country; and we have such testimony.

But, as I said before, my opinion is not changed by this accidental excavation into this green wall. I objected to this mode of examination, because it did not accord with my views of propriety. I no not set up my views as a standard for other gentlemen. They may be better able to judge of such things than I am. But I will say that the examination made by this special committee does not in the slightest degree shake my confidence in this work.

Now, as to the quality of the stone of which the foundations are composed, we have had it tested and the learned professor, who applied the test, says that it is not only capable of sustaining the weight of the superstructure that is to be placed upon it, but that it is capable of sustaining a pressure one hundred times as great. And all the architects who examined the foundations concurred in the opinion that they were capable, at least, of sustaining ten times the weight that is proposed to be placed upon them. So much for the material.

Now, as to the lime. It was testified that the lime used from Seeley's mountain, was the best lime in the country; that it is used upon the public works by General Stuart, the Chief Engineer of the United States, in preference to any other. But it is not to be expected that this mortar bedded two feet in the wall, placed there since the commencement of this session of Congress, with severe frosts every night, should become dry by this time. If it had, it would only have proved, according to the best authorities upon the subject, its inferiority.

[merged small][ocr errors]

The letter was read, as follows:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, February 10, 1852. SIR: Your account for the extension of the Capitol from August 2d to the 31st December, 1851, has been adjusted at the Treasury, and a balance of $3,494 98 found to be due from you to the United States, which agrees with your account. Very respectfully,

ELISHA WHITTLESEY, Comptroller.

THOMAS U. WALTER, Esq.,

Architect for the Extension of the Capitol.

Mr. DUNCAN. The architect very freely submitted to the committee his books, containing proposals and bids, his contracts, and all the papers connected with the work; and would, with equal freedom, have submitted a statement of expenditure, if they had requested it. That architect was a stranger to me until the present session; but I do not hesitate to say that in ability, in fidelity, and in integrity, he is not surpassed by any man in the United States. I would as readily place the disbursement of all the money necessary to the completion of this Capitol in his hands, as in the hands of any man or set of men that could be selected to perform that trust. But this is a matter which depends altogether on the law of Congress. They can place that disbursement where they see

fit.

[ocr errors]

countrymen such report upon his discoveries as may be most agreeable to him; and I assure him that I shall not enter into competition with him for the honor to be acquired by his antiquarian researches into the dusty memorials of past ages. What I have to say relates particularly to the things of the present age. And, sir, I deny that that gentleman has the right, under the usages and sanctions of parliamentary law, to rise in his place here, and make a speech denunciatory of the opinions of a committee of this House, before such opinions have been pronounced and made known by that committee.

Mr. STANTON. Will the gentleman from South Carolina allow me for one moment?

Mr. WALLACE. The gentleman from Kentucky has made his speeches here without interruption from me, and I do not intend to be interrupted by him.

Mr. STANTON. Very well, I only wanted to state a fact.

Mr. WALLACE. What right has he, sir, to impute to me, as a member of that committee, a set of opinions in reference to a matter of public concern, which is in part committed to my charge, before I have uttered any opinion upon the subject; and to make this gratuitous assumption the theme of a popular harrangue upon a supposed state of facts which may not, and as far as I am concerned do not exist, that he may thereby win Before I sit down, I wish to say a word about for himself the approbation and applause of a the appropriation proposed by the amendment of particular class of persons who surround this Capthe gentleman from Kentucky. During the last itol? The gentleman from Kentucky seems to Congress, different opinions were entertained in have assumed the peculiar championship of every regard to the expediency of making the proposed person who has had the good fortune to aid in layenlargement of the Capitol; but that Congressing the foundations of the proposed additions to decided to undertake the work, and voted an ap-propriation for its commencement. The work has been begun; a large sum has been expended; and I presume it will go on. I presume no one is prepared to say that the design shall now be abandoned. It should, then, be prosecuted with as much expedition as is consistent with economy. Who wishes to see these beautiful grounds incumbered for years with rubbish? I believe that, in this case, expedition is economy. Let the work go forward. The season-the most favorable season in the year for work-has arrived; and the House should lose no time in making the requisite appropriation.

the Capitol; and his terrible lance is poised for a tilt with every ill-fated wight who comes in his way, whenever a leaf is heard to rustle in the gale. I shall not call his sympathy in this regard in question, or add my sympathies to his; but I say to him, sir, and to this House, that I shall repel in a proper manner any attempt on the part of that gentleman to make any unwarrantable allusion to the manner in which my duties, as a member of this body, are discharged. When I shall express an opinion in regard to the work, which he seems to regard with such pious care, that opinion will then be a proper subject for comment, and not before; and I submit to this House, that the course of arMr. WALLACE. Mr. Chairman, I desire to gumentation pursued by the gentleman from Kensay a few words upon the subject embraced in the tucky is not sanctioned by parliamentary usage special order, and in reply to the speech made and parliamentary law, and is disrespectful to the yesterday by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. | committee which he has made the subject of his STANTON.] I am a member, sir, of the special declamatory assaults, and to this House whose committee, which that honorable gentleman has organ it is; and I say to that gentleman that I will honored with his notice, in his own peculiar man- permit no such liberties to be taken with me. ner. I was appointed a member of that commit- What purpose can he have in view but to pretee without my knowledge, consent, or procure judge the judgment of that committee before this ment, and contrary to my desire, and I have served House and the country, and to forestall its action, upon it with reluctance, and from a sense of duty if that action shall be contrary to the ideas he enwhich I owe to this House as one of its members, tertains of his own infallibility? What other end and from what I conceived to be due to its presid-can he hope to accomplish by the course he has

But let me go further. This work was all done by the day. Every man employed on it was employed in that manner. Is there any assignable motive that could have induced these men to have laid up the walls hastily, carelessly, or inadequately? Again, the principal architect holds the highest rank in his profession. He has probably had a larger experience in the erection of costly edifices than any other man of his age in the United States. It will satisfy gentlemen in regard to his competency to perform the work assigned him, to be told that the Girard College, in the city of Philadelphia-that grand and massive structurewas erected under his superintendence. And the superintendents under him are men of the largest experience, fully competent for the discharge of their duties, and were constantly present during the progress of the work. And gentlemen of this city-architects-who testified before the committee, stated that they knew many of the masons employed, and that they were good and faithful workmen. Now, what conceivable motive coulding officer who placed me upon it. Until the genthese men have had to slight this work? I should tleman from Kentucky delivered his extraordinary hesitate to set up my opinions in this case against speech on yesterday, I did not feel myself called those of practical and scientific men. And if this upon, at this stage of the debate, to express any committee, on conferring together, had expressed opinion in reference to the sufficiency or insuffidoubts of the stability of the work, I would have ciency of the work which that committee has been proposed that they should submit their excavation directed to inspect, and to report the facts which in the wall to the examination of some of the most may be elicited to this House. I had supposed intelligent and practical of the gentlemen who were that it would be time enough for me to make my called to testify, before they ventured, on their opinions known upon that subject when the report own judgment, to report that these walls were in- of the committee shall be before this House for sufficient, and in a dreadful condition. And I its consideration and action. The course pursued greatly regretted that the chairman of the special by the gentleman from Kentucky has made it necommittee saw fit to introduce a statement, ap- cessary for me to depart, in some degree, from parently designed to awaken the distrust and pre- that line of policy. In what I have to say, sir, I judice the minds of members. With what other shall not imitate the example of the gentleman view did he state that the money appropriated was from Kentucky. I shall not seek to elicit the drawn and disbursed by the architect, and how, plaudits of any class of persons who may effect a he did not know; "and that the matter deserved lodgment in your galleries, for the purpose of ininquiry?" Sir, if the architect disburses the fluencing the acts and deliberations of this honoramoney, it is because the law makes it his duty.ble body; nor do I intend to follow the gentleman The committee did not deem it their duty to investigate how and for what the appropriation had been disbursed. If they had made the inquiry, they would have found it properly expended and duly accounted for, every cent.

Mr. STANTON, of Kentucky. Will the gentleman from Massachusetts allow me to interrupt him for a moment? I hold in my hand a letter from the Comptroller of the Treasury-Mr. Whittlesey-to the architect, dated the 10th of Febru

from Kentucky through the mazes of his learned
dissertation upon the mechanical structure and
perfection of the Acropolis, the Colliseum, and the
Vatican, for the purpose of making a display of
my architectural learning as he has done. That
honorable gentleman has my free assent and per-
mission to go, whenever it may be agreeable to
him do so, with Volney and Layard, over the
ruins of Greece and Rome, Memphis and Carth-
age, Nineveh and Babylon, and to make to his

thought proper to pursue? Is a committee of this House to be reprobated in advance by that gentleman's display of architectural learning in reference to the cements and conglomerates of Babylon and Nineveh, in order to subdue their minds to his peculiar way of thinking? Must the committee be told before hand what they must do to escape his ire and propitiate his wrath? Would he, sir, give this house' to understand that it must legislate to suit the wants of a class of persons who congregate around your Capitol? Sir, this House and the country may well be surprised at what has fallen from that gentleman since the present session began. He has thought proper to urge this House to vote immediate appropriations of money, for the chief reason that a class of persons in this city are out of employment. Doctrines like these may well excite alarm in the public mind. Are the doctrines of the French school of communism to be gravely urged in this House? Will this House entertain the proposition that any class of persons shall come here and demand that appropriations be made to furnish them with labor at the public charge? Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not aware that any member of the select committee, of which I form a part, is opposed to an immediate appropriation to carry on the work upon the Capitol which has been begun. The foundaations are laid, and I presume no one absurdly supposes the work is to be discontinued. So far as I am concerned, the appropriations may be made to

« AnteriorContinuar »