Also, the same with regard to dead letters returned to the United States and Bremen respectively. Also, the amount required from and paid to the British Government on account of closed mails, and the rates per ounce of such conveyance. Also, the amount paid for the transmission of letters to the Continent of Europe, and to China by the Oriental line of steamers; also the number of letters sent to China, via Marseilles. Also, the number of letters conveyed between New York and California, and also between New York and Oregon, via Chagres and Panama, and the amount of postage collected thereon, distinguishing the paid from the unpaid, and the number of free letters, and the number of newspapers, and the postage thereon. Also, the number of letters and newspapers conveyed by the Charleston and Havana steamer, and the amount of postage collected thereon. Also, the number of ship letters received during the same period in the offices of the United States, and the amount paid for the same. Resolved, That the Postmaster General be requested, in his next annual report for the fiscal year ending 30th June, 1852, to imbody answers for that period to the inquiries in the preceding resolution. A bill to authorize the State of Wisconsin to select the residue of the lands to which that State is entitled, under the act of the 8th of August, 1846, to aid in the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. A bill making an appropriation for the erection of a marine hospital at Portland, Maine. ASSIGNABILITY OF LAND WARRANTS. A message from the House of Representatives was received by Mr. FORNEY, its Clerk, announIcing that the House had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, on the bill to make land warrants assignable, and for other purposes. The Senate proceeded to consider the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the above bill, and it was amended accordingly. NON-INTERVENTION. The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the joint resolution affirming the doctrine of nonintervention; when Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, rose and addressed the Senate at length in favor of the resolution. Mr. CASS replied, and Mr. JONES, rejoined. [For the speech of Mr. JONES, and reply of Mr. CASS, see Appendix.] Mr. SOULE. I wish to say something on this question, and I wish to deliver my views as early as may be convenient to the Senate. I would not undertake now to address the Senate, as it is rather late; but with the leave of the Senate I will take possession of the floor, and move that the further consideration of the subject be postponed until Monday. Mr. HALE. Mr. President, I want simply to call the attention of the honorable Senator from Michigan to one fact, in which I think he is mistaken in regard to the history of the resolution to which he has referred. When he spoke of having introduced the resolution which was voted down, I supposed that he referred to the resolution which he introduced in relation to suspending diplomatic relations with Austria. Mr. CASS. I did. Mr. HALE. Well, I have some recollection of that resolution. I felt some interest in it at the time, and I think if the honorable Senator will examine the matter, he will find that he is mistaken. On the 15th of December, 1849, at the commencement of that session, the honorable Senator introduced his resolution in relation to suspending diplomatic relations with Austria. I proposed an amendment to it. It was called up several times, and several gentlemen addressed the Senate upon it until the 5th of February, 1850, and then Mr. Foote, at that time a member of the Senate from Mississippi, stated that he held in his hand certain resolutions which he proposed to offer, and that one was to be proposed by his friend from Louisiana, [Mr. SOULE,] and that the honorable Senator from Michigan had consented to receive those three resolutions as a substitute for his original one. I withdrew my amendment then, and upon the motion of Mr. Foote those resolutions were assigned and made the special order for a future day. They were never called up afterwards, and there was never any vote taken upon them according to my recollection, as the Journals of the Senate will show. That is the statement which I desired to make. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Rev. LITTLETON F. MORGAN. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. Mr. HIBBARD. I wish to ask the unanimous consent of the House for leave to move that the House proceed to the business upon the Speaker's table, so far as to take up and refer certain Executive communications and certain bills from the Senate. If the House will permit me to say, I have looked over the bills from the Senate. They are few in number, and I am confident the question of their reference can occasion no debate. It is understood I wish for leave to proceed so far as to take up these two classes of cases: reports from Executive Departments and bills from the Senate. Objection was made. Mr. HOUSTON. I move that the rules be susCommittee of the Whole on the state of the pended, and that the House resolve itself into the Union. from Tennessee, [Mr. JONES,] in view of the conMr. HOUSTON. I suppose the gentleman dition of debate upon the deficiency bill, will not press that now. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I have no control over that question at all. Mr. HOUSTON. I ask the House to that pass over for to-day, as debate upon the deficiency bill is limited to four o'clock to-day. I have therefore submitted the motion to go into committee. Mr. JONES. It will take up but little time. The call for the previous question has been seconded. The SPEAKER. That is the regular business in order, but the Chair thinks it competent for the gentleman from Alabama to make his motion. Mr. JONES. I hope the House will not go into committee, as this is a very important question-as much so as the deficiency bill-and should be disposed of immediately. The question being on the motion of Mr. Hous TON Mr. HART called for tellers, which were ordered; and Messrs. FULLER, of Maine, and HAVEN were appointed. Mr. COBB. If we take up for consideration the report of the committee of conference on the bill for the assignability of land warrants, I would inquire whether it would take up more than thirty or forty minutes? The SPEAKER. The Chair is unable to rely to the gentleman. He cannot determine how long it will take. The question was then taken and decided in the negative the tellers having reported-ayes 55, noes 68. So the House refused to go into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. ASSIGNABILITY OF BOUNTY LAND WAR RANTS-REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE of CONFERENCE. Mr. JONES called up for consideration the report of the committee of conference. The SPEAKER. Upon the question of the adoption of the report of the committee of conference, the call for the previous question was see onded. The question now is, shall the main ques tion be now put? It was so ordered. The question now being on concurring in the report of the committee of conference, Mr. JONES demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered. Mr. COBB. I ask for the reading of the bill as proposed to be amended. Mr. HOUSTON. Iobject. I want to get through with this business. Mr, COBB. I rise to a question of order. If request is made for the reading of the bill, when is objected to, should not the question be put to the House I am opposed to this one man power. The SPEAKER. If the gentlemen will listen to the facts, the Chair will state that the report of the committee of conference, and the bill as proposed to be amended, was read on yesterday, The Chair overrules the point of order Mr. HOUSTON. My colleague will find it in the Globe, where he can read it, and understand it much better, than if it were read from the desi. Mr. BOCOCK. Is the vote about to be taken on agreeing to the report of the committee of ecaference? is upon agreeing to the amendments proposed ty The SPEAKER. The question now being pat the committee of conference to the bill making land warrants assignable. It is upon the adoption of the report of the committee as a whole. The question was then taken, and the report of the committee was adopted-yeas 92, nays 69; as follow: YEAS-Messrs. Aiken, Wilis Allen, Allison, William Appleton, Ashe, Barrere, Bartlett, Bell, Bibighans, Bowne, Bragg, Breckinridge, Albert G. Brown, Busby, E Carriag ton Cabell, Thompson Campbell, Churchwell, Clark, Cleveland, Clinginan, Cobb, Conger, Cullom, John G. Davis, Doty, Duncan, Eastman, Edgerton, Edmundsca, Faulkner, Ficklin, Fitch, Henry M. Fuller, Gamble. Gay Jord, Gentry, Giddings, Goodenow, Gorman, Harper, S W. Harris, Hart, Hendricks, Thomas M. Howe, Andrew Mace, Edward C. Marshall, Humphrey Marshail, MeNa', Johnson, John Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, George G. King, Kulins, Kurtz, Landry, Lockhart, Miller, Molony, John Moore, Morrison, Nabers, News, Andrew Parker, Samuel W. Parker, Penn, Penninas, Polk, Price, Richardson, Robinson, Sackett, Skel, Smart, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Abraham P. Stevens, Stone, Stratton, Strother, Stuart, Taylor, Benjamin Thompson, Thurston, Walsh, Ward, Washburn, Watkins, Welch, Addison White, Wilcox, and Yates-2 NAYS-Messrs. Averett, Bocock, Brooks, Buell, Burrows, Joseph Cable, Lewis D. Campbell, Chapman, Curt Daniel, Dawson, Dimmick, Dunham, Durkee, Eva Floyd, Fowler, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gilmore, Hami Isham G. Harris, Haws, Hascall, Haven, Hibbard, Hor ford, Houston, Howard, Thomas Y. How, Ives, Jackson, Jenkins, James Johnson, George W. Jones, J. Grey Jones, Preston King, Letcher, Martin, Mason, McDonald, McLanahan, McMullin, McQueen, Millson, H. D. Moore, Morehead, Murray, Olds, Orr, Peaslee, Perkins, Schermerhorn, Schoolcraft, Schooninaker, Scurry, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, Smith, Benjamin Startin Sutherland, George W. Thompson, Tuck, Venable, Wa lace, Wells, Alexander White, Wildrick, Williams, and Woodward-69. So the report of the committee was adopted, and the bill in the form published in the proceedings of yesterday, has passed. Mr. BEALE, during the pendency of the vote, asked to be excused from voting, on the ground that he did not know the character of the report upon which he was called to vote. The SPEAKER. The Chair would state that the proposition of the gentleman from Virginia should have been made under the rule, before the call of the roll was commenced. vote upon a proposition to excuse ing of the roll. There can be no during the call Mr. COBB, when his name was called, said: I vote in the affirmative, but am opposed to a part of the bill. Mr. C. moved to reconsider the vote by which the report was adopted, and to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table; which latter motion was agreed to. DEFICIENCY BILL. On motion by Mr. HOUSTON, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. STUART in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the bill, No. 207, making appropriation to supply deficiencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1852. Mr. SMITH, who was entitled to the floor, addressed the committee for an hour, principally upon the subject of the census printing. He expressed some views in opposition to the form in which it was proposed by the Department of the Interior to have that work executed. He was in favor of rejecting so much of the matter proposed to be printed that is, the medical statistics and the historic part-and was in favor of printing the 'work in a reduced form, and on a more economical scale. He expressed some views in regard to the Presidency, and in opposition to taking up for that office defeated candidates, and resuming old issues. He preferred progress, and a young or new candidate. || Mr. NABERS next addressed the committee, in reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. SMITH,] in regard to the unfitness of the old presidential candidates. He thought that the progressive doctrines advanced by that gentleman now were totally at variance with those expressed by him in regard to the principles of Kossuth. He (Mr. N.) was disposed rather to adhere || to the conservative policy of our government rather than upon any idea of progress to take up "Young Arnerica" and new and dangerous doctrines. He en tered at some length into Mississippi politics, and defended the position of the Union party of that State. Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky, then addressed the committee, principally in reply to that portion of the remarks of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. BRECKINRIDGE] identifying Mr. Fillmore with the Abolition party, because he had, when a Representative on that floor from New York, voted against the resolution of Mr. Wise, inhibiting the consideration of abolition petitions. He maintained that if it was wrong for Mr. Fillmore to vote against the adoption of that resolution, it was equally wrong when the Democratic party subsequently voted for the rescision of this very rule. He maintained that President Fillmore was national and conservative in his views on the slave question. [The above speeches will be found in the Appendix.] Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. I have sought anxiously to-day what, in the history of this Congress, would have been a somewhat extraordinary thing-to obtain the floor for the purpose of addressing the House upon the business legitimately before us, (the deficiency bill,) and which we were sent here to transact. We have had that bill but a very few days under discussion-a bill which appropriates about $3,000,000. I have never examined the whole bill, and only wish to speak upon those appropriations, into the investigation of which the committee, of which I am a member, have hitherto gone. I speak of that portion of the deficiency bill which makes appropriation for the Indian service of the country. During the whole time which has been spent upon this bill, we have heard nothing but a squabble about presidential candidates-a matter which I humbly submit is premature and unfortunate for the Democratic party, and in which none who have been engaged in it will be able to say, that they have distinguished themselves for prudence. They should have waited until such time as these questions come up legitimately-when there was a candidate for the Presidency-and then discuss those subjects; and allow us, in the mean time, to take up and consider what was truly the business of the House, and that is, the various bills brought before us for consideration. The chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means enforced, yesterday, upon this House the necessity of closing the debate upon this bill today, with a full knowledge-I speak of it in no unkindly sense to the gentleman, but I condemn it as a thing that was wrong, and as a thing that I never knew in my term of service to be done heretofore by the Committee of Ways and Meansthat a committee, parallel with his own in point of business upon a particular subject, had that subject under consideration, and had asked for time to develop facts which might be laid before this House for its consideration, in regard to the interests of this Government and the service of a particular branch thereof. I asked, then, of this House, only until to-morrow, that we might be able to conclude our investigation of the appropriation for the Indian service, but it was denied. It was denied by the chairman of the Ways and Means, who knew more about the business of my committee than I knew myself, or than anybody else knew. I am sorry the House thought so, and closed this debate to-day. What is the result? We worked until twelve o'clock last night, and again until twelve o'clock to-day, and without being able to get through with the entire investigation. We are satisfied that the Committee of Ways and Means have erred, in striking out thirteen out of twenty-six items of appropriation for Indian service. When I come in here to state these facts to the House, I am unable to get the floor; and now I have five minutes to go into the investigation of a subject which it would take me an hour to do justice to or to explain to the House. I am not famed for consuming the time of the House for purposes of Buncombe or of personal display. I ask the House, what are you to do when you come to vote upon these questions? I know I shall stand instructed by the Committee on Indian Affairs to offer, as amendments to the deficiency bill, a large number of the items for Indian service which have been rejected by the Ways and Means; and I shall have but five minutes to explain the necessity of those items, many of which could not be explained in ten or fifteen minutes. Debate ought to be heard on both sides, as to whether the Ways and Means Committee did right in rejecting these items. The Committee on Indian Affairs believe they can show satisfactorily to the House that they did wrong in rejecting them; but it cannot be done in five minutes. I would scorn to go into the consideration of any subject in five minutes. I merely want to show the House the condition that this business has been brought into by the hasty and sudden closing of debate; and that, too, in the face of the protest of a member of the committee, who declared that the debate ought not to be closed, and could not be closed, without a risk of great and serious injury to the service of the country, and to that portion of the service in which, if there is heart, and soul, and feeling, in the bosom of the American people, they ought to be most peculiarly guarded to see that there is no injustice done. Mr. POLK, (interrupting.) If the gentleman will allow me, I will move, by unanimous consent, that he be permitted to go into this investigation. I consider this a matter of considerable importance. I, myself, know nothing about it. No argument has been addressed to it at all, and I should be obliged to vote in the dark. Mr. JOHNSON. I will state that when this debate was closed yesterday, the same hot haste prevailing, after the wrong itself was consummated, a motion was made to reconsider the resolution and that motion was laid upon the table. There is, therefore, no way in which I can obtain a hearing, for if it depends on unanimous consent, I presume in a House of two hundred and thirty-seven, there would always be somebody to object to everything. Yes, even the light of heaven is objected to here. Mr. POLK. I hope there will be no objection. I will, with the permission of the gentleman, move that the committee rise. Mr. JOHNSON. Very well. I will give way for that motion, trusting that when next we go into committee, I shall be allowed, by unanimous consent, to explain the items; if not the Indian service can take its course. Mr. POLK then moved that the committee rise; which motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose, and the Speaker having resumed the chair, the chairman of the committee reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had the Union generally under consideration, and particularly House bill No. 207, and had come to no conclusion thereon. SEAT OF GOVERNMENT OF OREGON. the following resolutions; which were severally Mr. LANE, by unanimous consent, submitted read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to lay before this House a copy of the correspondence with John P. Gaines, Governor of the Territory of Oregon, relative to the location and establishment of the seat of government of said Territory. Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be re quested to lay before this House, a copy of the correspondence between that Department, and E. Hamilton, Secretary of Oregon relative to the location of the seat of government of said Territory, and the mileage and per diem of the members and officers of the Legislative Assembly of said Territory. Mr. MEADE. I have a drawer full of reports from the Committee on the Judiciary, which I ask the unanimous consent of the House to permit me to present. Mr. BAYLY. I would be the last man to thwart my colleague in anything, but I object. (Laughter.) On motion by Mr. MEADE, the House ther adjourned. PETITIONS, &c. The following petitions, memorials, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees : By Mr. St. MARTIN: The petitioner of John B: Cooper, claiming remuneration for losses sustained in the war of 1812. By Mr. JOHNSON, of Ohio: The memorial of David McFarland and William Welty, of Tuscarawas county, asking additional compensation for taking the Seventh Census. By Mr. ASHE: The memorial of Edward B. Dudley and others, citizens of North Carolina, against the extension of the Woodworth patent for planing boards, &c. Also, the memorial of John D: Wilhanis and others, citizens of North Carolina, against the extension of the Parker patent. By Mr. HENDRICKS: The petitions of John D. Smith, of Tipton county, and P. Hutton, of Marion county, in the State of Indiana, late assistant marshals of said counties, praying that additional compensation be made to the assistant marshals for services in taking the Seventh Census of the United States. By Mr. THOMPSON, of Virginia: The petition of E. S. M. Hill and 130 other citizens of the county of Logan, against the renewal of the Woodworth patent. Also, the petition of William F. Peterson and others, in relation to the collision of steam boats on the western waters, and the best mode of preventing the same. By Mr. SCUDDER: The petition of Benjamin F. Rob bins and others, owners of schooner Medium lost at sea, for an allowance of fishing bounty. By Mr. BOWIE: The petition of John H. Bright, praying to be allowed bounty land due his uncle, William Bright, a revolutionary soldier. By Mr. McDONALD: The petition of Horace Parker, for increase of pay for his services at navy-yard in Kittery, Maine. By Mr. MOORE, of Pennsylvania: Resolutions of the Legislature of Pennsylvania "relating to Smith O'Brien and his associates in exile ;" and also in reference to the establishment of a navy-yard depôt and dry-dock on the Lake frontier. IN SENATE. FRIDAY, March 19, 1852. Prayer by the Rev. LITTLETON F. MORGAN. EXPLANATION. Mr. CASS. Mr. President, a letter has just been published in the Union, addressed by Colonel Davis to the editors of the Mississippian, and copied from the latter paper, which, relating as it does, to some of the positions I have taken in the Senate, as well as elsewhere, seems to me to require some remarks; especially as my true views, in one respect at least, are misunderstood. I have to thank Colonel Davis for the justice he has done me, with that spirit of frankness which becomes his character. And, while he dissents from my conclusions, as he had a right to do, he bears testimony against an odious charge, never, indeed, resting upon the slightest foundation of truth, that I designed to deceive the South, as to my real opinions, in my Nicholson letter. Some time since, when I first learned this accusation, I appealed to Southern Senators upon this floor, and said it was well known to many of them, that the plain language of my letter corresponded with my views, and that my opinions were perfectly understood when the letter was first published. You will recollect, sir, that not one member contradicted this statement, and that several of them gave their assent to it, and among these was Colonel Davis. I am not going into a review of the old contro I versy, connected with the general subject of the effect of this impress, but it extends to all the ob-powers, in framing their government? Why, sir, Wilmot proviso. I desire, principally, to put jects of legislation, which derive their color very if they could do anything, they could do every myself right, in one particular, where Colonel much from the views of the first settlers. If a thing, not in conflict with the Constitution of the Davis has misunderstood me. It will be recollected newly-settling Territory is first accupied by a maUnited States. And this brings me back to the that when my Nicholson letter was written, we jority of emigrants from a slave State, they will original question, whether the Constitution does had not acquired California. It was yet during be very apt to establish slavery in their new resi- expressly, or by necessary implication, prohibit the existence of the war, and the principles I dis- dence. If, on the contrary, they come from a non- the exercise of this contested power, or whether cussed had therefore relation to the usual form of slaveholding State, they will probably be equally it grants any rights, which render its action incomterritorial governments, as established by the au- strongly inclined to establish that exclusion to patible with their superior obligation. I have althority of Congress. My object was to show that which they have been accustomed; and so with re- ||ready said, I can find, for myself, no such provision Congress had no constitutional power to insert the lation to all the objects of concern which are regu- in that instrument. It will be recollected, that the Wilmot proviso in the organic laws, because the lated by law. And where was there ever a comwhole basis of my argument, whether right or right to establish such governments being founded munity whose political and social system was not wrong, was founded on the indefensible right of upon necessity alone, could extend no further than more or less influenced by the predominant opin- every distinct political community, to regulate is that necessity required, which is satisfied when ions and character which marked its early inhab- own government, when not rightfully controled the governments are organized, leaving to the peo-itants? But this objection, sir, whatever weight by some superior authority. The only super ple all other rights in their administration. These it is entitled to in the scale of expediency, does authority which, in this country, could limit this organic laws, all of them indeed, grant or recog- not touch the question of right. That does not right, must be derived from the Constitution of nize the right of legislation in the Territories, to even depend on Congressional action, but upon the the United States; and, therefore, every politica be exercised in the mode pointed out. It is a gen- Constitution, which does not even look to this sub-power, not thus limited, belongs to the people of eral power, embracing all the objects of human ject of early or of late legislation, nor the practi- the Territories. That was and is my view. legislation, unless in particular cases, where re- cal considerations to which it may give rise. The As to the term "squatter sovereignty," or "landstrictions are imposed. My opinion is, that Con- rightful power, therefore, is not affected by the lord sovereignty," and the reproach it is intended gress can impose no restriction upon the power mode in which it may be exercised, whether bear- to carry with it, they become neither our age nor to regulate the relation of master and servant, in- ing upon one or another of the vast variety of ob- country. Men are entitled to government, even cluding the condition of slavery in the Territories,jects of civilized life which fall within the scope if they are landless, and human life and human any more than they can upon the relations of hus- of legislation. All, therefore, I claimed for the terri- happiness are worth protection, notwithstanding band and wife, or of parent and child. Every torial governments was the right of legislation in a remote authority may be the great landlord, Territorial Legislature which has existed has ex- all cases not in conflict with the Constitution; the holding vast domains in a state of nature, which ercised full power, uncontrolled power, over the same general rights of legislation, which enabled it neither grants nor governs. Many of the doc two latter domestic relations, by virtue of being the territorial governments of Mississippi, of Ala- trines upon this subject carry us back to the midthe depositories of legislative authority, and not bama, and other Southern Territories, to control dle ages, when land was everything and man because those objects, or indeed any others, were the question of slavery within their limits, and nothing. We have arrived at a period when betspecially committed to their charge; thus assuming which the Northern Territories might have con- ter views prevail; when human nature asserts its that it is a just object for such action, in conse- trolled at their pleasure, had there been no restric-|| rights, and the exercise of political power does quence of the grant of general powers of legislation. tion upon their power. This was no question of not depend upon the accident of property, but And in the Territories, where there has been no "sovereignty," but of right, under the sovereign upon the great principles of freedom and just Wilmot proviso, the power to regulate the condi- authority of the Constitution. And if the first set- equality. One of two things is inevitable: Either tion of slavery has been freely exercised among tlers in the Territories might establish their future the people of California had the right to establish the other objects of legislation, without any ex-policy upon this subject, by early legislation, I a government for themselves, without reference to press grant whatever; and in all of them it could know of no constitutional principle which could "squatter sovereignty," or "landlord sovereignbe exercised in the same manner, either to estab- refuse the same powers to all the others. ty,' or they were necessarily condemned to live lish or abolish slavery, unless controlled by supe- A few words more, sir, as to California, and without a government, or rather to die without one rior Congressional action, in conformity with the what has been called "squatter sovereignty.' for human life, under such circumstances, would Constitution. I should like to have any man point have already said, that my Nicholson letter referred be far more precarious than in the bloodiest bale to me a single reason why a Territorial Legis- only to such territorial governments as had been on record. They chose to do what we refused: lature, if left uncontrolled in this respect by Con-established by Congress, and it looked only to to found a political system, affording protection w gress-and all who are opposed to the Wilmot the great objects of human society; and I know proviso believe they should be thus left-can legisnothing of the character of my countrymen, late upon one of these domestic relations and not North or South, if, on calm reflection, they do not upon the others. I speak of the legal power, for approve the proceeding. Nor do I believe there that is the question at issue. Upon what principle is one of them, no matter where, who, had he can a line be drawn on the chart of legislation, been in California in such a perilous crisis, would which would divide those great objects of social have hesitated to substitute established law for life, and leave one of them without the sphere of lawless violence and physical strength. legitimate control, and the other within it? The same general terms of power which include one include all; and yet we are called upon to deny that power in a particular case, and to leave it in unquestionable operation in all other cases. If indeed, as I have heretofore said, and now repeat, the right to take slaves into the Territories is one, as has been contended, which is secured by the Constitution, there is an end to the question. It would be a right which would override and overthrow both congressional and territorial legislation in opposition to it. I have never been able, myself, to see the force of that construction which gives this effect to any of the constitutional provisions, but I was always willing, and so expressed myself, that the question, being a claim of right, should be submitted to the Supreme Court, and that its decision should be final. But it will be observed that Colonel Davis, in his letter, and I believe those who take similar views of this question, place their opposition to my doctrine, not upon the establishment of such a constitutional right, to be found in the Constitution itself, but upon the probable practical result of the territorial power, that it would give a peculiar direction, in the early periods of the governments, to the legislation of the country, and if not establish, at any rate exercise, a powerful influence upon its permanent policy. No doubt, sir, it would be so; but it is one of those consequences that cannot well be avoided. There are wide differences of opinion in many portions of this country upon questions of internal policy, and little uniformity of system in their adjustment. Each settler, during the period of settlement, naturally prefers that state of things to which he has been accustomed, and thus is it that an early char I observe, what had not struck me before, that in an extract from his speech, which Colonel Davis refers to, he says that I spoke of the fanati cism of the South. Sir, that is a deduction from my remarks, and one which, I think, their tenor does not justify. I used no such term. I made no such charge. I did indeed complain of a too prevalent indisposition among our Southern brethren to make just allowance for the position and natural opinions of Northern men. It was not enough that they should recognize and defend the constitutional rights of the South as zealously and honestly, and, I may add, under circumstances of a good deal of personal difficulty, as those of their own section of country; but they were almost de nounced as Abolitionists, as Northern fanatics, said, in some quarters, unless they avowed and believed that slavery was the best condition of hu man society. This is the substance of my remarks upon that topic; and I know that this sentiment of regret was participated in by some of the most steadfast friends of the South upon this floor; and certainly those remarks were made not in a spint of hostility, but with feelings of pain that so little confidence was placed in exertions rightfully and honestly made. such governments to be thereafter established by the same authority, over future acquisitions, should any such be confirmed to us by a treaty of peace. As to the condition of things in California, which followed, in consequence of the failure of Congress to provide governments for the Mexican cessions, no one foresaw it; certainly no one endeavored to provide against it. My letter, therefore, did not touch that point at all. But the difficulty came, and a large body of American citizens, upon the shores of the Pacific, found themselves without government, and exposed to all the fearful evils, which such a state necessarily brings with it. Life, property, all the objects, indeed, of the social system, were at hazard, without some prompt and efficient action. That action we refused to take, and the people had no other reliance but upon their own wisdom and energy. The result was honorable to themselves, to their country, and to human nature. It was the most trying experiment, perhaps, ever made upon the capacity of man for self-government, but they passed through the fiery furnace unscathed, untouched, indeed, by the devouring element. They established a government, and I am not going to argue with any man, who denies their right to have done so. I assume it as a selfevident proposition, in this middle of the nineteenth century. It was not, as it has been called, an act of revolution; for how can there be a revolution, when there has been no preexisting government? It was an act of political organization, essential to the very existence of society. Well, sir, if they had to establish a government, what kind of one must it have been? Some say territorial. But, sir, that was impossible, for that kind of government REGISTRY OF VESSELS. presupposes certain relations with the United States, which Congress alone can define and regOn the motion of Mr. HAMLIN, the bills of ulate. It was impossible for a self-constituted govthe House of Representatives to authorize the is ernment to put itself in that position, with its lawsuing of a register to the brig America, ani os and officers controlled by federal authority, without the action of that authority. Nothing else was left to the people but to do as they did, to lay the foundation of their own government, and then come to Congress with their work. Conceding, NAVY-YARD AT SAN FRANCISCO. to these local institutions, which the right acter is gives diftent to change. It is not alone the indispensable political wants by this course, what of a persthat Mr. GWIN. I wish to detain the Senate a limitation was there upon the exercise of their explanation, but in regard to the disposition condition of master and servant, which feels the thorize the issuing of a register to the ship Kos Isuth, were considered as in Committee of the and passed. Whole, reported to the Senate, read a third time, PUBLISHED AT WASHINGTON, BY JOHN C. RIVES.-TERMS $3 FOR THIS SESSION. 32D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION. was made of the question which was under consideration yesterday, and has been made the special order for Monday next. I wish to bring to the notice of the Senate that it was understood that another measure, which indeed has not been made a special order, because it stands at the head of the Calendar, was by general consent to be taken up on Monday next. I refer to the bill to establish a navy-yard at San Francisco. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. SOULE] is entitled to the floor on Monday on the subject of non-intervention. He is not here now, but if he were, I know that he would waive his right to the floor as a matter of courtesy, because I am compelled to leave the city on Tuesday or Wednesday next, and I should like to have this bill taken up and disposed of before that time. I have made all my arrangements, under the impression that this bill would come up on Monday, and it will put me to considerable inconvenience if I am detained beyond that time. I therefore give notice that I shall call up that bill, the first on the Calendar, on Monday next, and I feel perfectly sure that the Senator from Louisiana will not object to it. G. THOMAS HOWARD. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill for the relief of G. Thomas Howard, as in Com mittee of the Whole. The bill provides that the proper accounting officers of the Treasury shall audit and settle the claim of G. Thomas Howard, for compensation as bearer of despatches from Texas to Washing ton, in 1845, allowing him a compensation at the rate of $6 per day, for a period not exceeding twenty-five days, and traveling expenses at the rate of ten cents per mile, from Austin, in Texas, to Washington City, computing the distance according to the most usual traveling route. Mr. ATCHISON. I would like to hear the report of the committee read. The PRESIDENT. The Chair is informed that there was no report made by the committee. Mr. NORRIS. I reported that bill from the Committee on Foreign Relations. There is no report accompanying the bill. The facts are stated in a letter from the late Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Walker, which will explain the whole mat ter. The letter was read, as follows: "WASHINGTON, February 28, 1850. "DEAR SIR: I recollect very well the case in which you were bearer of dispatches from Texas to Washington, and your claim for compensation, during Mr. Polk's Administration. Your right to compensation was invariably conceded; but you were not paid, owing to a difference of opinion as to the fund out of which the payment should be made. It was supposed by some, that the payment should be made by the Secretary of Treasury directly; and by others, by the Secretary of State; and from that difference of opinion, growing out of the peculiar condition of facts, you were not paid. Your claim was undoubtedly just. Your dispatches contained the announcement of the communication of the annexation of Texas, and the delivery of the public property accordingly." The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. JOSEPH H. D. BOWMAR. The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of a bill for the relief of Joseph H. D. Bowmar. MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1852. of the Treasury; and, subsequently, in passing the act of March 3d, 1849, in favor of Carson, an express provision was made in that act, by which the selection was to be confirmed to the State authorities for school land. Now, if I understand this subject, and the legis lation in regard to it, this property did, by the act of March 3d, 1849, become absolutely the property of the State or township, according to their regulations in relation to school lands; and the title became vested in the State or township. Now, can the United States, by an act of Congress or otherwise, divest that title to the land? I cannot see how it can be done. It is not only vested in the State authorities by the ordinary operation of the law, and by a selection and confirmation, but by a special act of Congress. I think we cannot, by any act of Congress, divest that title, and give it to the individual who makes this application. It is true that the papers in this case show that the applicant did claim the right of preemption, and that that claim was recognized by the Department at one time. But all this, it appears, was subsequent to the passage of the act of 1849, and that the Department acted under a misapprehension of the existence of that law. At all events, they had not the power to grant a duplicate, or give a patent, or do anything by which they could dispose of this land for any purpose but school purposes, it having then betained that this was the true state of the case, come the property of the State. Having ascerthey recalled the authority which they had given the party to claim his preemption right, putting the matter precisely where the law had put it. Mr. DOWNS. The difficulty does not exist, because the circumstances are not precisely as the Senator from Michigan states them. This was not, in fact, a school lot of land at the time the bill was passed in favor of Carson, although Congress thought it was; and it was not for this reason: Before that act was passed-and not after, as has been stated-but of which Congress knew nothing, Bowmar, in attempting to perfect his entry, finding difficulties because this was a school section, applied to the Secretary of the Treasury to have this lot released, on the ground that, by mistake, more land had been reserved for that township than it was entitled to; and on the hearing of the case, Mr. Walker, who had then charge of that department, now known as the Department of the Interior, so decided; and he released this lot from the school location, so that it became public land, and he permitted him to proceed with his entry. After that time, a law was passed for the benefit of Carson, without Congress knowing anything of the matter, authorizing him to sell this section after obtaining the consent of the people of the town. It seems to me, therefore, that the objection of the Senator from Michigan does not apply. The right was not vested in this man; and Congress, in passing the act in favor of Carson, was under a mistake as to the facts. This bill does not propose to deprive the township of its land; but even if it were so, unless I am mistaken, there is a provision in the bill to the effect that this act shall be consummated only with the consent of the proper authority of the township or State, as the case may be. I should like the Secretary to read that part of the bill which has that clause in it. The Secretary read the clause, as follows: "Provided, That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to reduce the quantity of land to which said township is entitled by law."" Mr. FELCH. It seems to me there is a radical difficulty in this bill, and one which I do not see how we can surmount. The title to the land referred to by the bill, is evidently disposed of by the United States under the act referred to in the bill-an act in favor of a man by the name of Carson. Carson had settled upon the sixteenth Mr. DOWNS. It is clear that this does not section, as will be seen by a reference to the pa- apply to any rights vesting in the township whatpers presented in this case, and by a provision of ever. The objection of the Senator from Michian act of Congress, to which reference is made, hegan is, that this act deprives the people of the townwas entitled to, or permitted to obtain a title, to the sixteenth section; but a provision was made at the same time, that the township or State should be entitled to locate another section instead of that thus disposed of. This twenty-seventh lot, being a fractional section, was disposed of and abandoned. It was selected in lieu of the school land, and that selection was approved by the Secretary ship of a grant of land. How can that be, when the bill expressly says that it shall deprive them of nothing? I should like to know how that can be. The principal argument of the gentleman is, that you cannot do this, because it divests the township. The bill says that it does no such thing; it expressly disclaims it. The case is clear. I do not wish to go into the argument again; but I think NEW SERIES..., No. 50. it is clearly competent for Congress to correct an error of fact, on which they acted in passing the bill for Carson. Carson may have his rights. Nobody disputes that. If they are interfered with, they may be recovered in the courts; but as the matter now stands, this act places the parties upon an equal footing, and their respective rights must necessarily be determined by the local courts of justice. Mr. FELCH. It seems to me that that provision does not have the effect which the Senator seems to suppose. What is the proviso? The bill proposes to take away the land, divesting the title to that to which I think the title is as clear and perfect as any act of legislation can make it. It proposes to take away land. The Senator says it takes away no land; or, in other words, that it permits them to hold their own land, and perhaps the idea may be, that they may have the opportunity of locating a similar quantity elsewhere. But that is not definite. It is manifest that if anything is effected by this bill, it is to give the lands of Carson to the State. If the title to the land is in the State or township, then it is perfectly manifest that that is a thing which we have not the power to do. If the Senator will look into the papers, he will find, I think, that he has mistaken the facts in the case. The claim was not presented by Bowmar anterior to the time when the title was vested in the State authority for school land, but subsequent to it. The Carson act has this proviso: "And be it further enacted, That the selection heretofore made under the direction and approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, of lots numbered twenty-five, twentysix and twenty-seven, in said townships, nineteen for the use of schools, in lieu of lot sixteen, be, and the same is hereby confirmed." The Senator seems to suppose that Bowmar had acquired rights anterior to that time. Here are the dates: On the 3d of March, 1849, this act was passed, which establishes the title of the State application for the right of preemption to the land, or township absolutely. Now, the party makes at the local land office, and he is refused. He then makes his application to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury admits the propriety of the claim, and instructs them to permit him to make the entry. He was evidently ignorant of this act. This order was made on the 4th of July, 1849, after the act which confirmed ions were subsequent to that act. the title to it as school land, and all these provisThe attention of the Secretary of the Treasury was then called to this act, by which this land was disposed of, showing that he had not the power to dispose of it again, or grant a preemption right. On ascertaining this fact, the whole matter was referred back to the land office in the district where the land lay, with instructions not to permit the location to be made, inasmuch as the land had been already disposed of, and it was not in the power of Congress or any department to divest the title or give the land to this man or any other. Mr. ATCHISON. I move that this bill be in definitely postponed. Mr. DOWNS. I hope the gentleman will not persist in that motion. There is a fact in the case which I find is somewhat different from what I supposed it to be as to date, I certainly under stood the matter to be as I have stated it. Mr. ATCHISON. Well, if it will suit the Senator from Louisiana better, I will move to lay the bill upon the table. Mr. DOWNS. I will agree to that. The motion was accordingly decided in the affirmative. W. C. EASTON. The Senate next proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to the consideration of a bill for the relief of W. C. Easton. The bill provides for the payment to the claimant of a sum due for services as clerk in the office of the Commissary General of Subsistence, from June 1st, 1823, to March 24, 1827, when such services were necessary to the business of that office, but for which provision had not been made by law. Mr. ATCHISON. I would like to hear the report read. The report was read accordingly, from which it appeared that the case had been before Congress for many years at different times; that as far back as December 30th, 1834, a favorable report upon it was made to the Senate from the Committee of Claims; and subsequently, January 2d, 1845, a bill for the relief of the petitioner was reported from the Committee on Military Affairs; that during the time from June 1st, 1823, to March 2d, 1827, he was paid out of the contingent fund of the office at the rate of $420 per annum, the lowest salary of clerks in the Executive offices being at that time $800. The facts in detail, of which the foregoing statement is a summary, are set forth in the petition and confirmed by two letters of General Gibson, of December 19, 1834, and January 13, 1835. These letters are appended to and make a part of the report, and the committee state that from a careful examination of the case they are of opinion that the claim of the petitioner is an equitable one, and that he is clearly and fully entitled to the compensation he has so long asked at the hands of Congress. The bill was then reported to the Senate without amendment; and the question being on ordering it to be engrossed for a third reading, the noes appeared to prevail. was allowed by the late President Monroe, by Mr. BAYARD. I move to strike out the ap Mr. BORLAND. I think that the facts set forth in that report, if Senators had listened carefully to it, are sufficient to satisfy every mind of the merits of the bill. The case is one which the committee considered so plain and clear that they did not hesitate. It has been reported favorably upon three or four times, and I never heard any opposition to it. It is a bill to allow a clerk in thepropriation of $200. I cannot see the basis on commissary general's department an increase of salary, which the department were not enabled at the time the service was rendered to make. The commissary general, in his letters, state the reasons why this person is entitled to it. He was an extra clerk at a time when the public business required his services, and when there was not money enough in the control of the department to give him a compensation upon which he could live. His services were indispensable, and the commissary general employed him with the understanding on his part that he should wait for his compensation until by some legislative act a provision was made to pay him. If Senators have not looked into the matter, I would ask for the reading of General Gibson's letters. Mr. ATCHISON. Perhaps there may be some equity in this claim, and I withdraw my objections to the passage of the bill. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. ST. JOHN'S CHURCH. The Senate proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to consider "a bill for the relief of St. John's Church, in the city of Washington." This was a bill reported by the Committee for the District of Columbia, providing that the lot of ground now used as a burial ground for St. John's Church, in the city of Washington, occupying the sole square (No. 276) situated near the northern limits of the city, and which the late President Monroe permitted to be used by the said church as a place of sepulture for their dead, should be conveyed by the Commissioner of Public Buildings to the trustees of the church aforesaid, and that the sum of $200 be paid to the rector of said church out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. Mr. BAYARD. When that bill was called up last Friday, being reported by the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS,] it was postponed until to-day. There is no report in the case, as I believe, and it was postponed in consequence of the absence of that Senator. I made a motion to strike out the appropriation of $200, and I shall persist in that motion unless some satisfactory explanation shall be given why the sum should be appropriated. Unless I can have that explanation, I shall move the postponement of the further consideration of the bill until Friday next. Mr. SHIELDS. I will ask for the reading of the memorial in this case. I think that is the best explanation that can be given. The memorial was accordingly read. It set forth that the lot of ground now used as a place of sepulture by the congregation of St. John's Church, occupying the square mentioned above, which the grant is to be made. If the parties ac- Mr. SHIELDS. The Senator is mistaken. returning of this sum of money, that principle does not apply. It seems to me, that by your vote to refund this money, you are sanctioning the prin ciple that the President of the United States may, of his own velition, without the sanction of Congress, appropriate the public property of the nation. cannot sanction any such principle as that, except in very extraordinary circumstances indeed. Mr. HALE. If I understand this question, it is this: Certain persons, at a period about thing years ago, had permission to occupy a certain piece of land for a burying-place, and having used it for thirty years, the Commissioner of Pulic Buildings called upon them to pay for the land, and, under a threat that the place where their dead reposed would be sold, they paid $200 to him. The object of this bill is to confirm the title of the lands, and to give back the sum of money which they paid under the circumstances which I have stated. I ask, if there is any Senator here who wants to speculate upon the feelings of those whose friends are reposing in this place of burial? Would we not rather confirm the grant to them, that they may continue to occupy this piece of land, given to them thirty years ago, than to have the Commissioner put an auctioneer into that burial-place, to sell it to the highest bidder. These persons have paid $200, and the question is, will we refund the money, or will we keep in our hands this price which they paid for a place of repose for their dead? It seems to me, to all practical purposes, it was given them for a burial-place, more than thirty years ago; and they, having thus occupied it for that length of time, the Commissioner comes without any authority, except the general authority of law, and threatens to dispossess them. They, under that threat, paid the sum of $200. This being the state of the case, as I suppose, I cannot have any hesitancy, and I do not believe the Senate will, in voting to pass this bill. Mr. SHIELDS. That is materially the state of the case, but I will state that the Commissioner of Public Buildings only acted under the general law. I do not think that he did this by way of threat. He felt it his duty to sell this land by the same regulations by which he was required to sell lands generally. It will be seen from the accom panying papers that this is a small, insignificant lot, that it is away from the city, and worth very little. The Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. HALE] has stated materially the facts of the case. There was no attempt, sir, I believe, on the part of President Monroe to exercise any undue power. He only gave permission to those people-he hav ing charge of the property-to use it in that way, which it was quite competent for him to do under the laws as they then existed. But he could give no title, and the law which was passed afterwards Mr. SHIELDS. The bill provides for the refunding of the sum of $200 which they paid. Mr. BAYARD. Whether they ask for it or not, I am unable to see the principle on which we should grant it; and I move to strike it out. I would be unwilling to disturb the possession of the ground which they have so long occupied and ap-in relation to the sale of the lands for the beneat propriated for the burial of their dead; but in the whole statement I do not see any legitimate evidence to show that the parties took the property on a grant from the United States; and if you make grants of this sort to one religious society, you may make them to others, and that to a very different extent. I cannot see any principle on which this money should be refunded, and therefore I have moved to strike out the appropriation. Mr. SHIELDS. I will just state, as it was stated to me, that this lot having been given for a cemetery to this church, by President Monroe, they never expected to be called on to pay for it. At the time it was given, there was no legislation to confirm the grant. Recently the Commissioner of Public Buildings determined to sell this lot among others; and, therefore, to save it, under the pressure of this necessity, they paid $200. I think that, as the land was given in this way, the President having done it so long ago, and since they never expected to be called on to pay it, they should have this sum refunded. It is a very small amount which they ask to have reimbursed; but if the Senate think it should not be paid, I must let it go. Mr. HALE. Let them have it. Let them have it. Mr. BAYARD. Although the sum is small, the principle involved is one of great importance. I would not vote to sanction the appropriation of any public property, by any President of the United States, except, as in this case, where the occupation of the land has been for a purpose with which the natural feelings of man would make them indisposed to interfere. But, as regards the of the city, included this lot with the others. The land was afterwards sold to them, as it ap pears, by the Commissioner of Public Buildings; and the only question is, whether you will give them the money back or not. Mr. BAYARD. I cannot understand how the Senator from Illinois can reconcile the proposition that this was not an improper exercise of power on the part of the President of the United States. I concede that he has charge of the lands for temporary purposes; but this occupation was a per manent occupation intended to be in the nature of a grant. By what authority does the President of the United States grant the public lands to any one? If he may do it for one purpose, he may do it for another. I admit that what was said by the Senator from New Hampshire will apply to that portion of the bill which relates to the title to the land, so that they may not be hereafter disturbed; but it does not apply to the repayment of this money which was paid to the Commissioner of Public Buildings, who was acting under a general direction to sell the land if the parties did not pay for it. On that ground I am not disposed to vote for the bill without the amendment I have proposed; and unless that amendment is adopted I shall vote against it, as I cannot sanetion the principle that the President of the United States may so dispose of the public property; and it will not do to say that he gave permission to occupy the land, covering under that permission the title to the land. The amount may be a small one, but the principle involved is important, and the precedent one which may be abused; and for that reason I am not willing to sanction it. |