on foot, of any such expedition, and it necessarily condemns all preparatory steps by which such a result is to be produced. If they do not fall within the provisions of the statute, so as to be punishable by law, they certainly and indubitably are morally criminal in their character. What does this gentleman [Kossuth] want these fellow-citizens of ours to commit themselves to? Why to this: that this country shall furnish the material and means to prevent the Emperor of Russia from interfering in the future contest between Hungary and Austria. What means? Paper resolutions, printed protests, or protests written upon parchment with the seal of the United States attached? How much do we suppose they will sway the mind of the Czar? No, sir, the moment we take that ground-the moment we occupy the position he desires, (I do not say what gentlemen here contemplate,) we will have, in my judgment, placed ourselves in such a position that we must advance in the event of a future conflict || and the interposition of Russia, which I suppose is just as certain as the future conflict itself, or we must ingloriously retire. We must either abandon the policy of the country and involve ourselves in distant and future quarrels, of which no man can foresee the issue, or after having threatened we must ignobly retreat. I am willing to welcome foreigners who come to our shores for just and laudable and useful purposes, but I am not willing to welcome by my vote any man who comes here to endeavor to commit the citizens of this country to any intervention in foreign transactions. In saying this I do not mean to cast reproach on Kossuth, for I can understand the enthusiastic temper and the character of the man. I can understand how he has been led, on his first landing in the United States, to believe that our people were ready to pour by thousands and hundreds of thousands, to join his standards. It is natural. He is wrapt up in Hungary. He is devoted to Hungary. He lives for Hungary, and he is prepared to die for Hungary. We can understand his natural feeling on this account. We can understand his strong desire to solicit aid for his country; but when I am called upon to vote for a resolution, and welcome to our shores one who has openly and pubbely made this announcement of his purposesone who has made the most powerful appeals to the passions of his auditors everywhere, I cannot help seeing that the inevitable interpretation of the proceeding must be that we receive him in that character; that we indorse him as a political misionary. I take it that, by doing that, we would welcome him here as one who is to receive assurances of armed intervention to prevent the interference of Russia in a future quarrel between Hungary and Austria. I do not think that such a course is consistent with what I owe to my own country. While I would hold myself ready to adopt any measure which I believed to be just, reasonable, fair, and honorable towards this unfortunate exile, I cannot, by giving my consent to this resolution, aid to mislead him into believing that he will receive any such aid from us. Again, Mr. President, it has been said that we owe this testimony to Kossuth as the great impersonation of the principle of free government. It has not been my fortune, though I do not profess any large knowledge on this subject, to have found in the past history of Kossuth any evidence that he occupies such a position. I have watched with interest the struggle between Austria and Hungary, and felt a sincere and anxious desire that Hungary should succeed in vindicating her independence. I was satisfied, from the examination I was able to give the subject, that the Emperor of Austria had violated the fundamental conditions upon which, for centuries, the originally independent Kingdom of Hungary had been attached to the Austrian Crown, and fell under the control of the House of Hapsburg. It was not a contest to -establish republican institutions, according to our understanding of the term. I have no evidence of any such purpose. It was a war for national independence a war justifiable on the part of Hungary, because the fundamental condition of union had been violated, and because that violation was obstinately persevered in-and, therefore, whether Hungary had intended to establish a despotic or free government for herself, I should have heartily wished for her success in the conflict. It was the cause of national independence, not of republican institutions, which Kossuth urged. I doubt very much whether, in the whole struggle, the idea ever Shall he be selected for this honor because, instead entered into his mind of a broadcast sowing of of landing on our shores quietly, as they have liberal principles and equal rights among his coun- done, and enjoying the hospitality, he has occutrymen. He wished to establish an independent pied his time in inflammatory addresses to the State and Nation under the supremacy of the people? Is this a reason why he should be singled Magyar race; leaving the Sclavonians and other out from his fellows in captivity, and have alone inferior castes to occupy the position that they had this distinguished honor? Whatever we do for the before occupied when the kingdom was connected one, in the way of honor and compliment, let us with Austria. That I think is what he wished. do for all. In my judgment, the American ConIt is a mistake, therefore, it seems to me, to sup- gress would act wisely to do no such thing as is pose that Kossuth, in his struggles in Europe, was proposed by this resolution in respect to any of the the imbodiment of the principle of American free-parties; but if to one, then surely to all alike. dom-freedom as we understand it. A country may be absolutely independent, and yet thoroughly despotic. Such is Russia. A country may be absolutely independent, and entirely aristocratical or absolutely independent and thoroughly Democratical. The interior regulations by which the public authority is distributed and the rights of the citizens are secured, are totally distinct from the position which in external relations makes the state or sovereignty independent. I am willing to admit that Kossuth represents a high principle-the principle of national independence, but not that of republicanism. When this subject is carefully considered, I think it will be found that the whole of it resolves itself into this: that Kossuth was expected or invited here as an emigrant-he came as a political emissary; and the question is, whether there is anything in our past history—in our present condition, in our present purposes, or our future prospects, which should induce us to pass a resolution of this kind in favor of one coming amongst us in that character and under such cir cumstances. It has been said that his proceedings in Hungary were like those out of which sprang our own Declaration of Independence, and our State constitutions-our demands, originally small, growing larger as we advanced in strength. This, I think, is a mistake. Our fathers did not increase their demands on the British Government from time to time. They preferred a claim at once for all the rights of Englishmen―the rights which their ancestors enjoyed in England and brought here. They demanded no more. Although my friend from New Jersey [Mr. STOCKTON] Seemed to suppose that Englishmen, as such, have no rights, our revolutionary fathers claimed before the Declaration of Independence no rights but the rights of Englishmen. It was an invasion of their birthright as English subjects of which they complained. For years they solicited the Crown and Parliament to maintain or restore to them their ancient rights, and when these solicitations had proved ineffectual, then, as a last resort, they flew to arms and declared themselves independent. They scarcely waited an hour after that declaration before the several States formed constitutions for themselves; and what do they imbody in them? The principle of English freedom-such as the habeas corpus, and the trial by jury; the liberty of speech and of the press; and when they came to frame their own declarations of rights, where did they resort for the materials out of which they were to be framed? Did they not resort to that very England? Assuredly they did. They struck off the external form of monarchy, and they provided by republican forms for the security of their rights-the civil rights which they had enjoyed as Englishmen, but which, in consequence of the changes of time, had become insecure or threatened by their connection with that country. They did not begin by making small demands, and hypocritically reserving to themselves until they acquired more strength the whole of what they required. All they asked at all, they asked at first. They asked the rights of Englishmen, as they understood them-as they had enjoyed them-as long as hope of success remained, and when that hope was over, they declared themselves independent, and provided, by republican constitutions, security for themselves. That is what they did. There is therefore, so far as I can see, nothing in our history, or the history and present position of Kossuth, which should induce us to pass this resolution. But if we do pass it, I am totally unable to perceive why gentlemen should object to the amendment which my friend from Georgia proposes, to include the associates of Kossuth in the same welcome with himself. If we are to welcome the one, why not welcome the other? Is it because the associates of Kossuth have made no political speeches that we will leave them out? Mr. President, I wish not to be misunderstood about this matter. I would be far from offering any indignity to the distinguished man who has come upon our shores. Far, very far be it from me to do so. He who is the victim of oppression, he who has fallen in a contest nobly maintained for the maintenance of national independence, and seeks our shores, I would always receive with the most cordial feelings. He may forfeit them by his subsequent conduct; he may forfeit them by showing that he brings a restless spirit with him, which is incompatible with the security of any State; but my first impressions must always be decidedly and heartily in his favor. In making these remarks, I have merely given my reasons for declining to vote for the passage of the resolution; and for deeming it eminently proper, if it passes at all, that the amendment proposed by the honorable Senator from Georgia should be attached to it. Whatever may be the state of public opinion at present-excited, strongly and naturally excited, as the people now are-a calmer moment will ere long arrive. And if this resolution shall be adopted, I believe that at no distant day the whole American people will understand the character, and tendency, and consequences of this resolutionwill understand that, in the circumstances which surround us and give it significance, there is a great deal more implied than empty compliment or honorary gratulation; a great deal more than we can do in consistency with our past history, and with a just regard for our own interests and future peace and welfare. Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. I wish to call the attention of the Senate, and of the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. BADGER] especially, to what I know he is as familiar with as any other man in existence-to one of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, for prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I suppose that under that clause no one can doubt the right of the people peaceably to assemble. The right of freedom of speech is also fully secured. Therefore it seems to me that any gentleman, especially such an individual as this, invited to our shores and brought in a national vessel, might at least make a public speech without being denounced as a political emissary. Ithink he might be allowed to reply in a decent and proper manner to the addresses made to him by other persons. I venture to say that my friend from North Carolina, if he will look into the public prints of New York, will find that the demeanor of this gentleman since his arrival here has been modest, dignified, and judicious; that he has shown no intermeddling spirit; that he has not agitated against our institutions, but that under the most extraordinary tests he has manifested a disposition not to interfere in the least possible degree with domestic questions of any kind. He has said expressly that his mission is in behalf of his own country, and that he should deem himself disgraced if he were to utter or write a single word which could possibly be misconstrued to an intention on his part to interfere in our domestic concerns. These are the facts of the case. His speeches are all of one tenor and character. Yet the gentleman seems to conceive that in consequence of certain acts of Governor Kossuth, he is justified in denouncing him as an emissary. He cannot certainly be both an emissary and an emigrant. The gentleman's knowledge of philology has not, I think, been exactly as accurate on this occasion as it usually is. If he is an emigrant to this country, how can he be an emissary? We know that he is not an emigrant, because in England he took occasion to inform the whole civilized world that he came here as a visitor for legitimate purposes. How can the gentleman call him an emissary when he has not been sent? The word emissary is derived, as we all know, from two Latin words-the preposition e or ex, and mitto, to send. Who sent him? I underderstand him to come here ex sua voluntate, to some extent. We declared the consent of the peopleyea more than their consent-that he should come and receive hospitable entertainment from us, and interchange sentiments with us upon those questions on which every lover of freedom must feel an intense interest. Although I entertain sentiments of the greatest respect for my friend from North Carolina, [Mr. BADGER;] although there is no one whom I esteem more highly, yet I must say that he has uttered doctrines this morning which, if carried to their full extent, would make this the most absolute despotism in the world, break down the freedom of speech which we now possess, and lead to such violent and despotic proceedings as have outraged our sensibilities in republican France, and goaded the French people once more to the brink of civil revolution. I know the gentleman did not contemplate anything of the sort, but such would be the result of his doctrine. He seems to intimate that some interference should take place to prevent the speeches now being made by Governor Kossuth, which, in my opinion, are decorous, and modest, and eloquent. Certain portions of the American people have freely and voluntarily assembled, not only for the purpose of hearing him speak, but for the purpose of constraining him to speak by addresses delivered to him. This the gentleman seems to consider a great public grievance, and out of this he conceives great mischief is presently to flow. He seems to think that if this is allowed, it may have an injurious effect on the public quiet of the country, and tend to jeopard our free institutions. The gentleman will allow me to say, in conclusion, that I would rather have traveled five hundred miles, on one of the hardest trotting horses in Christendom, without cessation and without sleep, and have submitted to all the discomforts that could possibly be experienced by a traveler under such circumstances, than listened to such an harangue from a gentleman whom I admire and love so much. Mr. BADGER. It is one of the ordinary dexterities of accomplished debaters, among whom everybody knows the Senator from Mississippi occupies a high station, to put into the mouth of an adversary, language which he has not used. I have neither said nor intimated that I think Governor Kossuth should be arrested in his course of speeches. Mr. FOOTE. I understood the gentleman to complain of the speeches now being made by Governor Kossuth, and to say that such speeches were dangerous, and to intimate clearly, that in his opinion, some steps ought to be taken, either positive or negative, to arrest him in what he deemed to be his mischievous course of proceeding. I suppose that the honorable gentleman meant that we should use the moral influence which would necessarily grow out of a refusal to do him these honors at the present time, and nothing more. Mr. BADGER. I said nothing of the kind; and I said nothing from which anything of the kind could be inferred. Mr. FOOTE. Did not the honorable Senator speak of moral sedition? Mr. BADGER. I said nothing about moral sedition. I said this, and I will repeat it, that when I am called upon to give a vote of thanks to a foreigner who lands upon our shores, if I find him engaged in making political harangues to our people, the avowed object of which is to commit them to a course of conduct that may involve us in braggadocia toward a foreign Government, or in foreign war, that is sufficient reason with me to refuse that vote. I said that while the law of the land forbids any steps being taken for the purpose of organizing or setting on foot any such forcible interference with foreign States, it is not to my mind an entirely innocent thing for a foreigner to attempt to commit our people to the accomplishment of such an object by previous declarations. That is what I said, and what I thought. Mr. FOOTE. Did not the gentleman say at that point of his remarks, that the incipient step by inflammatory addresses which might lead to such a result was, in his judgment, highly censur able, and calculated to have a mischievous ten- Mr. BADGER. I used no word of the kind. A short time ago we had another political emissary in this country. If the honorable Senator dislikes the name of emissary, he may dignify him with the name of missionary. We had a Mr. Thompson, a member of the British Parliament, coming over here exercising the liberty of speech, going about addressing public meetings in the New England States, endeavoring to stir up sectional feelings between different portions of the United States. Mr. FOOTE. He was intermeddling with our domestic institutions. Mr. BADGER. Undoubtedly. sequences beyond. What are they? Kossuth, admitted here to be the representative of the downtrodden constitutional liberties of his own country, and the representative of the up-rising liberties of Europe, shakes from his feet the dust that has gathered upon them on American shores, and returns to the Eastern Continent-returns upon a point of honor with the United States of America, and therefore, in a practical view, returns as he will say, and those devoted to his cause will say, repulsed, driven back. Where, then, sir, shall he find welcome and repose? In his own beautiful native land, at the base or on the slopes of the Carpathian hills? No! the Austrian despot reigns absolutely there. Shall he find it in Germany, east or west, north or south? No, sir; the despot of Austria and the despot of Prussia reign absolutely there. Shall he find it under the sunny skies of Italy? No, sir; for the Austrian monarch has crushed Italy to the earth. Shall he find it in Siberia, or in the frozen regions of the North? No, sir; for the Russian Czar, who drove him from his native land and forced him into exile in Turkey, will be ready to seize the fugitive. The scaffold awaits him there. Where shall he go? Shall he seek protection again from the sceptred Turk? The Turk would say, You have eaten my salt as a voluntary captive, and I sheltered you until you left me under the seductions of the Republic of the United States. Mr. FOOTE. Governor Kossuth has not done | If you come now, the laws of my country and of this. Mr. BADGER. Certainly not. Mr. FOOTE. Therefore the cases are not alike. Mr. BADGER. The cases are not the same, but they may nevertheless be alike. If he who comes here to stimulate us to a domestic war is blameable, I think he who comes here to instigate us to a foreign war may be likewise blameable. It is the difference between "same" and "alike." The two cases are not the same, but they are in one respect alike. I do not undertake to say whether Thompson could have been prosecuted and punished for anything he said. The Government of the United States has no sedition law, therefore, that would depend entirely on the laws of Massachusetts, and the other States, in which he made those flagitious appeals. Still, I have no hesitation in saying that I consider the conduct of that man as a great indignity, as a brutal insult, and as an infamous transaction on his part. When I say that, I do not intimate that he should be put in the pillory and whipped, because he made these speeches. I am called upon here to give a vote in favor of this resolution, which, it seems to me, must be understood by the world as indicating that we approve the course Kossuth is pursuing, and the objecfor which he came. I do not approve of the course he is pursuing. I do not sanction the object for which he came; therefore, I will not, directly or indirectly, place myself in a position in which it can be attributed to me that I approved of it. I am very sorry that my friend from Mississippi has such an idea of the character of my speech." Mr. FOOTE. I thought it a very good one. Mr. BADGER. We who have been here for the last four or five years have heard him characterize one hundred speeches in the same way. I have noticed that if any one makes a speech against any ground which the Senator from Mississippi supports, particularly if he makes a pretty good speech-that is, a speech which has any sense or reason in it, and which it is not so very easy for him to answer, he gets up and expresses his perfect astonishment and horror at hearing such barbarous, monstrous, and preposterous doctrines advanced, (laughter,) and declares that he would rather travel five hundred miles on a hard trotting horse than listen to him. (Great laughter.) my God will not oblige or allow me to hazard the peace of my own people again to extend protection over you. Where, then, shall he go? Where else on the face of broad Europe can he find refuge but in the land of your forefathers, in Britain? There, God be thanked, there would be a welcome and a home for him. Are you prepared to give to the world evidence that you cannot receive the representative of liberty and republicanism, whom England can honor, shelter, and protect? But, Mr. President, will this transaction end there? I fancy that I see the exile winding his lonely way, with downcast looks, along the streets and thoroughfares of the great metropolis of Britain and the world, forsaken and abandoned, but not forgotten. Will it end in that? No, sir. Beyond us, above us, there is a tribunal, higher and greater than the Congress of the United States. It is a tribunal whose existence and jurisdiction and authority we have acknowledged, and to whose judgment-seat we have already called the Turk, the Austrian, and the Russian, to account for their action in regard to Hungary and to Kossuth. It is the tribunal of the public opinion of the world-the public opinion of mankind. Sir, that tribunal is unerring in its judgments. It is constituted of the great, the wise, and the good of all nations-not only of the great, and wise, and good who are now living, but of the great, the wise, and the good of all ages. Before that tribunal, States, great and small, are equal. Aye, before that tribunal the proudest empire is equaled by its humblest citizen or subject. Yes, the Indian and the serf are equal there to the American Republic and to the Russian Empire. I know no living man entitled by the consent of Christendom to preside in that august tribunal. But there is a venerable form that seems to rise up before me, and all the congregated nations and people deferentially make way as he advances and takes the judgment seat. It is the shade of Franklin. And there I see the parties opposed. On the one side stands Hungary downcast and sorrowful, but she is surrounded by the people of many lands, who wait her redemption and their own. On the other side I see the United States of America, sustained-most singular conjunction!-by the youthful and impatient Bonaparte, the sickly successor of the Romans, and the Czar of all the Russias. I hear the impeachment read. It is, that the United States have dishonored and insulted the unfortunate represent Mr. SEWARD. Mr. President: Under an expectation that the first part of the amendmentative of unfortunate Hungary; that they found proposed by the honorable Senator from Georgia [Mr. BERRIEN] would secure some favor to this resolution, which it might otherwise lose, I yesterday intimated that I would give it my support. But discovering now that no such advantage is to be gained, I beg leave to recall what I then said. I shall vote with the original friends of the measure against the amendment. I will suppose now that the opposition made to this resolution is effective. I will suppose that the measure is defeated. Let us look to the con him a captive in Asia Minor, under the protection of the Turk, but subjected to the surveillance of the Russian Tyrant; that they addressed to him words of sympathy and hope, and that they brought to the doors of his captivity a national vessel, with their time-honored flag, and bade him to come upon its deck and be conveyed to a land of constitutional freedom-a land where the advocates and champions of universal liberty were sure to enjoy respect and sympathy and fraternal welcome; and that when they had so seduced him from a place of obscurity but of safety, and had brought land within the reach of all, and put the That is the impeachment. And the United States hold up the right hand and answer, "Not guilty." I see the books of testimony opened on behalf of Hungary. Here they are. A resolution of the Congress of the United States of America, passed in the year 1850, tendering the hospitalities of the You say that you were willing to give Kossuth nation, and the use of a national ship, to Louis a welcome, but that re demanded more. How did Kossuth; then the message of the President of the you know that he demanded more?' How did United States, in 1851, calling upon Congress to you learn that Kossuth demanded more than a say what shall be the ceremonial of receiving him cordial welcome? Where did he ask of you even who has been brought here under their authority; so much as a welcome? Was it in your capital? and then the record of this Senate, that upon a di- To whom did he address his extravagant and ofvision of its members, a resolution of welcome,fensive reclamation? Was it to your President? to was rejected. That constitutes the case on the your Ministry? to your Congress? No; all alike part of Hungary. Sir, the United States appear refused to receive him, refused even to hear him in that august tribunal by learned and eloquent speak, and yet you say he demanded too much. defenders and advocates. I see there my ardent You closed his mouth before he had time to tell and enthusiastic young friend from Alabama, [Mr. you what he thought, and what he wanted, or wheCLEMENS,] and the candid and learned Senator ther he wanted anything. But you reply he was from Kentucky, [Mr. UNDERWOOD,] the impulsive overheard to say that he expected arms, men, moand generous Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Daw-ney, 'material aid, and intervention.' Overheard? sos,] the very learned and astute advocate who has What did you deliver Kossuth from Russian just taken his seat, [Mr. BADGER,] and, lastly, he surveillance in Turkey to establish an espionage who holds the first place in our veneration of living over him of your own? Shame! shame to the Senators, save only one, (Mr. CLAY,) the honorable country that so lightly regards the sanctity of the Senator from Georgia, who is now absent, [Mr.|| character of a stranger and an exile. But you say BERRIEN.] I listen to the long, elaborate, and that he would have demanded intervention. Supearnest defence which they make against this im- pose he should? Would you have been less able peachment. Hungary declines to reply; and to have met that unreasonable demand after havKossuth, the orator of modern times, upon whom ing accorded to him the exact justice which was she leans for support, for the first time overcome his due, than you are now when you have done by a sense of cruel insult, is silent, dumb. him injustice, and thus clothed him with the sympathies of your people and of mankind! But you aver that he spoke irreverently of your authority: he was overheard to say, in the outgushing of his gratitude to the generous people who received him on Staten Island, that the people were the sovereigns of the government of the United States? and you cannot pardon that offence. What if he did say that? Are not the people the sovereigns of the Government of the United States? Which one of your Senators or Representatives dare deny in his place that the People are his sovereigns? But you say that you had a precedent; that you once took offence at a Minister of France who assumed the same position. You refer to Genet. But there is no parallel. Genet was a minister of a Government actually hostile, almost belligerent. He was in negotiation, and his demands were denied. He took an appeal from the decision of your Government to the people. But Kossuth is no minister. He is your guest. He went to you not to negotiate, or to demand a right. He went by your invitation to enjoy your hospitality. You have decided nothing against him. He submitted no appeal. I do not say that you ought to have granted intervention had it been demanded. But I do say this, that the Hungarian would have demanded no more of you than, in a strait less severe than his, I solicited and obtained for the United States of America from the Bourbon of France. Could you not have pardoned him for asking what you had once asked and obtained for yourselves? Was it so great a fault in him to suppose that now, in the day of your greatness, prosperity, and power, you might not be unwilling to do for Hungary what, in the day of your infancy, poverty, and weakness, France had done for yourselves? You say you stand upon precedent. Precedent? By whom established? By yourselves. Was Hungary concluded by such a precedent? And what precedent? The precedent of the reception given to Lafayette? Was not even that reception grudgingly given by the Congress of the United States? If the ashes of Lafayette could be reanimated, and he could present himself again upon your shores, would you not now willingly accord him a greater than the welcome he before received at your hands?-a welcome, such as it was proposed to give to Kossuth? Wherein does the parallel between Kossuth and Lafayette fail? Lafayette began his career as a soldier of liberty in the cause of your country; but he pursued it through life in an effort to establish a republic in his own beloved land. Kossuth found the duty which first devolved upon him was to The defence is weighed by that august shade, in whose placid countenance I read at once the sagacity of the lightning hunter and the common sense of Poor Richard. "You say, that your invitation to the Magyar 'justified on his part and on the part of Hungary no expectation of a welcome. How, then, came Kossuth, how came Hungary, how came the world, how came you, how came your President to misunderstand the invitation which was addressed to the exile? When did you first revise your diplomacy to ascertain to what extent you might abridge the hospitalities to which you had invited him? Not until you were committed before the world. You say that 'Kossuth was invited to be a resident, to become a citizen of the United States, and that he came, on the contrary, as a transient guest.' Grant it; what then? Is a welcome less due to him whom you have invited as a perpetual guest, when he comes to thank you and decline the courtesy, than if he had accepted it and become a perpetual charge upon your hospitalities? You say that the honors to Kossuth were moved in your Senate by ambitious aspirants for place and distinction.' Has, then, my country degenerated so much that there are no true, genuine patriots in the Senate of the United States who could lead that illustrious body in the discharge of so great a national obligation? You plead that the Hungarian chief 'was a noble by birth, an aristocrat by education and associa tion, and that he had devoted himself in an effort not to disseminate the spirit of universal liberty, but to fortify the privileges of the Maygar race? If that be so, did you not know it when you invited him? If you did not, how can you justify your ignorance of a character that was blazoned to the world? But it is not true. Kossuth's first public action in early youth, was an effort, through the Hungarian Diet, to extend equal privileges of representation, of suffrage, and of taxation to all the people of Hungary, without distinction of rank, or cast, or race. For his fidelity to the great cause of human equality and freedom he was imprisoned three long years in a dungeon in the castle of Buda by the hand of the Austrian despot. When he came out from that captivity, he commenced that career of agitation for the restoration of the constitution of his country, which ended with success in the year 1848. When he had wrung that charter from the Emperor of Austria, his constitutional king, the first exercise of Hungarian authority by the Legislature which he directed, was an act which abolished all the feudal tenures, that wage a struggle for freedom in his own country. When overborne there, he became, like Lafayette, a champion of liberty throughout the world. You say that the Russian might have taken offence. Is America, then, brought so low that she fears to give offence when commanded by the laws of nature and of nations? What right had Russia to prescribe whom you should receive and whom reject from your hospitalities? Let no such humiliation be confessed. Thus in the tribunal of the public opinion of mankind, all our pleas are disallowed. We have exposed ourselves to the censure-I will not say to the derision, of the world. It is said, Mr. President, that there is danger of intervention if we accord these honors; that intervention will follow them. No, sir; it is not a question of intervention future, but of intervention past! There has been intervention already. Russia has intervened and Hungary has fallen by that crime. Kossuth is an exile upon our shores in consequence of it. What we have done already, was by manifesting our sympathy for him, to express our abhorrence of the intervention of Russia, which has worked so great injustice, and to rebuke and prevent such intervention hereafter. What do we now propose to do? To grant a welcome to Kossuth. It is but the fit conclusion of an action already near complete. I greatly fear that we do not understand our own interests in this great question. We cannot extinguish sympathy for freedom elsewhere, without extinguishing the spirit of freedom which is the life of our own Republic. Again, sir, you may reject Kossuth; you may, if you please, propitiate despotic favor by trampling the exiles of all Europe under your feet. But what will you have gained? This Republic is, and forever must be, a living offence to Russia and to Austria, and to despotic powers everywhere. You will never, by whatever humiliations, gain one friend or secure one ally in Europe or America that wears a crown. It is clear that the days of despotism are numbered. We do not know whether its end is to come this year, or next year, or the year after; in this quarter of a century or in this half of a century. But there is to come, sooner or later, a struggle between the representative and the arbitrary systems of government. Europe is the field on which that struggle must take place. While the representative principle is gaining strength among the people, the power of Russia is seen to culminate. That struggle will be between Russia, whose power extends across the whole northern part of the Eastern Hemisphere, and all the people of southern and western Europe If the Russian Autocrat prevail in that contest, we shall be left without friends or allies in the Eastern World. Is it wise to deny ourselves the benefits of alliances with States kindred in political interests and constitutions? Far otherwise; true wisdom dictates that we lend to European nations, struggling for civil liberty, all possible moral aid to sustain them until they can mature and perfect their strength for that great conflict, through which they are doomed to pass. The nations that we thus lawfully aid to raise up, will constitute a lasting and impregnable bulwark for ourselves. Mr. RHETT. I do not rise to debate this question, although I might have thought of saying something. I rise merely to suggest to the Senate, that as we have had a very long discussion on this subject, and as the gentleman who offered the resolution has had an opportunity of replying to its opponents, we should now take the vote. Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I rise simply to say, that I have paired off with the Senator from Maryland, who has been called home this evening. But for that, I should vote against all amendments and for the original resolution. Mr. HOUSTON. I wish to say that I have paired off with my colleague, [Mr. Rusk,] who is too unwell to appear to-day. The question being taken on the first branch of the amendment of Mr. BERRIEN, that the welcome offered to Kossuth be extended to his associate Hungarian exiles, resulted-yeas 13, nays 27; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Badger, Borland, Butler, Clarke, Clemens, Dawson, Geyer, King, Morton, Spruance, Underwood, Upham, and Walker-13. NAYS-Messrs. Bradbury, Bright, Brodhead, Cass, Chase, Davis, Dodge of Wisconsin, Douglas, Felch, Fish, Foot of Vermont, Foote of Mississippi, Gwin, Hamlin, James, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Miller, Norris, Rhett, Seward, Shields, Smith, Stockton, Sumner, Wade, and Whitcomb-27. So it was not agreed to. The question then being on the other branch of of a reception, I am for carrying out the resolu the amendment "But while welcoming these Hungarian patriots to an asylum in our country and to the protection which our laws do, and always will, afford to them, it is due to candor to declare that it is not the purpose of Congress to depart from the settled policy of this Government which forbids all interference with the domestic concerns of other nations" On motion by Mr. DAWSON, it was modified by substituting "this Hungarian exile" for "these Hungarian exiles," in consequence of the rejection of the first branch of the amendment. The question being taken, by yeas and nays, on the amendment as modified, resulted-yeas 15, nays 26; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Badger, Borland, Butler, Clarke, Clemens, Dawson, Geyer, Hunter, King, Miller, Morton, Rhett, Spruance, Underwood, and Upham-15. NAYS-Messrs. Bradbury, Bright, Brodhead, Cass, Chase, Davis, Dodge of Wisconsin, Douglas, Felch, Fish, Foot of Verinont, Foote of Mississippi, Gwin, Hamlin, James, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Norris, Seward, Shields, Smith, Stockton, Sumner, Wade, Walker, and Whitcomb-26. So the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. SHIELDS. When this resolution was first introduced, I gave notice that I should move to substitute in place of it the resolution originally introduced by the Senator from Mississippi. I now move to amend by striking out all after the resolving clause of this resolution and inserting: That a joint committee of the two Houses of Congress, to consist of three members of the Senate and five members of the House of Representatives, be appointed by the presiding officers of the respective Houses to make suitable arrangements for the reception of Louis Kossuth, Governor of Hungary, on his arrival in the United States, and to communicate to him assurances of the profound respect entertained for him by the people of the United States; and to tender to him, on the part of Congress, and in the name of the people of the United States, the hospitalities of the Metropolis of the Union. 'Mr. BORLAND. I move to amend the amendment by striking out all after the word "That," and inserting "The Congress, in the name and on behalf of the people of the United States, cordially sympathize with the people of Hungary in their recent laudable and heroic struggle, and in their present misfortunes; that it recognizes and cordially welcomes Louis Kossuth, late Governor of Hungary, and his associate exiles, who have recently landed on our shores, as worthy representatives of their country, and invites them to the capital, as guests of the Union; that it requests the President of the United States to receive and entertain them, in such manner as he may deem proper; and that the sum of dollars be and the same is hereby appropriated and placed at the disposal of the President, to pay the expenses of the reception and entertainment of such guests during their sojourn at the capital." I will not detain the Senate with anything like a speech on this subject. The Senate has already heard a great deal on the subject, and it has heard remarks more valuable and interesting than any I could make. I propose, in a few words, to state the reasons why I offer this amendment. Mr. BUTLER. With the consent of the Senator, I will move an adjournment. Mr. BORLAND. I give way for that pur The PRESIDENT. The motion is not debatable. Mr. BUTLER. I withdraw the motion, in order to make a single remark. If the proposition of my friend from Arkansas shall be adopted, I, and perhaps others, may desire to say something. I was very much in hopes that the resolution might have passed in the form proposed by the Senator from New York, without any call for the yeas and nays. I shall object to the resolution in any other form. Any other form of the resolution will lead to great division of opinion. I renew the motion to adjourn. Mr. BORLAND. I would say to the Senator from South Carolina that I shall not occupy five minutes. Mr. BUTLER. Then I withdraw. Mr. BORLAND. I offer this resolution, as the only one for which I can vote under the present c'rcumstances of the case. In paying this compliment to a distinguished foreigner, I wish to pay it in a substantial manner. I do not want to commit this Government to any course of policy which he may have indicated. This proposition is simply to welcome him as a distinguished stranger, one who has rendered services to his country which have deserved the admiration of the world. Inasmuch as the President of the United States has called the attention of Congress to the subject tion of the last session. Then we submitted to the President the employment of a public vessel, and I am now for leaving the question of entertainment to his discretion. In the amendment, I propose to place a sum of money at the disposal of the President for that purpese. In this amendment I have styled Kossuth "the late Governor of Hungary. I have done so in accordance with the historic fact. He was Governor of Hungary. He voluntarily resigned that place to another, and therefore he is no longer Governor. Mr. FOOTE. I know that the honorable Senator from Arkansas does not intend to insult the gentleman whom he calls "the late Governor of Hungary," but who calls himself the Governor of Hungary in his last speech. He is recognized, I think, by the lovers of liberty throughout the world as virtually the Governor of Hungary-as the Governor de jure though not de facto. I am satisfied that there is no intention to insult the gentleman by calling him the late Governor of Hungary, and by proffering to him pecuniary aid in the manner proposed; but I beg leave to call the attention of my friend, to the fact that, speeches have been recently made by Governor Kossuth in New York, in which he expressly declares his entire unwillingness to receive the sort of entertainment proffered by the amendment. I must say in addition that, as I am a democrat and a strict constructionist, I doubt our power to do anything of the kind in the form now proposed; and I am assured of one thing, we should dishonor Governor Kossuth, and the cause in which he is engaged, by the adoption of the amendment. Mr. RHETT. I shall vote for the simple resolution of the Senator from New York, and shalt vote for none of these amendments. If the friends of the measure want a large vote in its favor they had better stand to the simple proposition of the Senator from New York. Mr. DOUGLAS. I would suggest to the Senator from Arkansas that his substitute will be accompanied by one very great embarrassment. Under the rules of the other House, every appropriation of money must be referred to the Committee of the Whole, and go on the calendar in its regular order. If, therefore, we send the proposition to the House with an appropriation of money in it, we shall delay action there. I shall, therefore, vote against it. Mr. BORLAND. I have no objection to striking from the amendment that portion of it making an appropriation of money. It has seemed to me, however, that if we undertake to do a thing we should provide means of doing it. How are we to treat Kossuth and his associates as the guests of the nation without some expense? paired the value of any action that we shall take. shall vote with very great reluctance against the proposition submitted by the distinguished Senator from Illinois. I shall vote against it for the reason, amongst others, which has governed me in voting against all other amendments, viz: that the propo "sition of the Senator from New York is simple, fit, and adequate. It expresses the sentiments of the American people in reference to our distinguished guest, and I know of no form of expres sion by which we can add to its force, and none which will not impair its simplicity. I must therefore vote against this proposition. Whilst I do it for that reason, and should consider that reason of itself sufficient, we know that when the distinguished benefactor of America, Lafayette, was received by Congress, a joint resolution was proposed and a joint committee was raised, and that joint committee reported that it was impossible for the two Houses to act jointly. If, then, the proposition of the Senator from Illinois be adopted, it may result in a similar report, and thus still further delay the action which the occasion, and all the circumstances of the occasion, so imperatively demand should be prompt, frank, and generous. Mr. SHIELDS asked for the yeas and nays on his amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered, and being taken, resulted-yeas 16, nays 22, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bradbury, Bright, Brodhead, Cass, Dodge of Wisconsin, Douglas, Felch, Foote of Mississippi, Gwin, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Norris, Shields, Stockton, Walker and Whitcomb-16. NAYS-Messrs. Badger, Borland, Chase, Clarke, Clemens, Davis, Dawson, Downs, Fish, Foot of Vermont, Hamlin, Hunter, James, King, Miller, Morton, Rhett, Seward, Smith, Spruance, Sumner, Underwood, and Wade-22. The joint resolution was then reported to the Senate without amendment. Mr. UNDERWOOD asked for the yeas and nays on the question of ordering it to be engrossed for a third reading. The yeas and nays were ordered, and being taken, resulted-yeas 33, nays 6, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bradbury, Bright, Brodhead, Cass, Chase, Clarke, Davis, Dodge of Wisconsin, Douglas, Downs, Felch, Fish, Foot of Vermont, Foote of Mississippi, Gwin, Hamlin, Hunter, James, Jones of Iowa, King, Mallory, Miller, Norris, Rhett, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Stockton, Sumner, Wade, Walker, and Whitcomb-33. NAYS-Messrs. Badger, Borland, Clemens, Dawson, Morton, and Underwood-6. The joint resolution was then read a third time and passed. RECESS. On motion, it was ordered, that when the Senate adjourns it adjourn to meet on Monday next. On the motion of Mr. HUNTER, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive business, and after some time spent therein, the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned. IN SENATE. MONDAY, December 15, 1851. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER. Mr. BELL presented the credentials of the Hon. JAMES C. JONES, elected a Senator of the State of Tennessee for six years from the 4th March, 1851. The oath having been administered, Mr. JONES took his seat. Hon. WILLIAM K. SEBASTIAN, from the State of Arkansas, appeared in his seat. PETITIONS. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. FOOTE] objects to calling Kossuth the late Governor of Hungary. I call him so, in accordance with the historic fact. The only history which I have seen, which gives a reliable account of the Hungarian struggle, is the book of Dr. Naphegyi, which, it has been stated, has been submitted to intelligent Hungarians, who have pronounced its statements correct. He was a great friend to Kossuth and to Hungary. He there asserts, as a historical fact, that Kossuth did yield his Governorship to Görgy, the individual who betrayed his country and delivered it up to Austrian power. Kossuth constituted, as far as he could, Görgy the Dictator of Hungary, and with the power thus conferred, he abandoned the battles which had been begun, and delivered his country into the hands of Austria. Kossuth voluntarily resigned the office of Gover-olent Society of New Orleans, praying that certain nor, and therefore it is that I have called him the late Governor of Hungary. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. The yeas and nays were not ordered; and the amendment to the amendment was rejected. The question recurred on the amendment of Mr. SHIELDS. Mr. DOWNS presented the petition of Joseph A. Barelli, praying that the Secretary of the Treasury may be authorized to issue a register to the brig Ada, late the British brig Josephine; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. Also, the petition of the Italian Mutual Beneymarble to be used in the construction of a tomb or monument for the reception of the mortal remains of the members of the Society may be imported free of duty; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. Also, the petition of Jehiel Brooks, praying authority to sue the United States for damages sustained by him in defending his title to certain land against a suit brought against him by the United States under false representations; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. CHASE. Mr. President, I had desired to express my views upon the subject which has occupied so much of the time of the Senate, but I have been for action, and prompt action. I have known well that every word uttered in this body Mr. RHETT presented the memorial of George on that subject has delayed action, and thus im-Hervey, agent for the owners and consignees of the English ship James Mitchell, praying the payment of a sum of money due under an act of Congress, and retained in the Treasury of the United States; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. GWIN presented the petition of Ursula E. Cobb, widow of Charles Cobb, late a gunner in the Navy, praying to be allowed a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. Mr. BRIGHT presented the memorial of the executrix and securities of Benjamin F. Hart, deceased, late a purser in the Navy, praying that his accounts may be cancelled on the books of the Treasury; which, with their memorial and papers on the files of the Senate, was referred to the Comittee on Naval Affairs. Mr. BRADBURY presented the petition of Nancy Wright, widow of an officer in the reverge service; which, with the papers on file, were referred to the Committee on Pensions. Mr. FELCH presented a resolution passed by the Legislature of the State of Michigan, in favor of the construction of a ship canal around the Palls of the Ste. Marie; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed. Also, a resolution passed by the Legislature of the State of Michigan, requesting the Senators and Representatives of that State in Congress to use their exertions to procure the repayment of the money expended by her in furnishing volunteers for the Mexican war, and the expenses incurred in defending her territorial boundary as estabshed by Congress before her admission as a State into the Union; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. Mr. HALE presented a petition of B. F. Palmer and several others, citizens of Philadelphia, exhibitors of articles at the late Industrial Exhibition held in London, praying that an appropria- || tion be made to pay the expenses incurred by citizens of the United States for the transportation and display of goods at the Industrial Exhibition at London; which was referred to the Committee en Patents and the Patent Office. Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi, presented the memorial of Mary Walker, widow of George W. Walker, late Paymaster of the Marine Corps, praying to be allowed the traveling expenses of her late husband in the settlement of his accounts; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. The PRESIDENT pro tempore presented the petition of William M. Lapsley, receiver of public mneys at Cahaba, Alabama, praying compensation for services in making entries of land under bounty land warrants. Mr. JONES, of Iowa, moved to lay it on the table, as the committee had made a report on the bject; which motion was agreed to. M. DODGE, of Wisconsin, presented the memorial of William Butler, praying to be allowed a pension on account of injuries received in the naval service of the United States; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. Mr. MALLORY presented the memorial of John W. Simonton and others, owners of the Island of Key West, in Florida, praying indemity in consequence of its occupancy by the United States; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. Mr. GEYER presented he memorial of the Legislature of Missouri, praying a grant of land for the construction of the Lexington and Davies County Railroad; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of Missouri, praying a grant of land for the construction of the Northern Missouri Railroad; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of Missouri, praying a grant of land for the construction of a plank road from Tully, in that State, to Bloomfield, in Iowa; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of Missouri, praying that an island in the Missouri river, opposite the town of Weston, may be granted for the improvement of the harbor and landing of that town; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of Missouri, praying a grant of eighty acres of land to every free white citizen, being the head of a family and not a land owner; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. Mr. HUNTER gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill to provide for the Mr. BRODHEAD presented a memorial of compensation of such persons as may be desigcitizens of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Dela-nated by the Secretary of the Treasury to receive ware, praying the construction of piers and harbors and keep the public moneys, under the 15th secin the Delaware river and bay; which was referred tion of the act of August 6, 1846, for additional to the Committee on Commerce. services required under that act. Also, a memorial of the heirs at law of Henry Miller, praying compensation for the military services of their ancestor in the revolutionary war; which was referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims. Mr. B. also presented the petition of Samuel C. Morton and twenty-eight other citizens of Philadelphia, praying Congress to provide for the erection of such piers and harbors in the Delaware river and bay as will afford shelter and protection to vessels, &c., navigating said river. This petition (said Mr. B.) contains a brief but truthful statement showing the importance, if not the absolute necessity, for the appropriation therein asked. From the breakwater at the mouth of Delaware bay, to the city of Philadelphia, a distance of ninety miles, there is not a single safe harbor, in consequence of which valuable lives and large quantities of property are lost. According to the custom-house returns, there were twentyseven thousand five hundred and fifty-five vessels entered the port of Philadelphia during the year 1850, and that from the first of January, 1830, to the first of January, 1851, the duties paid exceed $59,000,000, and that but a comparatively small sum has been expended in improving said harbor. In view of these facts, he asked the early and serious attention of the Committee of Commerce to the subject. Referred to said committee. PAPERS WITHDRAWN AND REFERRED. On motion by Mr. MASON, it was Ordered, That the memorials and papers on the files of the Senate, relating to the claims of Roddy, Carter, and Jennings, be referred to the Committee of Claims. On motion by Mr. MASON, it was Ordered, That the petition of Asenath M. Elliott, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Pensions. On motion by Mr. BRADBURY, it was Ordered, That the memorial of Walter Colton, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On motion by Mr. FELCH, it was Ordered, That the memorial of Ezra Williams, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Cominittee of Claims. On motion by Mr. UNDERWOOD, it was Ordered, That the documents on the files of the Senate, relating to the claims of William S. Waller, be referred to the Committee of Claims. On motion by Mr. CASS, it was Ordered, That the petition of General Robert Armstrong, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Pensions. On motion by Mr. DAWSON, it was Ordered. That the memorial of Roger Jones, and the memorial of Margaret Hetzel, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. On motion by Mr. JONES of Iowa, it was Ordered, That the pefition of Harriet R. F. Capron, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Pensions. Mr. BRODHEAD submitted an additional document relating to the claim of Thomas Flanagan; which, with his petition on the files of the Senate, was referred to the Committee on Pen sions. NOTICES OF bills. Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi, gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill granting to the State of Mississippi the right of way and a donation of public land, for the purpose of locating and constructing a railroad from Brandon to the eastern border of said State, in the direction of Montgomery, Alabama. Also, a bill to reduce the price of the public lands lying south of the "Old Choctaw Line," in the State of Mississippi. Mr. MALLORY gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill to repeal an act entitled "An act concerning tonnage duty on Spanish vessels," passed on the 30th day of June, 1834. Mr. BRADBURY gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill for the ascertainment and satisfaction of claims of American citizens for spoliations committed by the French prior to July 31, 1801. Mr. UNDERWOOD gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill to provide for the improvement of the dam at the head of Cumberland Island, in the Ohio river. REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES. Mr. BORLAND. I am directed by the Committee on Pensions, to which was referred a bill for the relief of Mrs. Margaret L. Worth, widow of the late General Worth, to report back the same without amendment. I would ask, as it is a matter which will give rise to no discussion, and as the same bill passed the Senate last session, that it be considered now. I may state as a reason, what is known to many Senators present, that Mrs. Worth widow of the late gallant General Worth, is in very straitened pecuniary circumstances; and this bill provides relief for her and her family. It vote, and failed in the House simply, I presume, was passed at the last session without a dissenting for want of time. As it is not likely to give rise to any discussion, and as it is one of great merit, which every Senator will acknowledge, I ask that it be considered now. Mt. RHETT. I object. It is, no doubt, a proper bill; but there is another matter which I am desirous should be taken up now. Mr. BORLAND, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill granting a pension to Sally T. Floyd, widow of George R. C. Floyd, late a lieutenant-colonel in the Army of the United States, reported it without amendment. Mr. B. also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill to revive a portion of an act for the relief of the widows of deceased soldiers, reported it without amendment. Mr. JONES, of Iowa, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the memorial of the heirs of Judith Worthen, deceased, reported a bill for their relief; which was read and ordered to a second reading. Mr. J. also, from the same committee, to which was referred the petition of citizens of Niagara County, New York, in behalf of Stephen Warren, asked to be discharged from the further consideration of it. Mr. SEWARD. It appears that that petition was referred, under an erroneous view of the nature of the case, to the Committee on Pensions. I do not object to the committee being discharged from its further consideration, but would move its reference to the Committee of Claims. The motion was agreed to. CALIFORNIA BRANCH MINT. Mr. HUNTER, from the Committee on Finance, to which was referred a bill to establish a branch Mint of the United States in California, reported back the same with an amendment. Mr. GWIN. I hope the Senate will indulge me in taking up this bill at this time. It has already passed the Senate once, and favorably reported upon unanimously by the Committee on Finance. It contains no appropriation of money. It only provides for the establishment of a branch Mint in California. I hope it will be considered now. mittee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill. No objection being made, the Senate, as in Com The amendment reported by the committee was to strike out the eighth section of the bill relating to the assaying office, and substitute in its place the following: SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That if required by the holder, gold in grain or lumps shall be refined, assayed, cast into bars or ingots, and stamped in said branch Mint, or in the Mint of the United States, or any of its branches, in such manner as may indicate the value and fineness of the bar or ingot, which shall be paid for by the owner or holder of said bullion at such rates and charges and under such regulations as the Director of the Mint, under the control of the Secretary of the Treasury, may from time to time establish. SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That so soon as the said branch is established in the State of California, and public notice shall be given thereof in the mode to be des ignated by the Secretary of the Treasury, then so much of the act making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the year ending 30th June, 1851, and for other purposes, as provides for the appointment of a United States assayer and the contracting for the assay |