Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

could see the reason for that difference. If the United States are to be regarded as the proprietor of all the public lands in those States where there are public lands, and as proprietor it be legitimate to make a canal or railroad for the purpose of enhancing the value of the lands situated in the States, why may they do that and be precluded from the right of making a road leading to those States by which the emigrants are to reach the lands to make purchases? The original appropriations made for the Cumberland read were justified upon the ground that, as a proprietary of the land in the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, through which it was proposed to make the Cumberland road for the benefit of those States, it was just as legitimate to appropriate land or money to make the road leading to those public lands as to make the road within the States where the lands themselves were situated. And you will remark, that in the progress of events-in this age of progress of ours-we have repudiated the old notion that it would be proper and legitimate to appropriate money or land to make a road leading to where the public lands are situated, and now the doctrine seems to be that it is only legal, under the proprietary notion, to make an appropriation within the limits of the States where the lands themselves are situated. As a proprietary, I never could see any reason for such a difference But under this idea that you can only legitimately make appropriations in the States or Territories where the lands are situated, you are entirely cut off from making an appropriation to connect the railroads which run through Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, to connect us with New Orleans and Chicago, running down to Cairo from the lakes to the mouth of the Ohio. You cannot unite these great public works under the proprietary idea. Why? Because there happen to be a little point of Kentucky and a narrow strip of Tennessee projecting down to the Mississippi river, between the road in Illinois and the road in Alabama and Mississippi. The mind that can come to such a conclusion, and reason upon the proprietary idea so as to determine that you cannot even connect works, that under the proprietary idea you built, by running across. the little strip of land in Tennessee and Kentucky to have them united, seems to me to be strangely constituted. Yet this has become the fashionable doctrine of the day.

Mr. President, the Senate knows that gentle men who entertain the political principles that I do, believe that we can legitimately appropriate either lands or money to the construction of any work which we think of national importance. That was once the doctrine of this country. I hope it is not altogether exploded yet. In times past we did appropriate money out of the public Treasury for works of internal improvement. In times past we have appropriated lands to purposes of that sort. As a member of the Committee on Public Lands, I have acted upon these principles, and I intend to continue to act upon them, as I hold them to be correct. And, sir, wherever I perceive an object which I believe to be of national importance, I shall vote for an appropriation of either money or lands for its construction. I shall do this upon no narrow policy. I shall do it upon no sectional consideration. But while I intend thus to act liberally in promoting objects for the improvement of the country, whether with lands or with money taken directly from the Treasury, I still feel that something like justice ought to be done to all the States of the Union in the administration of this great fund. If you will not return to the system of distributing the money arising from the sales of the public lands among the States, I do not perceive that there is any other way by which we can obtain that justice than by uniting upon a proposition such as I propose to submit in the course of the discussion on some of these bills, to make a distribution of

the lands themselves. I know full well that my

friends from the new States will rise like one

man and say that the proposition to allow Kentucky, or North Carolina, or any other of the old States, to become a proprietor of a part of the soil within their States, is most horrible. I foresee that just as soon as the proposition is submitted, there will not be a man upon this floor who represents one of the States in which any portion of the public lands is situated, but will rise up and protest against the very idea of allowing any other State to become an owner of any portion of the

lands in his State. When that shall be done, I shall wish those gentlemen to point out, if they can, the difference between allowing a State to hold land within your territory; and allowing an individual to hold it, when that individual does not choose to settle upon and improve it. An individual may purchase as much land as he pleases in any of the States where the public lands are situated. He may never move upon it or improve it. I know that the policy of my friend from Wisconsin [Mr. WALKER] would be to lighten the reins in such a manner, that this thing should not be done in reference to individuals. But, sir, you may, when this proposition which I contemplate shall be submitted, require the States, if you please, to sell within a limited time. You have never thought proper to put individuals of the country under any restrictions yet. But it will be premature now to go into a lengthy argument upon propositions which are merely existing in the imagination. My main reason in rising was to notice some of the arguments which fell from the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS.] It is suggested to me that I should give way to a motion to adjourn. I shall leave that to the Senate, as I am prepared either to go on now, or wait until tomorrow.

Mr. DAWSON. I move that the Senate adjourn

Mr. HALE. Before that motion is put, I wish to make another motion.

Mr. DAWSON. 1 withdraw the motion, if the Senator will renew it.

Mr. HALE. I move that when the Senate adjourns to-day, it adjourn to meet on Monday

next.

Mr. DOWNS. I hope the motion will not be agreed to. Friday is private bill day. We adjourned over last week, because we were almost through the private bills which had been reported, but since that time there have been several reports made. I hope we shall sit to-morrow.

The motion was hot agreed to.

Mr. HALE. I now move that the Senate adjourn.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I hope the motion will be withdrawn for the purpose of allowing us to go into Executive session.

The motion was withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT. The motion to go into Executive session cannot be received until the bill before the Senate is disposed of.

Ex

Mr. DOUGLAS. I move that the further consideration of it be postponed until to-morrow. The motion was agreed to.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

On motion by Mr. DOUGLAS, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive business, and after a short time spent therein, the doors were reopened,

And the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, January 22, 1852.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer

by the Rev. Mr. MORGAN. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

FOUNDATIONS OF THE CAPITOL.

Mr. McNAIR. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce the following resolution:

Resolved, That the committee appointed to examine into the stability, firmness, &c., of the foundation of the extension of the Capitol, be authorized to send for persons and papers.

Mr. McN. said, it is really necessary that this resolution should be adopted; we cannot get along its introduction and adoption. without it. I hope the House will indulge me in

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, objected. Georgia would withdraw his objection. It is Mr. McNAIR. I wish the gentleman from really impossible for the committee to proceed without the power asked in the resolution. Mr. STEPHENS. I cannot withdraw. ASSIGNABILITY OF LAND WARRANTS. The SPEAKER. The first business in order is the consideration of the joint resolution No. 1, heretofore reported from the select committee, to which the same was referred, with an amendment explanatory of the act of 1850 granting to certain officers and soldiers bounty land, &c.; the pending

question being on the motion submitted by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. DUNHAM,] to commit the said joint resolution and pending amendments to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and on which question the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. CLARK] is entitled to. the floor.

Mr. BRIGGS. I rise to a privileged question.

CLOSE OF DEBATE ON INDEMNITY BILL. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I desire to inquire if the resolution offered by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HOUSTON] yesterday, to close debate upon the Mexican indemnity bill, does not come up first, as the unfinished business?

The SPEAKER. The Chair was not present when that resolution was offered.

Mr. HOUSTON. It was a resolution closing debate upon the Mexican indemnity bill.

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks it is not the first business in order; but that that resolution will come up as unfinished business after the morning hour.

Mr. JONES. The resolution for closing debate on the Mexican indemnity bill was the pending question when the House adjourned. 1 ask for my own information. Suppose the morning hour should be spent in that business, and when it was concluded, some gentleman should move to go into consideration of the business upon the Speaker's table, would this resolution come up as unfinished business? I think not.

The SPEAKER. The Chair did not know of the existence of the motion to which the gentleman refers, for he was not in the House at the time of its adjournment. The Chair understands, however, that that resolution is to close the debate upon the Mexican indemnity bill. He desires to inquire whether it was pending when the House adjourned?

Mr. JONES. It was. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HOUSTON] introduced the resolution and moved the previous question, and pending which the House adjourned.

The SPEAKER. Then the resolution is in order, and comes up as unfinished business.

Mr. BRIGGS. I rise to a question of privilege. I desire now to call up the resolution which I offered a few days since, in reference to the legality of the seat which the Delegate from Utah [Mr. BERNHISEL] occupies upon this floor.

PROPOSITION TO CLOSE DEBATE.

The SPEAKER. The Chair would suggest to the gentleman, that he first permit the resolution of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HOUSTON] to be disposed of. The previous question has been demanded upon it.

Mr. BRIGGS. I have no objection.

Mr. SWEETSER. Is it in order to move to lay the resolution, for closing debate, upon the table?

It is in order.

The SPEAKER. Mr. SWEETSER. Then I make that motion. Mr. HOUSTON. I hope I shall be indulged in a single remark. I desire that the House shall

understand the precise point I had in view in making that motion. I presented the resolution yesterday, with a view of bringing the matter before the House. I moved the previous question, but at the same time I intimated to the House that I did not desire to press a vote upon it. I said then that I would withdraw the call for the previous question, and leave the House to determine its own time for closing the debate.

Mr. SWEETSER. I will withdraw the motion to lay upon the table, with the understanding that the debate shall go on.

Mr. HOUSTON. I withdraw the call for the

previous question. As I stated on yesterday, I do not wish to entrap any portion of the House by that motion. I only desire that the House shall fix upon some time.

The SPEAKER. Ohio [Mr. SWEETSER] upon the table?

it.

Does the gentleman from withdraw his motion to lay

Mr. SWEETSER. No, sir; I must adhere to

[blocks in formation]

腿。

2

1

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

32D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to.

The question then recurred upon the adoption of the resolution as amended; and being put, it was adopted.

ELECTION OF THE DELEGATE FROM UTAH.

Mr. BRIGGS. I now desire to call up the resolution touching the legality of the seat which the Delegate from Utah holds. I ask that the resolution may be read.

The resolution was then read by the CLERK, as follows:

Resolved, That the Committee of Elections be instructed to inquire into the election of John M. Bernhisel, the present Delegate from the Territory of Utah-whether said election was held according to law, and whether any bribery, corruption, or other illegal means was made use of by said Bernhisel, with Brigham Young, or any other persons, to secure the said election and return; with power to send for persons and papers.

Mr. B. I said the other day all that I think necessary to say for the present upon this subject. Ionly desire to explain the object I had in view in presenting this resolution to the House.

Mr. HOUSTON. With the consent of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BRIGGS,] I desire to make a suggestion. If that resolution is called up this morning, the presumption is that it will give rise to debate. If it proves true that a debate will grow out of it, I presume the whole morning hour will be consumed with it. Certain it is, that the eatleman from that Territory will desire to be eard upon it. I would suggest, therefore, that inasmuch as debate has been closed upon the Mexican indemnity bill, whether it is not best not to consume time in the discussion of this resolution, but proceed at once to that bill.

Mr. BRIGGS. In answer to the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. HOUSTON,] I will say, that if I was satisfied that much of the time of this House would be consumed in debate upon this resolution, I would not object to its lying over until another day.

Mr. DEAN. I merely wish to say that this resolution will be debated whenever it comes up. Myself and others desire to be heard upon it. I would suggest, therefore, to my colleague [Mr. BRIGGS] that he allow it to lie over.

Mr. BRIGGS. Considering that there has been a postponement of one day for the discussion of this Mexican indemnity bill, I hardly think that it would be intrenching upon the time which would be consumed by any member upon that subject. I think the time fixed upon for closing debate upon that question will allow gentlemen to discuss it to their entire satisfaction. Ishall therefore feel bound to press the consideration of this resolution.

Mr. STANTON, of Tennessee. I think, in this matter, we should consult the wishes of the Delegate from the Territory of Utah. I have no doubt that whatever may be his wishes in relation to the time for considering this resolution, they will be at once acquiesced in by this House.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I desire to call the attention of the gentleman from New York [Mr. BRIGGS] to this fact: The resolution which he has introduced here, at least by implication, reflects upon the mode by which the Delegate from Utah Territory has obtained his seat upon this floor. Now, it strikes me that it is due to that Delegate that he should be heard in explanation of the charge, or implication, thus brought against him. I desire to say further, that it is important that this matter should be discussed, arad well understood, before we proceed to act upon it. I am for giving the gentleman from Utah a chance for a fair fight.

Mr. BERNHISEL. For the information of the House, I beg leave merely to state, that I received the news of my nomination on my way

me last year; that I had no competitor at the ection, and received every vote cast for a Deleate to Congress; and that the election did not cost me one dollar in money, as has been erroneusly reported and circulated here. The certificate of my election, giving the number of votes, and signed by the Governor and countersigned

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

go to the Committee of Elections, who could summon witnesses before them, in order to ascertain the facts in the case. I do not know the facts per

by the Secretary of the Territory, and having
affixed to it the broad seal of the Territory of
Utah, I ask leave to send to the Clerk's table, to
be read for the information of the House. I feel|sonally, though they were stated to me by gentle-
no inclination to oppose a resolution of inquiry
men of veracity.
offered without any evidence to sustain it, but I
cheerfully leave it to the disposition of the House.
I ask for the reading of the communication.
The SPEAKER. If there is no objection, the
communication can be read.

No objection being made, the communication was then read, as follows:

Territory of Utah, Executive Department:

I, Brigham Young, Governor of said Territory, do certify, that at an election held in and for said Territory on the first Monday of August, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, being the fourth day thereof, in pursuauce of a proclamation issued by me for that purpose, for a Delegate to represent the said Territory of Utah in the Congress of the United States, one thousand two hundred and fiftynine votes were poiled, and that Johm M. Berninsel received the unanimous one thousand two hundred and fiftynine votes, as appears by the returns of said election filed in the Executive Department.

Therefore, I do hereby declare the said John M. Bernhisel duly elected Delegate of the said Territory of Utah to the thirty-second Congress of the United States.

Given under my hand and the seal of said Terrirory, at Great Salt Lake City, this thirtieth day of [L. s.] August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, and of the Independence of the United States the seventy-sixth. BRIGHAM YOUNG.

By the Governor:

B. D. HARRIS, Secretary. Mr. JOHN W. HOWE. I move to lay the resolution upon the table.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. If the gentleman will withdraw that motion for one moment 1 will renew it.

Mr. HOWE. Certainly.

Mr. STEPHENS. I shall vote to lay the resolution upon the table, and I wish to give my reasons for such a vote, and why I consider this resolution improper. I did not understand the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BRIGGS,] who offered this resolution, to say in his place that he indorsed it; and he does not come before the House now and say that he believes there has been any fraud or corruption upon the part of the Delegate from Utah. On the contrary, he says he knows nothing about it. I am utterly opposed to this House entertaining for one moment loose accusations, with no other foundation than rumor, against any person occupying a seat on this floor, even as a question of privilege. If these things be true, let some member who knows the facts come forward and make distinct allegations, or let some individual present a memorial touching the matter. That would be the proper course

Mr. BRIGGS. Will the gentleman allow me to explain?

Mr. STEPHENS. Certainly, sir.

Mr. BRIGGS. The gentleman from Georgia does not understand me, if he says I do not believe there was corruption in the return of the present Delegate from Utah. I do believe that there was corruption. That certificate of election which has been read was of an election held in direct violation of the law organizing that Territory. It was an election in pursuance of an old custom, or law, which existed in that Territory before the organization thereof. Although the signature of the Secretary of the Territory is attached to that certificate, it has been stated to me by gentlemen returned from there, and conversant with this matter, that that signature was obtained from Mr. Harris by the direct order of the Governor of that Territory, and against the direct protest of Mr. Harris against giving his official signature to that document; and also, that his name was attached to that paper, which purports to be a certificate of election, when the returns of election had not come in; that he was directed to attach his name and the official seal of Secretary thereto before the result of the election was ascertained. I said the other day, I believe, that I was averse to the discussion of the merits of the question before the House, and that facts had been stated to me convincing me that there was gross corruption there; and that I wished the matter to

Mr. STEPHENS. The charges the gentleman makes barely amount to this-that he believes that the Delegate from Utah has been elected in violation of the organic law of the Territory, or not in conformity thereto. That resolution makes an inquiry whether the Delegate himself did not use bribery.

Mr. BRIGGS. Not at all.

Mr. STEPHENS. I ask for the reading of the resolution again. I think there is something about bribery in the resolution.

The SPEAKER. If there is no objection it will be read.

There being no objection, the resolution was read as above reported.

Mr. STEPHENS. That is enough. There is a direct imputation against the gentleman occupying a seat upon this floor from that Territory, and calling upon a committee to investigate whether bribery and corruption had not been used by him, or some one else, to procure his seat upon this floor, and yet the gentleman from New York will not state that he believes such to be the fact. He might just as well offer such a resolution touching myself or any other gentleman upon this floor. I am opposed to any such proceedings without distinct charges, sustained by some known party who, by making them, becomes responsible for them.

Mr. BRIGGS. In respect to corruption, then, I am unwilling, at all times, to indorse rumors with regard to the misconduct of any gentleman, especially when occupying a seat here. Although he may not hold his seat legally, yet while he is here I recognize him as a member until it is proved to the contrary. It has been said that there was money corruption there, and that money was paid to Brigham Young as a condition upon which he should obtain a seat here. I do not know it; I cannot prove it, but it has been so stated.

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman does not make that charge himself; he does not indorse the rumor; nor has anybody, by memorial, called the attention of the House to the subject. If any person will take it upon himself to do so, it will be time enough for us to act. I am utterly opposed to this House taking up out-door rumors. If any gentleman feels authorized to make distinct charges of this character against that Delegate, let him come forward, and I will be willing to give him a full hearing and aid in having an investigation; but not without. So far as the other point is concerned—that is, that the present Delegate may have been elected contrary to the organic law of the Territory-I believe the rules of this House furnish ample provision for all necessary and appropriate inquiry-it is the duty of the Committee of Elections to inquire into such matters. The standing rule of the House (No. 77) provides,

that

"It shall be the duty of the Committee of Elections to examine and report upon the certificates of elections or other credentials of the members returned to serve in this House; and to take into their consideration all such petitions and other matters touching elections and returns as shall or may be presented, or come into question, and be referred to them by the House."

Now, if any outside persons wish to make such a complaint, let them petition this House, and let such petitions be referred to the Committee of Elections, whose duty it is to inquire into every case and see whether there is bribery or not.

I move now to lay the resolution upon the table.

Mr. CARTTER. I ask the gentleman from Georgia to withdraw the motion.

Mr. STEPHENS. I will a moment, for explanation only, or for the presentation of any fact which he may have to state in regard to the subject.

Mr. CARTTER. I wish to state merely that this case is like all other cases.

Mr. MEADE. I rise to a question of order,

It is, that members be made to take their seats. L cannot hear the gentleman from Georgia, nor can I see his lips move. I might, perhaps, guess at his words if I could see his lips moving, but there are so many men standing and obstructing my view, that I cannot see.

The SPEAKER. The Chair has made vigorous efforts to preserve order, but it is impossible for him to succeed, unless it is the pleasure of the House to aid him in the preservation of order.

Order being restored,

Mr. CARTTER (resuming) said: All I wish to say is simply this: that the case presented to us here is the form in which such cases are always presented to this body for an investigation. It seems to be treated by gentlemen as a prejudgment, when it is merely the initiative to the inquiry. The proposition made by the honorable member from New York [Mr. BRIGGS] is to refer to a standing committee, constituted for the purpose of investigating and determining these questions, the subject of the right of the member from Utah to a seat on this floor. There is nothing in the resolution of the member from New York except matter necessary to direct the attention of the committee to the investigation. Now, I am as much in favor as the honorable meinber from Georgia of a deliberate and impartial investigation of the subject, though I do not concur with him in this, that we ought to close our eyes to the question of investigation. He says the subject comes here without any authority even to open an investigation. Why, sir, we have now lying upon the table of this House a report from the returning officers, save one, implicating the conduct of that community; and if I recollect right, implicating the conduct, or alluding to the mode of the election of the Delegate from Utah. Are we to disregard these intimations that there is something wrong in Utah? If we are, sir, it occurs to me that the country is involved in the result of letting that people run wild in their relations to this Government, and at the same time claiming a control over them. I would not prejudge this case, though before that resolution is finally submitted to the House, I shall be under the necessity of adding another inquiry to it, and that is, whether polygamy is tolerated in the Territory of Utah, justified by them, and whether the honorable Delegate upon this floor is liable to the suspicion that he is a polygamist. I do not presume he is. [A VOICE. What if he is?]

Mr. CARTTER. I am inquired of, upon my right, what if he is? If he is, there is one vote upon this floor that will vote him out of this Hall. [Laughter.] That is the answer to that question. I will not consent silently to sit upon this floor with any man who openly defies the laws of his country as a polygamist.

Mr. FITCH. I must call the gentleman from Ohio to order. He is speaking of matters not now before the House, and is indulging in a strain of personal remarks which the rules of this House will not warrant.

The SPEAKER. The Chair does not understand the gentleman as charging the gentleman from Utah with polygamy.

Mr. CARTTER. Not at all. I was merely supposing it might be so. If it is so, I have but one vote to give upon this floor. We cannot close our eyes to the fact, that these things are whis pered, and more than whispered; that they come to us under the authority of the report of the disfranchised officers whose duties there have been foreclosed by violence, as they say. I do not propose to prejudge this question, but I do propose to lend what little energy I have in an investigation of them, without fear, favor, or affection.

Mr. HOUSTON. I move to lay that resolution upon the table, with the hope that it may succeed. Several MEMBERS. Withdraw the motion. Mr. HOUSTON. Appeals are made to me by members to withdraw my motion, but I cannot yield to them.

Mr. SEYMOUR, of New York. I wished to call the gentleman's attention to one fact, before the motion to lay upon the table is made. My colleague the mover of this resolution, [Mr. BRIGGS)--had expressed a desire, if debate arose, that the matter might lie over until another day. And I think it is due to him, as well as the Delegate from the Territory of Utah, that it should, after what has occurred. I ask that it may, by universal consent, be passed by at present.

F

Mr. HOUSTON. I cannot withdraw my motion to lay upon the table. I will ask of the Chair whether it is in order for me now to move to suspend the rules, and that the House go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union? The SPEAKER. It is not.

Mr. PHELPS. I desire to make a suggestion to the gentleman from New York. I learn that this is a question of privilege, and that it has been so decided by the Chair. The gentleman from New York can then, by leave of the House, withdraw his resolution, and introduce it hereafter at any time he thinks proper.

Mr. HOUSTON. I hope that course may be

[blocks in formation]

Mr. BARRERE, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported as correctly enrolled, "A joint resolution providing for the binding of certain documents," and also "An act authorizing the payment of interest to the State of New Hampshire, for the advancement of money for the use and benefit of the United States in repelling invasion and suppressing insurrection at Indian Stream," in said State; which received the signature of the Speaker.

On motion by Mr. MOLONY, it was

Ordered, That leave be granted to withdraw from the files of the House, for the purpose of presentation in the Senate, the petition and papers of Orris Crosby.

GRANT OF LAND TO INDIANA AND ILLINOIS. Mr. MOLONY gave notice of his intention to introduce, on to-morrow, or at an early convenient day, a bill granting the right of way and making a grant of land to the States of Indiana and Illinois, in aid of the construction of a railroad from Lafayette, Indiana, across the Grand Prairie, via Middleport, to La Salle, in Illinois.

CALL FOR INFORMATION IN REGARD TO THE MEXICAN INDEMNITY.

Mr. DISNEY. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a resolution, which I send to the Clerk's table to be read, in order that the information asked for may be placed before us before the expiration of the time to which debate upon the Mexican indemnity bill has been limited. If gentlemen want the information let them obtain it in time.

The CLERK read the resolution, as follows: Resolved, That the Secretary of State be, and he is hereby, requested to transmit to this House copies of the notes addressed to the Department of State by the Mexican Minister, Mr. De la Rosa, (on the subject of the payment of the Mexican indemnity,) in the months of February and March last, together with statements of any information which may have been verbally communicated to his Department by the Mexican Minister, in regard to the wish of the Mexicon Government as to the payment of the money here, and a settlement of the terms upon which it was willing to receive it.

The question being put, the resolution was adopted.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Georgia. I rise to a privileged question. I move to reconsider the vote just now taken upon the adoption of the resolution submitted by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Disney.] I do it because it proposes to call for the verbal conversation which took place between the Mexican Minister and our Secretary of State. I think that it is improper to call upon the Department for verbal communications made in casual conversa

tions.

[blocks in formation]

The question being taken upon the motion to reconsider, upon a division there were-ayes 80, noes 64.

Mr. EVANS called for the yeas and nays; which I were ordered.

The question was then taken on laying the motion to reconsider upon the table, and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 103, nays 73; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Charles Allen, John Appleton, Ashe, Averett, Thomas H. Bayly, Bartlett, Bissell, Bocock, Buell, Busby, Thompson Campbell, Cartter, Caskie, Churchwell, Clark, Colcock, Daniel, Dawson, Dean, Dimick, Disney, Doty, Durkee, Eastman, Edgerton, Edmundson, Faulkner, Ficklin, Fitch, Florence, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gaylord, Giddings, Green, Grey, Grow, Hall. Hamilton, Isham G. Harris, Hart, Hendricks, Henn, Hibbard, Holla day, Thomas Y. How, Ingersoll, Ives, Jenkins, Andrew Johnson, John Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Daniel T.

Jones, Preston King, Kurtz, Letcher, Lockhart, Mace, Mann, Humphrey Marshall, McCorkle, McDonald, McMullin, McNair, Meade, Millson, Molony, Morrison, Murray, Nabers, Newton, Olds, Orr. Andrew Parker, Samuel W. Parker, Peaslee, Penn, Phelps, Polk, Price, Richardson, Robbins, Robinson, Russell, Scurry, Origen S. Seymour, Skelton, Smart, Smith, Benjamin Stanton, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Abraham P. Stevens, Stone, St. Martin, Stratton, Sweetser, Thurston, Townshend, Tuck, Venable, Watkins, Addison White, and Wilcox-103.

NAYS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Aiken, Allison, William Appleton, Barrere, Bell, Bibighaus, Bowie, Bowne, Brenton, Briggs, Brooks, Burrows, Caldwell, Lewis D. Camp bell, Chandler, Clingman, Cobb, Conger, Cullom, George T. Davis, Dockery, Duncan, Dunham, Evans, Ewing, Fowler, Henry M. Fuller, Gentry, Gilmore, Goodenow, Goodrich, Harper, Haws, Hascall, Haven, Hillyer, Horsford, Houston, John W. Howe, Thomas M. Howe, Hunter, Jackson, James Johnson, George W. Jones, Kubns, Martin, Miller, Miner, Henry D. Moore, John Moore, Morehead, Outlaw, Penniman, Porter, Rantoul, Schermerhorn, Schoolcraft, Schoonmaker, David L. Seymour, Alexander H. Stephens, Strother, Stuart, Taylor, Benjamin Thompson, Walbridge, Ward, Washburn, Welsh, Wells, Alexander White, Williams, and Yates-73.

So the motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.

Mr. DISNEY. I now ask the unanimous consent of the House to make an alteration in the

phraseology of the resolution. I owe it in justice to myself to say that I wrote it hastily at my desk, and that it is not in the form I should have wished if I had had more time to draw it up. I ask leave so to alter the phraseology as to make the call directly on the President. It would be more reby the unanimous consent of the House. spectful and proper to do so, but I can only do it

Mr. STUART objected.

Mr. HOUSTON." I would suggest to the gentleman from Ohio to make another modification, and that is, to submit it to the discretion of the President whether the communication of this information is compatible with the public interests. Mr. DISNEY. But I cannot make any modification, for there is objection.

Mr. STUART. I will withdraw my objection if the gentleman will strike out that part of the resolution which requires the Secretary of State to communicate the verbal intercourse between him and the Mexican Minister.

Mr. DISNEY. I intended my alteration to embrace the modification suggested by the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. HOUSTON,] and to insert the words: "if compatible with the public interests," but I cannot alter the resolution if there is objec tion.

Mr. CARTTER. I have no objection to that, provided there is no other modification. Mr. DISNEY. I do not ask to make any other. Mr. STUART. I will withdraw my objection.

Mr. DISNEY. Then I will so modify my resolution as to make the call directly upon the Presi dent, and to insert the words "if compatible with the public interests.'

Mr. JOHNSON, of Georgia, objected to the

modification.

ASSIGNABILITY OF LAND WARRANTS. The SPEAKER stated that the first business in order was the report of the select committee on the bounty land bill, and that the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. CLARK] was entitled to the floor.

Mr. CLARK. Perhaps it would have been but justice, had I stated yesterday that the gen tleman from Indiana, (Mr. DUNHAM,] who offered the substitute to this bill, declared that it was not his design to cut short the compensation to which these land officers are supposed to be entitled. He contended that if they were entitled to compensation, they should present their claims to this House. I have but very little to say upon

that

[ocr errors][merged small]

branch of the subject in addition to what I have already said. I commend the motives of the gentleman in admitting the claims which I have urged. But I believe that unless compensation shall be provided by this bill, it will never be made at all— that will be the result. Whence the necessity of converting the two Houses of Congress into two great auditors' offices, to settle and adjust claims which can be better settled and adjusted at the proper auditor's office?

When I concluded my remarks on yesterday, I was considering the argument of the gentleman from New Hampshire, [Mr. TUCK,] in which he was deprecating speculations in the public lands, and urging Congress to such a course as should cut them short. I can assure that gentleman I am as much opposed to speculations of that kind as he possibly can be; but we differ in the mode by which the object is to be accomplished. I have said that there was but little speculation in public lands in that part of the country from which I come. But let us take the gentleman's hypothesis, and grant, for the sake of the argument, that there will be speculation in these lands, and that, too, by means of land warrants. Now, the fact must not be lost sight of, that the location of warrants, as the law now stands, is confined to lands which were in market at the time the law restricting their location was passed. Another fact, also, must be borne in mind, that settlers must have lands, and they will secure them by means of warrants also; because they can be had materially cheaper in that way. Now, is not the conclusion a necessary one, that the speculator and the settler will be thrown together in their appropriations? In other words, speculators will hold large bodies of land in the midst of the cultivators of the soil, keeping it from the hand of improvement, and thus preventing progress in the advantages of society, schools, and those various and cherished institutions which can be had only by those who live in the association of neighborhood. This condition of things brings the cultivators of the soil and speculators together with adverse and prejudicial interests: it is the interest of the settler that the lands around him should be settled and cultivated; it is the interest of the speculator to retain his lands until time and the improvements around him-improvements which he did not make-shall give them an enhanced value. If, therefore, as is insisted, there must be speculators in the public lands, it is clear to my mind, that it would be best to open to them the whole domain, which would prevent them from crowding in upon settlements already made, to the injury of the growth of those settlements. Liberty to the speculators to go far distant for their locations would work as a kind of safety-valve to sections and neighborhoods already considerably advanced in improvement.

Again: if it be true that the public domain must be cursed with the blight of speculation, how would it be removed by confining the location of warrants to restricted limits? Let it be remembered that the thousands of immigrants who seek homes in the far distant States and Territories of the West must not only have lands, but they must have them as cheap as they can be bought; they will, therefore, provide themselves with warrants, and take their lands within the limits prescribed, even though they should be compelled to take land of secondary value, because they have not the ability to purchase with cash. To this course they are driven by the law of necessity. Now, what is the consequence? Precisely this: the cultivators of the soil are withdrawn from the most eligible portions of the Government lands, and they are left entirely open to speculators, to absorb them with their cash capital, without restraint or competition; and as they could select the best lands, their inducements to appropriate them with cash, would be even greater than to embark into speculations with warrants, when they would be compelled to encounter an active and progressive competition; so that, view the subject in either light, it will be impossible to cut short speculation by the restriction of warrants to limits less than the whole area of public lands in market. These remarks are not designed to remove any intrinsic difficulty, as I understand the subject. I do not believe there is speculation enough in the public lands to cause alarm, or to call for any remedial measures of legislation. The gentleman from New Hampshire contends that the true policy is to confine the location of warrants to certain narrow

bounds, in order to prevent speculation. I have merely endeavored to show that the direct tendency of such a course would be in aid of speculation. Sir, the way to prevent speculation, in case there was danger on that subject, is to throw the doors wide open, and let the immigrant and the settler go with the speculator, without hindrance or clogs, and the one will see that the other shall do little or no harm.

Another objection which the gentleman from New Hampshire raised to the adoption of that section in the substitute which provides for the creation of a new class of warrants, was found in the act of 1847, pledging the proceeds of the sales of the public lands to the payment of the loan of $23,000,000, created by that act; and this objection was made to apply as well against that section which permits the location of warrants on all lands in market, as to that which provides for the issuance of new warrants. Is the gentleman aware of the length to which that argument would carry him? It would repeal, by implication, all the existing acts for educational purposes, and purposes of internal improvement, so far as they are to work prospectively. If it be true that that act is a mortgage of all the public lands, what becomes of your sixteenth sections-your grants of seventy-two sections to endow a university in each State, which, if not given by a standing law, is almost equally as effectually done by precedent of long standing? What becomes of that provision of law by which five hundred thousand acres are to be given to each State upon its admission into the family of States, purposes of internal improvement? According to the argument, the mortgage would cover and destroy all these munificent donations for the most praiseworthy purposes. And, moreover, would the gentleman contend that the act of pledge covered all the Mexican territory which has been acquired since its passage? And yet this is the legitimate result to which his argument leads. I do not by any means suppose it would be a violation of the spirit of that act to appropriate a limited portion of the public lands to advantageous and worthy purposes, if by such a course you do not materially affect the security intended by the act itself. Now, the income of cash sales for the year 1850 was more than $1,800,000, and in 1851 it was more than $2,000,000, independent of lands taken up with warrants-a sum sufficient to discharge the whole debt in eleven or twelve years, independent of interest; and yet the funded portion of that loan has twenty years from the date of the act to run.

for

It is admitted that the argument would be good against a system which should propose a sweeping disposition of the public domain, or the greater part of it.

These views constitute about all I have to say upon the subject. I cannot see why the Government should have two standards of value of the public lands-one cash value, and one scrip value.

was not a little surprised at the views of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. BISSELL] upon this part of the subject. He contended for the restriction clause, and yet he was pleased to inform the House, that he was in favor of a pending bill which proposes to give lands gratuitously to actual settlers. Now, it seems to me, that this was a manifest contradiction and injury. It proposes to give those who had performed no service for their country, as the soldier had; who had given no consideration, as the assignee of the soldier had done, when he purchased his warrant,—a far more advantageous position, when it suffered them to take the fattest of the land, while it confined the soldier and those who purchased of him to lands of secondary character, and finally to the leanest picking. It seems to me that this is sheer injustice.

years, but the gentleman had made his go back nearly half a century.

Perhaps it will be said that those who have necessity for land have the same means for acquiring it aside from warrants that they had before. And so they have. It may be said that settlers in new countries have flourished under the system which has heretofore prevailed, and what is to prevent their prosperity now? Sir, it is in American character to flourish, no matter what may be the superincumbent load of difficulties upon it. The virtues inherent in that character, the indomitable energy and will, and the far-reaching enterprise of our people, warrant it. But does that constitute a reason why you should surround them with difficulties; or, in other words, fail to remove them when it can be so cheaply and so justly done? I know that thousands go to the new lands of the West, who, when they have reached their destination, have not a dollar with which to purchase a plank to cover their heads from the storm, or purchase a bushel of meal for the subsistence of their families. They are compelled to go upon credit, if they have any, and if not, they are forced to labor one day for their neighbors to procure these things, and the next for themselves. To this class fifty or a hundred dollars was no insignificant sum. This class you can materially benefit by giving them the largest liberty in the location of warrants; and I maintain they ought to have it. I do not see for what reason you should have a double system-a cash val e and a warrant value for lands. Is it worthy the liberality and the high character of the Government? Is it dealing equitably by all? It is not, in my opinion. Throw the doors, then, wide open, and let all who go upon the public lands select such as they please, with whatever will purchase those lands. Then will you confer a boon which will be effectual— which shall be blessed and blessing.

[A message was here received from the Senate, by the hands of ASBURY DICKINS, their Secretary, announcing that they had passed the following bills, viz:

An act to extend the time for selecting lands granted to the State of Wisconsin for saline purposes;

An act for the relief of the widows and relations of certain officers and seamen of the brig Washington, who were lost overboard in the hurricane;

An act to authorize the State of Illinois to select the residue of the lands to which she is entitled under the act of the 2d of March, 1827, granting lands to aid that State in opening a canal to connect the waters of the Illinois river with those of Lake Michigan; and

An an act to admit the hermaphrodite brig Sylphide to registry.]

Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee. Believing, as I do, that the passage of this bill will be rendered more certain, and be facilitated by its reference to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, I have arisen, not for the purpose of participating in the debate which has sprung up upon the various features in this bill, but with the view of moving the previous question on the motion pending to refer. Before I make that motion, however, I will ask the unanimous consent of the House for I believe it cannot be done but by such consent that this bill be made the special order of the day in the Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.

A VOICE. Monday week.

Mr. HARRIS. It is suggested that Monday next is not a proper day. I will say on Tuesday next, and from day to day until it is disposed of. Mr. TUCK. I object.

Mr. MEADE. If the gentleman from Tennessee will allow me.

Mr. HARRIS. Certainly, if the gentleman wishes to explain.

Mr. MEADE. I desire to inform the gentleBesides, it is a system of restriction, without man from Tennessee, that there is a bill from the merit, and odious. It confines a large class of the Senate containing provisions similar to those in most meritorious men, by reason of uncontrollable this, and which, from a slight glance, appears to necessity, to narrow limits and compulsory choice. me to be preferable to this. I think, therefore, it It seems to me that this is not only failing to would be wise in us to bring on the consideration make progress, according to the prevailing spirit of the two bills together, and that when the busiof improvement and liberality-that it is not even ness on the Speaker's table is taken up that we holding to the advantages of a stationary position refer that bill to the Committee of the Whole, to-that, in the language of a great man, it is "tread-gether with the one now pending, so as to coning some steps backward"-that it is in principle an attempt to galvanize the old policy which was attempted to be fastened upon the country forty years ago and I believe it is the federal policy, too-of requiring a given township to be sold clean out, before another should be accessible. I believe the sun went back upon the dial Ahaz ten

sider them both together, and then choose the one that seems to be best.

The SPEAKER. It can be done only by unanimous consent.

Mr. MEADE. I ask the unanimous consent of the House; and if it be granted the House can refer both bills together.

[blocks in formation]

such circumstances.

Mr. HARRIS. I have stated that to be my intention, and I will do it before I take my seat. I move the previous question.

Mr. ORR. I move the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into Committee of Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. HARRIS. Has the morning hour expired?

The SPEAKER. It has not.

Mr. HARRIS. Is it in order, then, to go into Committee of the Whole?

The SPEAKER. When a gentleman can obtain the floor for the purpose of making the motion, it is. The decision of the Chair, the other day, was, that a gentleman could not deprive another of the floor for that purpose.

The question was then taken, and on a division there were-ayes 87, noes 32.

So the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, in the chair.)

The CHAIRMAN. The first bill before the committee is the annual message of the President of the United States and the resolution introduced by the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. HousTON.]

Mr. HOUSTON. I move to take up the bill No. 46, making an appropriation to pay the indemnity to Mexico; which motion was agreed

to.

MEXICAN INDEMNITY.

that this moneyed power stands up and dictates to the representatives of twenty-four millions of people, that they shall pass or not pass a law? And do they dare, in their unparalleled impudence, to come here and say that the discussion of this question is needless? Yet that is the language of their paper.

They say the passage of this bill should not be impeded by needless discussion. For one, I am determined, as a representative of a portion of the American people, to proclaim here upon this floor, that I am ready to impede the progress of this bill with all kind of needless discussion. I hope there are other members upon this floor, who will give these fund-mongers specimens of such needless legislation, as will satisfy them that they have no connection with the American people-that this is a Government of the people, and not of any moneyed power. Who are these men? Baring, Brothers & Co., and Corcoran & Riggs-whose banking-house stands opposite to your Treasury, a fungus upon it, growing rich and enlarging itself by what it robs from that which it destroys-and Howland & Aspinwall, and others, plunderers of the Treasury. They are the men who dictate to the American Congress, that the passage of the bill shall not be impeded by needless discussion. Had it not been for this paper, and some rumors which have been circulated in the public prints, as I have said before, I should not have spoken upon this question. But it has been charged, that there may possibly be some fraud, or impropriety, connected with the passage of this bill; and I hold it to be my duty to be the duty of every representative upon this floor-when imputations are thrown out, as to the character of any financial transaction, that they should be examined and probed, and that everything connected with the finances of the Government should be closely inquired into. It has been charged, that a contract has been made between the Secretary of the Treasury and these bankers, in relation to the disposition of the money -that they have been appointed the agents of this Government for paying this money to Mexico. Ours is a Government of laws. We have laws creating and prescribing the duties of our officers. We have financial officers connected with the administration of this Government, and I take this

Mr. EDGERTON. I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House in the discussion of this question. I shall not probably avail my-position, that without the special authority of law, self of my privilege, and consume the hour to which I am entitled. I will not say, as did the honorable gentleman from Virginia, that I am a lawyer, for I am not; that I am a judge or have been a judge, for I have not; but I have been a juror, sir, and I never yet pronounced my fellow man guilty of a misapplication or embezzlement of money, when I knew he never had received it. Perhaps if I had had more experience in matters of this kind, I would not speak thus. But, sir, I care nothing for experience. I have no respect for experience, or regard for expediency. Experience never taught a man a better road, but only enabled him to avoid the dangers of the old one.

it is not in the power of the Executive department to substitute any officer to discharge the duties that devolve upon it. Is there any authority of law for making this contract? Is their contract, in reference to which information has been asked this morning of the Department, binding upon the Government of the United States--is it binding even upon the other parties to it? Certainly not; for the parties themselves-Corcoran & Riggs, Howland & Aspinwall, and Baring, Brothers & Co.-expressly say that they do not conceive themselves now bound as contractors-that they are released from all obligations under the contract; and so they are. He cannot, and never could, nor could any other Secretary of the Treasury, or Secretary of State, make a contract which would be binding upon the Government, or even upon the other contracting parties. In the debate upon this question the other day,the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] made the following remarks:

"But no contract was made, and no contract could be made which would bind this House in any manner whatsoever. It was not in the power of any department of this Government to make a contract for the negotiation of its payment before an appropriation upon the part of Congress had been made. The Govermaent could make an arrangement only after the appropriation had been made."

How, then, would this Government have been

By the treaty of Gaudalupe Hidalgo, the United States became bound to pay the Government of Mexico fifteen millions of dollars-three millions down and the balance in annual payments. The history of the payment of the first installments has been detailed by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. BAYLY.] The last is yet to be paid. As no money can be drawn from the Treasury except by appropriation of law, this bill, now under discussion, was introduced by the Committee of Ways and Means, and its immediate passage urged by the necessity of the case. Yes, it is urged by the Committee of Ways and Means, when it is reasonable to believe that there is something connected with it that requires dis-placed in regard to the contract, had there been a closure; and it is urged by other parties; and because other parties have urged the passage of that bill upon this floor, my voice is heard here to-day. Had it not been for this paper which I hold in my hand, emanating from men-I will not dignify them by calling them financial operators--but men who are the fund-mongers of this country, I should not have spoken upon the question. How is it? The moneyed power of Europe, the moneyed power of this country, speak to-day in dictatorial terms to the House of Representatives of the United States. They urge upon us-not because they have an interest in the matter, for they disclaim any interest-the immediate passage of this bill, and say there should be no more "useless discussion upon the bill." Has it come to this,

failure on the part of the alleged contractors to have performed their part of it, by not paying the money? If the United States had placed in the hands of these contractors a portion of this money in advance of its payment to Mexico, and that without receipts or discharges on the part of Mexico, and these contractors refused or neglected to pay to that Government, would it be justified in demanding that additional payment should be made in consequence of their failure? Beyond a question. There is no doubt of it; because the contracting party, in case they had misapplied the money, might have stood up and said to you and the Secretary of State: "You have made a contract with us that you had no right to make. It was not binding upon the Government, and

consequently not binding upon us, the other contracting party.' There is another view of this question to which I will allude. I will admit for argument the right existed on the part of the Secretary of State, to make the contract, but I will say, although the right did exist, it was an improper act on the part of the Secretary, and I say so for this reason: This being a Government of the people alone, it should not be the Government of any moneyed power; that should have no influence in the Government, and particularly not if that moneyed power be a foreign one. How is it with these moneyed powers? They now control the entire destinies of all the nations of Europe. They are seeking to control the destinies of this nation. They are attempting to undermine the liberties of the people; and the whole history of the moneyed power, since the beginning of the world, will show that it was never the advocate of human rights and human liberties. The moneyed power throughout the world was always the agent of the oppressors of human liberty and human rights. Who are these contractors? They are the very same men controlling the Governments of Europe, upholding, by their money, the corruptions of the old monarchies. The very same men, governed by these same feelings, now say to the representatives of the American people, You must not discuss this question, because it is needless-improper. Why, who does not know, in the history of this moneyed power, that it invariably corrupts the Government-that it corrupts the masses; that it lays its mighty hands upon even talent and intellect, and sacrifices them with its power of corruption. The brightest genius this Government ever beheld in his palmiest day, when the fire of talent beautified and illumined him, the victim of this moneyed power-sacrificed upon its altar. It is because of this moneyed power, so insidious in its character, supporting and encouraging, as it does, sappers and miners upon your Treasury, that I take this position. I stand upon this floor to-day and ay, to this House of Representatives-say to the American people-that I am bound to impede this legisla tion of Congress. I stand here, not the advocate of legislation by Congress, but as the sworn opponent to the action of Congress, saving for one thing, and that is, to pay the debts of the Government. I will legisla te for no other purpose but to pay our debts, and to provide for the general welfare." But I will provide for the general welfare solely by paying the debts of the Government; and, if it be necessary, I will levy taxes for that purpose, and for that purpose only. To that end only can Congress levy taxes for the general welfare. This Congress legislates too much. We have too much legislation before us, and by whom is it brought here? By whom are the various projects coming up here for the purpose of robbing the Treasury advocated and sustained? Why, by men under the influence, under the control of, and whose destinies hang upon, this moneyed power. We legislate, as I have said before, too much. The moneyed power seeks, not only here, but everywhere, to centralize power in Governments. It is the great advocate of the centralization of power. Every act of this Government which tends, in the least, to the centralization of power, or that takes anything from the States, which they can do, I will oppose. I stand here the advocate of the right of the States to protect its citizens in everything they require. The people have no claim upon Congress. This Congress has no right to pass any law which the people of one section of the country can say benefits them, and which another section can say does not benefit them. The Legislatures of the several States can do all the acts necessary for the prosperity, the glory, and dignity of the country.

What has the action of Congress added to the glory of this country? Have the ta iff acts passed, which have been so much talked about, added one particle to the wealth and power of the country? Has any other action of Congress added wealth and power to the country? The wealth and power of the country are produced in another quarter. It is in the States themselves-in the people that they are produced, and it is the legislation of the several States, developing the resources of these States, that has made this country what it is. I stand here to-day, not the advocate of the glory, power, and wealth of the States consolidated, but the advocate of the glory, wealth,

« AnteriorContinuar »