}

It was read; from which it appears that Captain Capron fell in the battle of Cherubusco, near the city of Mexico, on the twentieth day of August, 1847, leaving widow wholly destitute of support, and children, six in number, the oldest of whom was only eight years old. In view of their destitution, and in consideration of the gallantry and many services of their deceased husband and father, the committee reported a bill for the continuance of her present pension to his widow.

Mr. JONES, of Iowa. I would only remark, that the bill granting the pension to the widow of this gallant officer was reported unanimously from the Committee on Pensions at the last session, and at this session a similar report has been made to give pension to his children for five years. The petitioner prayed that the pension might be given to her for the residue of her life. The committee, however, did not conceive it proper to give it for a longer period than five years. There are precedents for the passing of this bill. Bills have been passed in three other similar cases. As this lady is in very indigent circumstances, and has six children, the oldest of whom is but eight years old, I hope the Senate will pass the bili.

Mr. DAWSON. I would ask the chairman of the committee who reported this bill, if it is not in violation of the existing law, to grant this pension?

Mr. JONES, of Iowa. Certainly not.

Mr. DAWSON. Do you not propose to make it an exception to the law as it now stands? Why, then, will not the pension be paid without the passing of this bill?

Mr. JONES, of Iowa. It is proposed by this bill to grant a pension to the children, not to the widow. The report which was read was that which was made at the last session, proposing to give a pension to the widow during her widowhood.

Mr. DAWSON. That brings up the question which I want to get at. Will we now adopt the principle that we will pension all the children of all the soldiers who were killed in our various wars-that we will make an annual appropriation to them? Will this Government do that? That is the question. If you do it in this case what is there to distinguish it from any other case in which the husband or father was killed in battle? If you put it on the ground of poverty, soldiers are usually poor, and leave families in the same way. If the principle is to be established, do it at once by a general bill, and not by an individual case in this way. If we do this for one, let us do it for all.

Mr. SHIELDS. The very reason that the petitioners apply for this pension is, that the general law does not cover such a case. But I 1 must confess that I cannot see the force of the objection of the Senator from Georgia, because this is a pension to the children, and not to the widow, and these children are now fatherless, penniless, and in poverty. I knew this officer well, I knew him long before he fell in battle. I saw him after he fell, and I must say that I know of no officer of his rank in the Army of the United States who possessed more gallantry and worth than he did. I should regret exceedingly to see any opposition to the granting of the pension, because I think it is due to the children of this gallant officer, who have no means to support them, and no protector but a poor mother, who has been left a widow by the fall of her husband. It is only for five years. We have gone much further in other cases, for officers of a higher grade, I admit, such as General Worth and others, but this officer, in his grade, was as meritorious as any officer in the Army of the United States. I would feel that I was unjust to my own feelings if I did not state my recollection of his worth, as a man and as an officer. I saw him when he fell in battle. I saw his body there, and I should regret to see his children thrown penniless upon the world.

Mr. DAWSON. I have understood that during that campaign in Mexico there was not an officer or soldier who ever turned his back upon the enemy. Every man who died upon the battlefield died nobly, and discharged his duty well. If they have died in this way, and many of them have left children, why will you select one and provide for his children, and leave thousands of others unprovided for? My sympathies were ex

cited when I heard my friend from Illinois [Mr. SHIELDS] speak of what he had seen. But we cannot legislate upon sympathy. Any course of this kind would beggar this Government. All the money which we could collect would not be sufficient to maintain and educate the children of deceased officers and soldiers. I thought we had been as liberal as any nation upon earth in pensioning those who fight the battles of the country; and I shall not object to this now, if you say that you will establish a general principle, and let the country understand that they are to be taxed to support the children of every poor officer and soldier who died in the service of the country. I cannot see why poverty should give to the children of A any advantage over the children of B, who may have been killed in a battle, but who had some property. It is not for the purpose of raising or educating children that we legislate. We have no such power. It is for the purpose of compensating services rendered to the country that we give these pensions. The services of the man who has been fortunate enough by his industry to accumulate wealth, and still has courage sufficient to carry him to the field, and not send a substitute, and dies there, are as valuable as those of the poor man. There is no power of discrimination in this Government between wealth and poverty upon a principle of this kind. We should stand upon a principle which recognizes the equality of all men who serve the country. I am unwilling to adopt this partial position, and lay down a dot here and there according to the desire of the various representatives of different States as to some very worthy and proper case to their own knowledge. I know of fifty cases in my own State where husbands and fathers died in Mexico, and left their widows and children probably as poor as these are; and can I consent to a bill of this kind for an individual case, and not make the same grant to all? Upon principle I am opposed to it. But if we have power to pass a bill, let us have it so that all shall be entitled to the same aid.

Mr. SHIELDS. I would be very willing to see a general bill and a general law, and I think it would be due from the country to cover all such cases as this, where the father has been killed in battle, and where his children have been left minors and orphans, and poor. I hold that the nation is bound to step in and become a father of that family. I put it upon the highest principles of moral equity, that in such a case, the nation is bound to step in and take the place of a parent. That there is no general law is no reason why this bill should not be adopted. On the contrary, it is a reason why it should be passed. But the honorable Senator from Georgia, who I know is as generous in these matters as I am-and the view he take is not opposed to the principle of this bill as far as I can see-says this nation has been more liberal towards its military men than any other nation in the world. I tell that Senator that no nation on God's earth has obtained such military service as this nation has with so little cost. Why, your armies have brought you through three wars; and what have those armies cost you? An army of a nation of half the size, on a peace establishment, in Europe, costs more than all your armies, including pensions and all; for your soldiers fly to your standard in the hour of danger, and when the danger is over they retire to private life and shift for themselves. And now, when you have a case of this kind where a man has been killed in battle, and his children are poor and destitute, can you turn round and say that because there is no general law to cover the case, these children shall be turned out on the charities of the world? Surely not. I do not want to discuss this question fur

ther.

Mr. BORLAND. The objection raised to this bill by the Senator from Georgia is one that we have heard time and again from him on every proposition of this kind. I believe that no bill granting a pension has ever come befere the Senate which he has not opposed, and generally, if not exclusively, upon the ground he now urges. I think, however, that the very reason upon which he rests his objection is a reason why we should pass the bill. He objects to it because it is not a general bill including all cases. That can be no objection to this bill, unless the passing this precludes us from passing a general bill. But the passage of this bill, giving pensions to these children, does not preclude us from passing a general

bill, or bill for every individual case equally meritorious which may come before us. On the contrary, it makes a precedent for them. But I am in favor of special bills of this sort, because I wish to put each case on its own individual mexit. We have general laws on the subject of pensions, and for general purposes they are very liberal, and give as much discretion to the Executive officers of this Government as I think it is safe and proper to give them. You cannot by general laws provide for every case of merit. It is because cases like this are not and cannot be embraced in those general laws that the petitioners have now come here. They show their claim to be one strong in equity and in every consideration that should entitle them to the bounty of the Government. I hold that Congress is the proper and only safe and proper tribunal for the adjudication of such claims, and determine whether they are individually meritorious or not. For myself, I am willing and resolved to vote for every case that can be shown to be as meritorious as this. I have voted for a number of such cases, and I shall continue to vote for them, whenever they may come up, as long as there is a dollar in the Treasury to pay them with.

Be

The Senator from Georgia says he opposes this because it is not a general bill, and yet we find him opposing all bills of the kind. cause it is not now proposed to provide for every case that may hereafter come before us, he is determined to provide for none, however meritorious, and however needy! An extraordinary reason it

seems to me.

Now, I agree freely, and will go cordially with the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS,] as far as he has indicated his willingness to go; and if there be any one willing to go further, I will go as far as the furthest, in providing for the widows and orphans who have been made such, and left destitute of the means of subsistence, by the patriotic devotion of their husbands and fathers to the cause of their country upon the field of battle. I do not think we can expend the public money in a holier cause, or in a better way.

Senators talk about bankrupting the Government, by taking care of the widows and orphans of those who have taken care of the country in the hour of its peril and its need! Bankrupt the Government indeed! Where, sir, I would ask, would the Government have been, but for the warm hearts and strong hearts of those men who flew to its standard in the hour of danger, and not only illustrated its honor, but actually preserved its existence? Such men, sir, have a claim, which I cannot resist, not only upon the justice and equity of this Government, but upon its gratitude; and that claim descends to their widows and orphans with an augmented force, which I, for one, will never question, and never seek to resist or

evade.

Such men (and the father of these children was such a man) enter our military service, not because the provisions of any general law, as part of the conditions of their service, promise the care and protection of those most dear to them in the event of their death, which we now propose to givethere is no such general law-but they were actuated by higher and less selfish motives. And now we are called upon to respond to those high and unselfish motives, by exercising the highest and holiest sentiments of our nature-not only justice and equity, but generous sympathy and gratitude. Shall we fail in those high duties to ourselves and our country, which considerations like these impose upon us?

If the Senator from Georgia will bring forward a general bill, such as he has alluded to, to include all cases as meritorious as this, and will give it such form as to make it practicable in its operation, I will cheerfully vote for it. But I do not think this can be done. I think the only proper and safe foundation for legislation for such cases, is the particular merit of each case. I am willing and desirous to sit as a court of equity upon each case as it arises, with the authority and purpose to include national gratitude among the considerations which shall control my judgment.

Mr. HAMLIN. I have no hope of arresting the progress of this bill; but as I propose to vote with the honorable Senator from Georgia, [Mr. DAWSON,] I desire to state a few of the reasons which control my vote. If I were to listen to the counsels of the Senator from Illinois, [Mr.

32D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

cation of their rights-being absent in the service of their country. Thus it happened that those persons never received any part of the proceeds of the sale of the vessel and cargo thus captured and brought into port, under circumstances of the most daring bravery.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

ELIZABETH MONROE.

The Senate next proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill granting a pension to Elizabeth Monroe, reported from the Committee on Pensions. It enacts that there be granted to Elizabeth Monroe, widow of James J. C. Monroe, late of the Army of the United States, for the space of five years, from and after the 1st of January, 1852, a pension, payable semi-annually, equal to one half of the pay to which said James J. C. Monroe was entitled at the time of his decease.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

MARY W. THOMPSON.

The Senate next proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to consider the bill for the relief of Mary W. Thompson, reported from the Committee on Pensions. It enacts that the Secretary of the Interior be directed to place the name of Mary W. Thompson, widow of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Thompson, upon the pension roll, and to pay to her during her widowhood the pension heretofore allowed her, to commence on the 1st day of January, 1852.

Without disposing of this bill, on motion, the Senate adjourned to Monday next.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, January 23, 1852.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. Mr. MORGAN. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS. Mr. SMART. There are one or two communications of importance from the Executive upon the Speaker's table, and I ask now the unanimous consent of the House that they may be referred to the appropriate committees.

No objection being made,

The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communications:

To the Senate and

House of Representatives of the United States:

I communicate to both Houses of Congress a report from the Department of State, containing copies of the correspondence which has taken place between that Department and the Minister of the United States in Paris, respecting the political occurrences which have recently taken place in France. MILLARD FILLMORE.

WASHINGTON, January 20, 1852.

MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 1852.

past year; which said letter and accompanying papers were ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

IV. A letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting a statement of the expenses of the national armories, and of the number of arms and appendages made and repaired thereat, during the fiscal year ending the 30th June, 1851; which said letter and accompanying papers were ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

V. A letter from the Secretary of the Navy, transmitting a detailed statement of the expenditure of the contingent fund of his Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1851; which, with the accompanying papers, was ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

VI. A letter from the Postmaster General, transmitting his annual report of the clerks and other persons employed in his Department during the past year; which said letter and accompanying papers were ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

VII. A letter from the Postmaster General, submitting an estimate of the sums of money expected to be required for the service of the year commencing 1st July, 1852; which was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. HOUSTON. If these communications are all through with, I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

CLOSE OF DEBATE.

Mr. DANIEL. I rise to a privileged question. I wish to inquire whether a motion was made on yesterday to reconsider the vote of the House closing debate on the Mexican indemnity bill?

The SPEAKER. There was no such motion made.

Mr. DANIEL. I make that motion now; and my reason for making it is this: A call has been made upon the State Department for information in regard to certain matters, and upon which in

to

formation there may be some who are desired. In

say something before this debate is closed. order to accomplish that object, therefore, and believing that the delay of a day or two will make no difference in this matter, I move to reconsider the vote on the adoption of that resolution, for the purpose of going into Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar.

Mr. MEADE. That resolution was adopted at my instance on yesterday. I had been under the impression that that resolution terminated debate at three o'clock on Saturday. It seems to me that those were the terms of the resolution which I proposed.

The SPEAKER. The terms of the resolution were, to close debate upon to-morrow at three o'clock, which places it upon the present day. Mr. MEADE. Then I shall vote for the mo

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs,|| tion of the gentleman from North Carolina. and ordered to be printed.

I. A letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, giving information of the loss of the revenue cutter Lawrence, and recommending that the appropriation of six additional revenue cutters, asked for in his annual report, be increased to $90,000; and urging upon Congress the importance of early action in said matter; which was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed.

II. A letter from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting estimates of the Secretary of Minnesota Territory, for the expenses of that Territory for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1852; and a letter from the same officer, suggesting further appropriations to meet the expenses of that Territory for the year ending June 30, 1852; which said letter and accompanying papers were referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed.

III. A letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting his annual report of the clerks and other persons employed in his Department during the

Mr. BROOKS. I shall oppose that resolution. The SPEAKER. The Chair would suggest that this is not a debatable question.

Mr. BROOKS. I do not intend to debate it. I simply rise to say that every day's delay in passing this bill will be at a very great cost to the Government. If the House choose to delay the matter, however, I am perfectly willing they should do it. I do not wish, however, to pass any resolution without a perfect knowledge of its consequences; but I will state that a year ago the Government could have obtained three and a half per cent. for the privilege of paying this installment. I do not believe any premium could be obtained to-day; and if the resolution were delayed twenty days longer, the Government will have to pay a premium.

Mr. DANIEL. If I supposed that two or three days' delay would make any material difference to the Government, I would not make the motion, but I do not see how it can make any difference.

Mr. HOUSTON, There is another suggestion which I will make in connection with the one

NEW SERIES....No. 24.

made by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS.] I will suggest that the call upon the Secretary of State refers entirely to matters that have passed. I do not consider that the information which we may get in response to that call will in any respect direct us to a proper determination in respect to the resolution now before the House.

The SPEAKER. The Chair must interrupt this debate. It is all out of order.

Mr. DANIEL. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HOUSTON] may be correct in relation to the character of the information to be received from the Secretary of State; but I do not conceive that a delay of two or three days can make any essential difference. I hope the House will at least appropriate to-day and to-morrow to the consideration of private bills.

Mr. HOUSTON. Well, I desired to present this view to the House, for I want to excuse myself from any responsibility in the matter, if the House choose to delay the passage of this bill.

The question being upon the motion to reconsider,

Mr. MEADE demanded tellers; which were ordered; and Messrs. MEADE and FOWLER were appointed.

The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 69, noes 67.

So the House agreed to reconsider.

The question now recurred upon the adoption of the resolution to close debate to-day at three o'clock.

Mr. DANIEL moved to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. SWEETSER demanded the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOUSTON. If the House will allow me, I will suggest whether it will not be better to set some time for closing this debate?

Mr. MEADE. We cannot set the time. We have called for information which I think it is necessary that we should have. I hope debate will not be closed till we get that information.

Mr. DANIEL. I think the only way we can bet. I hope the House will lay it upon the table, rid of the resolution is, to lay it upon the taand take up something else. Mr. SWEETSER yeas and nays.

I withdraw the call for the

Mr. DUNHAM. I renew it.

The yeas and nays were then ordered. Mr. DANIEL. At the suggestion of gentlemen around me, I will withdraw the motion to lay on the table, and move to amend the resolution, so as to close debate on Monday next at three o'clock.

Mr. OLDS. That is resolution day.

Mr. DANIEL. Then I move to insert three o'clock on Tuesday next.

Mr. DUNHAM demanded tellers on the motion; which were ordered, and Messrs. RICHARDSON, and STANTON of Tennessee, appointed.

The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 30, noes not counted.

So the yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. DANIEL, and there were-yeas 81, nays 96; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Charles Allen, Allison, Bartlett, Bibighaus, Bowie, Albert G. Brown, Buell, Busby, Thompson Campbell, Cartier, Clark, Cobb, Cullom, Daniel, Dean, Dimmick, Disney, Durkee, Eastman, Edmundson, Faulkner, Fiteli, Florence, Fowler, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gamble, Gaylord, Gentry, Gilmore, Green, Grey, Hall, Isbam G. Harris, Sampson W. Harris, Hart, Howard, Ingersoll, Ives, Jackson, Jenkins, Andrew Johnson, Jolm Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, Preston King, Kurtz, Letcher, Lockhart, McCorkle, McDonald, McMullin, McNair, Meade, Molony, Morehead, Morrison, Murray, Olds, Orr, Andrew Parker, Phelps, Richardson, Riddle, Robinson, Scudder, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, Skelton, Smart, Snow, Richard H, Stanton, Stone, Stratton, Strother, Stewart, Townshend, Tuck, Venable, Wallace, Addison White, Wilcox, and Woodward-81.

NAYS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Aiken, Willis Allen, John Appleton, William Appleton, Ashe, Averett, Barrere, Beale, Bocock, Bowne, Bragg, Brenton, Briggs, Brooks, Burrows, Edw. Carrington Cabell, Caldwell, Lewis D. Campbell, Caskie, Chandler, Chastain, Clingman. Conger, George T. Davis, John G. Davis, Dawson, Dockery, Doty, Duncan,

Dunham, Evans, Ficklin, Freeman, Henry M. Fuller, Giddings, Goodenow, Grow, Hamilton, Harper, Haws, Hebard, Hendricks, Hibbard, Hillyer, Holladay, Horsford, Houston, John W. Howe, Thomas M. Howe, Thomas Y. How, Hunter, Robert W. Johnson, George W. Jones, Kuhns, Mace, Mann, Humphrey Marshall, Martin, Mason, MeLanahan, Meacham, Millson, Miner, Nabers, Newton, Outlaw, Samuel W. Parker, Peaslee, Penniman, Powell, Price, Robbins, Savage, Schoolcraft, Schoonmaker, Stanly, Benjamin Stanton, Frederick P. Stanton, Abraham P. Stevens, Alexander H. Stephens, St. Martin, Sweetser, Taylor, Benj. Thompson, Thurston, Walbridge, Walsh, Ward, Washburn, Watkins, Welch, Wells, Alexander, White, Williams, and Yates--96.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Virginia, asked leave to vote, although he was without the bar when his name was called. Objection being made his vote was not recorded.

The SPEAKER. The question recurs upon the adoption of the resolution now before the House.

Mr. MEADE. I understand the resolution is the same as adopted yesterday. I move to lay it upon the table.

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

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I wish to inquire if the motion to lay upon the table do not prevail, it will not be in order to amend the resolution, by inserting three o'clock on any other

day?

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I think not.

The SPEAKER. It is in order. It is a resolution in the usual form to close debate at three o'clock upon the Mexican indemnity bill.

The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. MEADE, and there were-yeas 73, nays 104; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Aiken, Bartlett, Bocock, Bragg, A. G. Brown, Buell, Busby, T. Campbell, Cartter, Caskie, Churchwell, Clark, Colcock, Daniel, Dean. Durkee, Edgerton, Evans, Faulkner, Fitch, Florence, Freeman, Gamble, Gaylord, Gentry, Gilmore, Green, Grey, Grow, Hart, Holladay, Howard, Ingersoll, John Johnson, R. W. Johnson, D. T. Jones, Kurtz, Letcher, Lockhart, Mason, MeDonald, McMullin, McNair, Meade, Molony, Morrison, Nabers, Orr, Andrew Parker, Polk, Richardson, Riddle, Russell, Savage, Scurry, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, Smart, Smith, Snow, Stone, St. Martin, Stratton, Strother, Stuart, Sweetser, Townshend, Venable, Wallace, Addison White, Wilcox, and Woodward-73.

NAYS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Willis Allen, John Appleton, W. Appleton, Averett, Babcock, Barrere, Beale, Bibighaus, Bowin, Bowne, Brenton, Briggs, Brooks, Burrows, E. Carrington Cabell, Caldwell, Lewis D. Campbell, Chandler, Chastain, Clingman, Cobb, Conger, Cottman, Cullom, George T. Davis, John G. Davis, Dawson, Disney, Dockery, Doty, Duncan, Dunham, Fowler, Henry M. Fuller, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Giddings, Goodenow, Hamilton, Harper, Haws, Hascall, Hebard, Hendricks, Hibbard, Hillyer, Horsford, Houston, John W. Howe, Thomas M. Howe, Thomas Y. How, Hunter, Ives, Jackson, Jenkins, George W. Jones, Kuhns, Mace, Mann, Edward C. Marshall, Humphrey Marshall, Martin, McLanahan, Meacham, Miller, Millson, Miner, Murphy, Olds, Outlaw, Samuel W. Parker, Peaslee, Penniman, Phelps, Porter, Price, Robbins, Robinson, Sackett, Schoolcraft, Schoonmaker, Scudder, Skelton, Stanly, Benjamin Stanton, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Abraham P. Stevens, Alexander H. Stephens, Taylor, Benjamin Thompson, George W.Thompson, Thurston, Tuck, Walbridge, Walsh, Ward, Watkins, Welch, Wells, Alexander White, Williams, and Yates-104.

So the resolution was not laid upon the table.. Mr. ROBBINS. I think the question has been sufficiently debated, and I therefore ask the previous question.

Mr. HOUSTON. What will be the effect of it? The SPEAKER. To bring the House to a vote upon the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. HOUSTON. Yes, I know that; but the terms of the resolution is to close debate to-morrow, and that resolution, thus worded, was made yesterday. If the resolution is adopted, will the effect be to close debate this evening or to-morrow?

The SPEAKER. It will be for the House to put its own construction upon its own actions.

Mr. DANIEL. I suggest to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. ROBBINS] to withdraw his motion, and allow the resolution to be amended.

Mr. ROBBINS. I will, and I propose to offer an amendment, that the debate be closed to-day at three o'clock.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Will the gentleman allow me to suggest another day as an amendment, and the question will then be first taken upon the longer time. I move that the debate be closed to-morrow at two o'clock.

Mr. ROBBINS. I except the amendment, and I move the previous question.

Mr. MEÅDE. I suggest to the gentleman from Pennsylvania three o'clock.

The previous question then received a second, and the main question was ordered to be put. The question was first taken upon the amendment of Mr. ROBBINS, it was agreed to.

The question then recurring upon the adoption of the resolution, it was put and agreed to. So the House decided to close debate upon the Mexican indemnity bill at two o'clock to-morrow.

Mr. DUNHAM. I move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted, and to lay that motion upon the table.

Mr. STEPHENS. It is not in order. It has been reconsidered once.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is of opinion that it is not the same resolution in all its parts, and therefore the vote may be reconsidered. Such is the opinion of the Chair.

Mr. MEADE called the yeas and nays upon the motion of Mr. DUNHAM; but they were not ordered.

The question was then taken, and the motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.

PRIVATE CALENDAR.

Mr. DANIEL. I move that the rules be suspended, and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House upon the Private Calendar.

Mr. HOUSTON. I rise to a question of order. I was upon the floor, was so recognized by the Speaker, and had submitted

The SPEAKER, (interrupting.) The gentleman from Alabama is correct.

THE PUBLIC PRINTING.

Mr. STANTON, of Kentucky. I appeal to the gentleman from Alabama to withdraw his motion for a moment, to permit me to make a personal explanation in regard to a publication which has been made by the public printer, and laid upon our tables, affecting to some extent my veracity. A VOICE. How long will it take? Mr. STANTON. But a few minutes. [Cries "Let him make the explanation!"] Mr. STANTON said: On the 19th inst., during the debate which occurred upon the resolution ordering a number of copies of the Abstract of the Census to be obtained by the Printing Committee, I took occasion to make a few remarks in regard to the manner in which the public printer was complying with his contract. I stated that the Printing Committee had obtained an interview with Mr. Hamilton, and were given "distinctly to understand that he could not comply with his tract, and did not expect to do so, in this respect, that he was not prepared to furnish such a description of paper as his contract required."

con

In no other respect did I intimate that he had failed to meet the requirements of his official un

dertaking, unless the delay which has occurred in the delivery of the President's message and accompanying documents, to which I alluded, may be so considered. I intended to be understood as indicating distinctly the specific particular in which this contractor had failed to meet the requirements of his contract, and confined it to the inferior quality of the paper he had furnished and expected to furnish. I regarded it as a failure in the most material part-a failure which could not be excused by the committee or the House, and one which I, as a member of that committee, would not tolerate. Our public documents are intended to be bound and preserved, and if not printed upon strong and durable paper will be useless. Delay in the execution of the work might be tolerated to some extent, if the material and execution are such as we are authorized to expect; but my sense of public duty compels me, while I might excuse some delay, to require of the public printer the kind and quality of materials for which we have agreed to pay him.

The public printer has addressed me a letter, which has been printed and laid upon the desks of members, in which, while he seems to exculpate from intentional misrepresentation, ingeniously contrives to convey the idea that I have, with a view to injure him, departed from the truth. I have nothing to say in vindication of my own veracity more than the chairman of the House committee, the honorable Mr. GORMAN, has said in the letter which he has been kind enough to furnish me, and

which I send to the Clerk to be read:

WASHINGTON CITY, D. C., January 22, 1852. Hon. R. H. STANTON: SIR: In reply to your note of this date, requesting my recollection of the statements made by Mr. Hamilton in the

committee room, in regard to the public printing, I have to say, that the remarks made by you in the House, and reported in the Globe, substantially give the effect and substance of what Mr. Hamilton said. As nearly as I can recollect, I will give the particulars of this interview as they occurred. After some conversation between the chairman of the Joint Committee and Mr. Hamilton, I turned to the latter and told him that "it was said by experienced pre'tical printers, that he could not possibly execute bis con'tract without serious loss, and that it had been seemingly demonstrated by figures; that the price he received under the contract would not buy the paper he had engaged to use-paper weighing fifty pounds to the ream-and if not so, he could disprove it, and if he intended to rely upon 'Congress for relief, we desired now to know it."

6

To this Mr. Hamilton replied: "He could not get paper weighing fifty pounds to the ream without the cash." I said, "I understood differently, if he could give good indorsers." He replied: "He could not run about and ask his friends to do that for him; that he expected to furnish paper weighing from forty-four to forty-eight pounds to the "But, sir," said I, "this paper has been weighed by the chairman of the Senate committee, and it does not weigh quite forty pounds to the ream." Another sample was then weighed, and it held up to forty-two pounds only to the ream. None that we had before us came up to the requirement of the contract.

ream."

I then told Mr. Hamilton of a conversation I had with one of the paper makers, who did business on an extensive seale, from whom I had learned, that when Mr. Hamilton went to him to purchase paper for the public printing, he had selected an article far inferior in weight and other qualities to the contract stipulations, probably not weighing more than thirty-eight pounds to the ream; and when the gentleman informed Mr. Hamilton that it would not fill the contract, he, Mr. H., replied that it was none of his business; and Mr. Hamilton, failing to give the price for the paper of proper quality, did not get any. To this Mr. Hamilton replied: "That if he did not give the paper-maker such an answer, he ought to have done it, for he deserved it, and it certainly was not his business."

I told Mr. Hamilton, that I wanted him distinetly to understand, that under no circumstances could he expect relief from Congress, either if he performed his contract and lost money by it, or failed to perform it; and asked him to say distinctly whether he could furnish paper according to the quality prescribed in the contract, and do the work? He said in reply, that "the committee were very tight on 'him, in requiring him to come fully up to the contract in 'regard to the weight of the paper; that he had not been able to get paper heavy enough to meet the contract, but 'expected to do so as near as he could,"

In the interview with Mr. Hamilton, he firmly impressed me, and I apprehend every one else of the committee, with the conviction, that he could not comply strictly with his contract, and did not expect to do so, but relied upon the indulgence of the committee in allowing him to furnish an inferior description of paper. I therefore sum up the result of this conference as follows:

First. Mr. Hamilton confessed tacitly that he had not complied with his contract in regard to the weight of the paper, and acknowledged his inability to do so.

Second. That he did not expect to furnish better paper than that exhibited before the committee, samples of which were weighed before him by Colonel Borland, on scales prepared for such purposes, and none of which came up to the requirements of the contract.

Very respectfully,

W. A. GORMAN.

It may be proper to add, that from the interview had with Mr. Hamilton, in the committee room, I was firmly impressed with the conviction, that quality of paper, and relied upon the liberality of he designed to impose upon Congress an inferior

the Printing Committee to overlook the matter. His excuses for not furnishing better paper for the documents already furnished, were inconsistent, sometimes frivolous, and never reasonable. At mitted with a view to elicit frank answers, did he no time, even in answer to direct questions subpromise to procure paper such as was imperatively required by his contract. He either evaded a direct answer, or excused himself by referring to the difficulties of procuring the proper quality of

paper.

It is not my nature to be ungenerous, and I am not disposed to deal more harshly with the public printer, as he supposes, than my obligations to the country require. He has sought his own poCongress which he might have avoided. If he sition-he has placed himself in an attitude before took the contract relying upon its violation to enable him to make money, he has attempted an imposition upon Congress, for which he deserves rebuke and punishment: If he expected to execute his contract in good faith and rely upon the liberality of Congress to indemnify him for losses he would inevitably sustain, he was guilty of stupidity quite as unpardonable. The experience of other contractors, who have been denied indemnity, either event he has entitled himself to no undue favor was enough to enlighten him upon this point. In on the part of Government, and ought not to exholding contractors to a rigid compliance with pect it. The only safety to the Government is in their responsibilities; and when we learn to do this, the innumerable frauds and impositions to which Government has been subjected, will cease, and not until then.