There are some gentlemen who may attempt to make themselves masters of the law, and assume to know everything. A proposition upon the part of one Government to another, is a mere question of agreement not to infringe the spirit of the treaty. The question will come up afterwards, whether the treaty had been complied with or not in the payment of the money. If the Mexican Government drew a draft upon this Government after the money was appropriated by law, let me ask, however ridiculous it may be conceived by some, if it would be in violation of the treaty for this Government to accept that draft-merely to accede to the proposition in the payment of the money? Does it smack in the slightest degree of violation of law, of infringement of the treaty? Not at all. But this arrangement would have saved, I am authorized to believe, an immense sum to the Government, had the money been appropriated. How does the present proposition stand? They come forward and say that they will give us security and vouchers to the Government at the proper tinte. What are they? They will put in pledge Government stocks bearing an interest of six per cent., and propose to pay the Government of the United States three and a half per cent. for the money that is to be appropriated fourteen months in advance. Do not these stocks bear as much interest by being pledged to the Government as they did before? And what then is the operation? We, in effect, pay them two and a half per cent. for this operation. This is the whole of the matter. It is for the percentage, the shaving that is to fall into the pockets of those concerned, that they have consented to the whole thing.

Mr. MEADE. My colleague [Mr. BAYLY] has in a measure expressed an opinion adverse to the one I expressed on a former occasion, and in doing so he took occasion to say that nineteen twentieths of the lawyers of the country would be also of an opinion different to it; and I think it somewhat incumbent upon me to make a short reply.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must here state, without calling the gentleman to order, that under the rule five minutes is allowed for the explanation of, and five minutes for opposition to, the amendment, and not for a general discussion upon the merits of the original proposition.

Mr. MEADE. I am opposing the amendment, and I suppose I will be allowed the same latitude as has been extended to other gentlemen who have spoken upon this subject. Now, this was paid by drafts substantially, although not in a commercial point of view, not technically, to the Barings & Brothers, through their agent Forstall. Drafts were sent here by Forstall to be paid; and why could not drafts in the same shape be sent by the Mexican Government, by her agent, to be paid? They were, instead of being commercial drafts in the usual form, certificates sent to the Secretary of State, to the effect that Forstall had advanced so much money to the Mexican Government, and that that advancement was to be taken out of the indemnity due her. When we speak of drafts, we mean drafts in that form and substantially to that effect. It was a certificate upon the part of the Mexican Government, that Forstall should receive $650,000 of the indemnity which was due to Mexico upon the 30th day of May, and that is the form in which the drafts could have been presented in favor of Mexico or the agent of Mexico. We are speaking about the substance, not the shadow, of things. It is true, as my colleague says, that a commercial draft, drawn in the way he supposes, could not be accepted by the Secretary of State; but any notification, like that in favor of Forstall, could have been given in favor of Marks, or any other agent of the Mexican Government, and the amount thus certified to, as having been advanced to the Mexican Government, could be deducted out of the indemnity which was due on the 30th of May. If you go into the details of the whole of that payinent, you will find that not one cent of the money was paid in any other way. In point of fact, the whole three millions of dollars thus paid by the Barings & Brothers to that Government, was drawn for by them here. I will venture that without knowing the fact, because it was the easiest way by which it could be done. The draft in favor of Forstall proves not only that the draft was paid here, but that it was paid months before the indemnity was due; and so the arrange- ||

The CHAIRMAN. The pending question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, "to be paid in conformity to the request of the Mexican Government." The gentleman from Virginia proposes to strike out the words " Mexican Government." It will then read "to be paid in conformity to the request"

There is an amendment to the amendment pending. The question is upon the amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. BAYLY

The question was then taken and it was not agreed to.

Mr. CARTTER. I move to reinsert the words, if in order," the Government of Mexico." The CHAIRMAN. The amendment would not be in order.

ant

Mr. CARTTER. I move to strike out the word "request," and insert the words " pursu a Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of that amendment, because I think it raises substantially the issue that has been made in the discussion upon this subject, and brings up the conflict that has been waged between the Secretary of State and the authorities of Mexico. I am in favor of it as a substantial amendment-an amendment promoting the right and rebuking the wrong. The ques tion raised in that amendment is, whether this Government, in its treatment of a kindred Republic upon our own continent, shall consult the desires of that Government, or shall sacrifice its interests to its creditor, and pass that Government through the hands of successive monetary speculators, before the fund, which we honestly owe her, is honestly paid to her? A technical exception has been taken by the honorable member from Virginia, [Mr. BAYLY,] who presided over the Committee of Ways and Means during the last Congress. It was a technical exception only. He has been compelled, in the specious defence he

has made

Mr. BROOKS. I rise to a question of order. Mr. CARTTER. I hope it will not be taken out of my time.

Mr. BAYLY. If the amendment prevails I shall then move to fill the blank. Mr. Chairman, my colleague has certainly not examined this matter with his usual care. If he had he certainly would not have misconceived the subject as much as he does. He asks the question, why we could not accept drafts of the Mexican Government as well as those of the Barings? The Barings never drew any drafts in form or substance upon our Government. By their contract, on the day of payment, they were to make the payment in gold and silver to the Mexican Government, and to take their receipts for it. I presume they provided themselves with the money to make the payment by drafts drawn in Mexico upon London and New York. But they drew no drafts upon our Government; and I undertake to say, if my colleague will think of it for a moment, that he will say that drafts drawn by Mexico upon this Government and accepted by our Secretary of State, without express authority of law for him to do so, would not be worth the paper they were written upon. To assume that they would be, is to assume powers in the officers of this Government independent of law. It is to assume that they have independent and distinct powers inherent in them, and not conferred by law. Now, I say that Forstall's certificate, to which the gentleman refers, was nothing but a ratification by the Mexican Government to our Government that they had hypothecated to the extent of his advances, or in other words, that they had given him a lien to the ex- The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is not tent of his advances upon this indemnity, to be debatable. The question of order, in the opinion satisfied when it should be paid. They could have of the Chair, is well taken. Under the rules, after given that lien to any other bankers; and the fact debate has been terminated, five minutes are allowed that the Barings were our agents did not give for explanations of amendments, and five minutes to them any advantage over other bankers, as I have oppose such amendments as may be offered. The before explained. But I am done with this sub-good sense of the House, or the members, must, to ject. Everybody understands it whoever will understand it. I shall not say one word more in reference to it, no matter what turn the debate may take.

Mr. MEADE. My colleague says he is done with this subject. I am not quite done with it yet. I will just read to my colleague a few lines of a letter which was addressed to the Secretary by the Barings:

"It will be perceived from the foregoing, that the contractors made all their payments to Mexico out of their own funds, and were afterwards reimbursed in the United States, at a date averaging the 15th of May, and the last and largest payment by the United States to the contractors of two millions of dollars was not made until the 27th of June, nearly one month after they had paid the full installment to Mexico."

Now here is an admission on the part of the bankers themselves that we had paid them previous to the 30th day of May, when this money became due under the treaty. How? Everybody familiar with such transactions knows how. Those drafts were drawn by the Barings-this certificate was sent by the Mexican Government to our Secretary here, notifying him that Forstall, for instance, had advanced so much money, and was entitled to that amount of money out of the indemnity which was due. Will my colleague tell me how did these bankers draw out of the Treasury previous to the 15th day of May any portion of this indemnity, if it was not for the purpose of paying the Mexican indemnity, either by transferring it there or by drawing drafts upon it here? This letter is an admission of the fact, and my colleague cannot get over that admission.

Mr. BOCOCK. I move to amend the amendment

The CHAIRMAN. It is not now in order.

Mr. BROOKS. The amendment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] is to strike out. My point of order is this: that his argument should be confined to the reasons why the words ". "pursuant to the" should be inserted, and confined strictly to that. If the gentleman will permit me to say, I have no objection to this debate going on to any extent, if it will be permitted on both sides of the House. If we are going to pass the bill, let us stop the debate.

Mr. CARTTER. My argument was addressed to the amendment.

a very great extent, control them in that matter; because it will be impossible for the Chair to say how gentlemen intend to apply their arguments; and if they violate the rules of order, it will, perhaps, be impossible for the Chair to enforce them. It is very clear, that under the rules of the House, the original proposition, or the merits of the bill, are not now under consideration.

Mr. CARTTER. Does the Chair apprehend the force of that amendment, permit me to inquire! My amendment is in form pursuant to the request of the Mexican Government.

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman, I believe, is to insert the words "pursuant to the" before the word "request." It will then read "to be paid in conformity and pursuant to the request."

Mr. CARTTER. I move to strike out the word "conformity.'

The CHAIRMAN. That will be a double amendment. Both cannot be entertained.

Mr. CARTTER. I wish to ascertain, if a verbal amendment is introduced by a member, and it enters into and forms a part of the sense of the amendment, whether he is confined to a definition of the word thus introduced?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair stated the amendment as the gentleman proposed it, and decided that he could not make another motion to amend when one was pending. His motion was, to insert a word in one part of the amendment, and he cannot move to strike out a word in another part. Mr. CARTTER. That is a part of the motion.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not hear the gentleman move to strike out anything. Mr. CARTTER. If my amendment was mis

understood, I will accommodate the gentleman from New York in a few minutes. I will withdraw it, as in that connection it makes no sense at all, and as it was misunderstood by the Chair. The question was then taken, and the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CARTTER. I now propose to amend the amendment, if it is in order, so that it will read, "in pursuance of the request of the Mexican Government.

Mr. BROOKS. I do not want to interrupt the gentleman

Mr. CARTTER. If this does not allow discussion, I do not want to discuss it. I wish to ascertain the fact, whether it brings up my right to discuss the merits of the amendment itself.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks that, under the rules, the gentleman from Ohio will be confined to the explanation of his amendmentthe words "in pursuance of the request of the Mexican Government"-that is, as to the propriety of inserting his amendment into that of his colleague; but, in the opinion of the Chair, it does not open the merits of the whole question on the original bill, because the resolution terminating debate says, the debate upon the bill shall termi

nate.

Mr. DISNEY. I would inquire respectfully of the Chair, what are the merits of the main question pending?-if there is anything else involved, but simply to make this appropriation of three millions of dollars?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would answer the gentleman, that the question of propriety of paying this money is, perhaps, not now before the committee for discussion; upon that the House have ordered the termination of debate. Now, it is to the amendment pending, offered by the gentleman himself, and to the amendment of his colleague, that the rule requires he should confine himself to an explanation of.

Mr. CARTTER. In explanation of the sense of the expression, "in pursuance of the request of the Mexican Government," I was proceeding to remark-and I shall confine myself to that point, for I do not wish to discuss anything else that it raised before this House the simple issue, whether we would consult the will of Mexico in this payment, or whether we would consult the directions given by the Secretary of State. Now, unless there was some sinister reason-unless there was some selfish consideration entering into and forming the quo animo, with which the Secretary of State seeks to defeat the will of the Mexican Government in the receipt of this money, I hold that he would consult that will. The very fact that he turns his back upon it-the very fact that he disregards the expressed will of that Government, brings to light the inevitable suspicion

Mr. BROOKS, (interrupting.) I rise to a point | of order. I have no objection to this discussion going on

Mr. CARTTER. point of order.

Go ahead and state your

Mr. BROOKS. My point of order is this. There is an amendment submitted by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. DISNEY,] that the money shall be paid "conformably with the wishes of the Mexican Government." The amendment submitted by the other gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] is, to strike out "conformably with, and insert "pursuant to." My point of order is, that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] should show the reason for striking out "conformably with," and inserting " pursuant to," and that his whole argument should be directed to that object, and to that only.

Mr. CARTTER. That means that my argument must be strictly technical.

The CHAIRMAN. The 34th rule provides:

"No member shall occupy more than one hour in debate on any question in the House, or in committee; but a member reporting the measure under consideration from a committee may open and close the debate: Provided, That Where debate is closed by order of the House, any member shall be allowed, in committee, five minutes to explain any amendment he inay offer, after which any member who shall first obtain the floor shall be allowed to speak five minutes in opposition to it, and there shall be no further debate on the amendment; but the same privilege of debate Phall be allowed in favor of and against any amendment that may be offered to the amendment."

The Chair thinks, as he before stated, that under the rule the gentleman must confine himself to an explanation of his amendment.

Mr. CARTTER. Will the Chair be good enough to give me the limitation within which I must confine my remarks? I do not exactly comprehend it. The question raised in my own mind is, whether I am confined to a literal explanation of the words, or whether I may discuss the sense of my amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks that the gentleman's explanation, to be within the rule, must be to show to the committee the difference between the words "in pursuance of," and "conformably with,"and to give reasons why the words he moves to insert should be adopted in place of those used in the amendment of his colleague.

Mr. CARTTER. I appeal from that decision. Mr. DISNEY. I desire to say one word. The CHAIRMAN. The appeal is not debatable.

Mr. DISNEY. I am not going to debate it at all. But as there seems to be a question about words, I desire that my amendment shall be read in my own English. I never used such English as has been read from the desk.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has certainly not altered a word of the gentleman's amendment. Mr. DISNEY. I wrote it "in a manner conforming to."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the appeal from the decision of the Chair. Mr. STANTON, of Ohio. I would inquire of the Chair, whether the construction which he puts on the 34th rule has ever been practically put upon it?

Mr. CARTTER. Never in the world.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been the uniform practice since the adoption of the rule; but, as the Chair before said, it must depend to a very great extent upon the regard paid to that rule by the members themselves.

Mr. CARTTER demanded tellers on the appeal; but they were not ordered.

And the question being taken, the decision of the Chair was sustained.

The question was then taken on the amendment to the amendment, and it was not agreed to. The question recurring on Mr. DISNEY'S amendment, it was put, and the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CARTTER. I now move the amendment just offered by my colleague, [Mr. DISNEY,] with this change, that I have inserted the words "in pursuance of" in lieu of "in conformity with."

Mr. HIBBARD. That amendment is sub stantially the same as the one just voted down, and I submit that it is therefore out of order.

The CHAIRMAN ruled the amendment out of order, on the ground that the committee had substantially rejected the amendment, having first voted down the amendment to the amendment and then the amendment.

Mr. ROBBINS. Is there any amendment now pending?

The CHAIRMAN. There is no amendment pending. Mr. ROBBINS. Then I move that the committee rise and report the bill to the House. The motion was agreed to.

The committee accordingly rose, and the Speaker having resumed the chair, the chairman repo that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had the Union generally under consideration, and particularly House bill No. 46, to provide for carrying into execution, in further part, the twelfth article of the treaty with Mexico concluded at Guadalupe Hidalgo, and had instructed him to report the same to the House without amendment.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. The position which I have occupied during the discussion upon this bill has precluded me from taking any part in it, or from making any explanation in justification of the course which I have heretofore, and which I shall upon this occasion feel it my duty to pursue. At the same time, my relation to this question at the last Congress and at the present Congress requires of me, I think, a few words in justification, or, at least, in explanation of my course; particularly when I reflect that there are those upon this floor who take a different view of this question to what I do, to differ from some of whom always creates in my mind a distrust of the correctness of my own opinions. But, sir, being thoroughly convinced, and as thoroughly satisfied of the correctness of the course which I have usually pur

sued in regard to this measure, I desire to state, in a very brief manner, why it is that I now take that course.

It will be recollected that at the last session of Congress I was a member of the Committee of Ways and Means, from which a bill was reported to and passed by this House, to pay the third installment of the Mexican indemnity. I was also upon that committee when it reported to this House a bill to provide for the payment of this last installment. Both of these bills met my approbation, and they were reported here with my assent and approval. And this bill has been again reported at the present session with my consent and approbation. During this discussion, however, the course which the Committee of Ways and Means felt itself called upon to pursue has been called in question. Now, want to know when the message of the President of the United States was referred to our committee, asking this House to appropriate the money necessary to pay this last installment, what was the duty of that committee? Why, it was our duty to inquire, in the first place, whether the money asked for by the President was required in order to carry into effect the stipulations of the treaty with the Government of Mexico. In the performance of that duty, therefore, we looked to the twelfth article of that treaty, and we found that this Government had bound itself by that treaty to pay the Government of Mexico $15,000,000-$3,000,000 to be paid down at the time of the ratification of the treaty, and $3,000,000 at the end of each twelve months thereafter, with interest on the whole amount then due until the whole $15,000,000 should have been paid.

[A message was here received from the President of the United States, by the hands of M. P. FILLMORE, his Private Secretary, announcing that he had signed sundry bills.]

Mr. J. continued. In February, 1849, a bill was passed by the Congress of the United States, appropriating $3,720,000, being the first installment, with the interest due up to the 30th of May, 1849. The same bill also appropriated the amount necessary for the payment of the second installment, which would be due on the 30th of May, 1850, and which, with the interest, amounted to $3,540,000. That bill, which appropriated $7,260,000 for the payment of the two first installments of this indemnity, was in precisely the same terms as the one now under consideration, except so far as regards the amount and date. It simply made an appropriation of the money, without giving any direction to the Executive in relation to the mode of payment. And it passed this House by a vote of 187 to 8. In 1850--at the first session of the last Congress-a bill, in precisely the same terms, making an appropriation of $3,360,000, passed this House with only thirty-five or thirty-six votes against it. Now, when the President's message, asking for this appropriation this session, was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, we looked into the treaty, and found that all the money which this Government had stipulated to pay, with the exception of the last installment, amounting, with the interest, to $3,180,000, had been paid; which installment will be due on the 30th of May next. The committee report the bill making appropriation for the payment of this money exactly as all the other bills have been reported; but when it is brought in here, the question is raised, that we must direct the manner and mode in which the payment is to be made. That is a question with which I shall have no concern whatever. I come not here to defend the Secretary of State. I come not here to defend the Secretary of the Treasury. If the payment had heretofore been made by the Secretary of the Treasury, I would not interfere to direct it to be paid by any other officer. If the President of the United States should even direct the assistant Treasurer at the city of New York, or the assistant Treasurer at the city of New Orleans, or any other individual who might be selected as the medium through which this payment was to be made, I should not be willing to interfere by giving a different direction, and by that interference to release the Executive from all responsibility in the matter, and to take that responsibility upon ourselves, when this is clearly and exclusively a duty which belongs to the Executive of the country.

I can very well imagine why the Mexican Government should come here and ask that the Sec

retary of the Treasury should pay this money. The Secretary of the Treasury, it will be recollected, during the late war with Mexico, evinced, in the opinion of the Democratic party, a much stronger partiality for the cause of Mexico than he entertained for the cause of the United States. But suppose we should direct the Secretary of the Treasury to make this payment, what do we do? What does it amount to? Why, it is saying that we have more confidence in Thomas Corwin than we have in Daniel Webster. Now, I ask my friends upon this floor, if there is one here who is willing to say, by his vote, that he has greater confidence in Thomas Corwin, the Secretary of the Treasury, than he has in Daniel Webster, the Secretary of State?

Mr. DISNEY. I have greater confidence in him.

Mr. JONES. My friend from Ohio says he has greater confidence in him. I beg to sayMr. CARTTER. I take pleasure in saying that, as far as I am concerned, I have no confidence in either of them.

Mr. JONES. Well, I do not intend by my vote to say that I have greater confidence in the present Secretary of the Treasury than I have in the Secretary of State. The Constitution of the United States provides that the Constitution and all the laws made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. It says that the President shall be the Executive officer of the Government, and that it shall be his duty to execute the laws. Now, I hold that the treaty made with Mexico, and ratified by both Governments, is declared by the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the Government, and the President is required to execute it. But the President cannot execute this provision of that treaty until Congress has placed at his disposal the amount of money necessary to enable him to make the payment, and to fulfill the obligations of the treaty which we have contracted and bound ourselves to comply with. Then I hold that it is the duty of Congress to appropriate the money necessary, and leave it to the President of the United States to direct the mode and manner in which it shall be paid.

But suppose we should adopt the amendment and provide that it shall be paid in the manner which the Mexican Government desires. Does any man suppose that the Mexican Government would take less than the amount which would be required to pay the installment in Mexico? Does any man suppose she would accept of less than one hundred cents upon the dollar if paid in the city of New York? The gentlemam from Virginia [Mr. MEADE] says she would take four and a half per cent. less. Mr. Speaker, if there is any such evidence before this Congress or before the country, I confess that I have not seen it. I have not, perhaps, read this correspondence of the Mexican Minister, Mr. De la Rosa, with as much care as some other gentlemen. But in that correspondence, if I have read it aright, Mr. De la Rosa informs this Government, that the Mexican Government had received advances in money from Mr. Forstall. I do not see that he has any authority to ask this Government to pay Mr. Forstall in America, the money. It appears from this correspondence that the Mexican Government had received at one time $400,000, and at another, $250,000; but that Government is not bound to reimburse that money. Again, it is said that it could be paid on better terms through drafts on Mr. Marks. Now, I want to know, if it appears anywhere in this correspondence that the Mexican Minister was ever authorized to receive the money at all, or any part of it? I ask if there is a lawyer upon this floor-for I do not make any pretensions to one-who will say that a Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary of Mexico can receive the money due from this Government to Mexico? According to my information, he cannot. I have seen no authority from that Government to Mr. De la Rosa to receive any part of this installment. But suppose our Government had accepted and paid the draft of Mr. Marks: had the Mexican Government ever engaged to accept those drafts? Not so far as we are informed. Mr. De la Rosa asks that this Government should accept them, but he did it without any authority from his Government, so far as I have seen, to make that request.

Now, sir, it seems to me that in this whole question it has not been a fight in regard to the manner in which this installment shall be paid, because the Government of the United States has lost anything which rightfully belonged to it, but because the Government has not had enough of the Shylock infused into it in this transaction-because we have not saved as much or made as much by the payment of this installment as we might have done. Now, let us see how these installments have been paid. The first installment of three millions, paid in cash, was, I understand, paid through General Butler, then commanding our forces, or a portion of them, in Mexico, at the time of the ratification of this treaty. He paid those three millions of dollars, and saved upon it, in the way of exchange, $41,000. The second installment was paid in 1849, under an appropriation made in February of that year, and approved by Mr. Polk, when he was President. As I understand that question, Mr. Walker, the then Secretary of the Treasury mnade a contract for the payment of the second installment before the law appropriating the money was passed. It was paid in Mexico, being the installment of $3,000,000, and $720,000 the interest upon the twelve millions unpaid from the ratification of the treaty to the time of the first payment, one year. That amount was paid, saving a premium of four and a half per cent. The $3,720,000 paid in 1849, under the direction of Mr. Polk's administration, was paid with $3,552,600, being a saving to the Government of $167,400.

The second payment made under the appropriation act of 1849, and approved by Mr. Polk, but paid under General Taylor's administration, being $3,540,000, was paid, less a premium of about four and one third per cent., being $3,386,616 26, making a saving to the Government, upon that installment, of $153,383 74.

The third installment of $3,360,000 was paid with $3,242,400, a saving of about three and a half per cent. premium, being a saving, in the aggregate, upon the third installment of $117,600. The present installment of $3,180,000, if it shall be paid at a premium of three and a half per cent., will be paid with $3,068,700-being a saving of $111,300.

Then we find that the saving is as follows: Upon the cash payment at the ratification of the treaty. $41,000 00

Upon the first installment..

"second installment. "third installment. "fourth installment..

167,400 00

153,383 74

117,600 00

111,300 00

$590,683 74 Making an aggregate of not quite $600,000 saved, in the way of premium, upon the whole transaction with Mexico; and so much less than by the face of the treaty we were required to pay her. Now how is this done? If you directed the Secretary of the Treasury to pay this money, he certainly would not send to Mexico an agent, and there draw drafts upon this country, in order to raise the amount of money there to pay it, because he would have no authority to do such a thing. Then you use these agents-as this and all other governments have done, and, I presume, will doin ne performance of this sort of duties. These men go to Mexico and draw bills upon this country, upon England, upon France, perhaps upon Amsterdam, and other places, where the commerce of the country may require. They sell those drafts there, and when they have accumulated the money, they pay it to that Government and take a receipt therefor, and bring them here and receive the money from this Government.

Now I think the Committee of Ways and Means, at each time when it reported a bill in connection with that treaty, has discharged strictly and faithfully its duty to the country. I think that this bill should be passed as it comes from that committee, making the appropriation and giving no direction about it. If any gentleman here will come and ask for an investigation of this matter, to know when, where, how and in what manner there has been corruption or favoritism, by which high officers of the Government have improperly received money, or have improperly put money into the pockets of their friends, I will go with them, and give them every facility in my power, for a strict and scrutinizing investigation into the whole question, that it may be developed to Congress, and be exposed to the country.

Mr. HOUSTON. I ask the previous question. Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I ask the gentleman from Alabama to withdraw his motion for a single moment. I wish to offer a single amendment, I intended to have offered in the committee; and I will move the previous question myself, if the gentleman desires it. It is as follows.

Provided, The President of the United States shall feel bound to accept of any propositions for the payment of said installment, that may be offered by the proper Mexican au thorities, if not deemed inconsistent with the interests of the United States.

Mr. HOUSTON. If I withdraw for one, there is no telling where we shall stop. I feel it my duty to move it.

Mr. JOHNSON. Then I hope the House will vote down the previous question.

Mr. J. demanded tellers on the previous question; which were ordered, and Messrs. HOUSTON and CHANDLER were appointed. reported-ayes 111; noes not counted. The question was then taken, and the tellers

So the previous question received a second, and the main question was ordered to be put. The main question being: Shall the bill be engrossed and read a third time? it was put and carried in the affirmative.

Mr. DUNHAM moved a reconsideration of the vote by which the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; which latter motion was agreed to.

The bill was then read the third time, and the question now being, Shall the bill pass?Mr. HOUSTON called for the previous question.

The previous question received a second, and the main question was ordered to be put, which main question was, Shall the bill pass?

The question was then taken, and under the operation of the previous question, it was finally passed.

Mr. DUNHAM moved to reconsider the vote

by which the bill was passed, and to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table, which latter motion was agreed to.

THE CUBAN PRISONERS.

Mr. BAYLY. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. My object is to take up the bill for the relief of the Cuban prisoners.

Mr. STANTON, of Ohio. I hope the House will go to the regular order of the day.

The SPEAKER. The motion is a privileged

one.

The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. BAYLY, and it was agreed to.

So the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, in the chair.)

The CHAIRMAN stated that the first business in order was the annual message of the President of the United States.

Mr. BAYLY. I move to lay that aside in order to take up the bill I referred to just now.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I have no objection to the motion of the gentleman, but I want to know what is the decision of the Chair upon this ques tion. I understand it is regarded as in order for the chairman, or any other member of the Committee on Printing, to call up the question relating to the printing contract with Donelson & Armstrong at any time. I have no disposition to call it up. I want to know if the Chair holds that to be apriv ileged question which can be gotten rid of only by unanimous consent, or that any member may call it up?

The CHAIRMAN. The opinion of the Chair is, the business before the committee should be taken up regularly in its order, and that a motion must be made to dispense with each case as it is

called.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I am satisfied with that decision, if it is acquiesced in by the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. If it is the unanimous consent of the committee, the regular order of business will be dispensed with, and bill 63, "For the relief of American citizens lately imprisoned and pardoned by the Queen of Spain," will be taken up.

There was no objection.

The CLERK read the bill as follows:

An act for the relief of American citizens lately imprisoned and pardoued by the Queen of Spain.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there be, and hereby is, appropriated the sum of dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the rehef of American citizens lately imprisoned and pardoned by the Queen of Spain, and who are out of the limits of the United States, the same to be expended under the direction of the President of the United States.

Mr. BAYLY. I made a call upon the Administration for an estimate of the sum which will be necessary for the relief of these prisoners. The estimate sent in is in these words:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

WASHINGTON, January 8, 1852. }

To the Hon. THOMAS H. BALY,

Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs: SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 6th instant, requesting, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, an estimate of the sum which may be necessary to carry into effect the President's recemmendation in respect to the members of the Lopez expedition recently set free in Spain In reply, I have the honor to acquaint you that, according to the best informianon in possession of this Department, the number of those persons is from one hundred and sixty to one hundred and seventy. Some expenses will probably have been incurred on their account prior to their release, and many of them will have required necessary clothing. This, including the cast of their passage home, may fairly be estimated at thir, ty-five dollars each. An appropriation of six thousand dolars would, therefore, probably be sufficient for all these purposes.

I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, DANIEL WEBSTER.

I move, therefore, that the blank in the bill be filled with "six thousand." If members will look at the bill they will see that it is carefully drawn. It provides for the appropriation of - dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, out of the money in the public Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the relief of American citizens lately imprisoned and pardoned by the Queen of Spain, and who are out of the limits of the United States, the same to be expended under the direction of the President of the United States. I shall not detain the committee with any remarks in advocacy of the bill. I think it vindicates itself.

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

Mr. BAYLY. I move that the committee rise and report the bill to the House.

Mr. GIDDINGS then obtained the floor, and said he would avail himself of the opportunity to speak upon the subject of the foreign relations of the country, although not perhaps directly affecting the bill before the committee. He delivered a general speech on the doctrine of national intervention, which will be found in the Appendix. Mr. BAYLY, of Virginia. I do not propose at this time to debate the subject of intervention. A proper opportunity will occur for that when we go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the President's message; after that another opportunity will occur upon a report which will come from the Committee on Foreign Affairs; but what I propose now to do is, to ask the committee to rise and stop this debate, that we may pass this bill appropriating six thousand dollars for the relief of some poor and deluded citizens of our own country, who have practically tested the expediency of intervention in the affairs of a foreign country. [Laughter.] move that the committee do now rise.

Mr. SEYMOUR, of New York. I wish to say to the gentleman from Virginia that I desire this bill be laid aside to be reported to the House, to enable me to take up a bill to which I wish to propose an amendment. It is a bill which will not provoke any discussion, and is very much needed to be passed now.

Mr. BAYLY. The gentleman from New York will perceive my object is to stop debate upon this bi, and to bring the House to action upon it at I cannot consent to have this bill laid aside. If it is to pass at all it should be passed at once. I move that the committee rise.

once.

Mr. CARTTER. I have an amendment I wish to offer. It is this:

Provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed into an approbation of any interference in the domestic affairs of Cuba by any of the citizens of the United States.

Mr. BAYLY. I rise to a question of order. It is this: Pending a motion to rise an amendment not in order.

is

Mr. CARTTER. I have the floor, I believe. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that e understood the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.

Mr. BAYLY. On the contrary, as soon as he stated that he desired to make an amendment I modified my resolution so as to make it a simple motion to rise.

aw

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understood the gentleman from Virginia to move that the committee rise and report the bill.

Mr. BAYLY. But when the gentleman from Ohio gave notice that he had an amendment, I saw at once I could not do that, and i modified my motion so as to make it simply that the committee rise.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand it, and will put that question first.

The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. BAYLY, and it was agreed to.

So the committee rose, and the Speaker having resumed the chair, the chairman of the committee (Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia) reported that the Committee of the Whole upon the state of the Union had had the state of the Union generally under consideration, and particularly House bill No. 63, being a bill for the relief of American citizens lately imprisoned and pardoned by the Queen of Spain, and had directed him to report that they had come to no conclusion thereon, and asked to be allowed to sit again.

Mr. BAYLY. I move the usual resolution to stop debate upon this bill in five minutes after the committee shall have resumed its consideration.

The question was then put and the resolution was agreed to.

Mr. BAYLY. I move that the rules be sus

pended, and that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. CARTTER. Is it in order to move an adjournment? Three o'clock has arrived. The SPEAKER. It is.

Mr. CARTTER. Then I move that this House do now adjourn.

[Cries of "No!" "No!"]

Mr. SKELTON called the yeas and nays upon adjournment; which were not ordered.

The question was then taken on the motion to adjourn, and it was not agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I suggest to the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. BAYLY,] that we can in this House discharge the committee from the further consideration of this bill, and there is no necessity for the proceeding the gentleman asks for.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Only by unanimous consent.

The SPEAKER. It requires unanimous con

sent.

The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. BAYLY, and it was agreed to on a division of the House-ayes 99, noes not counted. So the House again resolved itself in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the bill No. 63.

Mr. CARTTER. I offer the following amend

ment:

Provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed into an approbation of any interference in the domestic affairs of Cuba by any of the citizens of the United States.

Mr. CARTTER. I submit that amendment in good faith.

Mr. BAYLY. I rise to a question of order. My question is, that the amendment is not germane to the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks, under the circumstances, that it is germane. Where individuals convicted, according to the bill, of a violation of the laws of Cuba, it is certainly germane to declare that, in the passage of this bill, we express no approbation of their conduct. The amendment is in order.

against it. The reason why we vote this amount is because it is regarded as a sort of political offence, and those who have violated the neutrality laws are entitled to considerations that relate to political offences alone. I consider it important to the integrity of your own laws, important to the national integrity of this Government, that while we extend this relief from the dictates of humanity, we should throw around these laws a significance which will preserve their force. But a few years since and we had this filibusterian expedition upon our northern frontier, and citizens of the United States were led to the scaffold and into the prisons of the provinces of Canada, or were transported to Van Diemen's Land, to drag out their imprisonment there. When they were released by the clemency of the British Government, you heard nothing about expending money from the public Treasury to bring them back to the United States. They were compelled to drag themselves back here with the assistance of benevolent foreigners.

[Here the hammer fell.]

The CHAIRMAN stated the hour fixed by the House for the termination of debate had arrived. Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I desireMr. BAYLY. I have the right, after the debate has closed-having reported the bill-to be heard one hour under the rules.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chairman recognized the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. EVANS]-not knowing what motion he had to submit.

Mr. EVANS. I rise for the purpose of offering an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is in order under the rules.

Mr. SWEETSER. I had supposed that the gentleman was entitled to his hour after all amendments had been considered in the Committee of the Whole.

The CHAIRMAN. He is entitled to his hour after the time fixed for the termination of the debate.

Mr. BAYLY, of Virginia. Gentlemen need not suppose I am going to occupy an hour. I shall not occupy more than five minutes. I hope the bill may pass. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] Seems to think that our making provision to bring these prisoners home, is an approbation of their conduct. Now, let me give the gentleman a simpl illustration, which will, I am sure, refute his argument at once. It is the law of Virginia, and I presume the law of Ohio, that when the courts send a man to the penitentiary, and incarcerate him there until the expiration of his term of punishment, or until he is pardoned, there shall be paid to him money sufficient to get him other clothes than those worn in the penitentiary, and to carry him home. This is the law, I presume, in all of the States. It is a matter of sheer humanity, and I take it for granted that it is the same in all of the States. After we have punished a man -after he has expiated his offence-is it a crimne to afford him money to get back home? The simple statement is a refutation of the proposition. But the gentleman from Ohio says further, that if we have power to appropriate these $6,000 to bring home these Cuban prisoners from Spain, we have authority to appropriate money to carry home the convicts from State penitentiaries that may be turned out. Now, we would have no authority under the Constitution to appropriate this money were these men in our own territory. It is because they are in foreign countries, because it is a matter pertaining to our foreign relations that we have the power to appropriate this money. It is the distinction that Mr. Madison took. It is the distinction that Mr. Calhoun took in voting for the bill for the relief of the sufferers at Ca

racas.

As to that Caracas affair, I always doubted the constitutionality of it, because it was for the relief of foreigners and not American citizens. When our citizens are within the limits of any of the States, the General Government has noth

If the proposition were to expend money to deliver your penitentiaries, all would vote

diction of the separate States, and it is for the States to take care of them; but when they are beyond the limits of the United States, they are under the protection of our Government, and it is our duty to take care of them. It is for that reason we have appropriated annually from the foundation of the Government to this time a sum of money to relieve disabled and sick seamen in foreign

countries; but no one will maintain we have a right to make an appropriation to relieve

Mr. CARTTER. I wish to inquire, in all seriousness, if the gentleman puts disabled seamen a tender against the neutrality laws of the United States and against

as

Mr. BAYLY. I am now speaking of our power. The gentleman denied our authority to make the appropriation.

Mr. CARTTER. No; I did not. I am willing to vote for your bill, if you will save your laws.

Mr. BAYLY. If I had understood the gentleman was not denying our authority, I should not have spoken upon that point. I say that it is precisely because these people are beyond the limits of the United States; that they are not under the protection of any State government-they are by our Constitution emphatically under the protection of the National Government. We have the authority to grant them that relief which, were they in the States, the State governments would have to extend. That is the distinction.

Mr. MEADE. I ask my colleague to give me information upon this point: Are these prisoners still in Spain, or on their way to the United States, and at whose expense?

Mr. BAYLY. We have no information upon that point. They probably are still in Spain. They are certainly there unless some charitable ship-master is bringing them here, or unless the Queen of Spain is sending them home. If the Queen of Spain was sending them home, it would be only decent and proper in us, before we have that information, to make an appropriation for their relief. We only appropriate so much as may be necessary for their relief, and we hold the President accountable for the manner in which he expends the money. I shall not detain the House further. I hope the bill may pass.

Mr. POLK submittted the following amendment to the amendment:

Nor in any way imply a disposition on the part of this House, to violate the principle imbodied in the Farewell Address of President Washington, by encouraging the opinion that our Governinent will interfere in the affairs of European powers.

The question was then taken, and the amendment rejected.

Mr. CARTTER demanded tellers upon his amendment; which were ordered, and Messrs. MEACHAM and CARTTER were appointed.

The question was then taken upon the amendment to the bill, and the tellers reported that there were-ayes 79, noes 58.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I propose to amend; and have only a word to say, and for the purpose of getting an opportunity to say it, I move to add to the bill an appropriation of $500 to the widow and children of Lieutenant Crittenden, who was shot down at Havana.

Mr. ORR. I rise to a question of order. The proposition of the gentleman from Ohio is not germane to the bill under consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair so decides. Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I then move to strike out $6,000" and insert " $100." The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is not in order, inasmuch $6,000" was put in by the committee. Mr. CAMPBELL. I will add "$500," making it "$6,500."

as "

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of the opinion that the amount cannot be changed. The committee have filled the blank.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will make this motion: "that the Secretary of State be authorized to make the disbursement of the fund."

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair suggests that the gentleman had better strike out "under the direction of the President of the United States," and insert"under an agent to be appointed by the President of the United States."

Mr. CAMPBELL. I have no copy of the bill before me, but will make a motion thus to amend it. I desire simply to say that I am opposed to this bill, and shall so vote when the question is taken on its passage. I was in favor of the amendment of my colleague excluding the inference that we indorsed the Cuban enterprise.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair calls the gentleman to order. He must confine his remarks to the amendment he offered.

Mr. CAMPBELL. If the rules are to be enforced more strictly than they ever have been before, why, of course, I will submit. I am a law-abiding man, and desire to conform to the rules. I may be permitted to say, that such an application of the rule has never been made.

[Cries of "Go on!" "Go on!"]

I should have been done before this if I had been allowed to go on.

Ane ORR. The rule has been enforced with equal strictness upon other gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman in his remarks must confine himself to the amendment he offered. Such was the decision of the committee to-day.

Mr. CAMPBELL. After having this decision of the Chair, I will prove my disposition to obey the law and shall not insist upon debating the amendment. Besides, I confess that for the faithful disbursement of the fund if appropriated, I have as much confidence in the officer (the President) selected already by the bill, as in the Secretary of State. I will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I would inquire whether it would be in order to move to strike out all after the enacting clause?

The CHAIRMAN. It will be, if the gentleman offers to insert something.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I make the motion, then, to strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert an appropriation of $500 to the widow and children of Lieutenant Crittenden.

Mr. POLK. I would ask the gentleman from Ohio if Lieutenant Crittenden was married?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I don't know whether he was or not, and I don't care much, as my chief purpose is to raise my voice against this bill in a five minutes' speech-this being the last chance. If he was never married there will be no money to be paid under my amendment, if it prevails. I will add on that point, that I regard it as a great loss if a man of such indomitable bravery and courage as Lieutenant Crittenden, in his dying hour, showed he possessed, whatever might have been his follies, was not married. He ought to have left some children. I am opposed to this bill, because it provides an appropriation of a large amount of money out of the public Treasury, to bring back to the United States those who are admitted by the chairman who reports the bill, to have been criminals-to bring back those who are acknowledged to have violated our laws, and to have put in jeopardy the peace of friendly nations. I am not in favor of making an application of the funds of the public Treasury to any such purpose. There are very many excellent citizens of the West who, in pursuing an honest business-in carrying on lawful trade-in going to New Orleans with produce, for instance, have met with misfortunes upon our western waters, resulting from the snags in the Mississippi and other rivers, which the strict constructionists of this House could not consent to have taken out. They were left there far away from their homes and friends, without the means of returning to them. Mr. BAYLY, of Virginia. I would ask the gentleman why Ohio did not provide for them?

and their country, and in direct violation of the laws of the land-in the face, too, of the solemn and friendly warning which the President of the United States had given them by his proclamation. And yet, forsooth, we propose, after they have had a ride over the salt water, to heroize and lionize them, to pay their wine bill, &c., and that they should travel back at the public expense.

Mr. PENN. How does the gentleman propose to get them back?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I have no particular desire about their coming back until they earn enough to pay their expenses, and are thoroughly reformed. Let them work their passage, as honest people do, who are away from home without money. Let them act as firemen upon your steamers-let them black the boots of the passengers, if they please, as better men have often done

before.

Mr. PENN. How will you clothe them?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I understand the Queen of Spain has already clothed them; if not, let them do it in the same honest way, by the labor of their hands and sweat of their brows.

Mr. PENN. They have no clothes. Mr. CAMPBELL. They will have to come naked, then, because we have no power to clothe the poor and distressed out of the national Trea

sury

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. STUART. I am greatly surprised at the position of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CAMP BELL.] I am not less surprised at the course of his remarks than to learn the source from which he ever drew his doctrine. Is any such dor trine taught upon the face of the earth? I ask the gentleman, beginning with the time when the Saviour came to this world, and coming down to the present time, to tell me, whether he has ever read of doctrines such as he has uttered here today? I am aware that the Government of the United States, through its Executive branch, went too far-greatly too far-when it proclaimed in advance that these men were outlaws and pirates, and thus furnished the Cuban and Spanish powers with grounds for treating them as pirates-to be considered as beyond and outside of our treaty obligations, and hence not entitled to the privileges of American citizens.

But, sir, has it come to this, that we rise here in our places and say, that fellow-citizens who have been thus unfortunate are to be brought back to their homes, to their firesides, to their friends, to their parents, hungry, naked, outside of humanity, outside of the protection even of God himself! If that doctrine is to be carried out

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. Will the gentleman allow me a word of explanation?

Mr. STUART. Certainly.

Mr. CAMPBELL. The gentleman must not understand me as having, as an individual, no feeling of sympathy with these unfortunate men, who, having been misguided, may have been placed in a situation of this character. So far as I might aid a fellow man in that situation-in misery and want-I would doubtless, as an individual, be willing to go just as far as the gentle man from Michigan to relieve him by my indi vidual means; but when the proposition is, to vote out of the national Treasury a fund for such a purpose, I say that we have no power to appropriate the money of the people to alleviate even the distresses of those who, in honest and lawful pursuits, are reduced to nakedness and want, much less to pay such a reward for a violation of the established law of the land.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Because our people never ask or expect to be relieved from such inconveniences by their Government. They rely upon the labor of their hard hands and the impulses of their bold hearts for relief. These very men who through misfortune were deprived of the means of returning to their families, never dreamed of calling on the national Government for help. They "worked their passages" homeward, as deck hands and firemen on steamboats; and if we compel honest people, who are loyal citizens, to do this, I ask, what power have we-what right have we— what reason have we, to take the very money which they have earned in part, and placed in your Treasury, and over which we are their chosen guardians, and appropriate it to the benefit of those who are acknowledged to be criminals before the whole world? It seems to me that is carrying the matter a little too far; and for one, though I may stand solitary and alone, I going thereto the following: against this whole system, which glorifies and pays for violations of law, at the expense of industrious, innocent poverty. These men are there let them get back upon their own resources. It was a voluntary act of their own when they went to Cuba. They went there with a full knowledge of the dangers to which they subjected themselves

Mr. STUART. The gentleman did not come to this question of power before. He did not argue his amendment before the committee upon the question of power. He never alluded to it, and I only rose-as I am averse at all times to detain the House-to repel such positions as he

assumed in his remarks.

Mr. CAMPBELL then withdrew his amend

ment.

Mr. EVANS moved to amend the bill by add

Provided, That the President of the United States shall send no ship of war for the purpose of bringing back these prisoners.

Mr. E. said: I take it that if a ship of war was sent to Spain to bring back these prisoners, it would be deemed an act of intervention on the part of this Government. Gentlemen see that I