MARCH 2, 1837.]

Lawler, Gideon Lee, Joshua Lee, Thomas Lee, Leonard, Logan, Loyall, Lucas, William Mason, M. Mason, McKay, McKeon, McKim, McLene, Miller, Muhlenberg, Patterson, Patton, Franklin Pierce, Dutee J. Pearce, Phelps, Pinckney, Joseph Reynolds, Rogers, Schenck, Seymour, Shields, Shinn, Sickles, Smith, Taylor, Thomas, John Thomson, Turrill, Vanderpoel, Wagener, Ward, Wardwell, Webster, Thomas T. Whittlesey, Wise, Yell--94.

So the House disagreed to the amendment of the Senate.

INDIAN APPROPRIATION BILL.

On motion of Mr. CAMBRELENG, the House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. PIERCE, of New Hampshire, in the chair,) and, on motion of the same gentleman, took up the amendments of the Senate to the Indian annuity bill," which having been concurred inMr. CAMBRELENG submitted several additional items, which he said had undergone the revision both of the Committee of Ways and Means and the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs.

The principal of these were as follows:

For carrying into effect the treaty with the Menomonies, of September, 1836, $288,540.

For carrying into effect the treaty with the Pottawatimies, of August, 1836, $73,423.

For the same with the Ioways, of September, 1836, $65,590.

For the same with the Sacs and Foxes, of September,

1836, $138,240.

For the same with the Missourias, $3,000.
For the same with the Omahas, $2,470.

Several other additional items were also proposed, together with a proposition for an inquiry into the depredations committed by the hostile Indians of the South, (the latter slightly modified on motion of Mr. E. WHITTLESEY;) all of which were agreed to.

Mr. BELL, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted several additional items and amendments; which were agreed to.

Mr. GARLAND, of Virginia, submitted an amendment proposing an appropriation of $17,000 to defray the expenses of holding treaties with all the Indian tribes east of the Mississippi, and of examining the country to be assigned to them, &c.; which was agreed to.

The bill was then laid aside, to be reported to the House.

NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL.

The committee then, on motion of Mr. CAMBRELENG, took up the amendments of the Senate to the "bill making appropriations for the naval service for the year 1837."

All the amendments of the Senate, with one exception, were concurred in.

The amendment appropriating the sum of $100,000 for launching the ship of the line Pennsylvania was taken up.

Mr. FRENCH moved to amend it by inserting a provision authorizing the President to select and cause to be purchased, for the use and benefit of sick seamen and boatmen on the Western waters, suitable sites for marine hospitals, &c., not exceeding three upon the Ohio, three upon the Mississippi, and one upon Lake Erie; which, after some remarks from Messrs. FRENCHI, PHILLIPS, DUNPLAP, DENNY, and JARVIS, was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Louisiana, proposed an item of $70,000 for the erection of a marine hospital at New Orleans; which, after some remarks from Messrs. JOHNSON, HUNT, SMITH, and WILLIAMS of North Carolina, was rejected.

Mr. HARPER then adduced a letter from an officer VOL. XIII.-132

(H. OF R.

of the navy, in support of the propriety of ordering the Pennsylvania to be launched forthwith, and said a few words himself in support of the amendment of the Senate; and, after some further remarks from Messrs. INGERSOLL, REED, and WILLIAMS of North Carolina,

Mr. INGERSOLL moved to insert $400,000 in place of $100,000.

Mr. CAMBRELENG resisted this increase, and said the appropriations in this bill were already large enough for the present year-larger, by far, than met his approbation.

The amendment of Mr. INGERSOLL was then disagreed to, only 45 voting for it; and the question recurring on agreeing to the amendment of the Senate, as amended by the committee,

Mr. MERCER moved to reconsider the vote by which Mr. FRENCH's amendment had been adopted, but sub sequently withdrew it.

Mr. PEARCE, of Rhode Island, moved further to amend the Senate's amendment by appropriating the sum of $15,000 for the erection of a marine hospital at Portland, Maine; $10,000 for one at Wilmington, North Carolina, and alike for a similar object at Newport, Rhode Island; when, after some remarks from Messrs. PEARCE, JARVIS, and SUTHERLAND, the amendment of Mr. PEARCE was disagreed to, and the amend ment of the Senate, as amended, was agreed to: Yeas 77,

nays 57.

priation of $15,000 for a marine hospital at Mobile. Lost.

Mr. LYON moved an amendment making an appro

The committee then rose and reported, and the amendments of the Committee of the Whole to the Indian annuity bill having been agreed to by the House, the amendments of the Senate, as amended, were severally concurred in.

The House then took up the amendment of the Committee of the Whole, moved by Mr. FRENCH, to the amendment of the Senate to the naval service bill; but, before any action was had thereon, the hour of three having arrived, it took the usual recess till half past four.

EVENING SESSION.

NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL.

The 66 bill making appropriations for the naval service for the year 1837," returned from the Senate with amendments, being under consideration; the question pending was on concurring with the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union in the following:

The Senate had amended the bill by inserting a clause appropriating" $100,000 for launching and securing the ship of the line Pennsylvania;" and the Committee of the Whole had amended the same by inserting an additional item, authorizing the President to select and cause to be purchased, for the use and benefit of sick seamen and boatmen on the Western waters, suitable sites for marine hospitals, &c., not exceeding three upon the Ohio, three upon the Mississippi, and one upon Lake Erie.

Mr. CAVE JOHNSON called for a division of the question on the amendment, so as to take it separately on that of the Senate and that of the Committee of the Whole.

The CHAIR ruled that such a division was out of order, but suggested to the gentleman from Tennessee that he might attain his object by a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee of the Whole, and, if that motion should prevail, then moving a reconsideration of the vote by which the amendment to the amendment had been agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON accordingly made that motion.
Mr. WARDWELL moved the previous question, but

H. OF R.]

the House refused to second it; and the motion to recommit was disagreed to, without a division.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Louisiana, moved an amendment making appropriations for marine hospitals at New Orleans, Mobile, Portland, Newport, and Wilmington, North Carolina, amounting in all to $115,000.

After some remarks by Messrs. JOHNSON of Louisiana, SMITH, REYNOLDS of Illinois, PEARCE of Rhode Island, and PARKER, the amendment of Mr. JOHNSON was agreed to: Yeas 79, nays 56.

The question then recurred on the amendment of the Committee of the Whole, as amended.

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

Mr. BOND opposed the amendment, on the ground that it had been introduced with the expectation of carrying it through by a bargain. He was opposed to all bargains of this kind, and would take the responsibility of voting against this amendment.

Mr. LANE would say to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BOND] that he made no bargains; that he did not belong to the bargain and sale party; that he was not surprised to hear that gentleman denounce the amendment in such unmeasured terms; it was an appropriation for the West, and connected with Western interests, so uniformly opposed by that gentleman.

After some remarks by Mr. SUTHERLAND, in support of the amendment,

Mr. JARVIS moved an amendment providing that no greater sums should be expended on said hospitals than the amounts herein appropriated. Agreed to.

The question was then taken on the amendment of the Committee of the Whole, as amended, and decided in the negative: Yeas 72, nays 110.

So the House non-concurred in the amendment of the Committee of the Whole.

The question then recurred on the amendment of the Senate making an appropriation of $100,000 for launching and repairing the ship of the line Pennsylvania.

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

After some remarks by Messrs. GRAVES and SUTHERLAND, the question was taken, and decided in the affirmative: Yeas 89, nays 86.

So the amendment of the Senate was concurred in. All the other amendments of the Senate were then concurred in, without a division.

Mr. CAMBRELENG moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. WISE asked leave to present a report from the select investigating committee of which he was chairman. Mr. W. remarked that it would not occupy ten minutes.

Objection being made, Mr. W. moved a suspension of the rule, but the motion was disagreed to, without a division.

CIVIL AND DIPLOMATIC APPROPRIATION BILL.

On motion of Mr. CAMBRELENG, the House, went into Committee of the Whole, (Mr. PIERCE of New Hampshire, in the chair,) and took up the "bill making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the year 1837," which had been returned from the Senate with various amendments.

The first amendment of the Senate was, that the annual salary of the Recorder of the General Land Office shall be $2,000, and that the sum of $100 shall be paid to Charles Gordon, for services rendered under the resolution of the Senate of July 2, 1836.

[MARCH 2, 1837.

Mr. BOND addressed the House at some length, in opposition to the amendment.

After some few remarks by Mr. CAMBRELENG, Mr. BRIGGS withdrew his amendment.

The amendment of the Senate to increase the salary of the Surveyor General of Arkansas from $1,500 to $2,000, being taken up separately, was discussed by Messrs. YELL, LOVE, CAVE JOHNSON, and JOHNSON of Louisiana; after which, the committee non-concurred in the amendment.

The amendment of the Senate making an appropriation of $30,000 for the purchase of certain manuscripts of the late James Madison, being taken up separately, was, after some remarks by Messrs. DAWSON, HUNTSMAN, and CAMBRELENG, concurred in.

The amendment of the Senate to increase the fund for the contingent expenses of foreign intercourse, being taken up separately, was, after some explanations between Messrs. CAMBRELENG, A. H. SHEPPERD, HOWARD, and CAVE JOHNSON, non-concurred in, Mr. CUSHING moved an amendment appropriating $15,500 for the purchase of Gales & Seaton's Register of Debates, for the use of members; which was agreed to. The amendment of the Senate increasing the salaries of the clerks in the executive departments being taken up separately,

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee, moved an amendment, also increasing the salaries of the messengers and assistant messengers; which was agreed to.

Mr. G. LEE moved an amendment increasing the salaries of the collectors, naval officers, and surveyors, &c., twenty-five per cent. Lost.

After some remarks by Messrs. JOHNSON, THOMP SON of South Carolina, R. GARLAND, and LAW. RENCE,

Mr. VINTON moved an amendment providing that said increase shall not be allowed to any clerk who now receives more than $1,200.

After some remarks by Messrs. VINTON, ANTHONY, CAMBRELENG, and HAWES, the amendment of Mr. VINTON was disagreed to: Yeas 21, nays 103. Mr. PEYTON moved an amendment excepting the clerks in the quartermaster general's office. Lest.

Mr. GRENNELL moved an amendment including the first clerks to commandants in the navy yards at New York, Boston, and Norfolk.

After some remarks by Mr. GRENNELL, the amend ment was disagreed to.

Mr. THOMPSON, of South Carolina, moved an amend ment to increase the pay of the officers of the army twenty-five per cent. Lost.

The amendment of the Senate, as amended, was then concurred in.

Mr. CAMBRELENG moved an amendment appropriating $8,200 as compensation for commissioner, secretary, and contingent expenses of the commissioners under the convention with Spain. Agreed to.

Mr. LEWIS moved a reconsideration of the vote by which the amendment of the Senate, increasing the salaries of clerks, was concurred in; which motion was disagreed to.

Mr. PEYTON submitted the following amendment, [on which he concluded his remarks in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, not having an opportunity to do so in the House on the night of the 1st of March:]

MARCH 2, 1837.]

respondence and all other proceedings shall be deemed official, and regularly filed and kept with the other papers of the Treasury Department.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That said superintendent shall receive a fixed annual compensation of three thousand five hundred dollars.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That no bank shall be continued or hereafter selected as a depository of the public money, unless such bank shall expressly stipulate that all correspondence and other proceedings, between said bank and the Secretary of the Treasury, or between said bank and said superintendent, or any other person or persons, touching the public deposites, their custody, use, or disbursement, shall at all times be open for the inspection or examination of any committee of either House of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I offer that amendment, sir, with the assurance to this committee that I am serious when I propose it for its consideration. Sir, this unknown, illegitimate, secret agent should no longer exist. This minister extraordinary near the Treasury Department should have a salary and an outfit; his character should be known; his credentials should be received; his compensation provided for by law; his correspondence should be public, inasmuch as it appertains to the public interest; and this secret, collusive, and fraudulent intimacy, which has so long existed, should be broken up.

Sir, there is an agent, or an officer of the deposite banks or of the Treasury, now living in this city, with a salary, as has been proven, of near seven thousand dollars per annum; and yet, sir, the amount of his salary and the extent of his power are unknown, and the sources of his revenue have scarcely been touched or fathomed; for, from upwards of ninety deposite banks, the select committee have not received returns from half the number; yet his direct compensation is now proven to be near the sum, over or under, of $7,000 per annum, from eleven or twelve institutions.

Mr. Chairman, the question arises, is there a necessity for such an officer of your Government? If so, there must be a necessity for making provision for his salary. If there be no such necessity, this House ought to declare it by rejecting the amendment I have offered.

Sir, for the broad investigation which has been at. tempted to be made into the nature of this agency, the character of the agent's business, the amount of his compensation, the time has been, as you know, [Mr. PIERCE, of New Hampshire, one of the select committee, then occupied the chair,] short and limited, so much so indeed that it was impossible to ascertain the nature or extent of either. On the 20th of January, as you well remember, in the committee, resolutions were proposed, calling upon all the receivers and officers at a distance to furnish the committee with such infor.nation as they were possessed of touching the subject of our investigation. They passed upon that day; and upon the 18th February you will remember that a motion was made and carried in the committee that no further testimony be taken; allowing, therefore, only twenty-nine days to carry on this most extended correspondence. But, sir, the want of time was the smallest difficulty with which we had to contend. We had to contend with the whole power of the Executive, which was interposed, at every step and stage of the inquiry, to shield this agent, to suppress inquiry; and, with such encouragement, such countenance, and such support, that agent treated the committee itself with contempt day after day, and time after time. Sir, we passed resolutions requiring that the witness should answer all questions of a public nature propounded to him; he responded by demanding that we should decide upon the preliminary question, his application for a week's delay. Even that the committee yielded to him, and then he finally refused to answer at

[H. OF R.

all; and he was not only supported by a majority of the committee in these refusals, but he was supported also by a majority in this House; the same body, sir, which appointed the committee, professing to confer upon it the power, and requiring of it the duty, to ascertain all that he or any other witness might know or had done in reference to the subject proposed to be inquired into. He persists in his refusal, and is sustained in it by the ma jority of the committee and of the House. Again he is summoned to appear at the bar of the House, to answer upon the most important subjects of the inquiry, but the majority again sustain him in his contumacy.

How changed are the notes of these gentlemen! Upon the 9th of April, 1836, when my friend, who sits before me, from Virginia, [Mr. WISE,] alluded to this agency and official connexion as possibly existing, as now proven to have existed, the official organ came out with an authorized denial, emanating from the Secretary of the Treasury, of any official connexion between that Department and this agent; and volunteered a readiness upon the part of Whitney to respond to any and all questions which that gentleman might choose to ask! Then was the gauntlet thus thrown down.

Again, when the President was in the State of Tennessee, during the last summer, in a public speech to him at Jonesborough, he was called out to testify upon this subject; and what position did he then take? Why, that no such agency existed; that the allegation was false; a slander got up by the partisans of the bank to calum niate an injured man, who was persecuted by the Bank of the United States! And yet now, sir, when a committee is appointed to investigate these charges, and when the agent himself has an opportunity to testify to his innocence, and prove the falsehood of these charges against him, what position do the Presiden', the Secretary of the Treasury, the official organ, the innocent man, all take? Why, that it is "inquisitorial," and that we deserve to be punished for calling upon an innocent man to disprove his own guilt!

Mr. Chairman, I feel authorized to say, upon the authority of one of the members of this House from Penn. sylvania, also a member of another select committee, [Mr. MUHLENBERG,] not that he has himself told me, but I have it as coming from a gentleman who was pres. ent with him on the occasion, of which I have no doubt, that the President of the United States did say "that Peyton and Wise were the men (or fellows) who should be punished, and that innocent man (Whitney) should be discharged." Have I been misinformed? The gen tleman can answer. Did not that gentleman, in company with a gentleman from his own State, perhaps one of his constituents, visit the President a short time since; and, in that visit, did not the President denounce my friend and myself in strong terms, and say we ought to be punished, and Whitney discharged?

Now, sir, what was the course of the witness himself? This innocent man! Why, he avails himself of that protection which authorizes a man to refuse to testify against himself; a provision made for felons and male factors, and never sought to be pleaded by any man who is not conscious of guilt. Let me, sir, allude to an illustrious example in history. When the Governor General of Hindostan, the celebrated Warren Hasting, was arraigned at the bar of the British House of Com mons, upon charges impeaching his character, his official conduc, and his honesty, what did he say? Why, sir, even a man standing in the high and elevated position of Governor General of Hindostan dared not assume the high ground this Whitney has taken in de fiance of the American Congress, and in the face of the American people. "Mr. Hastings said he had only five days in which to make the refutation of charges it had been the labor of his accusers, armed with all the powers of Par

H. or R.]

liament, to compile during as many years of almost undisturbed leisure."

Yes, sir, the British Parliament armed its committees

with all its power. Whatever power the one had was bestowed upon the other; and so should it be in the American Congress. Yet, sir, here was a committee of investigation, with a majority of six to three of its members politically opposed to the very object for which the committee was raised. I am not, however, to be understood as including the honorable chairman of that committee [Mr. GARLAND] in any thing that I may say. My allusion is to the appointment of the committee by the Speaker of the House. Now, let me ask, what power have three against six? Even when our honorable chairman, in his patriotic, just, and upright feelings, voted with us, which he very generally did, we were then only as four to five; and what could we do?

Sir, Warren Hastings further observes: "If truth can tend to convict me, I am content to be myself the channel to convey it."

Yes, sir, that was his language: "If truth can tend to convict me, I am content to be the channel to convey it." Warren Hastings, if guilty, knew the importance of assuming at least the semblance of innocence.

What a contrast does this conduct present to Whitney's! When we propounded questions to him, as to his connexion with the public treasure, his connexion with the deposite banks, and his fraudulent speculations in stocks and lands, he declined to answer. He then changes the position he had assumed in the Globe. He had advertised himself as an injured and innocent man, ready and willing to answer all and every thing he knew; but, when he is brought to the test, he shrinks and skulks under what he conceives to be his privilegea privilege always assumed by a man conscious of guiltof not being his own accuser. Why, this very plea is tantamount to an acknowledgment of his guilt, and will be so held by the American people.

I will allude, sir, briefly to only one other evidence to the same effect, in which the majority of the committee made a similar interposition, calculated to suppress inquiry, and I will then proceed to the consideration, more directly, of the amendment I have offered.

Here

was a question I propounded to William D. Lewis, cashier of the Girard Bank of Philadelphia, and he took the same ground that Whitney did with regard to disclosures of correspondence.

"3. In the evidence of the president of said bank and yourself, you state that his (Mr. Whitney's) annual compensation was, and is, $500; and that upon each of two occasions, as I understand the evidence, he received a gratuity of $500, in addition to his regular compensation. Will you have the goodness to explain to the committee for what extra or other services said allowance was made, if said services were rendered for the said bank as a fiscal agent of the Government, in and about the public money on deposite, or to be on deposite in the

"Mr. Gillet objected to this question, which was decided in the negative by the following vote: "Ayes-Messrs. Garland, Martin, Peyton. "Noes--Messrs. Pierce, Fairfield, Gillet, Hamer."

5. The president of the Girard Bank, of which you are cashier, expressed a willingness to annex to his statement, heretofore sent to the committee, copies of every thing contained in books, papers, letters, orders, resolutions, contracts, correspondence, and memoranda,' referred to in the interrogatories upon which his testimony was taken, from 1 to 10, and from 18 to 21, inclusive, and 25, 26, and 31,' but abstained from doing so, because he was aware that the cashier (you) was about being examined as a witness under the same commission, and upon these identical interrogatories,' &c.; and he

[MARCH 2, 1837.

further says, that he (meaning yourself) will annex to his deposition all the copies called for, and which it would be in his power to give, except of the correspondence directly from and to the Secretary of the Treasury, which is voluminous, &c. State if you are willing, at this time, to give copies, or answer questions as to the purport of the memoranda, letters, &c., above referred to. If yes, annex copies, or state the purport of the same, if in your power.

"Mr. Gillet objected to this question, which was decided in the affirmative by the following vote: "Ayes-Messrs. Garland, Pierce, Fairfield, Peyton,

Hamer.

"Noes--Messrs. Gillet, Martin.

"The question was put to the witness, who replied as follows:

"Answer. I am not.

"6. Does or does not the correspondence, copies of which you have heretofore, in your testimony, and still decline to lay before the committee, between yourself as cashier of the Girard Bank, and R. M. Whitney as agent of that bank, relate to the public money in or out of said bank, its use, or the expected use of the same? And state, further, whether the said correspondence, upon the side of said Whitney, is marked confidential; and, further, whether you have reasons to apprehend injury to the pecuniary interest of said bank, if you were to make a disclosure of the same.

"Mr. Pierce objected to this question, which was decided in the negative by the following vote: "Ay-Mr. Peyton.

"Noes--Messrs. Garland, Pierce, Fairfield, Gillet, Martin, Hamer.

"7. Do you know the facts upon which the president of said bank differs with you in relation to the propriety of producing said correspondence? If yea, state what are the facts.

"Mr. Pierce objected to this question, which was decided in the negative by the following vote: "Ayes-Messrs. Garland, Fairfield, Peyton. "Noes-Messrs. Pierce, Gillet, Martin, Hamer.

8. Has or has not R. M. Whitney been compensated, directly or indirectly, for services rendered, or supposed to be rendered, to any deposite bank, or company, or individual, in procuring the use of money for or from any deposite bank, since he has been acting as agent for the deposite banks, or some of them? Speak from information which you may have received from him, said Whitney, or any agent or officer of said banks, or within your own knowledge, if any such exists.

"Mr. Gillet objected to this question, which was decided in the negative by the following vote: "Ayes-Messrs. Garland, Martin, Peyton. "Noes-Messrs. Pierce, Fairfield, Gillet, Hamer. "9. Is not R. M. Whitney a stockholder-if yea, to what amount-in any of the deposite banks at this time?

"Mr. Pierce objected to this question, which was decided in the negative by the following vote: "Ay--Mr. Peyton. "Noes-Messrs. Garland, Pierce, Fairfield, Gillet,

Hamer.

10. Who wrote the original, of which the letter exhibit A is substantially a copy? At what fime did Mr. Amos Kendall, if ever to your knowledge, come to a knowledge of the existence of such or a similar plan as is therein contained?

"Mr. Gillet objected to this question, which was decided in the negative by the following vote: "Ayes-Messrs. Garland, Peyton.

"Noes--Messrs. Pierce, Fairfield, Gillet, Hamer.

11. Has or has not the bank of which you are cashier derived information from R. M. Whitney which

MARCH 2, 1837.]

enabled it to use public money on deposite advantageously for itself, or its friends, in speculation?

"Mr. Gillet objected to this question, which was decided in the negative by the following vote:

"Ayes-Messrs. Garland, Peyton.

"Noes-Messrs. Pierce, Fairfield, Gillet, Hamer. "12. Did you hold a conversation with R. M. Whitney on the subject of the issuance of the Treasury circu lar of July 11, before its issuance? If yea, what information did he possess and communicate on that subject? "Mr. Fairfield objected to this question, which was decided in the negative by the following vote:

My friend from Virginia being absent, as he was almost all the time, at this period, engaged in the labors of the other committee.

This, sir, affords a pretty fair sample of the views and the construction given by the majority of the committee to any power of inquiring into the indirect compensation derived by this agent in speculations with companies or individuals; and, taken in connexion with the course of the President, and the House itself, as well as the witness and some of the deposite banks, an imperfect idea may be formed of the difficulties with which the minority of this committee had to contend. But, Mr. Chair. man, I will call the attention of the committee for a short time, for I do not mean to trespass on its patience, to the first resolution adopted by this majority, and then I will take up the testimony of Mr. Woodbury, and of one of his clerks. I will show, sir, and convince any man in this House, of whatever party he may be, who will give his ears to my statement, and do himself the justice to think, that the testimony and the resolution are in the direct face of each other. If I fail in doing so, I will surrender every thing like judgment in the case. Here is the resolution:

"Resolved, (as the opinion of this committee,) That the several banks employed for the deposite of the public money have not all, or any of them"-mark that word "any," Mr. Chairman-"have not all, or any of them, by joint or several contract, employed an agent, to reside at the seat of Government, to transact their business with the Treasury Department."

Well, sir, here is a declaration sufficiently explicit. The deposite banks have not, "any of them," employed an agent here to transact business with the Treasury Department.

I will now read a single clause from the testimony of the chief clerk of the Treasury Department, Mr. McClintock Young. Here is what he says on oath:

"1. State all you may know upon the subjects of inquiry contained in the resolution of the House which is now before you.

[H. OF R.

"Answer. There is an agent of some of the deposite banks residing in Washington, R. M. Whitney. My information on this subject is derived partly from letters from banks on file in the Treasury Department, and partly from having heard Mr. Whitney say he was em ployed by some of them as their agent. I know nothing of any agreement or contract he may have with any of those banks. The character of his business I believe to be to attend to their interests, so far as relates to their connexion with the Department; that is, he attends generally to all matters in which their operations are required in relation to the keeping, disbursing, and transferring of the public money. Those operations sometimes operate, as the banks say, injuriously to their interests, and he has frequently called on the Secretary, and other arrangements have been made, I presume and believe, on his representations. I know not what compensation he receives. I am under the impression that I have heard him say that the three first selected banks in New York paid him one thousand dollars each."

And yet, Mr. Chairman, this resolution, which was introduced by you, sir, [Mr. PIERCE,] and adopted by the majority of the committee, expressly says that not "any" of the deposite banks have employed this agent to transact their business at the Treasury Department! How can that resolution stand with the testimony of the chief clerk of that Department?

But, sir, it is possible to make this inconsistency still more apparent. I will quote the testimony of Levi Woodbury himself; and although his answers are elaborate arguments, page after page, yet, sir, when we come to the answering part of them, he is compelled to admit this official connexion between him and his friend Reuben M. Whitney. He is compelled to show the nature of the business transacted personally by the agent, Whitney, as the authorized agent of some of the deposite banks, with the Department; and by the Department through the agent, Whitney, as an "organ of communi; cation" with the deposite banks. I will show it all, Mr. Chairman. Let any man attend to the testimony of Mr. Woodbury, and disbelieve it if he can. I will first read a short sentence or two, to show the "official connexion." In speaking of Whitney and other agents he says: "With all these agents before named, as well as many others, when transacting business for their principals, the official connexion of the Department has, in all other respects, as well as in these, been similar."

Again he says:

"They have access to papers and every species of public information." "But, in the case of the agent of the bank, no indulgence of any kind is known or believed to have been granted, which, if requested, has been withheld from the agents on other subjects, and especia!ly the agents of corporations or persons in public employment; nor any withheld which, in other like cases, has, on request, been granted."

"I can think of no further explanation desirable as to the official connexion between the agent for some of the deposite banks and this Department."

Now, sir, I will show you what that "official connexion" is.

"44. In the cases alluded to in your report of the 11th instant, where the Planters' Bank, Natchez, and the Commercial Bank, Cincinnati, confided authority upon said Whitney, as shown to you in a written communication, what was that authority, what were the claims or requests made by him, what was the case of the Commercial Bank at New Orleans?

"Mr. Gillet objected to this question, which was decided in the affirmative by the following vote: "Ayes-Messrs. Garland, Pierce, Wise, Johnson, Hamer, Martin, Peyton, Fairfield.

"No-Mr. Gillet.